Reliability in rigid pavement design - Transportation.org · M-E PDG Design Reliability Output –...

Further Calibration of the Distress Further Calibration of the Distress

Prediction Models & Reliability EffectsPrediction Models & Reliability Effects

ME PDG Rigid Pavement

Design Reliability Update

Expanding the Realm of Possibility

NCHRP 1NCHRP 1--40B & 140B & 1--40D Team40D Team

Applied Research Associates

� Michael Darter

� Jagannath Mallela

� Harold Von Quintus

� Gregg Larson

� Leslie Titus-Glover

� Chetana Rao

� Dulce Rufino

� Alex Gotlif

U of Minnesota

� Lev Khazanovich

� Graduate students

� Ed Harrigan & Panel

� Matt Witczak

� Mohamed El-Basyoumy

� Claudia Zapata

� Graduate students

PresentationPresentation

�Reliability Definition M-E PDG

�2004 Calibration

�2005 Independent validation

�2006 Recalibration

� Illustrations of project predictions

�Conclusions

MM--E PDG Design Reliability E PDG Design Reliability

DefinitionDefinition–– Rigid PavementRigid Pavement

� JPCP

� RF = P [Fault < Critical Fault]

� RC = P [Crack < Critical Crack]

� RIRI = P [IRI < Critical IRI]

� CRCP

� RPO = P [Punchout < Critical PO]

� RIRI = P [IRI < Critical IRI]

MM--E PDG Design Reliability E PDG Design Reliability

Output Output –– Rigid PavementRigid Pavement

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22

Pavement age, years

IRI at 50%

IRI at 95%

Reliability,

Residual

Critical IRI

MM--E PDG Design Reliability Output E PDG Design Reliability Output

–– Rigid PavementRigid Pavement

Distress

Target

Reliability

Target

Distress

Predicted

Reliability

Predicted Acceptable

172 95 130 83.15 Fail

15 95 1.6 99.98 Pass

0.15 95 0.089 93.13 Fail

Transverse Cracking (% slabs cracked)

Mean Joint Faulting (in)

Performance Criteria

Terminal IRI (in/mi)

Design Reliability ApproachDesign Reliability Approach

� IRI model: closed form variance solution:

Var {IRI} = Var {Initial IRI} + Var {Distress} +

Var {Site Factors} + Var {Residual}

� Distress models: used model residuals (predicted – measured) determined from calibration results

Residuals from Calibration Residuals from Calibration

� Residual = predicted –measured

� Causes� Random (replicate) variation

� Input selection error

� Distress/IRI measure error

� Difference between project mean and 500-ft section

� Model deficiency residual

� Relative magnitude of each?

0 3 6 9 12 15 18

Age, years

Mean tra

nsverse joint

faulting, in

LTPP data 1-37A model

Section Faulting History

Residuals from Calibration Residuals from Calibration

� Residuals represent the

knowledge that existsof the accuracy of the distress prediction

model.

� Large model deficiency residuals indicates we

are not explaining the

physical phenomenon

Predicted Vs Measured Slab Crack

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Measured percent slabs cracked

R2 = 0.86

SEE = 5.02 percent

N = 1585

y = 0.9698x

R2 = 0.8445

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Derivation of Cracking Standard Deviation FunctionDerivation of Cracking Standard Deviation Function

21 3 4

Predicted vs. Standard Deviation of Measured Predicted vs. Standard Deviation of Measured

CrackingCracking

STDC = -0.00172*CRACK2 + 0.3447*CRACK + 4.6772

0 20 40 60 80 100

Predicted cracking, percent

measured

predicted

JPCP Cracking ReliabilityJPCP Cracking Reliability

CRACKR = predicted cracking at reliability level R,

percent slabs

CRACK50= predicted cracking based on mean inputs

(50% reliability), percent slabs

STDC = standard deviation of cracking at predicted

level of mean cracking

ZR = standard normal deviate (one-tailed)

CRACKR

= CRACK50

+ STDC

• ZR

Residuals of PredictionResiduals of Prediction

� Variations/Uncertainties NOT included:� Future design traffic estimation error

� Calibration database limitations (short sections, missing some design and materials, etc.)

� Others???

