Research Home  Pavements Home  
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information 

Publication Number: FHWAHRT06121 Date: November 2006 
This section describes the overall procedure for developing regression models for each of the performance measures considered in the study. The intent of the process was to generate a model with the best prediction capability while ensuring assumptions inherent in the process were not violated. Statistical analysis was performed using SAS^{®} software, version 9.1.3.^{(14)}
All explanatory variables discussed in previous sections of this report were included in the initial regression analysis. These variables were both continuous (i.e., FI) and categorical (i.e., BASE) factors. Table 14 provides a summary of all variables considered in the study as well as details on the format of each parameter.
Explanatory Variable  Parameter Type 

Pavement Structure  Categorical 
Freezing Index (FI)  Continuous 
FreezeThaw Cycles (FTC)  Continuous 
Cooling Index (CI)  Continuous 
Annual Precipitation (PRECIP)  Continuous 
Pavement Age (AGE)  Continuous 
Subgrade Type (SG)  Categorical 
Base Type (BASE)  Categorical 
Asphalt Cement Concrete Thickness (ACTHICK)  Continuous 
Slab Thickness (D)  Continuous 
Traffic Loading/Structural Capacity Ration (LESN or LEDT)  Continuous 
An initial investigation was performed on each of the predictor variables to gain an understanding of the range present in the dataset and the nature of the parameters to be used in the regression modeling. Graphical techniques and descriptive statistical measures were used for this evaluation. These visual techniques allowed for problems with calculations in the dataset or possible outliers to be identified. As an example, a box plot diagram is provided in figure 3, and table 15 presents a sample set of statistical parameters evaluated.
Box plots provide an excellent visual summary of many important aspects of a distribution.^{(15)} The box plot is based on a 5number summary that includes the median, quartiles, and extreme values. The box stretches from the lower hinge (Q1: 1st quartile) to the upper hinge (Q3: 3rd quartile) and therefore contains the middle half of the scores in the distribution. The median is shown as a line across the box. A quarter of the distribution is between this line and the top of the box and one quarter of the distribution is between this line and the bottom of the box. The plus (+) symbol in box plot represents the mean of the response within that group. The distance between Q3Q1 is known as interquartile range (IQR). This measure is very useful in detecting outliers in the data. Any observation falling outside Q3+1.5IQR or Q1–1.5IQR could be flagged as potential outlier. Box plots can be useful in detecting right and left skewness as well.
Figure 3. Graph. Sample box plot.
Variable  N  Mean  Std Dev  Sum  Minimum  Maximum  Label 

