Rideability Prediction of HMA Overlay Treatment of Flexible and Composite Pavements

By

Muhammad Jamal Khattak

Associate Professor University of Louisiana at Lafayette Muhammad A. Nur and Muhammad R. Bhuyan Graduate Research Assistant University of Louisiana at Lafayette

Presentation Layout
1. Background
Pavement Treatment Study: LTRC-10-4P Research Objectives Research Phases

2. Development of IRI Models

Data Source Project Selection Factors Effecting IRI Statistical Analysis IRI Model Behavior

3. Conclusions and Recommendations

Pavement Treatment Study LTRC-10-4P

Background
LADOTD has spent substantial financial resources on various rehabilitation/maintenance treatments to
minimize the pavement distresses and improve the pavement life

Effectiveness of any treatment largely depends on the time of treatment and trigger governed by treatment performance models. Recent study completed by LTRC regarding PMS emphasized the importance of developing treatment performance models

Pavement Treatment Study LTRC-10-4P

Objective of Study
Develop pavement treatment performance models in support of cost-effective selection of pavement treatment type and time of treatment.

Pavement Treatment Study LTRC-10-4P

Three Phase Study
1. Phase I - Review and Project Selection

2. Phase II
- Treatment Performance Modeling - Costs Benefits of Treatments

3. Phase III
-Model Integration and Training

Development of International Roughness Index (IRI) Model

IRI Model
Threshold
RSL-1

IRI

RSL-2

Elapsed Time (Year)

IRI Model
Threshold
RSL(BT)

LE

IRI
RSL(AT)

LE= RSL (AT) RSL (BT)

Elapsed Time (Year)

Development of IRI Model

Data Source
Project Selection Factors Effecting IRI Statistical Analysis IRI Model Behavior

Data Source
Historical Data
LADOTDs mainframe database Material testing system (MATT) Tracking of Projects (TOPS) Letting of projects (LETS) Highway NEEDS, the traffic volumes data, and the pavement design and system preservation database.

Data Source
Distress Data
Distress data from PMS database IRI, Rut, Fatigue, Longitudinal and Transverse crackings Recorded every two years by the automatic road analyzer (ARAN) for every 1/10th of a mile (19952009)

Data Source
Climatic Data 20 weather stations throughout
Louisiana-National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Daily maximum, minimum and

mean temperature (2000-10)

Daily precipitation values from year (2000 -12) Inverse distance weighting (IDW) method- For data interpolation.

Project Selection
Project Selection
All pavement sections having: One IRI data point just before treatment Three or more IRI data points after treatments Criteria 1- One IRI data point before treatment. Criteria 2- Positive gain in distress based on the best-fit curve.

Acceptance Criteria

Project Selection
Composite Pavement
78 projects were selected comprising of 451.5 km (280 mile) Data averaged for each projects No. Observation=280 170 projects were selected comprising of 1168.7 km (726.2 mile) Data averaged for each projects No. Observation=623

Flexible Criteria

Factor Effecting IRI

Factors Effecting IRI Equivalent Single Axle Load (ESAL) HMA Overlay thickness (Th) PCC layer thickness (TPCC) Functional classification (FC) IRI just before treatment (IRIp) Temperature Index (TI) New Precipitation Index (PI)

Factor Effecting IRI

Factors Effecting IRI New Temperature Index (TI) similar to Freezing
Index (FI) is introduced to evaluate the effect of temperature.

TI represents the variation of temperature of a

particular project over the year with reference to 20oC (68oF)

A negative One-degree day---> One day below

20oC ---> {20-21=1oC}. 1-day= 1-oC-day

Factor Effecting IRI

600

Cumulative Degree-days

400 200
0 -200 -400 -600

Control Section 850-29-1 TI for year 2010

-800
Dec. 31 Cumulative Degree-days -25

-1000

Jan. 31 -362

Feb. 28 -703

Mar. 31 -896

Temperature Index (degree-days)

Apr. 30 -866 May. 31 -676

Jun. 30 -413

Jul. 31 -142

Aug. 31 135

Sep. 30 335

Oct. 31 353

Nov. 30 223

Factor Effecting IRI

Temperature Index (TI) Year 2008
1400

Temperature Index (C Days)

1200

1000

800

600 2 3 4 5 7 8 58 61 62

LADOTD Districts

Factor Effecting IRI

Cumulative Temperature Index (C Days)
25000 001-02-1 20000 15000
10000 5000 0 2000

001-08-1 003-06-1

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

Data Collection Year

Factor Effecting IRI

Precipitation Index (PI) The PI is the product of cumulative
precipitation/year and number of days/year of precipitation.

