Paper No.

01-2604

DEVELOPMENT OF A PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE STRATEGY FOR MINIMIZING ROUGHNESS-RELATED PAVEMENT DAMAGE

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

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

Word Count : 5,057

Chatti and Lee

ABSTRACT The Michigan Department of Transportation uses two measures of pavement performance in managing its pavement network: the Distress Index, DI, and the Ride Quality Index, RQI. At present, decisions on when and where to take rehabilitation or preventive maintenance action are mainly made based on the DI. The RQI is currently used only in a passive or reactive fashion: When it reaches the threshold for poor ride quality, a decision to rehabilitate the road is made. MDOT is currently funding a research study aimed at developing RQI thresholds for each pavement type (rigid, flexible or composite), aimed at retarding pavement damage that is caused by roughness-generated dynamic (impact) loading. These thresholds correspond to the RQIvalue at which pavement damage is accelerated by high dynamic loads. Given these new RQIthresholds, it becomes possible to extend the service life of the pavement by taking preventive maintenance action in the form of smoothing of the pavement surface (by way of milling, grinding or a thin overlay). This paper proposes to use the new RQI-thresholds in a proactive fashion, in the context of preventive maintenance: The objective is to determine the opportune time and locations for applying relatively light maintenance aimed at smoothing the pavement surface, thereby minimizing dynamic (impact) loads and extending the pavement service life at minimal cost. For this purpose, a reliability-based model for selecting the optimal timing (or planning period) for such preventive maintenance action was developed using the new RQI-threshold and actual RQI-growth rates from in-service pavements. This model can be an effective tool to use in the context of preventive maintenance of pavements. Key words : pavement distresses, roughness threshold, ride quality, dynamic loads, preventive maintenance, remaining service life, optimal timing

Chatti and Lee

INTRODUCTION The Michigan Department of Transportation uses two measures of pavement performance in managing its pavement network: (1) the Distress Index, DI, which is a measure of the extent of surface distress; and (2) the Ride Quality Index, RQI, which is a measure of the effect of surface roughness on ride quality. At present, the DI is used to determine the Remaining Service Life (RSL) of a pavement. The RSL is defined as the number of years left to reach the threshold DI-value (equal to 50). The calculation of RSL is based on the DI prediction model developed by MDOT, which uses a logistic function with age as its independent variable. At present, RQI is used for triggering corrective maintenance or rehabilitation action to restore ride quality (serviceability). MDOT is currently funding a research study aimed at developing RQI threshold(s) for preventive maintenance. For each pavement type (rigid, flexible or composite), the threshold corresponds to the RQI-value at which pavement damage is accelerated by high dynamic axle loads. Once the RQI threshold is determined, it will be possible to extend the service life of the pavement by taking preventive maintenance action in the form of smoothing of the pavement surface (by way of milling, grinding or a thin overlay). In order to predict the optimum timing for the preventive maintenance action, the ability to predict RQI growth with time is necessary. This can be critical given the fact that a pavement that has reached the roughness threshold value is prone to start showing a sharp increase in distress accumulation, as was shown by Lee et al (1). Ideally, it would be desired to have the ability to predict future RQI-values accurately given a current RQI. An alternative way is to calculate the probability that a certain pavement section reaches the RQI-threshold in a given number of years based on actual RQI increase rates of pavements in Michigans pavement

Chatti and Lee

network. This would enable the PM division within MDOT to plan roughness-related PMactions a few years prior to the pavement reaching the RQI threshold-value. ROAD SURFACE ROUGHNESS Roughness is not only an indicator of ride quality; it also excites the dynamic behavior of trucks, thus increasing pavement 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 currently 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 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) of the road surface profile was found to correlate at 90 percent with subjective opinion. Based on this, the profile is split into three wavelength bands: 0.6-1.5 m (2-5 ft), 1.57.6m (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

