Paper No.

01-2601

Development of Roughness Thresholds for Preventive Maintenance of Pavements Using PMS Distress and Ride Quality Data

Doseung Lee Graduate Student Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 Tel: (517) 355-6534 Fax: (517) 432-1827
leedoseu@pilot.msu.edu

Karim Chatti, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) Assistant Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 Tel: (517) 355-6534 Fax: (517) 432-1827
chatti@egr.msu.edu

Gilbert Y. Baladi, Ph.D., P.E. Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Michigan State University, E. Lansing, MI 48824 Tel: (517) 355-6534 Fax: (517) 432-1827
baladi@egr.msu.edu

Word Count : 6,711

Transportation Research Board 80th Annual Meeting January 7-11, 2001 Washington, D.C.

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

ABSTRACT In this paper, 462 pavement sections from thirty-seven projects in Michigan were analyzed to investigate the interaction between pavement surface roughness and distress. The main hypothesis of this research is that an increase in roughness leads to higher dynamic axle loads, which in turn can lead to a tangible acceleration in pavement distress. If this relationship is established, then it will be possible to plan a preventive maintenance (PM) action to smoothen the pavement surface. Such a PM action is bound to extend the service life of the pavement by several years. The objectives of this research were to develop a roughness threshold. The selected projects include thirteen rigid, fifteen flexible and nine composite pavements. The Ride Quality Index (RQI) and Distress Index (DI) were used as measures of surface roughness and distress, respectively. To get a good relationship between distress caused by dynamic loading and surface roughness, dynamic load-related distress types were extracted. The analysis showed very good relationships between dynamic load-related distress and roughness for rigid and composite pavements (R2 = 0.739 and 0.624); however for flexible pavements there was significant scatter (R2 = 0.375). This probably reflects the higher variability in flexible pavements, indicating that weak spots in the pavement will tend to attract load-related damage as opposed to rougher spots inducing higher dynamic axle loads. A logistic function was used to fit the data. Roughness thresholds were determined as the RQI-values corresponding to peak acceleration in distress. These were determined to be 64 (corresponding to IRI of 124 in/mile) for rigid pavements and 51 (IRI of 89) for composite pavements. Key words : pavement distresses, roughness threshold, ride quality, dynamic axle load, preventive maintenance

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

INTRODUCTION Dynamic pavement loading due to the mix of commercial heavy trucks that make up the national fleet has been steadily increasing in the US as the national highway network continues to age. While this may be somewhat counteracted by an increase in the use of "road-friendly" vehicles, truck loading and its dynamic component remain a major cause of road damage. Previous research has suggested that dynamic wheel loads, caused by surface roughness, can be up to 40 percent higher than static loads (1). All road surfaces are inherently rough even when they are new, and they become increasingly rougher with age depending on pavement type, traffic volume, environment etc. This process is the result of the interaction between vehicles and pavements. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that there is a threshold value in roughness where dynamic load increases sharply leading to acceleration in pavement damage. If this threshold value exists, it could be a useful preventive maintenance (PM) tool, whereby a PM action, such as smoothing the pavement surface, is taken to extend the service life of a given pavement for several years. Many government and state agencies use roughness as one of the objective measures for the management of their pavement network. The Michigan DOT uses the Ride Quality Index (RQI) to characterize surface roughness. MDOT has also been surveying surface distresses for the entire pavement network in a systematic fashion, since 1992. The Distress Index (DI) is used to quantify the severity and extent of surface distresses along a project. In this paper, measured roughness and distress index data from thirty-seven pavement projects (462 sections including rigid, flexible and composite pavements) were analyzed for the purpose of determining RQIthreshold values aimed at minimizing pavement damage due to dynamic loading.