2004 Sections Used 12004 Sections Used 1--37A37A

22 States55CRCP LTPP GPS-5

20-years, US 40, IL6CRCP Vandalia, IL

Chicago, Illinois11CRCP Other

23 States196JPCP LTPP GPS-3 & SPS-2

14 States

10 States

Rehab JPCP CPR, OL

Rehab CRCP OL

9 States36JPCP FHWA RPPR

LocationNo. of SectionsProjects

2005 Validation: NCHRP 12005 Validation: NCHRP 1--40B40B

�Objective was to evaluate adequacy of models developed under NCHRP 1-37A for ME PDG system.

�Criteria

� Pavement sections NOT used in original calibration under NCHRP 1-37A.

� Pavement sections had mostly level 1 and 2 data available for analysis.

2005 Test Sections NCHRP 12005 Test Sections NCHRP 1--40B40B

Minnesota9MnRoad

CT, IA, MI, TX4LTPP GPS-5 (CRCP)

South Carolina12I-77 (CRCP)

Illinois25

Extended AASHO

(Interstate 80)

Virginia4“Smart” Road (CRCP)

Iowa12LTPP SPS-2

Arkansas12LTPP SPS-2

Arizona8

LTPP SPS-2 (Supplemental)

2006 Recalibration: NCHRP 12006 Recalibration: NCHRP 1--40D40D

� Objective was to recalibrate models included in the original M-E PDG.

� DATA: Major increase in quantity & quality of performance data.

� Original sections: Updated observed distress/IRI from 2000 to 2005.

� Added new JPCP, CRCP, and Rehab sections.

� Combined database: 2004, 2005, & 2006

LTPP GPS-3 JPCP Sections LTPP SPS-2, MnROAD, & AASHO JPCP Sections

LTPP GPS-5 CRCP Sections

Illinois, South Carolina, & Virginia CRCP Sections

Expanding the Realm of PossibilityLTPP, NCHRP 10-41, ACPA Diamond Grinding Sections SPS-6 Sections

2006 Recalibration: JPCP2006 Recalibration: JPCP

Minnesota9MN Road

Illinois25Extended AASHO

(AASHO + I-80)

25 States260LTPP GPS-3, SPS-2

Note: Most sections have multiple observations over time

2006 Recalibration: CRCP2006 Recalibration: CRCP

22 States59LTPP GPS-5 (CRCP)

South Carolina12I-77 (CRCP)

Virginia4 (crack spacing)“Smart” Road (CRCP)

Chicago, Illinois10 (heavy traffic)Illinois Interstate

1947-67 US 40

Vandalia, IL 6Vandalia, IL

2006 Recalibration: Rehab2006 Recalibration: Rehab

15 States30

JPCP CPR and OL

(SPS-6, GPS-9, NCHRP

10-41, Others)

To be completedLTPP SPS-6 (HMA

overlays)

10 states42CRCP Overlays (GPS-9,

NCHRP 10-40, others)

LocationNo. of Data Points

Projects

�Calibration process

� Preparation of expanded database (huge effort)

� Improvement of models and algorithms & software modification

� Calibration process, models

� Preparation of final calibrated software

�Calibration process documentation

�NCHRP Research Results Digest 308: >300 software and engineering improvements Version 0.900

�Many additional improvements for Version 1.000 (Feb 2007)

JPCP Cracking Model 2006JPCP Cracking Model 2006

Cracking+

Model Coefficients

1-37A: C1 = 1.0 ; C2 = -1.68

1-40D: C1 = 1.0; C2 = -2.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

nt sla

dR2 = 0.86

SEE = 5.02 percent

N = 1585

JPCP Unbonded Overlay Cracking Model 2006JPCP Unbonded Overlay Cracking Model 2006

Cracking+

Model Coefficients

1-37A: C1 = 1.0 ; C2 = -1.68

1-40D: C1 = 1.0; C2 = -2.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2 = 0.72

