REPORT

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

Top
< Prev
Main
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Next >
>>

Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-10-066 Date: October 2011

Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-10-066
Date: October 2011

Impact of Design Features on Pavement Response and Performance in Rehabilitated Flexible and Rigid Pavements

Appendix A. Summary Statistical Analysis

Flexible Pavements -SPS-5

The tables in this section describe the statistical results from the ANOVA performed in each site of the SPS-5 experiment. The number found after the State names represents the State code in the LTPP database. If statistical differences were found, they are described as "Y" in the statistical difference column, and the corresponding p-value is shown. If no statistical differences were found, they are described as "N."

Table 93. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Alabama (1).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N	Thin		N			N
Rutting	N	Thin	Thin	N		Virgin	N		No mill
Fatigue	N	Thick	Thick	N	Virgin	Virgin	N	Mill	Mill
Transverse	Y (p = 0.015)	Thick	Thick	N		Virgin	Y (p = 0.00002)	Mill	Mill
Longitudinal	Y (p = 0.003)		Thin	N	Virgin	Virgin	Y (p = 0.013)	Mill	Mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 94. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Arizona (4).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	Y (p = 0)	Thick	Thick	Y (p = 0)		Virgin	N	Mill	Mill
Rutting	Y (p = 0.004)	Thin	Thick	Y (p = 0.0004)	Virgin	Virgin	N	No mill
Fatigue	N	Thick	Thick	N			Y (p = 0.005)	Mill	Mill
Transverse	N			N	Virgin	Virgin	N
Longitudinal	N		Thin	Y (p = 0.01)	Virgin	Virgin	N

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 95. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in California (6).

Distress	Overlay Thickness
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	Y (p = 0.00001)	Thick	Thick	Y (p = 0.0499)	Virgin	Virgin	N	Mill	Mill
Rutting	Y (p = 0.0025)		Thick	N			N
Fatigue	Y (p = 0.036)	Thick		N	Virgin	Virgin	Y (p = 0.031)	Mill	Mill
Transverse	N		Thick	Y (p = 0.0036)	Virgin	Virgin	N
Longitudinal	N			N			Y (p = 0.011)	No mill	No mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 96. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Colorado (8).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N		Thick	Y (p = 0.027)		RAP	N	N
Rutting	Y (p = 0.034)		Thick	Y (p = 0)		RAP	N	Y (p = 0.034)
Fatigue	N		Thick	N		RAP	N	N
Transverse	Y (p = 0.01)		Thick	N	RAP		N	Y (p = 0.01)
Longitudinal	N		Thick	N		RAP	N	N

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 97. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Florida (12).

	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N	Thin	Thin	N	Virgin	Virgin	Y ( p = 0.031)	Mill	Mill
Rutting	N	Thin	Thin	N	Virgin	Virgin	Y (p = 0.02)	Mill	Mill
Fatigue	N		Thin	N		Virgin	N		Mill
Transverse	N			N			N
Longitudinal	N		Thick	N			Y (p = 0.021)		No mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 98. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Georgia (13).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N			N	Virgin	Virgin	N
Rutting	N			N			N
Fatigue	N			N			N
Transverse
Longitudinal	N		Thin	N			N

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 99. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Maine (23).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N		Thin	N			N	No mill	No mill
Rutting	N			N			Y (p = 0.005)	No mill	No mill
Fatigue
Transverse
Longitudinal	N			N			Y (p = 0.02)		mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 100. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Maryland (24).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N	Thick	x	N	Virgin	x	Y (p = 0.0196)	Mill	x
Rutting	Y (p = 0.0045)	Thin	x	Y (p = 0)	Virgin	x	N		x
Fatigue
Transverse
Longitudinal

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 101. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Minnesota (27).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	Y (p = 0.00045)	Thick		N			N	Mill	Mill
Rutting	N			Y (p = 0.0095)	Virgin		N
Fatigue
Transverse	N			N		RAP	N		No mill
Longitudinal	N			N			N

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 102. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Mississipi (28).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N	Thick	Thick	N	Virgin	Virgin	N	Mill	Mill
Rutting	Y (p = 0.0006)	Thin	Thin	N			N
Fatigue	Y (p = 0.0217)	Thick	Thick	Y (p = 0.0066)	Virgin	Virgin	N
Transverse	N			Y (p = 0.0028)		Virgin	N
Longitudinal	Y (p = 0.0396)	Thin	Thick	N	Virgin	Virgin	N