PI= P. Np

P is the total precipitation/year (cm), and Np is the number of days of precipitation in the year. pavement to moisture

PI represents the amount and exposure of

Factor Effecting IRI

Precipitation Index (PI) For Year 2008
36000 Precipitation Index (cm-days)

32000

28000

24000

20000 2 3 4 5 7 8 58 61 62

LADOTD Districts

Factor Effecting IRI

Cumulative Precipitation Index (cm-days)
150000 120000 001-02-1 001-08-1 003-06-1

90000 60000 30000

0 2000

2002

2004 2006 2008 Data CollectionYear

2010

Regression Analysis
HMA on Composite Pavement
ln(CESAL) ln( IRI ) ao a1. ln( IRI p ) a2 . .FC a3 .CTI .t a4 .PI (Th / TPCC )
1.732 0.310Ln(SDo ) 0.362 ln( IRI PP )
CESAL= Cummulative Equivalent Single Axle Load Th= HMA Overlay thickness TPCC= PCC layer thickness

FC= Functional classification

IRIp= IRI just before treatment CTI= Cummulative Temperature Index PI= Precipitation Index

SDo= Standard Deviation

t= Elapsed time after treatment

Regression Analysis
Regression Statistics
Multiple R R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations 0.79 0.63 0.62 0.254 280

F-statistics
Significance-F

91.88
1.61x10-56 Standard Error 0.204 0.0004 0.039 1.0x10-06 2.8x10-06

Coefficients
ao a1 a2 a3 a4

Value
2.0829 0.00151 0.2727 2.22x10-06 5.36x10-06

t-stats
10.20 3.50 6.98 2.17 1.93

p-values
6.3x10-21 0.0005 2.2x10-11 0.031 0.055

Regression Analysis
7

n=280 R2=0.63

Predicted Ln(IRI), (cm/km)

3 3 4 5 6 Actual Ln(IRI), (cm/km) 7

Regression Analysis
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1

Residual

4 5 6 Predicted Ln(IRI), (cm/km)

Regression Analysis
HMA on Flexible Pavement
ln( IRI ) ao a1.( 1 ln(CESAL ) ) a2 . a3 .TI a4 .CPI .t FC (Th ) 1.304 0.7231Ln(SDo ) 0.513Ln( IRI PP )
CESAL= Cummulative Equivalent Single Axle Load Th= HMA Overlay thickness

FC= Functional classification

IRIpp= Existing/Current IRI value TI= Temperature Index PI= Cummulative Precipitation Index

SDo= Standard Deviation

t= Elapsed time after treatment

Regression Analysis
Regression Statistics
Multiple R
R Square Adjusted R Square Standard Error Observations F-statistics Significance-F Coefficients ao Value 3.7032 Standard Error 0.0737

0.685
0.47 0.46 0.16 623 108.953 2.17x10-82 t-stats 50.270 p-values 0.00

a1
a2 a3 a4 a5

-0.27981
0.12078 2.66x10-04 9.19x10-08 0.1958

0.0571
0.01436 6.42x10-05 1.47x10-08 0.01214

-4.905
8.413 4.148 6.249 16.122

1.20x10-06
2.79x10-16 3.83x10-05 7.71x10-10 4.67x10-49

Regression Analysis
6

n=623 R2=0.47
Predicted Ln(IRI), (cm/km)

4 4 5 Actual Ln(IRI), (cm/km) 6

Regression Analysis
0.8

0.6
0.4 0.2

Residual

0
-0.2

-0.4
-0.6 -0.8 4 5 Predicted Ln(IRI), (cm/km) 6

Regression Analysis
0.25 100%

75 % of Data used for Modelling

0.2

25 % of Data used for Predicting

90% 80% 70%

Normalized Frequency

0.15

60% 50%

0.1

40% 30%

0.05

20% 10%

0%

-40 -30 -20 -10 0

10 20 30 40

-40 -30 -20 -10 0

10 20 30 40

Error (%)

Cumulative %

Model Behavior
400

Composite
IRI, (cm/km)
300 200

100

0
0 001-03-1 Threshold 5 10 15 052-06-1 008-07-1 20

Time, (Years)
008-07-1 001-03-1

Model Behavior
400

Flexible

300

IRI, (cm/km)

200

100

0 0 5 10 15 20

Time, (Years)
084-01-1 084-01-1 027-01-1 027-01-1 176-01-1 176-01-1 Threshold

Conclusions

IRI largely affected by cumulative ESAL, thickness of the pavement, temperature and precipitation.
IRI of the overlay was a function of the pretreatment condition of the road and highway functional classification. IRI prediction models were developed which exhibited good agreements between the measured and predicted IRI values. Newly developed temperature index (TI) and precipitation index (PI) showed strong statistical significance for predicting IRI.

It is postulated that the developed models will be a good pavement management tool for predicting the IRI of the overlay treatment, which will facilitate timely maintenance and rehabilitation action.

Thanks!