ESAL  1991  209757.0  200366.0  417627102  1.10000  1484889  ESAL 
SN  1991  5.39970.0  1.92871  10751  0.60000  12.20000  SN 
ACTHICK  1991  6.33305.0  2.83518  12609  1.00000  22.80000  ACTHICK 
ELEV  1991  1384.0  1569.0  2755713  8.00000  7400  ELEV 
LAT  1991  39.50387  6.86929  78652  18.44200  64.94800  LAT 
LONG  1991  93.88745  18.13777  186930  52.86900  156.67000  LONG 
FTC  1991  85.63034  40.13912  170490  0  192.00000  FTC 
FI  1991  360.47850  408.44595  717713  0  2584  FI 
CI  1991  644.74681  523.55940  1283691  0.10000  2506  CI 
PRECIP  1991  909.58970  388.44307  1810993  187.30000  2020  PRECIP 
RUT_AGE  1991  7.86801  6.87675  15665  0  31.80000  RUT_AGE 
RUT  1991  5.17353  4.13532  10301  0.50000  55.00000  RUT 
Partial regression effects between the response and continuous predictor variables were evaluated, which provided information regarding the independent contribution of each parameter. Figure 4 shows an example of an augmented partial residual plot.
Figure 4. Scatter Plot. Sample augmented partial residual plot.
In augmented partial residual plots, both partial linear and quadratic effects of a continuous explanatory variable (equation 6) are plotted against one of the explanatory variables using symbol “R”. The simple regression line (symbol “O”) between the explanatory variable and the response variable is also overlaid in the same plot to show the differences between the simple and the partial effects. This augmented partial residual plot is considered very effective in detecting outliers, nonlinearity, and heteroscedasticity.^{(15)}
(6) 
Where:
e_{i}=residual
ß_{1,}ß_{3}=coefficients
X_{1}=explanatory variable
While partial regression coefficients present information on the contribution of each predictor variable after controlling for other effects in the model, correlation between variables (i.e., multicollinearity) as well as interacting effects of multiple predictor variables on the performance measure do exist and must be checked. A preliminary analysis of multicollinearity was conducted using an explanatory variable correlation matrix (table 16). In the presence of multicollinearity, the regression parameter estimates become unstable due to a large inflation of the parameter variance. Any two explanatory variables having a significantly larger correlation (>0.9) could be involved in multicollinearity and should be examined by the variance inflation factor (VIF > 10) estimate for each explanatory variable.^{(15)} Significant interaction between any two continuous predictors or between a continuous and categorical predictor variables indicate that the performance measure is influenced by the interacting variables multiplicatively. Omitting significant interaction terms could under or overestimate the model prediction significantly. Graphical methods were used to examine interaction between continuous and categorical parameters. Interaction plots and the Pvalues for the interaction terms from the full model were used to check for interaction between two continuous variables and between a continuous and a categorical variable.
Using the knowledge gained through the preliminary review, regression models were developed with all of the explanatory variables and potential interaction terms (identified in the initial review). Resulting Pvalues were used to determine which variables contributed significantly to the regression model. Generally, parameters with a Pvalue greater than 0.15 were considered insignificant because there could be more than a 15 percent chance that the regression parameter estimates could be equal to zero, and therefore, should be removed from subsequent regression iterations. In some cases, the independent contribution of an explanatory variable was insignificant, but its interaction effect with other parameters was significant. Both the independent and interacting terms were included in subsequent models when this occurred. Terms that were marginally significant were incorporated in the model only if their contribution improved the prediction capability of the model, which was achieved by iteratiy developing models and evaluating adjusted Rsquared, root mean squared error and AIC statistics to select the model that best predicted the observed data. All parameters within a categorical variable were included if one of the parameters was found to be significant. For example, in table 17, all BASE types were included in the model because DGAB is significant. LCB was included even though its contribution was not significant. The entire category must be accounted for in the model if one parameter was found to be significant.
As part of the model development activities, transformations were incorporated to reduce the violation of assumptions inherent in regression models. Figure 5 provides graphical results on the validity of assumptions for the AIRI model before transforming the data. As can be seen from the residual plot (upper right corner of figure 5), the shape of the plot indicates unequal error variance (signified by the diagonal orientation of the bottom boundary of data points). In addition, the normal probability plot (lower left figure) indicates nonnormality in the dataset (residual points depart from the straight line). For these reasons, a natural logarithm transformation of the performance measure was performed. The results of the validity check after the transformation can be found in figure 6. As the figure indicates, both the unequal error variance and nonnormality have been reduced, thus improving the validity of assumptions in the model.
The final regression models were used to predict mean performance values, and 95 percent confidence intervals were also computed and used in making performance comparisons between the regions. These predictions were made for climatic scenarios of interest in the study.Complete details on this process are discussed in the following section of this report
ESAL  SN  ACTHICK  ELEV  LAT  LONG  FTC  FI  CI  PRECIP  RUT AGE  RUT  

ESAL  1.00000  0.25535  0.15887  0.09449  0.25639  0.03808  0.16282  0.24556  0.22145  0.13579  0.03080  0.00151 
<.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.0894  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.1696  0.9462  
SN  0.25535  1.00000  0.43217  0.05645  0.06731  0.12238  0.22680  0.05253  0.18038  0.10588  0.27243  0.15508 
<.0001  <.0001  0.0118  0.0027  <.0001  <.0001  0.0191  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  
ACTHICK  0.15887  0.43217  1.00000  0.01245  0.06886  0.09872  0.11020  0.03918  0.14686  0.00599  0.04717  0.02761 
<.0001  <.0001  0.5786  0.0021  <.0001  <.0001  0.0805  <.0001  0.7895  0.0353  0.2181  
ELEV  0.09449  0.05645  0.01245  1.00000  0.28208  0.51202  0.76208  0.19521  0.43518  0.78481  0.10769  0.00238 
<.0001  0.0118  0.5786  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.9154  
LAT  0.25639  0.06731  0.06886  0.28208  1.00000  0.25897  0.61287  0.76147  0.89240  0.40206  0.08413  0.04866 
<.0001  0.0027  0.0021  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.0002  0.0299  
LONG  0.03808  0.12238  0.09872  0.51202  0.25897  1.00000  0.22746  0.17877  0.13525  0.58561  0.01362  0.02278 
0.0894  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.5436  0.3097  
FTC  0.16282  0.22680  0.11020  0.76208  0.61287  0.22746  1.00000  0.38152  0.78366  0.62650  0.18159  0.02663 
<.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.2349  
FI  0.24556  0.05253  0.03918  0.19521  0.76147  0.17877  0.38152  1.00000  0.61977  0.40330  0.05764  0.03397 
<.0001  0.0191  0.0805  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.0101  0.1297  
CI  0.22145  0.18038  0.14686  0.43518  0.89240  0.13525  0.78366  0.61977  1.00000  0.43074  0.10822  0.02763 
<.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.2179  
PRECIP  0.13579  0.10588  0.00599  0.78481  0.40206  0.58561  0.62650  0.40330  0.43074  1.00000  0.13377  0.02610 
<.0001  <.0001  0.7895  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  0.2443  
RUT_AGE  0.03080  0.27243  0.04717  0.10769  0.08413  0.01362  0.18159  0.05764  0.10822  0.13377  1.00000  0.43351 
0.1696  <.0001  0.0353  <.0001  0.0002  0.5436  <.0001  0.0101  <.0001  <.0001  <.0001  
RUT  0.00151  0.15508  0.02761  0.00238  0.04866  0.02278  0.02663  0.03397  0.02763  0.02610  0.43351  1.00000 
0.9462  <.0001  0.2181  0.9154  0.0299  0.3097  0.2349  0.1297  0.2179  0.2443  <.0001 
*The top number in each cell represents correlation; the bottom number denotes the Pvalue. 
Regression Parameter  Estimate  Standard  t Value  Pr > t 