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 103. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Missouri (29).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N	Thick		N	RAP		N	No mill
Rutting	N		Thin	Y (p = 0)		Virgin	N		Mill
Fatigue	N		Thin	N		RAP	N		No mill
Transverse	N			N			N
Longitudinal	N			N			N		Mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 104. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Montana (30).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	Y (p = 0)		Thick	Y (p = 0.0359)		Virgin	N		Mill
Rutting	N	Thick	Thick	N		RAP	N
Fatigue	N		Thick	N	Virgin	Virgin	N
Transverse	N	Thick	Thick	N	RAP	RAP	N	Mill	Mill
Longitudinal	N	Thick	Thick	N	RAP	RAP	N	Mill	Mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 105. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in New Jersey (34).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N	Thick	Thick	N			Y (p = 0.00097)	Mill	Mill
Rutting	N	Thick	Thick	N	Virgin	Virgin	N
Fatigue	Y (p = 0.0093)		Thick	Y (p = 0.00034)		Virgin	N
Transverse	N	Thick	Thick	Y (p = 0.0081)		Virgin	Y (p = 0.019)	Mill	Mill
Longitudinal	N			N	Virgin	Virgin	Y (p = 0.0198)	Mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 106. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in New Mexico (35).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N			N			N
Rutting	Y (p = 0.025)		Thin	N			N	No mill	No mill
Fatigue	N			Y (p = 0.003)		RAP	N		No mill
Transverse	N		Thick	N			Y (p = 0.00011)	Mill	Mill
Longitudinal	N			Y (p = 0.00014)	Virgin	Virgin	N

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 107. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Oklahoma (40).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	Y (p = 0.014)	Thick	Thick	N		Virgin	N	Mill	Mill
Rutting	N			Y (p = 0)		RAP	N
Fatigue	N			N			N
Transverse	Y (p = 0.028)	Thick	Thick	N			N	Mill	Mill
Longitudinal	N			N			N		Mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 108. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Texas (48).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N	Thick	Thick	N	RAP	RAP	N		Mill
Rutting	N			N		RAP	N
Fatigue	N			Y (p = 0.024)		Virgin	N		No mill
Transverse	Y (p = 0.0016)	Thick	Thick	Y (p = 0)		Virgin	N	Mill	Mill
Longitudinal	Y (p = 0.001)	Thick	Thick	Y (p = 0)	Virgin	Virgin	N	Mill	Mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 109. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Alberta (81).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long
Roughness	N			N			N
Rutting	N			N		Virgin	N
Fatigue	Y (p = 0.003)	Thick	Thick	Y (p = 0.033)	Virgin	Virgin	N	Mill	Mill
Transverse	N	Thick		Y (p = 0.0098)	RAP	RAP	N	Mill	Mill
Longitudinal	N	Thin	Thin	N	Virgin	Virgin	N

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

Table 110. Summary of individual statistical analysis results for SPS-5 site in Manitoba (83).

Distress	Overlay Thickness			Mix Type			Milling
	Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance		Statistical Difference	Best Performance
	Statistical Difference	Short	Long	Statistical Difference	Short	Long		Short	Long
Roughness	Y (p = 0)	Thick	Thick	N		RAP	Y (p = 0.01)		Mill
Rutting	N			N			N		No mill
Fatigue	Y (p = 0.0197)		Thick	N		Virgin	N
Transverse	Y (p = 0.0107)		Thin	N			N
Longitudinal	N			N			N	Mill

Note: Blank cells indicate no difference between design factors.

The following tables provide the WD calculations used in the consolidated analysis with the Friedman test.

Table 111. Long-term average WD-IRI values for SPS-5 sites.