Chatti and Lee

longitudinal profile for the entire pavement network in Michigan is measured annually with a Rapid Travel Profilometer (RTP). The data is used to calculate both the RQI and IRI (International Roughness Index), which is reported to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Figure 1 shows the correlation between RQI and IRI. PAVEMENT DAMAGE EVALUATION The MDOT developed the Distress Index (DI) to evaluate pavement surface deterioration. Distress data is collected by videotaping 50 percent of the pavement network every year. The tapes are reviewed in the main office, and each distress type is counted, documented, then tabulated and stored in the PMS data bank. A PMS analyst later retrieves the distress data, and each distress type is assigned certain distress points depending on its severity and extent using pre-established distress point values. The DI is the sum of distress points along a project normalized to the project length. The length of the project (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 project L = Length of the project in 161m (0.1 mile) unit sections

The DI scale starts at zero for a perfect pavement and it increases without a limit. MDOT categorizes DI into three levels: Low; <20, Medium; 20-40, and High; >40. Any project with a DI of 50 or more is a candidate project for rehabilitation (remaining service life is zero). PM STRATEGY FOR MINIMIZING ROUGHNESS-RELATED PAVEMENT DAMAGE 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 of the first phase showed

Chatti and Lee

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 roughness. 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, dynamic-load and distress-point profiles were plotted along the length of individual pavement sections, and the coefficients of correlation () between dynamic loads and distress points were determined. In these analyses, 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 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). 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. The results from the second phase are discussed in the following section, and detailed results are reported elsewhere (1). The third phase consisted in developing a model for determining the optimal timing of PM smoothing action. This phase is the focus of this paper. RQI Threshold-Value 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 becomes possible to determine the optimal timing for preventive maintenance

Chatti and Lee

action in the form of smoothing of the pavement surface (by way of milling, grinding or a thin overlay). Lee et.al. (1) developed roughness thresholds at which distress build-up starts to accelerate due to dynamic loading. These thresholds were extracted from relationships between RQI and dynamic load-related distresses from 37 projects (462 sections including rigid, flexible and composite pavements). Dynamic-load-related distress types were defined as distress types that are dominant in relatively rough sections. Distress points counting only these distress types were calculated for each 805 m (0.5 mile) section and plotted against the corresponding RQIvalues. The curves relating DI and dynamic load-related distress points (DP) to RQI values are shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4 for rigid, composite and flexible pavements, respectively. The logistic model having the following form was used for the regression analysis.
DI = a exp(b + c RQI ) 1 + exp(b + c RQI )

where a, b and c are regression constants. Relationships between RQI and dynamic-load related distress points (DP) show that the increase rate in distress is variable, with the DP sharply increasing at a given 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. RQIvalues for each pavement type is also shown in Figures 2, 3 and 4. The RQI threshold-values for rigid pavements were determined to be about 64 (IRI 2.0m/km) for rigid pavements and 51 (IRI 1.5m/km) for composite pavements. For Flexible pavements, it is difficult to determine a meaningful threshold value from this plot because of the large scatter in the data.

Chatti and Lee

Determining Optimal Timing For Smoothing Preventive Maintenance Action Roughness thresholds aimed at minimizing dynamic loads can play an important role in pavement management and preventive maintenance (PM) program. If a PM action in the form of smoothing the pavement surface, is taken when the RQI threshold is reached it can extend the service life of the pavement by several years, since it will reduce roughness-generated dynamic loads. This was shown in analyses conducted as part of this research project and reported elsewhere (5). The results showed that a pavement section with a remaining service life of 10 years can gain 3 to 5 years in life extension (depending on its current roughness level) by being smoothed. The MDOT PM guidelines (which are based on collective empirical observation) also support this conclusion (6). Remaining Smooth Period In order to implement a preventive maintenance strategy using the roughness threshold concept developed in this study, it is useful to define a "trigger" value equal to:
RQI trigger = RQI threshold RQI

where RQItrigger represents the trigger-value for planning the smoothing PM action some years down the road. The time (in years) corresponding to RQI can be called the PM Planning Period (PMP). On the other hand, the number of years left to reach the RQI threshold, given the current RQI-value is the Remaining Smooth Period (RSP). The RSP is by definition greater than or equal to the PMP. At the trigger RQI-value, the RSP becomes the PMP. Figure 5 illustrates this concept. RQI Growth Model In order to successfully plan for such PM-actions, it is necessary to have a reliable prediction of RQI growth with time. For this purpose, 112 rigid pavement projects were