Intercept  1.08  0.29  3.79  0.0002 
BASE ATB  0.45  0.15  2.89  0.0040 
BASE DGAB  0.63  0.14  4.62  <.0001 
BASE LCB  0.93  0.92  1.02  0.3101 
BASE NONBIT  0.75  0.18  4.24  <.0001 
BASE NONE  0.28  0.35  0.79  0.4284 
BASE PATB  0  .  .  . 
SG COARSE  0.12  0.20  0.58  0.5618 
SG FINE  0.16  0.20  0.78  0.4346 
SG  0  NA  NA  NA 
EXP G1  0.66  0.06  10.50  <.0001 
EXP G2  0.61  0.08  7.65  <.0001 
EXP G6  0.60  0.06  10.79  <.0001 
EXP S1  0.52  0.06  8.62  <.0001 
EXP S8  0  NA  NA  NA 
lesn  0.77  0.13  5.84  <.0001 
logrut age  0.50  0.04  14.10  <.0001 
CI  3.4 * 10^{4}  8.2 * 10^{5}  4.11  <.0001 
FI  1.5 * 10^{4}  1.7 * 10^{4}  0.91  0.3649 
PRECIP  1.2 * 10^{5}  6.4 * 10^{5}  0.19  0.8475 
FTC  3.5 * 10^{3}  6.9 * 10^{4}  5.02  <.0001 
FI*PRECIP  3.0 * 10^{7}  1.1 * 10^{7}  2.71  0.0068 
lesn*logrut_age  8.4 * 10^{2}  2.6 * 10^{2}  3.25  0.0012 
logrut_age*CI  1.4 * 10^{4}  3.2 * 10^{5}  4.44  <.0001 
logrut_age*FI  1.4 * 10^{5}  3.7 * 10^{5}  0.38  0.7063 
lesn*BASE ATB  0.44  0.16  2.76  0.0059 
lesn*BASE DGAB  0.54  0.14  4.00  <.0001 
lesn*BASE LCB  0.75  1.22  0.61  0.5416 
lesn*BASE NONBIT  0.66  0.15  4.28  <.0001 
lesn*BASE NONE  0.36  0.42  0.86  0.3901 
lesn*BASE PATB  0  NA  NA  NA 
FI*BASE ATB  3.8 * 10^{4}  1.5 * 10^{4}  2.58  0.0099 
FI*BASE DGAB  4.2 * 10^{4}  1.3 * 10^{4}  3.20  0.0014 
FI*BASE LCB  5.2 * 10^{3}  7.9 * 10^{3}  0.66  0.5108 
FI*BASE NONBIT  1.3 * 10^{3}  3.1 * 10^{4}  4.35  <.0001 
FI*BASE NONE  4.3 * 10^{4}  2.1 * 10^{4}  2.07  0.0382 
FI*BASE PATB  0  NA  NA  NA 
Figure 5. Graphs. Assumption validity check for absolute IRI model (before transformation).
Figure 6. Graphs. Assumption validity check for absolute IRI model (after natural logarithm transformation of the performance measure).
Topics: research, infrastructure, pavements and materials Keywords: research, infrastructure, pavements and materials, asphalt concrete, Frost, freezethaw, LTPP, life cycle cost analysis, performance modeling, climate, ME pavement design guide, pavement management system, AC, PCC TRT Terms: research, facilities, transportation, highway facilities, roads, parts of roads, pavements Updated: 04/23/2012