Section	Experimental Design			Sites (State Codes)/Average WD-IRI values (m/km)
Section	Mill	Mix	Thickness (mm)	1	4	6	8	12	13	23	24	27	28	29	30	34	35	40	48	81	83
0501	No	None			80	108	70			92	97	193	88	130		134	39	113		127	98
0502	No	RAP	51	55	134	130	65	49	40	42	80	90	96	72	74	70	44	86	82	93	104
0503	No	RAP	127	53	77	75	50	49	40	54	71	87	114	62	62	45	33	66	76	89	69
0504	No	Virgin	127	57	82	74	56	42	40	56	86	95	87	71	48	51	37	70	93	101	71
0505	No	Virgin	51	58	92	102	55	36	40	45	90	101	110	69	57	57	39	64	95	83	107
0506	Yes	Virgin	51	48	71	81	87	32	36	52	59	92	101	69	56	51	37	66	90	72	117
0507	Yes	Virgin	127	56	88	73	65	37	39	55	63	72	83	83	61	52	42	62	83	93	59
0508	Yes	RAP	127	65	64	64	52	46	49	48	53	80	92	62	48	48	35	61	74	78	63
0509	Yes	RAP	51	55	115	142	62	37	40	60	76	87	108	84	62	49	37	64	78	94	84

1 ft = 0.305 m
1 mi = 1.61 km
1 inch = 25.4 mm
Note: Higher WD values indicate rougher pavement over time. Blank cells indicate data are not available.

Table 112. Long-term average WD-rutting values for SPS-5 sites.

Section	Experimental Design			Sites (State Codes)/Average WD-Rutting Values (mm)
Section	Mill	Mix	Thickness (mm)	1	4	6	8	12	13	23	24	27	28	29	30	34	35	40	48	81	83
0501	No	None			0.36	0.15	0.33			0.56	0.36	0.27	0.55	0.33		0.31	0.14	0.41		0.36	0.36
0502	No	RAP	51	0.10	0.19	0.16	0.13	0.16	0.13	0.27	0.17	0.10	0.36	0.14	0.17	0.11	0.12	0.11	0.23	0.25	0.14
0503	No	RAP	127	0.13	0.15	0.10	0.11	0.17	0.13	0.27	0.25	0.08	0.43	0.19	0.12	0.09	0.15	0.17	0.16	0.33	0.17
0504	No	Virgin	127	0.14	0.11	0.16	0.09	0.15	0.14	0.31	0.21	0.07	0.60	0.12	0.17	0.11	0.15	0.12	0.21	0.28	0.13
0505	No	Virgin	51	0.12	0.12	0.15	0.12	0.13	0.12	0.25	0.15	0.09	0.33	0.12	0.13	0.10	0.12	0.16	0.18	0.18	0.16
0506	Yes	Virgin	51	0.09	0.11	0.12	0.14	0.11	0.12	0.35	0.12	0.09	0.36	0.12	0.20	0.13	0.15	0.15	0.25	0.25	0.18
0507	Yes	Virgin	127	0.13	0.21	0.20	0.17	0.14	0.13	0.33	0.22	0.09	0.59	0.08	0.17	0.12	0.18	0.15	0.25	0.22	0.21
0508	Yes	RAP	127	0.21	0.14	0.11	0.13	0.16	0.12	0.32	0.19	0.08	0.56	0.17	0.11	0.10	0.16	0.11	0.18	0.23	0.22
0509	Yes	RAP	51	0.13	0.16	0.13	0.09	0.13	0.13	0.30	0.43	0.11	0.33	0.11	0.17	0.13	0.15	0.09	0.16	0.26	0.15

1 inch = 25.4 mm
Note: Higher WD values indicate increased rutting in pavement over time. Blank cells indicate data are not available.

Table 113. Long-term average WD-fatigue cracking values for SPS-5 sites.

Section	Experimental Design			Sites (State Codes)/Average WD-Fatigue Cracking Values (m²)
Section	Mill	Mix	Thickness (mm)	1	4	6	8	12	13	23	24	27	28	29	30	34	35	40	48	81	83
0501	No	None		2,305	692			13	810	1	51	1,927		2,475	11	0		46	377	2,305	692
0502	No	RAP	51	2,566	966	38	0	0	25	0	458	0	1,263	463	1	1	3	1,480	916	2,566	966
0503	No	RAP	127	513	137	1	0	0	5	0	46	0	993	151	0	10	8	1,052	734	513	137
0504	No	Virgin	127	475	111	0	0	0	96	0	4	2	0	178	2	1	0	384	544	475	111
0505	No	Virgin	51	1,467	674	1	0	0	183	0	94	0	16	165	1	4	0	700	681	1,467	674
0506	Yes	Virgin	51	474	1,261	0	0	0	9	0	198	3	1	7	6	1	0	765	822	474	1,261
0507	Yes	Virgin	127	528	840	0	1	0	0	0	0	108	0	45	4	1	5	273	489	528	840
0508	Yes	RAP	127	85	180	0	0	0	84	0	258	0	725	47	0	1	8	399	498	85	180
0509	Yes	RAP	51	2,204	16	0	1	0	0	0	705	2	1,511	650	2	0	29	1,272	1,068	2,204	16

