Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MODELS

FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND


Edith Arambula1, Renju George2, Weixian Xiong3, and Geoff Hall4
1

Corresponding Author

Senior Engineer
E-mail: editham@exatec.itesm.mx
2

Senior Engineer

E-mail: rgeorge@ara.com
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
7184 Troy Hill Dr., Suite N
Elkridge, MD 21075
Phone: 410-540-9949, Fax: 410-540-9288
3

Pavement Management Division Assistant Chief

E-mail: wxiong@sha.state.md.us
4

Pavement and Geotechnical Division Chief

E-mail:ghall@sha.state.md.us
Maryland State Highway Administration
7450 Traffic Dr, Hanover, MD 21076
Phone: 443-572-5067

Word count: (2,942+ 4 Tables @250 + 4 Figures @250) = 4,942


Submission date: August 1, 2010

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

ABSTRACT

2
3
4
5
6
7

Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is in the process of restructuring and improving
their existing Pavement System Preservation Program. As part of this effort, SHA revised their
pavement management system (PMS) process and developed a new software tool to handle the
data analysis requirements. This paper describes the analysis procedure used to develop the
pavement performance models used in the PMS simulation to forecast pavement condition and
prescribe maintenance and rehabilitation treatments.

8
9
10
11
12
13

In the past, SHA used different performance models based on pavement condition for
every state region, traffic level, pavement type, pavement treatment, and pavement condition.
This approach yielded hundreds of different pavement performance models. In this study, in
order to reduce the number of models, a statistical analysis was performed using the International
Roughness Index (IRI) to identify groups with similar characteristics by pavement and treatment
type.

14
15
16
17
18
19

Once distinct groups were defined, pavement performance models based on IRI were
developed for each group using a novel histogram-based analysis method. This type of analysis
was necessary in order to estimate realistic pavement deterioration rates without regard to
pavement age. The models resulting from the histogram-based analysis were validated using
independent pavement sections with good correlation. In addition, the network-level pavement
performance prediction yielded satisfactory results using the resulting performance models.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

INTRODUCTION

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

The Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) is responsible for managing approximately
17,000 lane miles of roadways and spends between 150 and 190 million dollars every year as
part of the System Preservation Program for maintenance and improvement of its pavement
network. This statewide network is divided into three distinctive regions: Mountain, Central, and
Coastal. Within them, there are seven engineering districts, three rural districts and four urban
districts. Two of the rural districts are located in the eastern Coastal region, while the remaining
one is located in the Mountain region of western Maryland. All the urban districts are located in
the Central region, which serves as the highway network for the cities of Washington DC,
Baltimore, Annapolis, and Frederick. Besides region, other variables are used to segment the
pavement network, including traffic level, pavement type, maintenance and rehabilitation
(M&R) treatments, and pavement condition.

13
14
15
16
17
18

SHA collects International Roughness Index (IRI), cracking, and friction data on about
95 percent of the entire pavement network. The collected data is used to assess the condition of
the SHA pavement network (1). In the past, SHA used unique performance models based on
pavement condition for every region, traffic level, pavement type, pavement treatment, and
pavement condition. The combination of these factors resulted in more than 600 different
pavement models for flexible, rigid, and composite pavements (2).

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

The objective of this study was to reduce the number of performance models to a more
manageable amount while still providing a realistic and useful representation of pavement
behavior and deterioration rates. A statistical analysis was used to explore similarities in IRI
values grouped using the variables used to segment the pavement network and identify clusters
with similar characteristics. Then, using the SHA pavement performance database, new
pavement performance models were developed for each group using a histogram-based analysis
approach. This type of analysis was necessary to develop models that yielded realistic pavement
deterioration rates (based on typical behavior) without taking into consideration the pavement
age (period between the measurement year and the year when the last treatment was applied).

28
29
30
31

The resulting performance models with the histogram-based analysis were validated
using independent pavement sections with satisfactory results. The statistical and histogrambased procedures used to group and derive the pavement performance models as well as the
validation methodology and results are explained in the next sections.

