Pavement Performance Measures and Forecasting and The Effects of Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategy on Treatment Effectiveness (Revised)

PDF Version (5.90 MB)

FOREWORD

“How effective will a particular treatment be on this roadway?” Data from the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program have supported efforts to answer this question. This report documents work to advance the development of pavement performance measures to classify pavement sections, estimate future pavement conditions, evaluate the effectiveness of pavement maintenance and rehabilitation treatments, and analyze the role of pavement treatment strategies in extending pavement life.

Data from the various LTPP experiments were analyzed to define pavement performance in a way that supports the selection of cost-effective pavement treatment strategies. The research approach and results are presented in this report, including 1) the newly developed dual (functional and structural) pavement rating systems and their impact on pavement management, 2) the impacts of pavement preservation actions on pavement performance and longevity, 3) the effects of various pavement design parameters and climatic factors on pavement performance, 4)the aspects of a newly developed global model to accurately adjust the measured pavement deflections, and 5) the elements of a new statistical model to predict future pavement condition and distress based on a single data point.

This report can be used by pavement researchers, teachers in academic and lifelong (continuing) education settings, practicing engineers and contractors involved in pavement preservation, and road owners to develop cost-effective pavement preservation strategies.

Cheryl Allen Richter
Director, Office of Infrastructure
Research, Development, and Technology

Technical Report Documentation Page

SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

• PAVEMENT DISTRESS SEVERITY LEVELS
• ENGINEERING THRESHOLDS (CRITERIA)
• PAVEMENT DISTRESS AND CONDITION INDICES
• DESCRIPTIVE PAVEMENT CONDITIONS
• PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MODELING AND PREDICTION
• PAVEMENT PRESERVATION BENEFITS
• PAVEMENT TREATMENT TYPES
• PAVEMENT TREATMENT SELECTION
  • Pavement Preservation Costs
    
    
• PAVEMENT PRESERVATION EFFECTIVENESS
  • Pavement Preservation Cost Effectiveness at the Project Level
  • Pavement Preservation Effectiveness at the Network Level
    
    
• TREATMENT TRANSITION MATRIX (T²M)
• PRESERVATION TIME SELECTION
• THE LTPP PROGRAM
• OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE LTPP PROGRAM
• LTPP TEST SECTIONS
  • SPS
  • GPS
  • Summary of Previous Findings
    
    
• SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 3. Pavement Condition Classification

• PAVEMENT CONDITION RATING SYSTEM
• RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD VALUES
• FLEXIBILITY OF THE PAVEMENT RATING SYSTEMS
• SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 4. DATA MINING AND SYNTHESIS

• DATA SOURCES
• AUTOMATED AND MANUAL PAVEMENT DISTRESS DATA
• DATA EXTRACTION
  • Inventory Data
  • Time-Series Pavement Condition and Distress Data
  • Pavement Rehabilitation, Preservation, and Maintenance Data
  • Traffic Data
  • FWD Data
  • Climatic Data
    
    
• STATUS OF THE CONDITION AND DISTRESS DATA
• STATUS OF THE MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION DATA
• ANALYSES PROCEDURES
  • Addition of One Data Point Immediately After Certain Treatments
  • Using the Control Section Data for Before Treatment Conditions
  • Severity Level
    
    
• SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

CHAPTER 5. LTPP DATA ANALYSES OF FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

• MODELING THE TIME-SERIES PAVEMENT CONDITION AND DISTRESS DATA
• IMPACTS OF CLIMATIC REGIONS, DRAINAGE, AND AC THICKNESS ON PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE USING THE LTPP SPS-1 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Rut Depth
  • Alligator Cracking
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTPP SPS-1
    
    
• IMPACTS OF MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE USING THE LTPP SPS-3 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Rut Depth
  • Alligator Cracking
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTPP SPS-3
    
    
• IMPACT OF REHABILITATION TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE USING LTPP SPS-5 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Rut Depth
  • Alligator Cracking
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations for LTPP SPS-5
    