Chatti and Lee

randomly selected from the MDOT pavement network, except for the attempt to have a uniform distribution by age. Figure 6 shows the distribution of the selected projects by age, traffic level and project length. Figure 7 shows individual RQI growth curves for 112 rigid pavement projects in Michigan. While such a curve can be used to predict the level of roughness with pavement age (although the range of error is too wide for obtaining a reliable prediction), the RQI growth rate at a given pavement age, obtained from such curve, is not representative of an individual pavement section. This is so because the curve is an aggregate of many different projects, as opposed to an actual growth curve. An alternative (and better) way to interpret the RQI growth data is to use the actual growth rates from each individual pavement section and develop the probability distribution of the RQI growth rate. These results are then used to calculate the reliability of the PM planning period, PMP, for different RQItrigger-values. Figure 8 shows such plots of the RQI growth rate for 1382 (805-m or 0.5-mile) sections from 112 rigid pavement projects. This figure shows probability distributions of RQI growth rate for 1, 2, 3 and 4 years. The results shown in this figure were used to calculate the reliability that the pavement will not reach the threshold RQI-value before x years for different RQItrigger-values, with x being the PM planning period. This is shown in Table 1. The table shows that the reliability decreases with increasing PM planning period and increasing RQItrigger-value. The results also show that a oneyear planning period has high reliability (R 75%) even at relatively low RQItrigger-value of 61. However, given that it is desirable to extend the PM planning period, an optimum solution could be to adopt a 2-year PM planning period with RQItrigger of less than or equal to 60 (for rigid pavements). The results also show that PM planning periods of 3 or more years are not viable. Similar tables can be developed for different pavement types, and for isolating potentially important factors such as traffic volume or pavement thickness. These reliability/planning tables

Chatti and Lee

can also be updated to reflect changes (over an extended period of time) in MDOT practice including pavement design, construction, maintenance and rehabilitation activities. CONCLUSION In this paper, a reliability-based model for selecting the optimal timing (or planning period) for smoothing pavement surface as a preventive maintenance action was developed. The model uses a dynamic-load-related roughness (RQI) threshold and actual RQI-growth rates from 112 in-service rigid pavements (1382 sections). This model can be an effective tool to use in the context of preventive maintenance of pavements.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The authors would like to thanks 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 for his 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. Lee, D., K. Chatti and G.Y. Baladi, Development of Roughness Thresholds for Preventive Maintenance of Pavements Using PMS Distress and Ride Quality Data, Paper submitted to the TRB Annual Meeting, 2001. 2. Darlington, John. The Michigan Ride Quality Index, MDOT Document, December 1995.

Chatti and Lee

3. Michigan Department of Transportation. Evaluating Pavement Surfaces: LISA and RQI, Material and Technology Research Record, Issue Number 79, June 1996. 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. 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. Michigan Department of Transportation, Capital Preventive Maintenance Program Guidelines, January 2000.