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

METHODOLOGY The main hypothesis of this research is that an increase in pavement roughness leads to higher dynamic axle loads in certain portions of the road. This amplification in the load magnitude can lead to a tangible acceleration in pavement distress. If the relationship between increased loading and increased distress is established, then it will be possible to determine the optimal timing for preventive maintenance action in the form of smoothing of the pavement surface (by way of milling, grinding or a thin overlay). This is bound to extend the service life of the pavement by several years. The objectives of this research were to: 1) test the above hypothesis; 2) develop a threshold based on roughness and dynamic loading considerations; and 3) determine the optimal timing of the preventive maintenance action aimed at extending the pavement service life. These objectives were achieved by using two parallel approaches: 1) a mechanistic approach, relating dynamic loading to pavement profile; and 2) an empirical approach, relating pavement distress to surface roughness at increasing levels of surface roughness. Only the results from the second approach are summarized in this paper. ROAD SURFACE ROUGHNESS Roughness is not only an indicator of road surface condition but also excites the dynamic behavior of trucks, thus increasing damage. There are several ways for quantifying road roughness. One of the most widely used parameters is the International Roughness Index (IRI). Another way of quantifying road roughness is the Ride Quality Index (RQI), which was developed and is being used by MDOT. Ride Quality Index (RQI) As its name suggests, the RQI describes the ride quality of the road. In the early 1970s MDOT conducted a study to determine an objective measure that would correlate ride quality to

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

the subjective opinions of highway users. Using "Psychometric" tests, it was found that some components of a road have a strong effect on user opinion, while others have a significantly lesser effect (2). Through a series of mathematical and statistical steps, the Power Spectral Density (PSD) was found to correlate at 90 percent with subjective opinions. Based on this, the profile is split into three wavelength bands: 0.6-1.5 m (2-5 ft), 1.5-7.6m (5-25ft), and 7.6-15.2 m (25-50ft). Wavelengths shorter than 0.61 m (2 ft) mostly create tire noise and those longer than 15.2 m (50 ft) fail to disturb the vehicle suspension. The RQI is calculated from these three PSD wavelength bands according to the equation shown below (3): RQI=3*ln(Var1)+6*ln(Var2)+9*ln(Var3) where: Var1, Var2 and Var3 are variances for 7.6-15.2 m, 1.5-7.6m and 0.6-1.5 m wavelengths, respectively. An RQI value between zero and 30 indicates excellent ride quality, 31 to 54 good ride quality, 55 to 70 fair ride quality and more than 70 is considered poor pavement ride quality (3). The longitudinal profile for the entire pavement network in Michigan is measured annually using a Rapid Travel Profilometer (RTP). The data is used to calculate both the RQI and the IRI (International Roughness Index), which is reported to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Figure 1 shows the correlations between RQI and IRI for rigid, flexible and composite pavements. PAVEMENT DAMAGE EVALUATION The MDOT collects both functional and structural distress data to assess the surface condition of the pavement. Distress data are collected by videotaping 50 percent of the pavement network every year. The videotapes are reviewed in the office and each distress on the pavement surface within each 10-ft (3m) long section is identified, reviewed, checked, scored and stored in the PMS databank. Hence the data includes information on the status of each crack and its

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

location within the 10-ft (3m) long section. The distress data are then grouped into surveying unit sections that are 0.1-mile (161 m) long. Thus the PMS databank contains, for each 0.1-mile (161 m) segment of the road, detailed data for each type of pavement distress and the severity and extent of the associated distress. The term associated distress is used in MDOT rehabilitation practice to denote secondary distresses associated with the principal distress. For example, spalling associated with a transverse crack would be considered as associated distress for the transverse crack. The MDOT PMS group has developed a rating system whereby each type of principal distress and its associated distress level are ranked and assigned Distress Points (DP) based on their impact on pavement performance and on experience. For any pavement section, the Distress Index (DI) can be calculated as the sum of distress points along the section normalized to the section length. The length of the pavement section (L) is expressed in terms of 161 m (0.1mile) unit-sections. The equation for the DI follows: DI= DP/L where: DI = Distress Index

DP = Sum of the distress points along the pavement section L = Length of the pavement section in 161m (0.1 mile) unit sections

The DI scale starts at zero for a perfect pavement and it increases (without a limit) as the pavement condition worsens. MDOT categorizes DI into three levels: Low; <20, Medium; 2040, and High; >40. A pavement with a DI of 50 is considered to have exhausted its service life; hence its remaining service life (RSL) is zero, and it is a candidate project for rehabilitation. This DI-threshold-value was established based on historical pavement performance and condition data and on experience.