    
• IMPACTS OF PAVEMENT TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE USING THE LTPP GPS-6 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Rut Depth
  • Alligator Cracking
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Impact of the Before Treatment Condition and Distress on the Performance of the Pavement After Treatment for LTPP GPS-6.
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTPP GPS-6
    
    
• ORCSE METHOD
  • ORCSE Method and Development Procedures Using LTPP Data
  • Results of ORCSE Predictions and Analyses of LTPP SPS-1 Test Sections
  • Results of Validation of ORCSE Predictions and Analyses of LTPP SPS-1 Test Sections
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for the ORCSE Model

CHAPTER 6. LTPP DATA ANALYSES OF RIGID PAVEMENTS

• IMPACTS OF MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT CONDITION AND DISTRESS USING THE LTPP SPS-2 TEST SECTIONS
  • Analysis Steps
  • Analyses Results
  • IRI
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTPP SPS-2
    
    
• IMPACTS OF MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT CONDITION AND DISTRESS USING THE LTPP SPS-4 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTTP SPS-4
    
    
• IMPACTS OF REHABILITATION TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT CONDITION AND DISTRESS USING THE LTPP SPS-6 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Rut Depth
  • Alligator Cracking
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTPP SPS-6
    
    
• IMPACTS OF BONDED CONCRETE OVERLAYS ON PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE USING THE LTPP SPS-7 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTPP SPS-7
    
    
• IMPACTS OF PAVEMENT TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE USING THE LTPP GPS-7 TEST SECTIONS
  • IRI
  • Rut Depth
  • Alligator Cracking
  • Longitudinal Cracking
  • Transverse Cracking
  • Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations for LTPP GPS-7

CHAPTER 7. LTPP DEFLECTION DATA ANALYSES

• FWD DEFLECTION DATA AND RFP AND RSP
• TIME-SERIES FWD DATA MODELING—FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
  • Temperature-Deflection Correlation
  • Flexible Pavement Deflection Versus Time
  • Backcalculation of Pavement Layer Resilient Moduli Values
  • Rigid Pavement Deflection Versus Time
  • Rigid Pavement LTE Versus Time
    
    
• SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 8. STATE DATA ANALYSES

• BACKGROUND
• ANALYSIS STEPS
• IRI
• RUT DEPTH
• ALLIGATOR CRACKING
• LONGITUDINAL CRACKING
• TRANSVERSE CRACKING
• SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHAPTER 9. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• SUMMARY
• CONCLUSIONS
  • Pavement Performance Measures
  • Flexible Pavements
  • ORCSE Method
  • Rigid and Composite Pavements
  • Deflection
  • State Data
    
    
• RECOMMENDATIONS
  • Performance Measures
  • Flexible Pavements
  • ORCSE Method
  • Deflection
  • State Data
  • Future Studies

