Archived: Tables for HIF 11-026

Table 1. Selection Criteria Matrix -One State Example.
State XY Evaluator MG Date 3/12/2008
Category Indicators		Rating 0 - 10	Weight Factor	Guideline/Comments	Score (Rating *weight Factor)	Cat Score, %	Grand total, %
Category I: Level of Commitment	State Plan to Implement MEPDG	6	5	If the state has an existing MEPDG implementation plan, a rating of 10 is assigned. If no plan exists, a rating of 0 is assigned.	30	73.3	71
Category I: Level of Commitment	Degree of Commitment to Implementation	7	5	If the state is committed to and has a plan to implement the MEPDG & the state is willing and able to dedicate the necessary resources, a rating of 10 is assigned. If the state is unable or unwilling to commit the necessary resources, a rating of 0 is assigned. Otherwise, an intermediate rating is assigned based upon the likelihood of future commitment.	35	73.3	71
Category I: Level of Commitment	Evidence of Calibration Activity	9	5	As an indication of the state's commitment to MEPDG implementation, a rating of 10 is assigned if the state has an active calibration effort underway led by a consultant/university or an expert in-house team. If no calibration is underway or planned for the near future, a rating of 0 is assigned.	45	73.3	71
Category II: Availability and Quality of Data	Availability of Design and Performance Data (for all pavements)	9	4	If the state can demonstrate the availability of design and performance (distress) data for all 3 pavement types (for new and rehabilitation designs), a rating of 10 is assigned. If data exists for two or only one pavement type, a lesser rating is assigned depending on the availability of data.	36	63.3	71
Category II: Availability and Quality of Data	Availability of Essential Data (Materials, Traffic, Construction, Climate, Environment) at Level 1 and/or 2	4	4	If the state can demonstrate the availability of essential calibration data (Materials, Traffic, Construction, Climate, and Environment) at Level 1 and/or Level 2, the state is assigned a rating of 10. If data is only available for some essential data at Level 1 or Level 2 and other data is not available at either of these two levels, the state is assigned a lesser rating depending on the relative amount of data at Levels 1 or 2 in proportion to Level 3 data.	16	63.3	71
Category II: Availability and Quality of Data	Data Quality and Objectivity (the state’s opinion regarding their data quality)	6	4	If the state is very confident of their distress data quality and objectivity and demonstrates a solid data QA/QC program, a score of 10 is awarded. Otherwise, the state is assigned a lesser rating depending on their level of confidence in data quality and objectivity. A higher score is awarded to states using automated data collection and analysis technologies.	24	63.3	71
Category III: Required Level of Effort	Level of Data Collection Intensity (network vs. project level - frequency of coverage)	7	3	Level of ongoing data collection intensity is evaluated with respect to 1) project/ vs. network level data, 2) frequency of coverage (annually vs. bi- or tri-annually), 3)extent of coverage (data per mile, and 4) level of distress detail (actual measurements - see attached table). Rating is dependent on the degree to which state’s data collection methods conform to the table (10 = all elements met)	21	73.3	71
Category III: Required Level of Effort	Anticipated Required IT Work	8	3	If the anticipated IT work required to support local calibration is judged to be none or very little, the state is assigned a rating of 10. If the anticipated IT work required is judged to be moderate, the state is assigned a score of 5; and if the IT work required is judged to be extensive the state is assigned a score of 1	24	73.3	71
Category III: Required Level of Effort	Extent of Effort to Acquire Additional Data	7	3	If the extent of effort required to acquire additional data for local calibration is judged to be none or very little, the state is assigned a score of 10. If the extent of effort required is considered to be moderate, the state is assigned a score of 5; and if the extent of effort required is considered to be extensive the state is assigned a score of 1	21	73.3	71
Category IV:	Data Format	9	2	If the state pavement management system and other data required for MEPDG calibration are compatible with MS®® Excel , MS Access , or other type of relational format that can be imported (or exported), the state is assigned a rating of 10. Otherwise, the state is assigned a lower rating depending on the availability of acceptable/workable data format.	18	90	71