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

DATA ANALYSIS The analysis in this research consisted of three phases: The first phase was aimed at showing how one could use roughness and distress data for the purpose of discerning between dynamic load-related distress and non-load-related distress. The results from the first phase showed that plotting roughness and distress profiles together along the project length allows for identifying zones of high distress and high roughness, high distress and low. Combining the above information with the trends of distress and roughness indices from year to year allows for discerning load-related from non-load-related distress accumulation. In addition to these plots, dynamic-load and distress-point profiles along the project length were plotted and the coefficients of correlation () between dynamic loading and distress points were determined. In this analysis, dynamic load profiles for thirty-six 161-m (0.1-mile) sections were generated using a standard five-axle tractor-semi-trailer and the TruckSim truck simulation program. Distress Points (DP) were also calculated at 3-m (10-ft) intervals along each section, using MDOT's distress data. These plots and the corresponding coefficients of correlation () also allow for discerning dynamic load-related from non-dynamic load-related distress accumulation. The detailed results from this phase appear elsewhere (4, 5). The second phase was aimed at getting a relationship between roughness (or dynamic load) and load-related distresses by isolating dynamic- load-related distresses from non-load related ones, and deciding on roughness threshold values. This phase is the focus of this paper. The third phase consisted in developing a model for determining the optimal timing of PM smoothing action. In this model, the concept of an RQI "trigger" value was introduced. These trigger-values represent the value at which planning for the smoothing PM action some years down the road needs to take place. Based on actual RQI-growth rates from 112 in-service (rigid) pavements, a reliability table was generated indicating the probabilities that the pavement

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

will not reach the threshold RQI-value before x years for different RQItrigger-values, with x being the PM planning period. The detailed results from the third phase are reported elsewhere (6). Site Selection The study involves the analysis of roughness and distress data from a limited number of actual pavement projects in Michigan. Ten projects with known performance records and having exhibited some distress and twenty-seven projects where preventive maintenance activities were done during 1997 and 1998 were selected. The thirty-seven sites were analyzed to get relationships between roughness and distress, and to come up with roughness threshold values. Thirteen of the thirty-seven sites were rigid; fifteen were flexible; and nine were composite pavements. The length of these pavement projects varied from 2.4 to 26.4 km (1.5 to 16.5 miles) with an average project length of 10 km (6.25 miles). Their ages ranged from 1 to 43 years. The commercial daily traffic volume ranged from 70 to 8900. The selected sites for each phase are listed in Table 1. Data Collection For the thirty-seven selected sites, DI and RQI data as well as road surface profiles were obtained from the MDOT PMS database. DI values were available for 1993, 1995 and 1997, whereas RQI values and road profiles were available for the period between 1992 and 1996. The DI and RQI data was available for each 161 m long (0.1 mile) section. Surface profile data were converted to ASCII files containing surface elevations at 76-mm (3-in.) intervals. Detailed distress data in the form of distress type, severity and extent was also available at 3m (10-ft) intervals. The data was then converted to Distress Points (DP). Relationship between Distress, Roughness, and Dynamic Load The relationship between surface roughness and dynamic axle loads is well established, and the models for simulating the response of heavy vehicles to road roughness are well

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

developed and validated (7). As mentioned above, the TruckSim program was used to generate dynamic axle loads for a standard 5-axle tractor-semi-trailer moving at 96 km/hr (60 mph). This program was developed at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). The program is used to predict vehicle vibration due to pavement surface roughness and the dynamic axle loads resulting from these vibrations. It uses detailed non-linear tire and spring models, and includes major kinematic and compliance effects in the suspensions and steering systems. The use of the 5-axle tractor semi-trailer is based on earlier analysis which showed that dynamic loads from the three main truck types traveling on US highways (2-axle and 3-axle single unit trucks and the 5-axle tractor-semi-trailer) were repeatable in space, with a coefficient of correlation higher than 0.7. In this analysis, actual pavement surface profiles from 333 sections evenly divided among the different pavement types were used. The sections are 161 m (0.1 mile) long. Figure 2 shows plots of 95th percentile dynamic load (normalized relative to the static axle load) versus RQI. The figure shows a clear increase in dynamic load with increasing RQI. The relationship between load and distress, however, is complex and not well understood. The variability in pavement materials, environmental and traffic factors, coupled with errors in field measurements and the subjectivity of the field distress surveys make it hard to relate roughness and dynamic loading to the accumulation of pavement distress in in-service pavements. Furthermore, some distresses are mainly material- or environment- related. Therefore any interpretation of field data must be made with caution. Analysis conducted as part of this research showed that it was possible to use roughness, dynamic load and distress data profiles along project length and unit (161 m, 0.1 mile) sections to discern between cases of dynamic load-related distress and non-load-related distress (4).

