Design of Rigid Pavements in Iowa Using the Mechanistic -Empirical Pavement Design Guide
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3846/1822-427X.2008.3.219-225Keywords:
M-E Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), Portland Cement Concrete (PCC), faulting, cracking, sensitivity analysisAbstract
The Iowa Dept of Transportation (DOT) currently utilizes the empirically-based American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) pavement design procedures originally derived from the 1960 Road Test data. It is clear that these empirical procedures are no longer applicable to current conditions in Iowa. With the release of the new Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) in the USA, there is a big shift in pavement analysis and design and many state highway agencies undertake initiatives to implement the MEPDG. In order to effectively and efficiently transition to the MEPDG and accelerate its adoption, the Iowa DOT needs a detailed implementation and training strategy. In support of the MEPDG implementation initiatives, sensitivity studies were conducted using the MEPDG software to identify design inputs pertaining to both rigid pavements and flexible pavements that are of particular sensitivity in Iowa. This paper is the first of the two companion papers discussing the need for implementing the MEPDG in Iowa, benefits of implementing the MEPDG in Iowa, and the results of rigid pavement input parameter sensitivity analysis. The results of flexible pavement design inputs sensitivity analysis and implementation recommendations are presented in the second paper.
References
Carey, W. N. Jr.; Irick, P. E. 1962. Relationships of AASHO Road Test pavement performance to design and load factors, Highway Research Boards Special Report 73: 198–207.
Carvalho, R.; Schwartz, C. W. 2006. Comparisons of flexible pavement designs: AASHTO empirical versus NCHRP Project 1-37A mechanistic-empirical, Transportation Research Record 1962: 167–174. DOI: 10.3141/1947-16
Guclu, A.; Ceylan, H. [on-line] 2005. Sensitivity analysis of rigid pavement systems using the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide [cited 30 Oct, 2008], in Proc of the 2005 Mid-Continent Transportation Research Symposium. Aug 18–19, 2005, Ames, Iowa, USA. Available from Internet: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/midcon2005/GucluRigid.pdf
Hall, K. D.; Beam, S. R. 2005. Estimating the sensitivity of design input variables for rigid pavement analysis with a Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide, Transportation Research Record 1919: 65–73. DOI: 10.3141/1919-08
Kannekanti, V.; Harvey, J. 2006. Sensitivity analysis of 2002 design guide distress prediction models for jointed plain concrete pavement, Transportation Research Record 1947: 91–100. DOI: 10.3141/1947-09
Nantung, T.; Chehab, G.; Newbolds, S.; Galal, K.; Li, S.; Kim, D. H. 2005. Implementation initiatives of the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guides in Indiana, Transportation Research Record 1919: 142–151. DOI: 10.3141/1919-15
Uzan, J.; Freeman, T.J.; Cleveland, G. S. 2005. Strategic plan of the Texas Department of Transportation for implementing NCHRP 1-37A Pavement Design Guide, Transportation Research Record 1919: 152–159. DOI: 10.3141/1919-16
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2008 Vilnius Gediminas Technical University (VGTU) Press Technika
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