Table 10. HMA layer characterization.
Description	Variable	HMA		Typical Data
Description	Variable	New	Overlay1	Typical Data
Design properties	HMA E* predictive model	X	X	No
	HMA rutting model coefficients	X	X	No
	Fatigue analysis endurance limit	X	X	No
	Include reflective cracking in analysis		X	N/A
Mix properties	Aggregate gradation (% retained, % passing)	X	X	No
	Asphalt binder type	X	X	No
	Asphalt binder grade	X	X	No
General properties	Reference temperature (oF)	X	X	No
	Effective binder content (%)	X	X	No
	Air voids (%)	X	X	No
	Total unit weight (pcf)	X	X	No
	Poisson's ratio	X	X	No
Thermal properties	Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr ft oF)	X	X	No
	Heat capacity (BTU/lf oF)	X	X	No
	Average tensile strength at 14oF (psi)	X	X	No
	Creep compliance (1/psi)	X	X	No
	Coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/oF)	X	X	No
Rehabilitation (HMA overlay of PCC)	Poisson's ratio of PCC		X	No
	Elastic resilient modulus of fractured slab		X	No
	Type of slab fracture		X	No
	Thermal conductivity of PCC slab		X	No
	Heat capacity of PCC slab
	Slabs with transverse crack before restoration (%)		X	Yes
	Repaired slabs after restoration (%)		X	Yes
	Dynamic modulus of subgrade reaction (psi/in)		X	Yes
	Month measured		X	Yes

¹HMA overlays include: overlays of HMA, and overlays of JPCP and fractured JPCP ¹JPCP/CRCP overlays include: bonded and unbonded overlays and overlays of flexible pavements

Table 11. PCC layer properties.
Description	Variable	JPCP		CRCP		Typical Data
Description	Variable	New	Overlay1	New	Overlay1	Typical Data
Design properties	Permanent curl/warp effective temperature difference (oF)	X	X	X	X	No
	Joint spacing (ft)	X	X			Yes
	Sealant type	X	X			No
	Dowel diameter and joint spacing	X	X			No
	Edge support - tied PCC (% LTE)	X	X	X	X	No
	Edge support - widened slab (ft)	X	X			No
	PCC-base interface	X	X			No
	Base erodibility index	X	X	X	X	No
	Steel reinforcement (%)			X	X	No
	Diameter of steel reinforcement (in)			X	X	No
	Depth of steel reinforcement (in)			X	X	No
	Base/slab friction coefficient			X	X	No
	Crack spacing (in)			X	X	No
General properties	Layer thickness (in)	X	X	X	X	Maybe
	Unit weight (pcf)	X	X	X	X	No
	Poisson's ratio	X	X	X	X	No
Thermal properties	Coefficient of thermal expansiono -6(per Fx10 )	X	X	X	X	No
	Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr ft oF)	X	X	X	X	No
	Heat capacity (BTU/lf oF)	X	X	X	X	No
Mix properties	Cement type	X	X	X	X	No
	Cementitious material content (lb/yr3)	X	X	X	X	No
	Water/cement ratio	X	X	X	X	No
	Aggregate type	X	X	X	X	No
	PCC zero-stress temperature	X	X	X	X	No
	Ultimate shrinkage at 40% R.H. (microstrain)	X	X	X	X	No
	Reversible shrinkage(% of ultimate shrinkage)	X	X	X	X	No
	Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage	X	X	X	X	No
	Curing method	X	X	X	X	No
Strength properties	28-day Elastic modulus (psi)	X	X	X	X	No
	28-day Modulus of rupture (psi)	X	X	X	X	No
	Compressive strength (psi)	X	X	X	X	No
	Splitting tensile strength (psi)			X	X	No
Rehabilitation	Slabs with transverse cracks before restoration (%)3		X	X	X	Yes
	Repaired slabs after restoration (%)		X	X	X	Yes
	CRCP existing punchouts (per mi)			X	X	Yes
	Dynamic modulus of subgrade reaction(psi/in)		X	X	X	No
	Month measured		X	X	X	No