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

Development of RQI Threshold Value The above-referenced analysis on the relationship between distress and roughness showed that distresses in some projects were dynamic-load related while they were not in others. This is due to the fact that load is not the only factor that causes distress in pavements; there are many other factors that contribute to distress, such as material problems, environmental factors etc. Therefore, to get roughness threshold values where distress starts to pick up due to dynamic loading, it is necessary to isolate dynamic-load-related distresses, then relate them to pavement surface roughness. Extraction of Load-Related Distress Types To isolate dynamic-load-related distress types, several subsections having the same range of DI level but different RQI levels were selected. Table 2 shows the criteria of subsection selection and the number of subsections selected for each DI range. For this analysis, 805-m (0.5-mile) subsections were used instead of 161-m (0.1-mile) subsections to minimize any shifts between roughness and distress data. For each selected subsection, distress points for each distress type were calculated. In this calculation, transverse and longitudinal cracks were divided into two types: i) a crack having no associated distress; and ii) a crack with associated distress such as spalling. Associated distress is a distress occurring around a main distress, and is used to define subsequent deterioration of the main distress in MDOT PMS. In Figure 3, 4 and 5, proportions of distress points of each distress type are plotted for relatively rough and relatively smooth subsections at each DI level. These figures show that transverse cracks with associated distress is clearly dominant in relatively rough subsections at most DI levels while transverse cracks without associated distress is dominant in relatively smooth subsections at most DI level. These plots allow for discerning those types of distress that are dynamic-load-related. Based on Figure 3, transverse cracks with associated distress, transverse joint deterioration,

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

delamination and patch deterioration were selected as dynamic-load-related distress types for rigid pavements. Based on Figures 4 and 5, only transverse cracks with associated distress was selected as dynamic load-related distress for flexible and composite pavements. Determination of Roughness Threshold Value Dynamic-load related distress types were extracted from distress data, as described above, and distress points counting only these distress types were calculated for each subsection and plotted against the corresponding RQI-values. The curves relating DI and dynamic loadrelated distress points (DP) to RQI values are shown in Figures 6, 7 and 8. The data from all pavement sections (for each pavement type) were included in these plots. This was necessary because it was not possible to get DP-RQI plots for individual projects separately, given that distress data was available for only three years (1993, 1995 and 1997). The logistic model (8) having the following form was used for the regression analysis.
DI (or DP ) = a exp(b + c RQI ) 1 + exp(b + c RQI )

where a, b and c are regression constants. The logistic function was chosen because it fits the data best and allows for calculating critical points of distress accumulation as described below. The results shown in Figures 6 through 8 show that the curves relating load-related DP to RQI have higher R2-values than those relating the all-inclusive DI to RQI. When dynamic load-related-distress types were considered, R2 increased from 0.488 to 0.739 for rigid pavements, and from 0.522 to 0.624 for composite pavements. For flexible pavements, there is no good trend and the scatter in the data is very large, with an R2-value of 0.311 for DI vs. RQI. This probably reflects the higher variability in flexible pavements, indicating that weak spots in the pavement will tend to attract load-related damage as opposed to rougher spots inducing higher dynamic axle loads. Upon considering only