32

GROUPING BASED ON STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

33
34
35
36

The variables used to define the existing performance models were evaluated by SHA Pavement
and Geotechnical Division (Pavement Management Group) and a consensus was reached in
favor of eliminating pavement condition from the performance model groupings. The remnant 72
cases consisted of combinations of the following variables:

37

Region: Mountain, Central, and Coastal

38
39

Traffic level: Low (<15,000 Average Annual Daily Traffic - AADT), Medium (>=15,000
AADT and <=40,000 AADT), High (>40,000 AADT)

40

Pavement type: Flexible and Composite

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.
1
2

Last M&R treatment: Four treatment levels based on thickness- T5 (0.75in-1.5in), T8


(1.5in-2.5in), T12 (2.5in-4in), and T15 (>4in)

3
4
5
6
7

The SHA pavement condition database was used to evaluate whether within each region
and traffic level combination (i.e., 9 different cases) the IRI values for every pavement type and
last M&R treatment were statistically different. For the analysis only database entries with the
following criteria were considered: last M&R treatment year earlier than or during year 1995,
IRI measured between years 1995 and 2005, and IRI values less than or equal to 600 in/mile.

8
9

The resulting database entries were assembled into 72 groups, corresponding to the above
listed variable combinations. The steps preceding the statistical analysis consisted of:

10

1. Identify and eliminate outliers for IRI collected at every 0.1 miles

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

For every section with total length varying between 0.5 and 5 miles, the IRI data
collected at every 0.1 miles was scanned for outliers following the mean plus-minus 2.58
standard deviations criterion (2.58). For datasets that are normally distributed, this
range encompasses about 99% of the data points. Therefore, anything lower or higher
than this threshold is considered an outlier. Note that the threshold calculation was done
excluding the extremes, therefore the maximum and minimum of a given section was first
identified and excluded, then 2.58calculated, and finally the maximum and minimum
values compared against the threshold. If the values exceeded the threshold, they were
eliminated and the process repeated until no additional outliers were left in the dataset.
This process was repeated for all sections in every performance group (i.e., region, traffic
level, pavement type, and last M&R treatment).

22

2. Calculate the IRI index

23
24
25

Based on current SHA practice, an equation of the form A + B*(IRI) was used to
transform the IRI values into an IRI index, which values range from 0 to 100 percent. The
values of the equation parameters A and B are listed in TABLE 1.

26
27

TABLE 1 Equation and parameters used to calculate the IRI Index


Pavement
Condition
Very Good
Good
Fair
Mediocre
Poor

IRI
Lower
Bound
>=0
>=60
>=95
>=170
>220

Upper
Bound
<60
<95
<170
<=220
<=600

IRI index
Lower
Bound
>90
>80
>65
>=50
>=0

Equation Parameters
Upper
Bound
<=100
<=90
<=80
<=65
<50

100.00
107.14
98.75
117.35
78.95

-0.17
-0.29
-0.20
-0.31
-0.13

28
29

3. Calculate the age

30
31

Age represents the time elapsed between the year when the last M&R treatment was
applied and the year of IRI measurement. In equation format:

32

Age = (Year of IRI measurement - Year of last M&R treatment)

(1)

33

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

4. Calculate the average IRI and average IRI index

2
3

For every section and IRI measurement, the average was calculated by adding all 0.1mile measurements and dividing by the number of entries.

5. Identify and eliminate average IRI data outliers in the performance groups

5
6
7
8

Following the procedure described in step 1, the outliers within every performance group
were identified and eliminated. In this case, the average IRI and average IRI index for the
sections belonging to a particular performance group are used to calculate the mean,
standard deviation, and extremes.

6. Calculate the slope of the average IRI data

10
11
12

A plot of the average IRI and average IRI index with respect to age was created for every
section (see example in FIGURE 1). Then, a linear trend line was fitted and the slope of
the line calculated.