SEE = 3.95 percent

N = 60

JPCP CPR Cracking Model 2006JPCP CPR Cracking Model 2006

Cracking+

Model Coefficients

1-37A: C1 = 1.0 ; C2 = -1.68

1-40D: C1 = 1.0; C2 = -2.00

0 20 40 60 80 100

racked

R2 = 0.90

N = 94

SEE = 6.5 percent

JPCP Joint Faulting Model 2006JPCP Joint Faulting Model 2006

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

Measured mean transverse joint faulting, in

int fa

R2 = 0.62

SEE = 0.0276 in

N = 1260

JPCP CPR Faulting Model 2006JPCP CPR Faulting Model 2006

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

Measured transverse joint faulting, in

R2 = 0.61

N = 40

SEE = 0.02 in

CRCP Punchout Model 2006CRCP Punchout Model 2006

Model Coefficients

1-37A: C1 = 105 ; C2 = 4; C3 = -0.38

1-40D: C1 = 196; C2 = 20; C3 = -0.50

y = 0.9993x

R2 = 0.7395

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Predicted punchouts, #/mile

R2 = 0.74

SEE= 3.6

N = 345

Comparison of Measured and Comparison of Measured and

Predicted JPCP IRIPredicted JPCP IRI

0 50 100 150 200 250

Measured IRI, in/mile

ile N = 1148

R2 = 0.64

SEE = 13.7 in/mi

LTPP 6LTPP 6--3030, CA3030, CA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pavement Age, years

Measured (12-ft) Predicted (12-ft)

Measured (19-ft) Predicted (19-ft)

LTPP 12LTPP 12--3811, FL3811, FL

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pavement Age, years

racked

Measured Predicted

LTPP 5LTPP 5--0214, AR0214, AR

0 2 4 6 8 10

Pavement Age, years

Measured Predicted

LTPP 53LTPP 53--3013, WA3013, WA

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Pavement Age, years

Measured Predicted

Crack Spacing in VA Smart RoadCrack Spacing in VA Smart Road

1 2 3 4

M-E PDG prediction - friction limit and set temperature

Four year field data

ATB 12 CTB 14 ATB 12 CTB 14

Crack Width Crack Width at Steel Depthat Steel Depth

VA Smart RoadVA Smart Road

1 2 3 4

ME PDG - at friction limit, set temperature

ME PDG - field crack spacing

Measured at surface

ATB 12 CTB 14 ATB 12 CTB 14

Punchout Prediction for LTPPPunchout Prediction for LTPP Texas 48Texas 48__53105310

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pavement age, years

e Measured punchout

Predicted punchout

Punchout Prediction for LTPPPunchout Prediction for LTPP Connecticut 9Connecticut 9__05010501

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pavement age, years

Measured punchout

Predicted punchout

IRI Prediction for LTPP CRCP IRI Prediction for LTPP CRCP Iowa 19_5046Iowa 19_5046

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Pavement age, years

Predicted IRI

Measured IRI

Comparison 1Comparison 1--37A with 137A with 1--40D40D

Punchouts

Faulting

Cracking

Distress

Local Calibration PotentialLocal Calibration Potential

� All models can be adjusted (Tools, Calibration, Coefs.)

� Key effect: Eliminate “bias”of prediction (significant over

prediction or under prediction

of distress).

� Possible effect: Reduce

residual of prediction

(depends on quality of data).

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30

Measured mean transverse joint faulting, in

mean tra

nsvers

R2 = 0.74

SEE = 0.025 inN = 43

ConclusionsConclusions

� The design reliability methodology used in the

ME-PDG is radically different than that used in

the 1986-93 version.

� Overcomes the major problem that exists with the old

AASHTO version for heavy traffic where the AASHTO model must be entered with extremely large ESALs

which extrapolates far, far, far beyond the accuracy of

the model.

� The result is extreme conservatism in thickness which results in large over design (and excessive thickness

often doesn’t extend life).

� Reliability design methodology in ME-PDG is practical to use (not complicated). But, requires consideration of more than thickness.

� JPCP: thickness, dowel diameter, & joint spacing must be considered together. Other factors may be varied as well.

� CRCP: thickness and reinforcement content must be considered together. Other factors may be varied as well.