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

10

load-related distress types, the R2-value increased from 0.311 to 0.375. The results of the regression analysis are summarized in Table 3. Relationships between RQI and dynamic-load related distress points (DP) show that the increased rate in distress is not constant, with the DP sharply increasing at a critical RQI level. This RQI value can therefore be taken as a roughness threshold value. It corresponds to where the acceleration in pavement distress is maximal. Mathematically, it is where the second derivative of RQI-DP function is maximal. Acceleration in the accumulation of distress points vs. RQI-values for each pavement type is shown in Figure 6, 7 and 8. The RQI threshold-value for rigid pavements was determined to be 64. This corresponds to an IRI of 1.99 m/km (124 in/mile). For composite pavements, the RQI threshold-value was equal to 51. This corresponds to an IRI of 1.43 m/km (89 in/mile). For Flexible pavements, it was deemed difficult to determine a meaningful threshold value from this plot because of the large scatter in the data. These threshold values represent the overall behavior of pavements at the network level, and may not be applicable for a particular pavement project. Therefore, such thresholds can be used for networklevel pavement management, and not necessarily at the project level. It is also interesting to note that the roughness threshold for rigid pavements corresponds to a DI of 13, as opposed to DI of 27 for composite pavements. This may imply that the optimal time window for preventive maintenance actions corresponds to a lower distress level (higher remaining service life) for rigid pavements than for composite pavements. CONCLUSION In this paper, distress and roughness data from MDOT PMS database were used to develop roughness thresholds, for all three pavement types, aimed at minimizing pavement damage due to dynamic loading. These thresholds can be used as trigger values for smoothing pavements in time for delaying damage from dynamic loading. PM action needs to be developed.

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

11

Such action can play an important role in any SHAs pavement preventive maintenance program. Some specific conclusions are listed below: To get a good relationship between distress caused by dynamic loading and surface roughness, it was necessary to extract dynamic load-related distress types. Dynamic load-related distress points (DP) showed much better relationships with RQI than DI; R2-values increased from 0.488 to 0.739 for rigid pavements, and from 0.522 to 0.624 for composite pavements. For flexible pavements, the scatter in the data was very large, with an R2-value of 0.311 for DI vs. RQI and 0.375 for DP vs. RQI. This probably reflects the higher variability in flexible pavements. For all three types of pavements, transverse cracks with associated distress was shown to be related to dynamic loading. Based on relationships of dynamic load-related distress (DP) and roughness (RQI), the following roughness (RQI) threshold values were determined: RQI = 64 for rigid pavements, and RQI = 51 for composite pavements. These threshold values represent the overall behavior of pavements at the network level, and may not be applicable for a particular pavement project. Therefore, they are useful for network-level pavement management decisions. The above relationships also indicate that the optimal time window for preventive maintenance action corresponds to a lower distress level (higher remaining service life) for rigid pavements than for composite pavements.

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

12

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thank the Michigan Department of Transportation and the Pavement Research Center of Excellence for their financial support. The comments made by members of the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) are highly appreciated. Special thanks are due to Mr. Dave Smiley, Chair of the TAG, Mr. Larry Galehouse, Pavement Maintenance Engineer and Dr. Wen-Huo Kuo, Pavement Management Specialist, for their inputs and support.

DISCLAIMER The contents of this paper reflect the views and opinions of the authors, which are responsible for the accuracy of the information presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the MDOT and do not constitute a department standard, specification, or regulation. REFERENCES 1. Gillespie, T.D Effects., S.M. Karamihas, M.W. Sayers, M.A. Nasim, W. Hansen, N. Ehsan, and D. Cebon, of Heavy-Vehicle Characteristics on Pavement Response and Performance, NCHRP Report 353, University of Michigan and Cambridge University, 1993. 2. Michigan Department of Transportation. Evaluating Pavement Surfaces: LISA and RQI Material and Technology Research Record, Issue Number 79, June 1996. 3. Darlington, John. The Michigan Ride Quality Index, MDOT Document, December 1995. 4. Chatti, K. and D. Lee, "Investigation of the Relationship between Surface Roughness, Truck Dynamic Loading and Pavement Distress Using Field Data from In-Service Pavements", Proceedings, Sixth International Symposium on Heavy Vehicle Weights and Dimensions, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada, June 18-22, 2000.

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

13

5. Chatti, K., D. Lee and G.Y. Baladi, Development of a Roughness Threshold for the Preventive Maintenance of Pavements based on Dynamic Loading Considerations and Damage Analysis, Final Report submitted to the Michigan Department of Transportation, Dec. 2000. 6. Chatti, K. and D. Lee, Development of a Preventive Maintenance Strategy for Minimizing Roughness-Related Pavement Damage, Paper submitted to the TRB Annual Meeting, 2001. 7. Cebon, D.,Handbook of Vehicle-Road Interaction, Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, the Netherlands, 1999. 8. Neter, J. and W. Wasserman, Applied Linear Statistical Models, Richard D. Irwin, Inc., Homewood, IL, 1974.