13

7. Calculate the weighted area for the average IRI data

14
15
16

The weighted area was calculated as the area under the average IRI versus age curve,
divided by the age span (total number of record years). FIGURE 1 illustrates the
weighted area estimate.

17
18
19

The area under the curve was estimated between data points using the trapezoid area
calculation, which is presented in Equation 2. In FIGURE 1, A1, A2, A3, etc. represent
the individual trapezoid areas.

20

Ai =

21
22

The total area under the curve was then calculated using the total number of data points
(n) and the individual trapezoid area (i) as follows:

(2)

ATotal = i =1 Ai
i=n

23
24

(3)

Finally, the weighted area was estimated by dividing the total area by the age span:
Aweighted =

25
26
27
28

1
( Agei +1 Agei )(IRI i + IRI i +1 )
2

ATotal
Agen Age1

(4)

After steps 1 through 7 were completed, a statistical analysis was performed to compare
the mean of the last M&R treatment and pavement type of each region and traffic level
combination. The parameters used for comparison included:

29

Average IRI and IRI index for every section and measurement year

30

Slope of the average IRI and IRI index versus age for every section

31

Weighted area for IRI and IRI index for every section

32

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

MD-51, Section 181


180.0
160.0
140.0

IRI (in/mile)

120.0
100.0
80.0

A1

A2

A3...

60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
5

10

11

12

13

14

15

Age (Years)

1
2
3

FIGURE 1 IRI versus age plot example for a pavement section.


Results

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the average, slope, and weighted area
parameters calculated using IRI and IRI index for every region and traffic level group to
determine if the values of the last M&R treatment and pavement type variables were different
from each other. Nine cases based on the combination of the three regions and three traffic levels
were considered. The null hypothesis of the ANOVA statistical test was that all mean values of
the different last M&R treatments and all mean values of the two pavement types were the same
(i.e. T5 = T8 = T12 = T15 and Flexible = Composite) versus the alternative hypothesis
that at least one mean differed from the rest.

12
13
14
15
16
17

As part of the statistical analysis, the level of significance or p-value parameter was
calculated. This was compared against a selected level of significance threshold value of 5
percent, which represents the probability of obtaining an outcome that contradicts the null
hypothesis. Therefore, if the calculated p-value was larger than the established threshold, the null
hypothesis was accepted, else, the null hypothesis was rejected in favor of the alternative
hypothesis.

18
19
20

In the case of the last M&R treatment analysis, when the outcome of the ANOVA was to
reject the null hypothesis, a Bonferroni multiple comparisons procedure was applied in order to
determine which last treatment type (i.e., T5, T8, T12 or T15) differed from one other. The

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.
1
2

Bonferroni procedure was selected because it is suitable for unequal sample sizes, which was the
case in the performance model groups, some having a larger number of sections than others.

Based on the ANOVA results, the following conclusions were derived:

4
5

1. The same outcome was obtained when using the parameters (average, slope, or
weighted area) derived from IRI or IRI index values.

6
7
8

2. The slope parameter yielded no differences between groups (the null hypothesis was
accepted in all cases). This could be because a linear trend was assumed to estimate
the slope values, which may not be true in all cases.

9
10

3. The weighted area parameter seemed to be the best factor to evaluate the differences
between groups.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

The ANOVA and Bonferroni multiple comparisons test results for all nine cases resulting
from the combination of every region and traffic level are detailed in TABLE 2. The parameter
used to generate the results was the weighted area since as previously mentioned it proved to be
the best factor to evaluate the differences between groups. Three tests were performed for every
combination (a) last M&R treatment within flexible pavements, (b) last M&R treatment within
composite pavements, and (c) all flexible versus all composite pavement values. Resulting
statistical differences for tests (a) and (b) are noted under the Last M&R Treatment column in
TABLE 2; if no difference was detected the group is labeled as All. Note that due to data
availability, not all last M&R treatments are included for every group. Differences resulting from
test (c) are noted as different groups under the Pavement Type column in TABLE 2; if no
statistical difference resulted from the analysis, the group is labeled as Flexible + Composite.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.
1