� Methodology appears to produce reasonable results over range of reliability

Reliability Level Impact for JPCP ProjectReliability Level Impact for JPCP Project

Design Reliability Vs Slab Thickness

60 80 90 95 99 99.9

Design Reliability

ess, in

Reliability Level Impact for JPCP ProjectReliability Level Impact for JPCP Project

Design Reliability Vs Dowel Diameter

60 80 90 95 99 99.9

Design Reliability

ia., in

� Concepts applied uniformly between pavement

types and overlays and thus should produce

equitable designs.

� The value of “Reliability” (e.g., 90% or 95%)

should not be considered as exact probability, but

relative probability only.

� Selection of Design Reliability values for

designs of low to heavy traffic requires local

consideration and should be a policy issue. It

should be based on consequences of success

or failure of the pavement to perform as

designed & on cost implications. Do NOT use

the old AASHTO recommendations for the new

ME-PDG reliability.

� At the end of the day, the prediction models gain validity for:

�predicting in situ pavement performance, &

�showing reasonable practical sensitivity (see CA, TX, AR, IA, MN, & KS studies).

� This validation activity is far larger and more comprehensive than any other ever conducted to validate predictive engineering models.

� This widespread validation adds to improvement in design reliability.

Thank You!

Any Questions?

Reliability in rigid pavement design - Transportation.org · M-E PDG Design Reliability Output –...

Documents

Rigid pavement distress

CEU321 STATISTICS, PROBABILITY AND RELIABILITY …nitc.ac.in/dept/ce/curri/Syllabus_Electives.pdf · General conditions in Rigid Pavement Analysis, ESWL, ... IRC: 58 - 2002 ... Prerequisite

Distress SIgnals - chamberssailing.org€¦ · Web viewA . distress signal. or . distress call. is an internationally recognized means for obtaining help. Distress signals can be

RUNNING HEAD: MORAL DISTRESS 1 Moral Distress in Nurses

Design for Manufacturability of Rigid Multi-Layer Boards€¦ · Manufacturability (DFM) and reliability for rigid multi-layer boards. Manufacturability is the practice of designing

Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Thickness Variation ... · nondestructive tests, thickness, pavement distress, rigid pavements, concrete pavements, ultrasonic tests, tomography

fetal distress

RC-1504 - Effect of Michigan Multi-Axle Trucks on Pavement ......EFFECT OF MICHIGAN MULTI-AXLE TRUCKS ON PAVEMENT DISTRESS Volume III – Rigid Pavements Karim Chatti, Ph.D. ... flexible

Respiratory distress in the neonate Respiratory distress ... · Respiratory distress in the neonate • Pulmonary causes: – Respiratory Distress Syndrome: ... – Space occupying

distress identification manual distress identification manual

SLDT, SLDTD SERIES OF HIGH-PRESSURE HORIZONTAL MULTI … · Shaft: rigid shaft is adopted to ensure running reliability. API610 API610 Pressure-bearing reliability: the parts at press-bearing

09Moral Distress

Designing Flex and Rigid Flex Applicaitons - …circuits-corp.com/.../03/Designing-Flex-and-Rigid-Flex-Applications... · Designing Flex and Rigid Flex Products for High Reliability

Distress Mitokondria

RIGID FITTINGS Rigid Steel Galvanized Conduit … Cut Sheets/47 Rigid...800.223.0483 | allcurrent.com 47 RIGID FITTINGS | Rigid Steel Galvanized Conduit Couplings PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION

Quarrying and Aggregate Industry - Komatsu Australia · stresses in a quarry environment, to maximise production, reliability and operator safety. excavaTorS rigid duMp TrucKS

Extrémní · Design Vinyl Home/Home Click RIGID 12 ... Silver Click RIGID/Platinum Cork Click RIGID/Venus Click RIGID/Venus Cork Click RIGID. 24 Apex Click RIGID. 25 BALTERIO RIGID

Rigid Pavement Networking Rehabilitation Scheduling Using ... · Report No. 249-5, "Rigid Pavement Network Rehabilitation Scheduling Using Distress Quantities," by Manuel Gutierrez

Rigid Pavement Networking Rehabilitation Scheduling Using Distress Quantitieslibrary.ctr.utexas.edu/digitized/TexasArchive/phase1/249-5-CTR.pdf · ABSTRACT This report presents the

Ethics Grand Rounds Moral Distress and High Reliability