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

14

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. List of Projects Investigated Table 2. Criteria of Section Selection and Number of Samples Table 3. Regression Parameters and R2-Values of Empirical Curves

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Relationship between RQI and IRI Figure 2. 95th Percentile Dynamic Load (Normalized Relative to Static Axle Load) versus RQI Figure 3. Proportions of Distress Types in the Distress Index for Rigid Pavements Figure 4. Proportions of Distress Types in the Distress Index for Composite Pavements Figure 5. Proportions of Distress Types in the Distress Index for Flexible Pavements Figure 6. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Rigid Pavements Figure 7. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Composite Pavements Figure 8. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Flexible Pavements

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

15

TABLE 1. List of Projects Investigated Control Section EB I-94 11017 EB US-10 18024 WB US-10 18024 NB I-69 23063 EB I-69 76024 WB US-2 21022 WB US-2 21022 EB US-2 21022 WB US-2 21025 EB US-2 21025 NB US-24 63031 NB US-31 70014 WB I-196 70023 EB US-10 09101 EB I-96 33084 NB US-23 47014 M-88 05031 M-95 22013 M-57 25102 M-57 25102 M-30 26032 M-57 29022 M-28 31021 M-65 35012 M-36 47041 M-36 47041 NB US-31 61074 NB US-27 72014 EB I-94 38101 NB US-127 38131 US-12 11011 M-115 18011 WB US-2 21022 M-95 22012 M-52 76012 M-21 76062 SB US-131 78012 * Rubblized PCC Base Route Pavement Type Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Rigid Flexible* Flexible* Flexible* Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Flexible Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Composite Mile Post 1.015-5.875 0.0-7.598 0.0-7.598 0.0-5.0 0.0-3.827 4.1-5.650 5.650-8.414 6.3-8.429 0.0-6.191 0.0-6.191 0.0-2.5 0.0-5.5 0.0-5.5 0.924-7.356 8.979-17.491 0.0-7.165 19.313-20.804 0.0-13.012 0.0-5.780 5.780-9.841 0.0-16.591 0.0-9.819 0.0-9.605 7.040-16.027 13.448-20.630 20.630-23.252 0.0-3.084 0.0-8.890 0.0-8.7 0.0-5.2 0.0-3.160 0.0-12.230 0.0-1.981 10.170-16.230 2.282-9.210 3.278-12.583 0.092-2.463 (1mile=1.6km) Construction Year 1959 1976 1976 1991 1991 1957 1962 1962 1971 1971 1953 1954 1956 1990 1993 1992 1978 1982 1975 1978 1984 1984 1984 1973 1971 1986 1978 1975 1985 1987 1989 1985 1991 1987 1987 1987 1990

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

16

TABLE 2. Criteria of Section Selection and Number of Samples a) Rigid Pavements Relative Roughness Smooth Rough * Number of samples are in Parenthesis DI Level 10-20 20-30 30-40 RQI<55 (17) RQI>70 (17) RQI<65 (4) RQI>80 (4) RQI<60 (4) RQI>75 (4)

0-10

RQI<50 (11) RQI>65 (10)

b) Flexible Pavements Relative Roughness 10-20 Smooth Rough RQI<35 (12) RQI>55 (8)

20-30 RQI<40 (5) RQI>60 (4)

DI Level 30-40 RQI<40 (9) RQI>60 (4)

40-50 RQI<40 (6) RQI>60 (2)

50-60 RQI<40 (2) RQI>60 (6)

c) Composite Pavements Relative Roughness 10-20 Smooth Rough RQI<40 (10) RQI>55 (8)

DI Level 20-30 RQI<40 (5) RQI>60 (4) 30-40 RQI<45 (5) RQI>60 (7) 40-50 RQI<55 (4) RQI>62(4)