Chatti and Lee

10

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Reliability of PM Planning Periods for Different RQItrigger-Values LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Relationship between RQI and IRI Figure 2. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Rigid Pavements Figure 3. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Composite Pavements Figure 4. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Flexible Pavements Figure 5. Schematic Figure of 'Remaining Smooth Period' and 'PM Planning Period Figure 6. Distribution of Selected Projects by Age, Traffic and Length Figure 7. RQI versus Pavement Age using 112 Rigid Pavement Projects Figure 8. Probability Distribution of RQI Growth Rate for Rigid Pavements

Chatti and Lee

11

TABLE 1. Reliability of PM Planning Periods for Different RQItrigger-Values

RQI 5 4 3 2 1 RQItrigger 1 59 60 61 62 63 89.5 83.3 74.7 62.4 46.5 Reliability PM Planning Period (years) 2 3 81.6 71.8 59.9 46.6 33.2 65.4 53.9 41.9 30.1 20.2

4 48.7 38.2 28.0 18.1 10.6

R2 = 0.8801 120 100 80

RQI

60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 IRI, in/mile 200 250 300

FIGURE 1. Relationship between RQI and IRI

Chatti and Lee

12

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

L oad 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

Acceleratio n in D P Accumulation
0.04 0.02 0 -0.02 -0.04 0 20 40 60 RQI 80 100 120 RQIt hres hold = 64

FIGURE 2. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Rigid Pavements

Chatti and Lee

13

D I vs. R QI
R 2 = 0.522 100 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 20 40 RQI 60 80 100

FIGURE 3. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Composite Pavements

Chatti and Lee

14

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 4. Relationship Between Distress and RQI for Flexible Pavements

Chatti and Lee

15

80

70

RQIThreshold RQITrigger Currenr RQI

PM Action RQI

60
RQI

50

PM Planning Period 40 Remaining Smooth Period 30

20 5 10 15 20 Age, year 25 30 35

FIGURE 5. Schematic Figure of 'Remaining Smooth Period' and 'PM Planning Period

Chatti and Lee

16

a) D istribution by Age
30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30

Age , ye a r

b) D istribution by C ommercial Traffic Volume

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-2k 2k -4k 4k -6k 6k -8k 8k-10k 10k -12k

Tra ffic V olum e (ADTT)

c) D istribution by Project Length

30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 10-12 12-14 14-16 16-18

P roje ct Le ngth, M ile

FIGURE 6. Distribution of Selected Projects by Age, Traffic and Length

Chatti and Lee

17

100 80 60
RQI

40 20 0 0 5 10 15 20
Age, year

25

30

35

40

FIGURE 7. RQI versus Pavement Age using 112 Rigid Pavement Projects

Chatti and Lee

18

a) 1-Year R QI Grow th R ate D istribution

N= 5203 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 10~ 11 11~ 12 N= 3860 0.2 P roba bility 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 9~ 10 10~ 11 11~ 12 11~ 12 N= 1147 11~ 12 12~ 13 12~ 13 12~ 13 -1~ 0 0~ 1 1~ 2 2~ 3 3~ 4 4~ 5 5~ 6 6~ 7 7~ 8 -5~ -4 -4~ -3 -3~ -2 -2~ -1 8~ 9 N= 2492 12~ 13 -5~ -4 -4~ -3 -3~ -2 -2~ -1 9~ 10 9~ 10 9~ 10 -1~ 0 0~ 1 1~ 2 2~ 3 3~ 4 4~ 5 5~ 6 6~ 7 7~ 8 7~ 8 8~ 9 8~ 9

P roba bility

RQI Grow th Ra te

b) 2-Year R QI Grow th R ate D istribution

RQI Grow th Ra te

c) 3-Year R QI Grow th R ate D istribution

0.2 P roba bility 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -5~ -4 -4~ -3 -3~ -2 -2~ -1 -1~ 0 0~ 1 1~ 2 2~ 3 3~ 4 4~ 5 5~ 6 6~ 7

RQI Grow th Ra te

d) 4-Year R QI Grow th R ate D istribution

0.2 P rob a bility 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 -5~ -4 -4~ -3 -3~ -2 -2~ -1 -1~ 0 0~ 1 1~ 2 2~ 3 3~ 4 4~ 5 5~ 6 6~ 7 7~ 8 8~ 9 10~ 11

RQI Grow th Ra te

FIGURE 8. Probability Distribution of RQI Growth Rate for Rigid Pavements

10~ 11