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

• Figure 1. Graph. Time-series transverse cracking data for each severity level and the sum of all severity levels for LTTP SPS-3 test section A330 in California
• Figure 2. Graph. Cumulative time-series transverse cracking data showing individual transverse crack severity level and the sum of all severity levels for LTTP SPS-3 test section A330 in California
• Figure 3. Graph. Time-series transverse cracking data for each severity level and the sum of all severity levels, Highway 24, direction 2, BMP 329.9, in Colorado
• Figure 4. Graph. Cumulative time-series transverse cracking data showing individual transverse crack severity level and the sum of all severity levels, Highway 24, direction 2, BMP 329.9, in Colorado
• Figure 5. Chart. Rating and descriptive scales and distress points
• Figure 6. Graph. Descriptive rating scale for pavement condition
• Figure 7. Equation. DI
• Figure 8. Graph. Pavement condition classification system
• Figure 9. Graph. Shortcomings of the recommended classification system when dealing with real but good data (not the worst-case scenario)
• Figure 10. Graph. A typical pavement performance curve
• Figure 11. Equation. PI
• Figure 12. Equation. RD
• Figure 13. Equation. IRI
• Figure 14. Equation. Crack
• Figure 15. Graph. Relationship between RSL and cost of managing pavements
• Figure 16. Equation. RSL
• Figure 17. Equation. RSL_network
• Figure 18. Graph. Schematic of the definition of SLE
• Figure 19. Graph. Schematic of the definition of TL
• Figure 20. Graph. Schematic of the definition of negative TL
• Figure 21. Graph. Schematic of the definition of TB
• Figure 22. Graph. PJ and DRR
• Figure 23. Illustration. Example of decision tree for continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP)
• Figure 24. Equation. NPW
• Figure 25. Equation. EUAC
• Figure 26. Graph. Typical pavement condition or distress over the pavement lifecycle
• Figure 27. Graph. IRI versus elapsed time for LTTP SPS-1 test sections 0102 and 0103 in Iowa
• Figure 28. Equation. Rut depth
• Figure 29. Equation. t
• Figure 30. Equation. RSP
• Figure 31. Graph. Example of idealized rut depth data and function versus elapsed time
• Figure 32. Graph. RSP versus the pavement surface age for an idealized power function
• Figure 33. Graph. IRI versus elapsed time for LTPP SPS-1 test sections 0102 and 0103 in Iowa
• Figure 34. Graph. RFP versus pavement surface age for LTPP test section 0102 in Iowa
• Figure 35. Graph. RFP CSs
• Figure 36. Graph. RSP CSs
• Figure 37. Graph. Conceptualized cost of pavement preservation versus RSP
• Figure 38. Graph. Correlations among RSP, cost of preservation, and descriptive pavement classification
• Figure 39. Graph. Example of pavement condition over time with two thin HMA overlays and one thin mill-and-fill action
• Figure 40. Graph. Example RSP over time with two thin HMA overlays and one mill-and-fill action
• Figure 41. Illustration. Envisioned change in deflection through the progression of alligator cracking
• Figure 42. Graph. Idealized S-shaped curve for alligator cracking showing three windows (threshold values) for various treatment actions
• Figure 43. Graph. Transverse cracking versus elapsed time for LTTP SPS-3 test section A330 in California
• Figure 44. Graph. Transverse cracking versus elapsed time for LTTP SPS-5 test section 0502 in California
• Figure 45. Graph. Total longitudinal cracking versus time for LTTP SPS-3 test section A310 in Maryland
• Figure 46. Graph. Total longitudinal cracking versus time for LTPP SPS-3 control section A340 in Maryland
• Figure 47. Graph. Total longitudinal cracking versus elapsed time for LTPP GPS-1634 linked test section to SPS-3 experiment in Maryland
• Figure 48. Graph. Total longitudinal cracking versus elapsed time for LTTP SPS-3 test section A350 and A340 control section in New York
• Figure 49. Graph. IRI versus elapsed time for LTTP SPS-1 test section 0119 in Texas
• Figure 50. Graph. Exponential, power, and logistic (S-shaped) curves
• Figure 51. Illustration. Flowchart of the MATLAB® program
• Figure 52. Graph. After-treatment RFP versus before-treatment IRI of LTPP SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay
• Figure 53. Graph. After-treatment RFP versus before-treatment IRI of LTPP SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal
• Figure 54. Graph. After-treatment RFP versus before-treatment IRI of LTPP SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal
• Figure 55. Graph. After-treatment RFP versus before-treatment IRI of LTPP SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat
• Figure 56. Graph. ORCSE model probability graph from LTPP SPS-1 before treatment evaluation
• Figure 57. Illustration. Flowchart of ORCSE model steps with examples from LTPP SPS-1 before treatment evaluation
• Figure 58. Graph. Backpropagation of IRI data for SHRP ID 26_0116 from an RFP of 0 years
• Figure 59. Graph. Backpropagation of IRI data for SHRP ID 19_0102 from an RFP of 0 years
• Figure 60. Graph. Backpropagation of IRI data for SHRP ID 19_0103 from an RFP of 0 years
• Figure 61. Graph. Backpropagation of IRI data for SHRP IDs 26_0116, 19_0102, and 19_0103 displaying variation in IRI growth from an RFP of 0 years
• Figure 62. Graph. ORCSE model graph for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 1
• Figure 63. Graph. ORCSE model graph for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 2
• Figure 64. Graph. ORCSE model graph for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 3