TABLE 3. Regression Parameters and R2-Values of Empirical Curves Distress Types Used All Distress Load-Related Distress All Distress Load-Related Distress All Distress Load-Related Distress a 35 32 100 80 90 60 b -6.3252 -7.8459 -4.1465 -10.452 -4.4684 -5.8131 c 0.0897 0.1043 0.0643 0.1621 0.0706 0.0908 R2 0.488 0.739 0.311 0.369 0.522 0.624

Rigid Pavements Flexible Pavements Composite Pavements

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

17

120 100 80
RQI

60 Rigid 40 20 0 0 0 50 1.0 100 2.0

IRI

Composite Flexible Rigid Composite Flexible 150 200 3.0 250 4.0 300 in/mi m/km

FIGURE 1. Relationship between RQI and IRI

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

18

(a) R igid Pav e me nts

95th P e rce ntile dyna m ic/S ta tic Loa d Ra tio 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0 20 40 60 RQI 80 100 120

(b) Composite Pav e me nts

95th pe rce ntile dyna m ic/S ta tic Loa d Ra tio 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0 20 40 60 RQI 80 100 120

(c) Fle xible Pav e me nts

95th P e rce ntile dyna m ic/S ta tic Loa d Ra tio 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 0 20 40 60 RQI 80 100 120

FIGURE 2. Ninety Fifth Percentile Dynamic Load (Normalized Relative to Static Axle Load) versus RQI

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

19

0<D I<10
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TC-N TC-A TJ LC LJ DL Patc h Low-RQI High-RQI

10<D I<20
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TC-N TC-A TJ LC LJ DL Patc h Low-RQI High-RQI

20<D I<30
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TC-N TC-A TJ LC LJ DL Patc h Low-RQI High-RQI

30<D I<40
1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TC-N TC-A TJ LC LJ DL Patc h Low-RQI High-RQI

TC : Transverse Crack TJ : Transverse Joint Deterioration DL : Delamination -N : with No Associated Distress -A : with Associated Distress

FIGURE 3. Proportions of Distress Types in the Distress Index for Rigid Pavements

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

20

10<DI<20
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c -N LC-c -A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A Low-RQI High-RQI

20<DI<30
0.8 0.6 Low-RQI 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c-N LC-c -A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A High-RQI

30<DI<40
0.8 0.6 Low-RQI 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c-N LC-c -A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A High-RQI

40<DI<50
0.8 0.6 Low-RQI 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c-N LC-c -A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A High-RQI

LC : Longitudinal Crack LJ : Longitudinal Joint TT : Transverse Tear -c : at center lane -e : at edge -w : at wheel path

FIGURE 4. Proportions of Distress Types in the Distress Index for Composite Pavements

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

21

10<D I<20
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c-N LC-c -A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A Low-RQI High-RQI

20<D I<30
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c -N LC-c-A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A Low-RQI High-RQI

30<D I<40
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c-N LC-c -A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A Low-RQI High-RQI

40<D I<50
0.8 0.6 Low-RQ I 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c -N LC-c -A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A High-RQI

50<D I<60
0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 TT TC-N TC-A LC-c -N LC-c-A LC-e-N LC-e-A LC-w-N LC-w-A Low-RQ I High-RQI

Abbreviations in this figure are the same as in Figure 4.

FIGURE 5. Proportions of Distress Types in the Distress Index for Flexible Pavements

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

22

D I vs. R QI
R 2 = 0.488 50 40 30 DI 20 10 0 0 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

Load R elated D P vs. R QI

R 2 = 0.739 50 Loa d Re la te d DP 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

Acceleration in D P Accumulation
0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 0 20 40 60 RQI 80 100 120 RQIthres hold = 64

FIGURE 6. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Rigid Pavements

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

23

D I vs. R QI
R 2 = 0.524 100 80 60 DI 40 20 0 0 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

Load R elated D P vs.R QI

R 2 =0.624 100 Loa d Re la te d DP 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

Acceleration in D P Accumulation
RQIthres hold = 51 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 -0.06 0 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

FIGURE 7. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Composite Pavements

Lee, Chatti and Baladi

24

D I vs. R QI
R 2 = 0.311 200 150 DI 100 50 0 0 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

Load R elated D P vs. R QI

R 2 = 0.369 200 Loa d Re la te d DP 150 100 50 0 0 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

FIGURE 8. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Flexible Pavements