TABLE 2 Pavement Performance Groups Resulting from the ANOVA and Bonferroni Analyses
Region

Traffic Pavement Type


Low

Mountain
Med
High

Flexible
Composite
Flexible + Composite
Flexible + Composite
Flexible

Low
Composite
Central

Med

Flexible
Composite
Flexible

High
Composite
Low

Flexible + Composite

Med
High

Flexible + Composite
Flexible + Composite

Coastal

Last M&R Treatment


T15
T5, T8 and T12
All
All
All
T5, T8
T12
T15
T5 and T8
T12 and T15
T5
T8 and T12
T15
All
T5 and T8
T12 and T15
T5, T8 and T12
T15
T5
T8
T12
T15
All
All

Group No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

2
3

PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE MODELS

4
5
6

With the results of the statistical analysis, the SHA database entries were combined based on the
resulting 24 distinct groups and used to generate pavement performance models employing a
histogram-based analysis. The analysis for each group consisted of the following steps:

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

1. Combine all group entries into a single list


2. Develop a histogram using a bin range from 0 to 100 percent in 1 percent increments.
The histogram analysis yielded, for each bin, the count or frequency of observations
within that range. For example for bin = 21 percent the histogram analysis output and
report the number of instances when the IRI index value was equal to or less than 21
percent and greater than 20 percent. FIGURE 2 presents an example of a histogram
chart output for group no. 3 (TABLE 2).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

30

Frequency (Count)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90
%IRI Bin

1
2

FIGURE 2 Histogram frequency chart output for group no. 1.

3
4

3. Determine the maximum IRI index value of the group and assign it as IRImax

5
6

4. Starting from the highest bin, estimate the IRI index deterioration rate using the
following equation:

7
8

Di = IRI i +1

max( F )
* factor
Fi

(5)

Where: Di is the estimated IRI index value considering deterioration,

9
10

IRIi+1 is the IRI index value of the next bin (i.e. equal to IRImax for the highest
bin),

11

max(F) is the maximum frequency of the bin range,

12

Fi is the frequency corresponding to the current bin, and

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

factor is a number assigned based on experience and engineering judgment with


regard to how fast the pavement type in question deteriorates. Different factors
were assigned to different sections of the performance model curve to
accommodate the number of available data points, which were scarce especially
for lower IRI Index values. A higher factor value translates into a higher
deterioration rate and thus a lower IRI index value. Typical factor values ranged
from 0.05 to 0.50 with most of the models having factors around 0.15 to 0.20.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

10

1
2

5. Acquire all positive Di values and assign an incremental age value, starting with 1 for
IRImax and decrementing as the estimated IRI index value decreases.

6. Plot Di versus age and fit a 3rd to 5th order polynomial model of the form:

% IRI = C 0 + C1 Age + C 2 Age 2 + C 3 Age 3 + C 4 Age 4 + C 5 Age 5

Where C0 is the intercept and C1 to C5 are the regression coefficients.

6
7
8
9
10
11

(6)

The resulting intercept and regression coefficients after performing the histogram-based
analysis and polynomial fit are listed in TABLE 3. The sample size, n, used to obtain the
performance model and the r-squared of the regression are also listed. The group no. corresponds
to the ones listed in TABLE 2. FIGURE 3 shows the performance model and equation for group
no. 1.