Table 16. Determining PCC layer values.
Variable	Level	How to acquire and/or measure
Unit weight	1	AASHTO T121 or T271
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Poisson's ratio	1	ASTM C469
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Coefficient of thermal expansion	1	AASHTO TP60
	2	Correlation based on aggregate and paste CTE values
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Thermal conductivity	1	ASTM E1952
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Heat capacity	1	ASTM D2766
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Ultimate shrinkage	1	AASHTO T160
	2	Correlation based on PCC mix parameters
	3	Level 2 correlation
Reversible shrinkage	1	AASHTO T160
	2	As per Level 1
	3	As per Level 1
Elastic modulus	1	ASTM C469
	2	Correlation based on compressive strength
	3	ASTM C469, historical data, or typical values
Modulus of rupture	1	AASHTO T97
	2	Correlation based on compressive strength
	3	AASHTO T97, historical data, or typical values
Splitting tensile strength	1	AASHTO T198
	2	Correlation based on compressive strength
	3	AASHTO T198, historical data, or typical values
Compressive strength	1	AASHTO T22
	2	N/A
	3	AASHTO T22, historical data, or typical values

Table 17. Characterizing stabilized layer inputs.
Variable	Level	How to acquire and/or measure
Unit weight	1	AASHTO T121 or T271
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Poisson's Ratio	1	N/A
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Elastic/resilient modulus¹(PCC surface)	1	ASTM C469 and AASHTO T307
	2	Correlation based on strength
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Elastic/resilient modulus¹ (HMA surface)	1	AASHTO T307 and ASTM D3497
	2	Correlation based on strength
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Thermal conductivity	1	ASTM E1952
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Heat capacity	1	ASTM D2766
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values

Table 18. Characterizing unbound layer inputs.
Variable	Level	How to acquire and/or measure
Poisson's ratio	1	N/A
	2	Correlation based on local knowledge and experience
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Coefficient of lateral pressure	1	N/A
	2	Correlation based on material properties
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Modulus	1	AASHTO T307
	2	Correlation based on CBR, R-value, ai, and DCP
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
CBR	1	AASHTO T193
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
R-value	1	AASHTO T190
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Layer coefficient	1	AASHTO Guide for the Design of Pavement Structures
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
PenetrationDCP	1	ASTM D6951
	2	N/A
	3	Agency historical data or typical values
Gradation	1	AASHTO T27
	2	N/A
	3	N/A
Plasticity index	1	AASHTO T90
	2	N/A
	3	N/A
Liquid limit	1	AASHTO T89
	2	N/A
	3	N/A

Table 26. HMA layer characterization.
Description	Variable	Data Location
Description	Variable	New	Overlay¹
Design properties	HMA E* predictive model	MATS²	MATS²
	HMA rutting model coefficients	MATS²	MATS²
	Fatigue analysis endurance limit	MATS²	MATS²
	Include reflective cracking in analysis	n/a	MATS²
Mix properties	Aggregate gradation (% retained, % passing)	MATS²	MATS²
	Asphalt binder type	MATS²	MATS²
	Asphalt binder grade	MATS²	MATS²
General properties	Reference temperature (oF)	MATS²	MATS²
	Effective binder content (%)	MATS²	MATS²
	Air voids (%)	MATS²	MATS²
	Total unit weight (pcf)	MATS²	MATS²
	Poisson's ratio	MATS²	MATS²
Thermal properties	Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr ft oF)	MATS²	MATS²
Thermal properties	Heat capacity (BTU/lf oF)	MATS²	MATS²
Thermal cracking	Average tensile strength at 14oF (psi)	MATS²	MATS²
	Creep compliance (1/psi)	MATS²	MATS²
	Coefficient of thermal contraction (in/in/oF)	MATS², Project files	MATS², Project files
Rehabilitation (HMA overlay of PCC)³	Poisson’s ratio of PCC	n/a	n/a
	Elastic resilient modulus of fractured slab	n/a	n/a
	Type of slab fracture	n/a	n/a
	Thermal conductivity of PCC slab	n/a	n/a
	Heat capacity of PCC slab	n/a	n/a
	Slabs with transverse crack before restoration (%)	n/a	n/a
	Repaired slabs after restoration (%)	n/a	n/a
	Dynamic modulus of subgrade reaction (psi/in)	n/a	n/a
	Month measured	n/a	n/a