1 ft₂ = 0.093 m₂
1 inch = 25.4 mm
Note: Higher WD values indicate increased pavement cracking over time. Blank cells indicate data are not available.

Table 114. Long-term average WD-transverse cracking values for SPS-5 sites.

Section	Experimental Design			Sites (State Codes)/Average WD-Transverse Cracking Values (m)
Section	Mill	Mix	Thickness (mm)	1	4	6	8	12	13	23	24	27	28	29	30	34	35	40	48	81	83
0501	No	None			0	154	63			38	140	245	201	32		270	33	91		30	32
0502	No	RAP	51	110	87	153	69	5	0	0	134	262	96	0	26	199	47	62	220	96	188
0503	No	RAP	127	4	339	194	11	0	0	0	54	196	136	0	14	69	44	24	98	88	151
0504	No	Virgin	127	0	40	83	43	0	0	0	32	200	3	0	35	50	3	5	4	61	250
0505	No	Virgin	51	54	216	197	64	8	0	0	152	327	50	0	57	155	56	52	186	288	81
0506	Yes	Virgin	51	1	50	152	90	2	0	0	129	294	65	1	51	9	2	33	4	130	39
0507	Yes	Virgin	127	1	2	100	10	0	0	0	4	149	1	4	10	11	0	0	2	143	208
0508	Yes	RAP	127	1	207	257	9	0	0	0	59	217	80	0	10	51	2	0	73	54	225
0509	Yes	RAP	51	13	339	209	40	0	0	0	5	230	32	1	0	47	9	30	155	19	110

1 ft = 0.305 m
1 inch = 25.4 mm
Note: Higher WD values indicate increased pavement cracking over time. Blank cells indicate data are not available.

Table 115. Long-term average WD-longitudinal cracking values for SPS-5 sites.

Section	Experimental Design			Sites (State Codes)/Average WD-Longitudinal Cracking Values (m)
Section	Mill	Mix	Thickness (mm)	1	4	6	8	12	13	23	24	27	28	29	30	34	35	40	48	81	83
0501	No	None			0	364	842			1,039	939	894	239	563		670	380	53		170	250
0502	No	RAP	51	95	47	268	722	2	304	277	795	843	209	52	377	862	405	252	797	575	741
0503	No	RAP	127	143	337	430	552	2	209	292	624	549	101	96	186	949	508	113	646	579	848
0504	No	Virgin	127	86	26	362	715	9	132	302	429	677	52	33	176	827	103	83	80	704	669
0505	No	Virgin	51	92	130	342	996	27	293	277	486	894	47	465	270	585	268	28	797	319	932
0506	Yes	Virgin	51	0	78	485	673	0	144	214	627	737	52	88	205	599	158	36	337	84	574
0507	Yes	Virgin	127	19	3	459	410	0	129	277	651	649	17	74	89	753	60	65	19	456	578
0508	Yes	RAP	127	69	285	497	152	73	135	218	745	369	170	116	266	926	559	0	631	578	921
0509	Yes	RAP	51	100	329	492	152	8	206	138	99	572	146	54	322	826	411	48	639	544	392

1 ft = 0.305 m
1 inch = 25.4 mm
Note: Higher WD values indicate increased pavement cracking over time. Blank cells indicate data were not available.

Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Infrastructure, RDT

Topics: research, infrastructure, pavements and materials
Keywords: research, infrastructure, pavements and materials, Pavement performance, Rehabilitation, Maintenance, Pavement design, Long-term performance, Flexible pavements, Rigid pavements
TRT Terms: research, facilities, transportation, highway facilities, roads, parts of roads, pavements
Scheduled Update: Archive - No Update needed

This page last modified on 11/23/2011