• Figure 65. Graph. ORCSE model graph for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 4
• Figure 66. Graph. ORCSE model graph for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 5
• Figure 67. Graph. AI TAF
• Figure 68. Equation. APD_i
• Figure 69. Graph. Peak measured pavement deflection at sensors 1, 2, 4, and 7 versus pavement surface temperature for SHRP test section 010101, F3
• Figure 70. Graph. Average measured peak deflection at sensor 1 versus the measured pavement surface temperature along the outer wheelpath and mid lane of SHRP test sections 010101 and 010102
• Figure 71. Equation. TAF_di
• Figure 72. Equation. TAF
• Figure 73. Equation. A
• Figure 74. Equation. B
• Figure 75. Equation. C
• Figure 76. Graph. Measured deflection basins at three pavement surface temperatures 52, 70, and 86 °F (11, 21, and 30 °C) along the mid-lane of the SHRP test section 351112 on April 25, 1995
• Figure 77. Graph. Error from TAF and AI adjusted deflection basin at two pavement surface temperatures (52 and 86 °F (11 and 30 °C)), along the mid-lane of the SHRP test section 351112 on April 25, 1995
• Figure 78. Graph. Percent error of the temperature-adjusted deflection data using the equation in figure 72 and the AI procedure
• Figure 79. Graph. Average measured peak pavement deflection at sensors 1, 2, 4, and 7 versus time for SHRP test section 010101, F1
• Figure 80. Graph. Temperature-adjusted peak deflection at sensors 1, 2, 4, and 7 versus time for SHRP test section 010101, F1
• Figure 81. Graph. Temperature-adjusted peak deflection at sensor 1 versus IRI for SHRP test section 010101, F1
• Figure 82. Graph. Temperature-adjusted peak deflection at sensor 1 versus rut depth for SHRP test section 010101, F1
• Figure 83. Graph. Temperature-adjusted peak deflection at sensor 1 versus alligator cracking for SHRP test section 010101, F1
• Figure 84. Graph. Temperature-adjusted peak deflection at sensor 1 versus longitudinal cracking for SHRP test section 010101, F1
• Figure 85. Graph. Temperature-adjusted peak deflection at sensor 1 versus transverse cracking for SHRP test section 010101, F1
• Figure 86. Graph. AC layer M_R values versus pavement surface temperature for SHRP test section 010101
• Figure 87. Graph. AC layer M_R values versus pavement surface temperature for SHRP test section 081053
• Figure 88. Graph. AC layer M_R values versus pavement surface temperature for SHRP test section 271028
• Figure 89. Graph. AC layer M_R values versus pavement surface temperature for SHRP test section 351112
• Figure 90. Graph. AC layer M_R values from measured and temperature-adjusted deflection data
• Figure 91. Graph. Base and roadbed soil layer M_R values from measured and temperature-adjusted deflection data
• Figure 92. Graph. Measured peak deflection at sensor 1 versus time for SHRP test section 100201, J1
• Figure 93. Graph. Measured peak deflection at sensor 1 versus IRI for SHRP test section 100201, J1
• Figure 94. Graph. Measured peak deflection at sensor 1 versus faulting for SHRP test section 100201, J1
• Figure 95. Graph. Measured peak deflection at sensor 1 versus longitudinal cracking for SHRP test section 100201, J1
• Figure 96. Graph. Measured peak deflection at sensor 1 versus transverse cracking for SHRP test section 100201, J1
• Figure 97. Graph. LTE versus time for SHRP test section 100201, J4
• Figure 98. Graph. LTE versus IRI for SHRP test section 100201, J4
• Figure 99. Graph. LTE versus faulting for SHRP test section 100201, J4
• Figure 100. Graph. LTE versus longitudinal cracking for SHRP test section 100201, J4
• Figure 101. Graph. LTE versus transverse cracking for SHRP test section 100201, J4
• Figure 102. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average RFP based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 103. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average CFP based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 104. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average FCROP based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 105. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average RFP/RSP based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 106. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average CFP/CSP based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 107. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average FCROP/SCROP based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 108. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average RSP based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 109. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average CSP based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 110. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average SCROP based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 111. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average RSP based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 112. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average CSP based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 113. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average SCROP based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 114. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average RSP based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 115. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average CSP based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Figure 116. Graph. Comparison of the weighted average SCROP based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT

LIST OF TABLES

• Table 1. Engineering criteria and deduct points for alligator cracking
• Table 2. Estimated and reported pavement treatment service life
• Table 3. Threshold values that could be used in the AASHTO MEPDG
• Table 4. Trigger values for functional classifications
• Table 5. Example of decision matrix
• Table 6. Review of user cost components
• Table 7. Historical discount rates
• Table 8. T²M for single chip seal in Colorado
• Table 9. The SPS categories and experiments
• Table 10. The GPS experiments
• Table 11. Pavement condition rating based on three CSs
• Table 12. Pavement condition rating based on five CSs
• Table 13. Progressive calculation of RSP of the idealized rut depth shown in figure 31
• Table 14. RFP of LTTP test section 0102 in Iowa based on the IRI data shown and depicted in figure 34
• Table 15. Threshold values describing RFP
• Table 16. Threshold values describing RSP
• Table 17. Active LTPP SPS test sections as of January 2014
• Table 18. Active LTPP GPS test sections as of January 2014
• Table 19. Number of manual and semi-automated surveys for test sections 0101–0112 in LTPP SPS-1 experiment
• Table 20. Number of manual and semi-automated surveys for test sections 0113–0124 in LTPP SPS-1 experiment
• Table 21. Number of cracking data points available before treatment and after treatment for LTTP SPS-1 test sections in Montana
• Table 22. Number of LTTP SPS test sections with available treatment data in the database
• Table 23. Number of LTTP GPS test sections with available treatment data in the database
• Table 24. Condition or distress type eligible for data addition for different treatments
• Table 25. Summary of cracking data for LTPP SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF region
• Table 26. Summary of treatments applied to LTTP SPS-1 through -7 and GPS-6, -7, and -9 sections analyzed in this study
• Table 27. Description of the mathematical functions used in the analyses of the pavement distress and condition data
• Table 28. Crack saturation values used in the analyses of the pavement cracking data
• Table 29. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on IRI (years)
• Table 30. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP/RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on rut depth (years)
• Table 31. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on alligator cracking (years)
• Table 32. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on longitudinal cracking (years)
• Table 33. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on transverse cracking (years)
• Table 34. Summary of the results of analyses of the effects of climatic regions on the performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections
• Table 35. Linked GPS sections that serve as control sections⁽⁶⁰⁾
• Table 36. Number of test sections that have before treatment and after treatment pavement condition, distress, and traffic data
• Table 37. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI
• Table 38. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth
• Table 39. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking
• Table 40. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking
• Table 41. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking
• Table 42. Summary of the impact of treatment type on pavement performance compared with the control sections (years)
• Table 43. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI for virgin AC mixes (years)
• Table 44. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI for recycled AC mixes (years)
• Table 45. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth for virgin AC mixes (years)
• Table 46. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth for recycled AC mixes (years)
• Table 47. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking for virgin AC mixes (years)
• Table 48. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking for recycled AC mixes (years)
• Table 49. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking for virgin AC mixes (years)
• Table 50. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking for recycled AC mixes (years)
• Table 51. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking for virgin AC mixes (years)
• Table 52. Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking for recycled AC mixes (years)
• Table 53. Summary of benefits of various rehabilitation treatments (years)
• Table 54. Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CFP based on IRI (years)
• Table 55. Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CFP/CSP based on rut depth (years)
• Table 56. Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on alligator cracking (years)
• Table 57. Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on longitudinal cracking (years)
• Table 58. Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on transverse cracking (years)
• Table 59. Functional T²M for thin overlay using virgin AC mix (IRI, number of LTPP test sections)
• Table 60. Functional T²M for thick overlay using virgin AC mix (IRI, number of LTPP test sections)
• Table 61. Structural T²M for thin overlay using virgin AC mix (transverse cracking, number of LTPP test sections)
• Table 62. Structural T²M for thick overlay using virgin AC mix (transverse cracking, number of LTPP test sections)
• Table 63. ORCSE model table example from LTPP SPS-1 before treatment evaluation
• Table 64. ORCSE model table for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 1
• Table 65. ORCSE model table for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 2