12
13
14

TABLE 3 Pavement Performance Model Parameters Obtained Using a Histogram-Based


Analysis
Group No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

C0
92.71
93.70
94.09
93.51
94.30
93.93
94.08
94.92
93.70
90.50
89.41
94.67
92.50
93.58
94.13
94.07
94.21
95.00
93.45
94.61
95.40
90.48
95.98
94.82

C1
1.58
1.70
1.69
1.55
8.4310-1
1.72
1.17
3.41
2.47
1.64
1.95
1.67
1.95
2.13
7.8710-1
5.6810-1
6.9310-1
1.16
5.0210-1
1.60
1.48
6.7610-1
7.9210-1
2.3010-1

C2
5.6710-2
7.8410-2
1.0710-1
6.7910-2
1.5310-2
9.7110-2
2.9010-2
2.2710-1
1.5410-1
8.8810-2
1.6110-1
9.7010-2
1.0710-1
1.3110-1
2.8510-2
1.4010-2
1.2310-2
3.0810-2
2.8310-2
1.4210-1
1.5410-1
1.2510-2
2.5710-2
8.4010-3

C3
1.1010-3
1.4010-3
4.2210-3
1.3010-3
8.0010-4
2.9910-3
3.2010-4
8.0310-3
4.6310-3
2.5910-3
7.1510-3
3.1410-3
3.2310-3
4.3810-3
1.3410-3
6.5910-4
4.0010-4
4.0010-4
1.5710-3
5.9710-3
7.8410-3
4.9810-4
5.0010-4
1.7210-3

C4

C5

7.8110-5 5.9710-7
4.0710-5 2.0510-7
1.3110-4
6.1210-5
3.3210-5
1.4710-4
4.4810-5
4.7110-5
6.6410-5
2.8510-5
1.1610-5

7.9010-7
3.0210-7
1.6110-7
1.1410-6
2.3610-7
3.0010-7
3.9010-7
2.2510-7
6.9010-8

3.1810-5
1.0610-4
1.7010-4
1.1610-5

2.4010-7
6.7010-7
1.3310-6
9.5010-8

5.1810-5 5.5810-7

n
53
55
62
54
48
89
85
73
85
88
63
76
70
76
78
63
62
74
74
75
63
85
67
57

R2
0.9983
0.9977
0.9974
0.9975
0.9992
0.9932
0.9904
0.9979
0.9942
0.9976
0.9987
0.9948
0.9960
0.9961
0.9984
0.9777
0.9983
0.9974
0.9953
0.9930
0.9980
0.9942
0.9962
0.9984

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

11

%IRI

Region 1, Flexible, Low Traffic, T15


100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

y = -0.0011x 3 + 0.0567x 2 - 1.5846x + 92.7085

10

20

30

40

50

60

Age (Years)

1
2

FIGURE 3 Pavement performance model and regression equation for group no. 1.

PERFORMANCE MODELS VALIDATION

4
5

The pavement performance models generated using the histogram-based analysis were validated
using independent pavement sections. The validation procedure consisted of the following steps:

6
7

1. Extract from independent pavement sections that correspond to each region and
traffic level group.

8
9
10
11

2. Match for every section within each group the first IRI index value to the pavement
performance model, determining the corresponding age. FIGURE 4 shows an
example in which the first IRI index value for a section, which equals 67%, is
matched to the performance model obtaining an estimated age of 37 years.

12
13
14
15
16

3. Add one year to the age value determined in Step 2 for each subsequent IRI index
value. In the example presented in FIGURE 4, the subsequent IRI index entries for
that section will be 38, 39, 40 years, etc. Usually the interval between IRI
measurements is one year, but if the span is greater, add the appropriate number of
years to the age.

17
18

4. Use the performance equation for each section with the age values determined in Step
3 to estimate IRI index.

19
20
21

5. Calculate the squared-error as the difference between the database IRI index value
and the performance model IRI index value:
2
SE = (IRI measured IRI estimated )
(7)

22
23

Note that since the first entry for each section was used to estimate the age (Step 2),
the squared-error for the first entry of every section will be zero.

24

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

12

MD-144, Section 12.2-13.6(E)


100.0

%IRI

80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Age (Years)
Performance Model

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

MD-144

FIGURE 4 Example of how age is determined for the first IRI index value of a pavement
section.
6. Calculate the mean squared error as the sum of squared errors divided by the degrees
of freedom:
MSE =

SE
n2

(8)

7. Calculate the standard error of the estimate as the squared root of the mean squared
error:

= MSE

(9)

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The standard error results for each performance model are listed in TABLE 4. It is
desirable to achieve a standard error of around 5% or 6% so that the true value of the IRI index
would lie no farther than about 10% to 12% of the calculated value. That is, assuming a
normal distribution of the data, the 95% confidence interval limits for the estimate would be
within 1.96. The majority of the models achieved a of less than 6% and the few exceptions
were revised to meet the threshold.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The best correlations were observed on middle-aged pavements, which are pavements
that did not receive a recent M&R treatment or pavements that had a long time span between the
last M&R treatment year and the IRI measurement year. The opposite was true for pavements
with an age that aligned around the final third of the performance model curve. Even though
the bulk of the sections were not in this case, additional adjustments to the performance models
would be required in order to represent more accurately the expected performance of pavements
that fall in this category.

25

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.
1
2

13

TABLE 4 95 Percent Confidence Intervals for the Pavement Performance Models Obtained
Using a Histogram-based Analysis
Group No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Standard Error (%)


4.0
5.9
4.0
4.3
1.8
5.3
3.6
5.9
6.3
5.2
5.9
5.5
5.5
6.0
4.3
4.4
4.8
2.3
2.2
2.2
3.4
5.4
2.7
2.4

Confidence Interval (%)


7.8
11.6
7.8
8.4
3.5
10.4
7.1
11.6
12.3
10.2
11.6
10.8
10.8
11.8
8.4
8.6
9.4
4.5
4.3
4.3
6.7
10.6
5.3
4.7

3
4

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

The method used by SHA to develop their pavement performance models was revised as part of
this study. The previous approach prescribed hundreds of unique performance equations based
on pavement condition for every region, traffic level, pavement type, pavement treatment, and
pavement condition. After an initial assessment of these variables, a decision was made to
eliminate pavement condition as a grouping characteristic in order to simplify the analysis
process. The remaining 72 groups resulting from the combination of 3 state regions (i.e.,
Mountain, Central, and Coastal), 3 traffic levels (i.e., low, medium, and high), 2 pavement types
(i.e., flexible and composite), and 4 last M&R pavement treatments (i.e., T5, T8, T12, and T15)
were studied using SHA pavement condition database.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

After selecting the entries, eliminating outliers, and calculating the analysis parameters
consisting of the average, slope, and weighted area of the IRI versus age data, a statistical
ANOVA was performed to study the differences in IRI between the last M&R treatment and
pavement type variables. These differences were explored for nine different cases, corresponding
to the combinations of the state regions and traffic levels. The results of the ANOVA and
Bonferroni multiple comparisons on the weighted area of the IRI values showed that only 24
groups of the 72 possible combinations were significantly different.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Arambula et al.

14

1
2
3
4
5

A histogram-based approach was then used to develop performance models for the 24
groups identified. It was necessary to use this novel method because when the IRI versus age
relationship was used to develop the performance models, the deterioration rate of the pavement
was much higher than what is usually observed in practice. Therefore, it was necessary to
circumvent the pavement age characterization with this alternative approach.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

The resulting pavement performance models were validated using independent generated
sections with satisfactory results. The best correlation was observed on middle-age pavement
sections, that is, pavements that have not been recently treated or pavements that had a long time
span between the last M&R treatment and the year of IRI measurement. Further refinement of
the initial and final parts the performance models to better characterize pavements that do not fall
into the middle-age pavement category is currently underway. Overall, however, the prediction
models have provided satisfactory network-level pavement performance predictions and have
been used successfully to predict pavement condition and prescribe maintenance and
rehabilitation treatments.

15

REFERENCES

16
17

1. State Highway Administration. 2009 Pavement System Preservation Report. Office of


Materials Technology, Hanover, Maryland, 2010.

18
19
20

2. Hedfi, A., and P. Stephanos. Pavement Performance Modeling: An Applied Approach at


the State of Maryland. Presented at the Fifth International Conference on Managing
Pavements, Seattle, Washington, 2001.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Вам также может понравиться