• Table 66. ORCSE model table for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 3
• Table 67. ORCSE model table for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 4
• Table 68. ORCSE model table for LTPP SPS-1 virgin pavement analysis for iteration 5
• Table 69. ORCSE validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups for iteration 1
• Table 70. ORCSE validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups for iteration 2
• Table 71. ORCSE validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups for iteration 3
• Table 72. ORCSE validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups for iteration 4
• Table 73. ORCSE validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups for iteration 5
• Table 74. ORCSE summarized validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups for all iterations
• Table 75. ORCSE averaged validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups, all iterations
• Table 76. ORCSE median validation of estimated versus modeled CS groups, all iterations
• Table 77. Analysis subgroups and the number of test sections available for analyses in the LTPP SPS-2 experiment in each subgroup
• Table 78. Summary of the results of the analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width of 12 ft (3.66 m) and concrete flexural strength of 551 lbf/inch² (3.8 MPa)
• Table 79. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 14 ft (4.27 m) and concrete flexural strength of 551 lbf/inch² (3.8 MPa)
• Table 80. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 12 ft (3.66 m) and concrete flexural strength of 899 lbf/inch² (6.2 MPa)
• Table 81. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 14 ft (4.27 m) and concrete flexural strength of 899 lbf/inch² (6.2 MPa)
• Table 82. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 12 ft (3.66m) and concrete flexural strength of 551 lbf/inch² (3.8 MPa)
• Table 83. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 14ft (4.27m) and concrete flexural strength of 551 lbf/inch² (3.8 MPa)
• Table 84. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 12 ft (3.66m) and concrete flexural strength of 899 lbf/inch² (6.2 MPa)
• Table 85. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 14 ft (4.27m) and concrete flexural strength of 899 lbf/inch² (6.2 MPa)
• Table 86. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 12 ft (3.66m) and concrete flexural strength of 551 lbf/inch² (3.8 MPa)
• Table 87. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 14 ft (4.27m) and concrete flexural strength of 551 lbf/inch² (3.8 MPa)
• Table 88. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 12 ft (3.66m) and concrete flexural strength of 899 lbf/inch² (6.2 MPa)
• Table 89. Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 14 ft (4.27m) and concrete flexural strength of 899 lbf/inch² (6.2 MPa)
• Table 90. Summary of the results of the analyses of the effects of climatic region on the performance of the LTPP SPS-2 test sections
• Table 91. Number of test sections that have after treatment pavement condition and distress and traffic data
• Table 92. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI
• Table 93. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking
• Table 94. Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking
• Table 95. RFP of control sections and the impact of treatment types on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI
• Table 96. Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth
• Table 97. Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking
• Table 98. Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking
• Table 99. Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking
• Table 100. Impact of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI
• Table 101. Impact of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking
• Table 102. Impact of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking
• Table 103. Impacts of various treatment types on RFP of the test sections based on IRI
• Table 104. Impacts of various treatment types on RFP/RSP of the test sections based on rut depth
• Table 105. Impacts of various treatment types on RSP of test sections based on alligator cracking
• Table 106. Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking
• Table 107. Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking
• Table 108. LTPP SMP partial inventory data
• Table 109. The regression parameters of figure 71 for each deflection sensor
• Table 110. Regression values for Calculation of Parameters A, B, and C in figure 73 through figure 75
• Table 111. Averages and overall average of the regression parameters of TAF (figure 72) for each climatic region
• Table 112. Summary of deflection for sensor 1 versus time trend descriptions
• Table 113. Backcalculated resilient modulus values
• Table 114. LTPP SPS-2 partial inventory data
• Table 115. Summary of deflection for sensor 1 versus time trend descriptions for LTPPSPS-2
• Table 116. Summary of LTE versus time trend descriptions
• Table 117. Number of 0.1-mi (0.16-km)-long pavement segments and LTPP test sections for each treatment type available for analyses
• Table 118. Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Table 119. Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Table 120. Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Table 121. Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT
• Table 122. Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects of CDOT, LADOTD, and WSDOT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS