Performance Pavement PDF

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24945 SHARE

   
Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Preservation

Treatments
DETAILS
158 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

ISBN 978-0-309-44661-7 | DOI 10.17226/24945
CONTRIBUTORS
GET THIS BOOK Karim Chatti, Syed Waqar Haider, Ronell J. Eisma, Gopikrishna Musunuru, Y.
Richard Kim, Cassie Castorena, and Javon Adams; National Cooperative Highway
Research Program; Transportation Research Board; National Academies of
FIND RELATED TITLES Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

Visit the National Academies Press at NAP.edu and login or register to get:
– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

– 10% off the price of print titles
– Email or social media notiﬁcations of new titles related to your interests
– Special offers and discounts

Distribution, posting, or copying of this PDF is strictly prohibited without written permission of the National Academies Press.
(Request Permission) Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences.
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Preservation Treatments
N AT I O N A L C O O P E R AT I V E H I G H W AY R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M
NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 857

Performance-Related
Specifications for Pavement
Preservation Treatments
Karim Chatti
Syed Waqar Haider
Ronell J. Eisma
Gopikrishna Musunuru
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
Y. Richard Kim
Cassie Castorena
Javon Adams
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC
Subscriber Categories
Maintenance and Preservation • Materials
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
2017
Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 857

RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve Project 10-82A
many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, ISSN 2572-3766 (Print)
highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by ISSN 2572-3774 (Online)
highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state ISBN 978-0-309-44661-7
universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway Library of Congress Control Number 2017954-549
transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter-
© 2017 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a
coordinated program of cooperative research.
Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
tiated an objective national highway research program using modern Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by published or copyrighted material used herein.
funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
United States Department of Transportation. understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA,
The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies
or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give
administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For
and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited other uses of the material, request permission from CRP.
for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com-
mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation
subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and NOTICE
cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer-
The research report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication
sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the National Academies is an
according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board
insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of special- and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
ists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
directly to those in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the
by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- program sponsors.
tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein
AASHTO Board of Directors and the National Academies. Research solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified
research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administra-
tion and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the
National Academies and TRB.
The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make
significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems
of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however,
is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate,
other highway research programs.
Published research reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

are available from
Transportation Research Board

Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

http://www.national-academies.org
and then searching for TRB
Printed in the United States of America

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non-
governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for
outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the
practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering.
Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions
to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent,
objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions.
The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase
public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org.
The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing
leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that
is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000
engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all
of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal
agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals
interested in the development of transportation.
Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 857

Christopher J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Amir N. Hanna, Senior Program Officer
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Hilary Freer, Senior Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 10-82A PANEL

Field of Materials and Construction—Area of Specifications, Procedures, and Practices
LaDonna R. Rowden, Illinois DOT, Springfield, IL (Chair)
Nicholas I. Burmas, California DOT, Sacramento, CA
James Howard Greene, Florida DOT, Gainesville, FL
Richard P. Izzo, Texas DOT, Austin, TX
Thomas A. Kane, New York State DOT, Albany, NY
Amy L. Simpson, AMEC Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc., Roanoke, TX
Jerry E. Stephens, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT
Katherine A. Petros, FHWA Liaison
James W. Bryant, Jr., TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research report herein was performed under NCHRP Project 10-82A by researchers in the Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Michigan State University (MSU). The researchers at
North Carolina State University (NCSU) contributed to the development of the example for chip seal
performance-related specifications. The authors would like to thank Dr. Julie Vandenbossche from the
University of Pittsburgh for her review and valuable comments on the work related to rigid pavement
preservation treatments. The authors also acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by MSU graduate
and undergraduate students during the period of this research.

FOREWORD
By Amir N. Hanna
Staff Officer
Transportation Research Board
This report (1) presents guidelines for use in preparing performance-related specifications
(PRS) for pavement preservation treatments and, if desired, determining pay adjustment fac-
tors and (2) illustrates the applicability of these guidelines for selected preservation treatments
for flexible and rigid pavements. The guidelines follow a systematic process that considers
acceptance quality characteristics and performance measures for preservation treatments. The
information contained in the report will be of immediate interest to state materials and main-
tenance engineers and others involved with the specification and quality aspects of pavement
preservation treatments.
Quality assurance specifications that specify end-product quality have often been used by
transportation agencies as a means for ensuring construction quality of highway pavements.
However, agencies are increasingly incorporating PRS in construction contracts to specify
quality in terms of parameters related to desired long-term performance and to provide a
means to account for the value lost or gained by the variances of these parameters from the
specified target values. Although such PRS have been used for the construction of pave-
ments, their use for pavement preservation treatments has been limited.
There are no widely accepted guidelines for PRS for pavement preservation treatments that
correlate key engineering properties to treatment quality and long-term performance. There-
fore, research was needed to address the issues associated with PRS and to develop guidelines
for use in preparing rational PRS for pavement preservation treatments. These guidelines
will help highway agencies develop and incorporate PRS in preservation treatment contracts,
specify an optimum level of quality that represents a balance of costs and performance, and,
if desired, establish quality-related pay adjustment factors.
Under NCHRP Project 10-82A, “Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Pres-
ervation Treatments,” Michigan State University worked with the objective of developing
guidelines for use in preparing PRS for preservation treatments of the different pavement
types. To accomplish this objective, the researchers reviewed current pavement preservation
practices, acceptance quality characteristics, and performance measures for preservation
treatments, and used this information as a basis for developing the guidelines. In developing
the guidelines, three approaches were considered for establishing the relationships between
quality characteristics and performance measures: empirical, mechanistic-empirical, and
performance-based laboratory and field test properties. Encompassed within the guidelines
is a procedure for developing pay adjustment curves that can be used to establish acceptable
and rejectable quality levels based on the quality measures. The guidelines are supplemented
with examples illustrating applicability of the guidelines for selected preservation treatments
for flexible and rigid pavements.

CONTENTS
1 Summary
2 Chapter 1 Introduction
2 1.1 Objective
2 1.2 Research Approach
3 1.3 Report Organization
4 Chapter 2 Process for Developing PRS Guidelines

4 2.1 Background
4 2.2 Characteristics of Performance Specifications
4 Method Specifications
4 Performance Specifications
5 2.3 Performance-Related Strategy
6 Step 1: Identify User Needs and Goals
6 Step 2: Relate Needs and Goals to Performance Parameters
6 Step 3: Consider the Project Delivery Approach
6 Step 4: Determine the Appropriate Measurement Strategy
8 Step 5: Establish Incentive Strategies and Payment Mechanisms
8 Step 6: Identify Deficiencies in Strategy
8 Step 7: Identify and Evaluate Risks
9 Step 8: Develop the Specification
9 2.4 Guidelines for PRS Development
11 Selection of Preservation Treatment
11 Identifying AQCs and Performance Measures
12 Establishing AQC-Performance Relationships and Thresholds
13 Specify Test Methods
13 Establish a Sampling and Measurement Plan
13 Select Quality Measurement Methods
14 Develop Pay Adjustment Factors
14 2.5 Summary
17 Chapter 3 Current Practice

17 3.1 Relevant Issues in Pavement Preservation
18 3.2 Commonly Used Preservation Treatments
18 3.3 Identification of AQCs and Performance Measures
18 3.4 Service Life Extensions
23 3.5 Identification of Preservation Treatments
24 Chapter 4 Guidelines for Statistical Sampling

24 4.1 Types of Acceptance Sampling Plans
25 Attribute Sampling Plan
27 Variable Sampling Plan

29 4.2 Estimating Sample Sizes

29 Standard Error of the Mean
29 Estimation of the Lot Mean
31 Hypothesis Test on Lot Mean
32 4.3 Types of Sampling Methods
33 Random Sampling with Replacement
33 Stratified Sampling
34 Random Sampling without Replacement
34 4.4 Effects of Sampling Methods and Sizes on PWL
36 Construction Quality below RQL
37 Construction Quality between RQL and AQL
38 Construction Quality above AQL
38 4.5 Quantifying Risks
40 4.6 Effects of Lot and Sublot Size on PWL
44 4.7 Summary
47 Chapter 5 Guidelines for Implementing PRS

47 5.1 Treatment Identification and Selection
48 5.2 PRS Guidelines for Preservation Treatments
48 Microsurfacing
50 Thin Overlay
53 Chip Seal
54 Joint Resealing
56 Diamond Grinding
57 Dowel-Bar Retrofit
60 Chapter 6 Examples
60 6.1 Introduction
60 6.2 Characterization of Pre-Existing Conditions
60 6.3 Chip Seal
74 6.4 Diamond Grinding
94 Chapter 7 Summary, Findings, and Recommendations

for Future Research
94 7.1 Summary
94 Process for Developing PRS Guidelines
95 State of the Practice in Pavement Preservation
95 Sampling Plans and Methods
96 PRS Guidelines and Examples
97 7.2 Findings
98 7.3 Recommendations for Future Research
99 References
102 Abbreviations, Acronyms, Initialisms, and Symbols
104 Appendix A Examples
Note: Photographs, figures, and tables in this report may have been converted from color to grayscale for printing.
The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

Summary
Performance-Related Specifications
for Pavement Preservation
Treatments
Performance-related specifications (PRS) are quality assurance specifications that describe
the desired levels of key materials and construction quality characteristics that have been
found to correlate with the long-term performance of the finished product, thus providing
the basis for rational acceptance and price adjustments. Pavement preservation treatments
are actions applied to preserve an existing roadway, slow future deterioration, and main-
tain and improve roadway functional condition (without substantially increasing structural
capacity). There are no widely accepted guidelines for PRS for pavement preservation treat-
ments that correlate key engineering properties to treatment quality and long-term perfor-
mance. Therefore, research is needed to develop guidelines to facilitate development and
implementation of PRS for preservation treatments that directly relate key material and con-
struction characteristics to expected as-constructed pavement performance. These guidelines
will help highway agencies develop and incorporate PRS in preservation treatment contracts.
Consequently, agencies will be able to (1) specify an optimum level of quality that represents
the best balance of costs and performance and (2) establish quality-related pay adjustment
factors, if desired. The objective of this research was to develop guidelines for use in preparing
PRS for pavement preservation treatments for both flexible and rigid pavements.
This research produced guidelines for use in preparing pavement preservation PRS. The
guidelines identified several quality characteristics and performance measures for the most
commonly used pavement preservation treatments. In addition, the report documents
the rationale for selecting quality characteristics for a specific preservation treatment. Six
preservation treatment types were short-listed for the development of PRS guidelines and
examples—three were rigid pavement preservation treatments (diamond grinding, joint
resealing, and dowel-bar retrofit) and three were flexible pavement preservation treatments
(chip seal, thin overlay, and microsurfacing). Three approaches were adopted to estab-
lish relationships between quality characteristics and performance measures: empirical,
mechanistic-empirical, and performance-based laboratory and field test properties. These
approaches were used to further develop relationships between quality measures, service
life extensions, and pay adjustment factors. The expected pay curves were developed based
on the quality measures and were used to establish acceptable and rejectable quality levels.
The pay adjustment factors were evaluated to ensure fair payments for the quality of work
produced. Further, the effects of sampling plans, methods, and sample sizes on the estima-
tion of quality measures were evaluated and the associated risks were quantified.
Recommendations were made to distinguish pavement preservation treatment PRS
development from rehabilitation and reconstruction of flexible and rigid pavements. Rec-
ommendations were also documented for using a specific sampling plan and method and
establishing the sample size for destructive and non-destructive data collection methods for
measuring acceptance quality characteristics.
1

Chapter 1
Introduction
Quality assurance specifications that specify end-product quality have often been used by trans-
portation agencies to ensure the construction quality of highway pavements. However, agencies
are increasingly incorporating performance-related specifications (PRS) in construction contracts
to specify quality in terms of parameters related to desired long-term performance. These PRS
also provide a means to account for the value lost or gained by the variances of these parameters
from the specified target values. Although such PRS have been used in the construction of new
pavements, their use for pavement preservation treatments has been limited. If adopted, PRS will
enable agencies to ensure quality pavement preservation treatments are delivered while creating a
fair bid environment for contractors.
There are no widely accepted guidelines for PRS for pavement preservation treatments that
correlate key engineering properties to treatment quality and long-term performance. Therefore,
research was needed to develop guidelines to facilitate developing PRS for pavement preserva-
tion treatments that directly relate key material and construction characteristics to performance.
NCHRP Project 10-82A was initiated to address this need. These guidelines will help highway
agencies develop and incorporate PRS in preservation treatment contracts. The PRS will enable
agencies to specify an optimum level of quality that represents the best balance of costs and per-
formance and to establish quality-related pay adjustment factors, if desired.
1.1 Objective
The objective of this research was to develop guidelines for use in preparing PRS for pavement
preservation treatments for both flexible and rigid pavements.
1.2 Research Approach

In this report, preservation treatments are defined as actions applied to preserve an existing
roadway, slow future deterioration, and maintain and improve roadway functional condition
(without substantially increasing structural capacity). Preventive maintenance treatments com-
monly applied to hot-mix asphalt (HMA) pavements include crack sealing and crack filling, slurry
seals, chip seals, microsurfacing, cape seal, fog seals, hot in-place recycling (HIR), cold in-place
recycling (CIR), and thin HMA overlays. Treatments applied to portland cement concrete (PCC)
pavements include joint resealing, crack sealing, joint and spall partial-depth repair, load-transfer
restoration, diamond grinding, and under-sealing.
The typical PRS quality assurance specifications describe the desired levels of key materials
and construction quality characteristics that have been found to correlate with fundamental
engineering properties that predict performance. These characteristics (e.g., air voids in asphalt

Introduction 3
concrete and compressive strength of PCC) are amenable to acceptance testing at the time of
construction (Perera et al. 1998; Epps et al. 2002; Hughes 2005; National Academies of Sci-
ences, Engineering, and Medicine 2001; Fugro Consultants, Inc., and Arizona State University
2011; Burati et al. 2003; Hughes 1996; Smith 1998). However, PRS not only describe the desired
levels of these quality characteristics, but also use the quantified relationships containing the
characteristics to predict as-constructed pavement performance. As a result, PRS provide the
basis for rational acceptance/pay adjustment decisions. This research was performed to develop
guidelines to help develop such PRS. This objective was accomplished by performing the
following tasks:
• Documenting relevant issues
• Identifying common preservation treatments
• Identifying a process for developing guidelines
• Addressing data needs and availability and identifying relevant related issues
• Developing the PRS guidelines and presenting examples to illustrate their use
This report documents the work performed in these tasks.
1.3 Report Organization

The report has seven chapters. Chapter 1 documents the background and the need for devel-
oping PRS guidelines for pavement preservation treatments. Chapter 2 presents the overall pro-
cess used for developing the guidelines. Chapter 3 summarizes the relevant issues in pavement
preservation and reviews current pavement preservation practices, acceptance quality charac-
teristics, and performance measures for preservation treatments. Chapter 4 provides details
for establishing a sampling method and associated uncertainties and ways to minimize asso-
ciated risks. Chapter 5 presents the guidelines. Chapter 6 presents two examples, using field
data, which illustrate the application of the guidelines to common preservation treatments for
flexible and rigid pavements. Chapter 7 summarizes the findings and suggests future research.
Appendix A presents examples (using simulated data because field data were not available) for
other treatments.

Chapter 2
Process for Developing

PRS Guidelines
2.1 Background
Highway agencies are implementing performance specifications in highway construction stan-
dards to mitigate their risks. These specifications are based on construction- or material-related
parameters known to relate to expected pavement performance. Although adoption of such speci-
fications typically relax requirements on construction variables, specifications enable contractors
to use different construction methods to achieve the desired pavement performance. As a result,
the contractor undertakes certain risks and responsibilities associated with project construction.
In the case of a substandard construction, a pay deduction may occur while payment incentives
for the contractor can lead to quality work. Therefore, implementing performance specifications
benefits all stakeholders—agency, contractor, and road users.
2.2 Characteristics of Performance Specifications

The construction specification has progressed over time based on specific needs. The follow-
ing paragraphs briefly describe the features of both the method/prescriptive and performance
specifications.
Method Specifications
Method specifications have the following characteristics (Scott et al. 2014a):
• They are well-established and easily understood.
• They are based on known or established materials and construction properties that can indi-
rectly affect pavement performance.
• They restrict deviation of a particular property during construction.
• They lack built-in incentives for improving the final product.
Examples of method specifications for pavement construction include mix design param-
eters (e.g., air voids, binder contents, and percent passing a sieve size), compaction or density
requirements, and level of surface smoothness. Although specifying such well-established meth-
ods minimizes the risk associated with newer or less-proven procedures, it discourages the con-
tractor from achieving more than the minimum requirements (i.e., the contractor only needs to
meet these specifications during construction), whereas correcting performance deficiencies (if
any) becomes the agency responsibility.
Performance Specifications
Performance specifications define the requirements of the end-product, thus allowing
the contractor to select materials and construction techniques suitable for meeting the

Process for Developing PRS Guidelines 5
requirements. The performance specifications can be classified into the following types (Scott
et al. 2014b):
• End-result specifications (ERS)
• Quality assurance specifications (QAS)
• Performance-based specifications (PBS)
• Performance-related specifications (PRS)
• Warranties
• Long-term maintenance provisions
End-result specifications allow the contractor to select a construction method to produce the
final product, while the agency decides to accept or reject it. QA specifications require the contractor
to perform quality management and acceptance activities throughout construction. Performance-
based specifications (PBS) are QA specifications that describe fundamental engineering properties
that can be used as performance indicators. For instance, specific ranges of resilient moduli of a
pavement layer can be used to develop cracking or rutting performance models, including a com-
bination of factors that represent traffic, environment, subgrade properties, and structural condi-
tions. In contrast to PRS, PBS specify desired levels of actual engineering properties. PRS have the
following additional characteristics (Scott et al. 2014a and 2014b):
• PRS incorporate key materials and acceptance quality characteristics (AQCs) that can be
related to fundamental engineering properties used to predict performance.
• PRS are based on mathematical models which define desired AQC specification thresholds for
acceptance testing during construction.
• PRS may provide rational pay adjustments based on the difference between as-designed and
as-constructed life cycle costs or other statistically based quality measures.
Warranties and long-term maintenance provisions often supplement performance specifications
by providing thresholds or indicators that hold the contractor responsible for the quality of work for
a period of time after project completion.
Although method specifications are essential for defining the thresholds of certain variables
in a project, several key advantages are associated with implementing PRS. The development
of a PRS defines end-product performance based on desired outcomes and user needs. This
provides a rational means for considering pay adjustments to the contractor through the mea-
surement and evaluation of key performance parameters. The contractor can use different con-
struction methods but accepts the associated risks. This can motivate a contractor to be more
conscious of providing high-quality work that can exceed expectations and reduce the agency
costs associated with construction inspection. In addition, the adoption of PRS requires the
agency to relinquish control over some aspects of the work. Successful implementation of PRS
can promote innovative construction methods and help achieve a high-quality end-product.
2.3 Performance-Related Strategy

Several steps are required for the development of a performance-related strategy. These steps
must relate user needs and project goals to the expected asset performance. The overall process
should do the following (Scott et al. 2014b):
1. Identify user needs and project goals,
2. Relate needs and goals to performance indicators,
3. Consider the project delivery approach,
4. Determine the appropriate measurement strategy,
5. Establish incentive strategies and payment mechanisms (if needed),

6 Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Preservation Treatments
6. Identify deficiencies in strategy,

7. Identify and evaluate risks, and
8. Develop the specification.
As part of this process, AQCs that could serve as performance indicators of a specific asset
must be selected. A system of measurement along with verification methods must be established
to evaluate these performance indicators. The measurement strategies will depend on the type of
performance indicator, the type of project delivery method, and the defined performance lim-
its. The PRS can be developed by evaluating historical performance data, reviewing the current
standards, considering input from industry, analyzing findings from controlled test studies, and
establishing relationships between quality characteristics and expected performance. Performance
limits are incorporated into a quality assurance program to determine quality measures that
appropriately assign incentives and disincentives (i.e., pay factors) depending on the quality of the
completed project. Figure 2-1 (Scott et al. 2014b) shows a broad step-by-step process for develop-
ing a performance-based strategy.
Step 1: Identify User Needs and Goals

The approach used to develop PRS shifts the emphasis from characterizing basic materials
and construction procedures to focusing on the outcome of the project. This outcome should be
aligned with the needs of the user; these needs are typically tied to functional performance issues
(e.g., accessibility, safety, and ride quality). As such, PRS are suited for preservation treatments
intended to address functional performance measures.
Step 2: Relate Needs and Goals to Performance Parameters

In terms of pavement preservation, common project goals include maximizing pavement
performance by regularly applying treatments, minimizing delays caused by maintenance activi-
ties, and increasing user safety by reducing pavement distresses. AQCs that relate to treatment
performance characteristics (e.g., safety and ride quality) and affect these goals and user needs
should be included in a specification because they are related to friction, pavement noise, and
roughness.
Step 3: Consider the Project Delivery Approach

An essential step in developing a performance-related framework is to consider the delivery
approach used for the project. High-level performance requirements control functional per-
formance such as roughness, friction, and noise. On the other hand, low-level performance
requirements control construction and material characteristics indirectly related to the expected
performance. Generally, high-level performance requirements are not suitable for a delivery
approach that requires a contractor to assume risk over items that cannot be controlled during
construction (Scott et al. 2014b), such as the design-bid-build approach (DBB). In contrast, the
design-build-operate-maintain approach (DBOM) requires that a contractor assume whole-life
performance risks, including the monitoring and evaluation of performance over the service
life of the project. The PRS must be tailored to the delivery approach by including the func-
tional parameters used for monitoring and evaluating performance and allowing for flexibility
in materials and construction requirements as agreed to by the agency and the contractor.
Step 4: Determine the Appropriate Measurement Strategy

The development of performance-related strategy requires the consideration of these key PRS
components:

Step 1
Identify user needs and project
goals
Step 2
Relate needs and goals to
performance parameters
Step 3
Consider the project delivery
approach
Step 4
Determine the appropriate Performance-Related
measurement strategy Specfications
Step 5
Establish incentive strategies and
payment mechanisms From
PRS Flow
Chart
Step 6
Identify deficiencies in strategy
Step 7
Identify and evaluate risks related
to performance requirements
Step 8
Develop the specifications
Figure 2-1. Process for developing a performance-based strategy

(Scott et al. 2014b).
• Defining performance parameters and associated performance measures,

• Defining testing methods and sampling plans that evaluate compliance, and
• Using compliance test results in quality assurance programs.
Each of these components must be determined through a detailed evaluation of candidate

quality characteristics considered for inclusion in a performance-related specification. These
characteristics depend on the parameter and treatment type. Section 2.4 presents an outline that
examines the process for developing PRS guidelines.

Step 5: Establish Incentive Strategies and Payment Mechanisms

A performance-related strategy that reduces costs (i.e., maintenance and repairs) for a project
and provides incentives to the contractor for performing quality work would motivate a con-
tractor to produce high-quality work. One such strategy is the use of performance-related pay
adjustment factors that reflect the degree of compliance with specifications. Currently, there is
no widely accepted method for calculating quality-related payment factors (Scott et al. 2014b).
The following are two methods commonly used for calculating pay factors:
1. Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis of performance prediction models. This method is suited for
use in developing pay factors because additions or deductions in pay are closely related to
project construction and maintenance costs. Substandard construction can result in added
costs for testing, maintenance, and rehabilitation. In contrast, construction that exceeds
expected levels of quality can result in cost savings. The difference in the cost of as-designed
compared to as-constructed pavement assets can serve as a basis for payment adjustment
factors.
2. Statistically based sampling and testing plans used to measure variability. This method is
regularly used to describe quality specifications that are primarily related to pavement con-
struction. This type of measurement program produces a set of specifications based on
laboratory-determined properties of field samples. The results are then used as a basis for
acceptance and payment adjustment. This method provides a more practical approach for
relating payment to the degree of quality of work (Scott et al. 2014b). An example of a sta-
tistical measure of quality using the concept of percent within limits (PWL) is presented in
Section 2.4.
Step 6: Identify Deficiencies in Strategy

The PRS measurement strategy must also be evaluated for deficiencies that may limit the
extent of its implementation. Deficiencies may occur because of the unavailability of specialized
or costly equipment or test results. Such factors must be identified and minimized to enhance
implementation and adoption of a PRS. One method to address such gaps is to combine a PRS
with prescriptive specifications to assist in describing performance (e.g., defining a range of chip
seal construction emulsion rates that describe the effect on cumulative aggregate loss in addi-
tion to evaluation of post-construction mean texture depth as a measure of expected raveling).
Advancements in non-destructive testing (NDT) technology can also aid in collecting, process-
ing, and evaluating data within a reasonable time frame. However, care must be taken to ensure
that quality and performance of the end-product is not compromised.
Step 7: Identify and Evaluate Risks

This step identifies and evaluates the risks associated with the selected PRS levels. For example,
there is always a probability that an agency would accept work that does not meet the require-
ments or reject work that meets the requirement. This step will identify those risks and consider
strategies to mitigate them. The following are key factors pertaining to risk assessment and man-
agement (Scott et al. 2014b):
• Certain risks can affect the levels at which performance measures are specified. For instance,
given that skid resistance and surface friction are functional performance measures (high-
level) associated with user safety needs, the political sensitivity toward vehicle accidents and
crash data may influence a shift in the PRS measurement policy of an agency. Instead of specify-
ing a target skid resistance, an agency may choose to specify lower-level material and mixture
properties expected to control surface friction.

• Upon identification of possible risks, the agency and contractor need to coordinate the assign-
ment of risk responsibility. Potential scenarios under which a risk may manifest itself should be
determined, and an appropriate risk management and monitoring strategy should be developed.
A sound risk management strategy should promote understanding of the risks associated
with a project and the selected PRS. The strategy should include a plan for addressing the risks
in a manner that minimizes costs, meets project goals, and aligns with the needs of the agency,
contractor, and roadway users.
Step 8: Develop the Specification

The final step in establishing a performance-based strategy is to develop a well-defined PRS. The
PRS should indicate (1) the required level of performance, (2) criteria for evaluating the degree of
compliance of the contractor, and (3) pay adjustments (positive or negative) associated with the
degree of compliance. These items will differ, based on the delivery approach (e.g., DBB or DBOM)
and selected PRS, but should include common elements (e.g., material and construction require-
ments, quality assurance procedures, and payment adjustment programs).
Developing a PRS is a part of the overall performance-based strategy. Available processes
can be tailored to produce PRS for pavement preservation. The following section describes the
process for developing a pavement preservation PRS.
2.4 Guidelines for PRS Development

In developing PRS guidelines for pavement preservation treatments, the following items need
to be addressed:
1. Evaluation of pre-existing pavement conditions for determining the suitability of a particu-
lar preservation treatment for a given project. The effectiveness of preservation treatment
depends on the treatment selection and timing. However, the timing and treatment type are
significantly affected by the pre-existing condition of the pavement surface on which the
preservation treatment is to be applied. Therefore, quantifying the pre-existing conditions in
terms of remaining service life (based on existing distresses) or structural strength (e.g., based
on deflection testing) is a key element for successful implementation of the PRS.
2. Identification of quality characteristics (i.e., material properties and construction variables)
related to expected performance. The construction materials and methods may be unique
to a preservation treatment, and performance measures may be more functional (i.e., only
addressing the non-load-related surface conditions such as raveling, texture, and bleeding).
3. Development of a quality assurance and management program that incorporates sampling
and statistical procedures to link variability in quality characteristics to expected performance
and pay factor adjustments. Available procedures can be modified to account for performance
limits unique to preservation treatments.
The method for assessing pre-existing pavement conditions for selecting a treatment time
and type needs to be specified. In this research, it was assumed that such methods are already
established. Several quality characteristics will be identified in the list of preservation treatments
presented in Chapter 3. The rationale for selecting quality characteristics for a specific preserva-
tion treatment is presented in Chapter 5. In general, developing PRS for the preservation treat-
ments involves requiring the following steps (see also Figure 2-2):
1. Select a preservation treatment.
2. Select candidate material and construction characteristics (i.e., quality characteristics) and
performance measures.

Step 1
Treatment Selection
Guidelines for PRS Development
Step 2a
Identify and Select Step 2b
Candidate AQCs Identify Performance Measures
(Variables/attributes for the treatment material (Functional or structural performance measures
properties and construction process which can which can be explained by the AQCs)
be related to expected performance)
Step 3
Identify Relationships between
AQCs and Performance Measure
(Thresholds and Limits)
• Empirical relationships
• Mechanistic-empirical relationships
• Laboratory and field test approaches
Defining new AQCs and
performance relationships
Step 4
Determine Thresholds and Limits
(Quantify impact of variability on performance)
Validation and calibration of

performance
relationships and limits Step 5
Identify Measurement of AQCs
(Test methods in laboratory and field)
Step 6
Select Sampling Protocols
(Lot size, sample size, sampling frequency etc.)
Step 7
Establish Quality Measurement
Methods
(PWL, LCC, other statistically based measures)
Step 8
Develop Pay Adjustment Factors
(Incentives and disincentives based on quality
measures, quantify agency and contractor risks)
Figure 2-2. Process for PRS development.

3. Establish relationships between quality characteristics and performance measures and deter-
mine performance limits.
4. Specify tests methods to measure the selected characteristics.
5. Establish a sampling and measurement plan.
6. Select quality measurement methods.
7. Develop pay adjustment factors for incentives and disincentives.
Selection of Preservation Treatment

The suitability of various flexible and rigid pavement preservation treatments was evaluated
in terms of their ability to address functional pavement performance and the availability of
construction- and material-related characteristics that can be measured and linked to expected
pavement performance. Current practices in flexible and rigid pavement preservation were
examined to determine commonly used quality characteristics for these treatments. Also, the
state of the practice in preservation was reviewed to identify the criteria used for treatment selec-
tion and optimum timing.
Identifying AQCs and Performance Measures

Once the pre-existing conditions of a pavement section have justified the use of a particular
preservation treatment, the AQCs of that treatment must be evaluated to assess their relation-
ship to expected performance. The literature defines three levels of PRS (Scott et al. 2014a,
Scott et al. 2014b):
• Level 1 – “Simplified” PRS. These specifications are defined by the standard agency monitor-
ing and testing practices and emphasize the material and construction properties known to
affect performance. Most of the current PRS developed by various highway agencies fall in
this category.
• Level 2 – “Transitional” PRS. These PRS aim at better quantifying and comparing future per-
formance from as-designed and as-constructed LCC analyses. Parameters measured under
this PRS include NDT sampling and testing.
• Level 3 – “Ideal” PRS. PRS requires a thorough understanding of long-term material behavior
and advancements in the NDT technology applicable to measuring related parameters. This
PRS considers many performance-related AQCs measured by NDT methods in LCC analysis.
Issues with the implementation of PRS (i.e., development or modification) related to the
existing test methods must be addressed.
The evolution of PRS development requires better understanding of the long-term per-
formance related to the selected material or construction variable due to traffic and climatic
effects. Further, the AQCs identified in preservation practices must be evaluated for their
suitability to describe the functional performance of the selected treatments. A suitable PRS
should demonstrate that the selected AQC can be used as a specification without exhibiting
implementation-related gaps that can impede its adoption. Based on this requirement, the
AQC should
• Affect pavement performance directly or in conjunction with other variables,
• Show established ability that demonstrates a relationship with pavement performance,
• Demonstrate an ability for a cost-effective and efficient measurement during construction,
• Capture construction variability.
Any gaps for adoption of a specific AQC must be identified and addressed. The AQC cannot
be a PRS candidate if the proposed method fails to overcome these gaps. A distinct separation

between pavement preservation and rehabilitation and reconstruction is needed for the follow-
ing reasons:
1. The performance of preservation treatments significantly depends on the pre-existing pave-
ment conditions. Therefore, the pre-existing pavement condition before applying a preser-
vation treatment plays an important role in the future performance of the treatments. The
pre-existing condition of an existing pavement entails both structural capacity and functional
condition.
2. Given that preservation treatments are non-structural fixes, different performance measures
should be considered for their functional performance evaluations. For example, texture,
raveling, flushing, bleeding, and weathering are a few important indicators of performance
for preservation treatments in flexible pavements.
3. The construction materials used in preservation treatments can be different than conven-
tional pavement materials. For example, most of the preservation treatments for flexible
pavements use asphalt emulsions or polymer-modified asphalt emulsions as compared to
conventional asphalt or modified asphalt binders.
4. The construction processes used for preservation treatments are much different when com-
pared to traditional pavement construction. For example, an important measure for chip
seals success is the embedment depth of the aggregate, whereas compaction density is a mea-
sure of success for traditional flexible pavement construction.
Different performance measures for preservation treatments are documented in Chapter 3
and will be specified for the examples in Chapter 6 and Appendix A.
Establishing AQC-Performance Relationships and Thresholds

This step is critical in developing the preservation PRS framework and in establishing the
suitability of PRS guidelines. The step establishes a relationship between the AQC and pave-
ment performance for a specific preservation treatment. In developing these relationships, cer-
tain ranges within the performance measure are correlated to threshold values of the selected
AQC. Such correlation can be established by collecting and analyzing relevant data through the
following:
• Analysis of performance-related trends in historical data from existing projects,
• Review of thresholds of AQCs and performance measures,
• Collaboration with industry members and practitioners,
• Application of engineering analysis and statistical modeling.
Scarcity of available data (i.e., AQC and observed field performance) related to preserva-
tion treatments is the main reason to propose a hybrid approach for developing relationships
between AQCs and performance measures. The three approaches that follow will be used to
develop examples that demonstrate a relationship between a candidate AQC and a particu-
lar preservation treatment performance. These approaches are (1) empirical, (2) mechanistic-
empirical, and (3) performance-based laboratory and field test properties. To demonstrate the
application of these approaches, preservation treatments for both flexible and rigid pavements
will be evaluated.
Once the relationships between candidate AQCs and performance measures are established
for the specific treatments, the limits or thresholds for the AQCs can be determined for the
acceptable levels of performance. The specific guidelines used to develop PRS unique to each
treatment are presented in Chapter 5 and illustrated by examples in Chapter 6 and Appendix A.

Specify Test Methods

Successful adoption of a PRS requires the use of an objective test method that can measure
AQCs. Methods that provide quantitative results are preferable because the tests can be repeated
to obtain the required information. Furthermore, test method specifications should consider the
following concepts of rapid renewal:
• Minimizing the effect of user delays,
• Collecting and processing data in a timely manner, and
• Emphasizing NDT techniques.
NDT, which focuses on evaluation of functional parameters, is especially important in

developing PRS for pavement preservation treatments.
Potential gaps in the selection of test methods include (1) the use of less-proven methods
that may be deemed undesirable by a contractor unfamiliar with the associated calibration and
analysis procedures and (2) the objectivity of manual measurement methods in comparison to
automated data collection methods. These gaps must be considered as part of the overall perfor-
mance-based strategy. The methods used must be agreed on by the agency and the contractor.
Establish a Sampling and Measurement Plan

A PRS must be supplemented by a sampling plan that balances efficiency with contractor and
agency risks. Although extensive sampling plans may result in less risk to the parties involved,
they may simultaneously accrue higher project and user costs. The plan should also be tailored
to the type of AQC being tested, the resources available to the agency, and the goal of the project
delivery approach. The variability of these factors means that sampling plans may be unique to
each project. However, certain statistical sampling concepts recur, regardless of project needs
(i.e., sample size, lot size, and sampling frequency).
The type of parameter (i.e., an AQC) being tested will have the greatest effect on determining
the sample size. For example, a testing parameter that uses predictive models will require more
extensive testing than normally performed. This type of parameter would benefit more from a
continuous rather than a point-based testing method and a sampling plan tailored to suit this
measurement strategy. Lot size is dependent on project boundaries (e.g., lengths of pavement
sections being surveyed, uniformity of pavement cross section, or similarity of material proper-
ties). The project boundaries must be large enough that the surface conditions related to the
PRS are described adequately, but not so large that it is impractical or inefficient to measure and
process the data collected. Sampling frequency will also depend on the performance parameter,
and the PRS should identify when and how often tests should take place (e.g., during the period
of traffic restriction, during peak traffic times, periodically during construction, or immediately
after construction). The testing frequency should be specified with the project goals and needs
in mind. Sampling is discussed in detail in Chapter 4.
Select Quality Measurement Methods

Typically, an agency is responsible for choosing the quality measure to be used to evalu-
ate compliance with a PRS. Statistically based quality measures are preferred, but traditional
methods of evaluating averages or standard deviations do not address the variability inherent to
measuring performance. Instead, methods such as PWL can be used as a quality measure that
combines the sample average and sample standard deviation as an estimation of population

characteristics. By definition, PWL is the percentage of a lot that falls above a lower specification
limit (LSL) but still lies below an upper specification limit (USL). Another measure of quality is
percent defective (PD). This method is used as an alternative measure to PWL in the relation-
ship: PWL = 100 – PD. However, the quality measure of PWL is used more often because of its
ability to describe how much of the measured parameter is within specified requirements, rather
than the PD method which describes the magnitude that failed to do so.
Develop Pay Adjustment Factors

Finally, another essential stage in PRS development is to provide a rationale for implementing
contractor pay adjustments based on the quality of work provided. This step in developing PRS
guidelines is parallel to Step 5 of the overall performance-based strategy. As discussed earlier,
quality-related pay adjustment factors must be quantified using methods such as LCC analysis
and statistically based sampling plans that measure the construction variability. The current state
of the practice in calculating pay factors for pavement construction practices uses the concept
of composite pay factors (CPFs) (Scott et al. 2014a). The value of a CPF is obtained through an
additive approach using weighted pay factors from various acceptance parameters. This method
is useful for a performance prediction model that incorporates numerous acceptance parameters
as a basis of predicted performance. However, the weights used to determine CPF are subjective
and may be difficult to defend.
A well-developed pay adjustment plan should result in a bonus payment (i.e., incentive) to
the contractor for work performed that exceeds the target performance level, or in reduced pay
(i.e., disincentive) for substandard work. As part of evaluating the compliance criteria for awarding
incentives and disincentives, the risks associated with acceptance should be considered: risk to the
contractor (a) and risk to the agency (b). These risks cannot be eliminated, but a good plan can
prevent an inordinate amount of risk from being placed on either the agency or the contractor.
Computer simulation tools (e.g., OCPLOT and FHWA’s SpecRisk) have been developed to help
evaluate the expected behavior of various acceptance plans and pay schedules by calculating and
displaying operating characteristic (OC) and expected pay (EP) curves over a range of levels of con-
struction quality (Scott et al. 2014a and 2014b). Numerous studies evaluated these risks further
and, using the Monte Carlo method, demonstrated the significant influence of production and
measurement variability, sample size, and bias on contractor risk simulation. A similar simula-
tion method can be used to analyze the variables of a PRS measurement strategy, improve the pay
adjustment plan, and reduce risks to the contractor. Chapter 4 present more information about
these influences on risks.
2.5 Summary
PRS are quality assurance specifications that describe the desired levels of material and con-
struction quality characteristics that correlate with long-term performance of the finished
product. The selection of PRS should be based on a combination of data availability and demon-
strative ability to characterize performance. PRS should be amenable to acceptance testing at
the time of construction and adhere to sound sampling and testing acceptance plans. Both the
quality measures and thresholds used to describe the specifications and determine PRS compli-
ance must be well-established. Lastly, payment mechanisms must be developed to provide a
rational basis for pay adjustments to the contractor based on adherence to the specifications and
expected performance of the end-product. Table 2-1 summarizes the various steps for develop-
ing preservation PRS guidelines. The table highlights the specific requirement within each stage,
along with a list of already-established general PRS processes and additional or alternative needs
unique to preservation PRS.

Table 2-1. Process for preservation PRS development.

Stages Requirements Adoptable Method Adjusted Method
Address
pavement issues
(distress types, Treatment should
1. Selection of Evaluate existing
severity, and improve functional
preservation preservation treatments
extents) pavement
treatment (i.e., treatment selection)
Consider existing performance
conditions
(treatment timings)
Examine studies
identifying key AQCs in
construction practices, Preservation AQCs
e.g.: should:
o NCHRP Report 634 o Impact pavement
(PCC Texturing) performance
Identify AQCs that
o NCHRP Synthesis o Show ability to
can describe
2. Identifying 342 (Chip seal) relate AQC with
performance
AQCs and o NCHRP Synthesis functional
Distinguish 411
performance pavement
between AQCs for (Microsurfacing)
measures performance
rehabilitation and o SHRP2-S2-R26-RR- o Be measurable
preservation 2 (Guidelines for during construction
preservation of high- o Capture
traffic-volume construction
roads) variability
AQC-performance:
o Analysis of
Establish thresholds
performance-
for the AQCs unique
related trends in
Describe/justify to the preservation
historical data
3. Establishing PRS candidacy for treatments
o Review thresholds
AQC- preservation Approaches:
and performance
performance treatments o Empirical
measures
relationships Establish thresholds o Mechanistic-
o Collaboration with
and through Empirical
industry and
thresholds performance-related o Performance-
practitioners
relationships based lab and
o Application of
field test
engineering
evaluations
analysis and
statistical modeling
Acknowledge
provisions that may
Examine be needed for tests
Test method should be
common testing not commonly used
objective
methods in that may require
Quantitative results are
highway advanced training and
preferable for
construction accrue costs
4. Specifying test repeatability
Select methods Method should be
methods The test procedure will
based on ability aligned with rapid
be unique to the
to measure renewal concepts:
parameter being
parameters of o Minimize user
measured
interest (consider delays
NDT techniques) o Timely data
collection
o NDT techniques
Lot-by-lot
sampling
Tailored to the type of strategy is
parameter being common practice
Frequency is unique
measured and decided on
5. Sampling and to parameter being
Consider agency by project
measurement tested and should be
resources and project engineer and
plan specified with the
delivery approach agency
project goals in mind
Sample size, lot size, Project
sampling frequency boundaries
govern lot size
(continued on next page)

Table 2-1. (Continued).

Stages Requirements Adoptable Method Adjusted Method
Two common quality
measures:
o LCC analysis of
AASHTO R-9, Use these methods
performance
R-10 provide and relate to the
prediction models
6. Selection of standards for relationships
o Statistically based
quality quality and determined from data
sampling and testing
measurement statistics used in analysis to define
plans measuring
methods acceptance plans AQLs and RQLs
variability
for highway unique to
Statistically based
construction preservation PRS
methods for pay
adjustment factors more
common (e.g., PWL)
Pay factors provide
rationale for pay Use the statistical
adjustments analysis and
Determine pay factors AQLs/RQLs
using analysis of LCC developed to
or statistical sampling Methods used to determine ranges
Evaluation of risks develop pay of PRS and
associated to contractor factors and associated pay
7. Develop pay and agency evaluate risks are factors and impact
adjustment factors Evaluation OC and EP established in on contractor and
curves over a range of standards and agency risk
levels of construction common agency Justify the pay
quality practice adjustments with
Use of MCS method to expected
show impact of performance for
variability, sample size, preservation
and bias on contractor treatments
risk

Chapter 3
Current Practice
3.1 Relevant Issues in Pavement Preservation

The guidelines for developing PRS for pavement preservation treatments will differ from
those for rehabilitation and reconstruction of flexible and rigid pavements for the following
reasons:
1. Preservation treatment performance is greatly influenced by the pre-existing pavement con-

ditions with respect to both structural capacity and functional condition.
2. Given that preservation treatments are non-structural fixes, different performance measures
should be considered for their functional performance evaluations. For example, texture,
raveling, flushing, bleeding and weathering are a few important indicators of performance
for preservation treatments.
3. The construction materials used in preservation treatments can differ from conventional
pavement materials. For example, most of the preservation treatments for flexible pavements
use asphalt emulsions or polymer-modified asphalt emulsions as compared to conventional
or modified asphalt binders used in pavement construction.
4. The construction processes used for preservation treatments differ from those for traditional
pavement construction. For example, an important measure for chip seal success is the embed-
ment depth of the aggregate whereas compaction density is a measure of quality for flexible
pavement construction.
Understanding the above differences highlights the complexities of developing PRS guide-
lines for pavement preservation treatments. A literature review was conducted to examine the
prevalent issues of pavement preservation. Given that a candidate PRS is based on pavement
construction and material variables, the literature review also identified the types of acceptance
quality assurance unique to pavement preservation used by highway agencies. An emphasis
was placed on gathering the following information from past pavement preservation technical
appraisals and other relevant literature:
• Types of widely used flexible and rigid pavement preservation treatments,

• Criteria used for preservation treatment selection,
• Specifications for preservation treatments,
• Measures used for quality assurance,
• Service life extensions expected of different treatments, and
• Types of distresses addressed by different preservation treatments.
17

3.2 Commonly Used Preservation Treatments

Preservation practices of several highway agencies (i.e., Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia,
Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas,
Washington, and Wisconsin) were evaluated based on information contained in the literature
(Peshkin et al. 2011; Peshkin and Hoerner 2005; Kogler et al. 2008; Tenison and Hanson 2009;
Tighe and Gransberg 2011). This evaluation showed that highway agencies generally use the same
preservation treatments for flexible and rigid pavements (see Tables 3-1 and 3-2). The frequency of
use of these preservation treatments was also examined to determine which treatments are suited for
the development of PRS guidelines. A survey of 42 U.S. highway agencies and 7 Canadian agencies
(Tighe and Gransberg 2011) indicated the use of preservation treatments for different pavement
types shown in Table 3-3. This information indicates that the most commonly used treatments
for flexible pavements are chip seals, HMA patches, and thin HMA overlays, and the most com-
monly used rigid pavement preservation treatments are diamond grinding, joint sealing, and load-
transfer restoration.
Environmental conditions can influence preservation treatment effectiveness. For example,
thin HMA overlays are susceptible to thermal cracking in cold regions. The use of preservation
treatments in the different climate regions of the United States is documented in the literature
(Peshkin et al. 2004, Peshkin and Hoerner 2005, Kogler et al. 2008, Tighe and Gransberg 2011).
A study conducted by the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) categorized the climate
zones according to the freezing index (FI) as shown in Table 3-4 (Peshkin et al. 2011).
The preservation treatments used in these climatic zones were determined from a survey
of state DOTs (Peshkin et al. 2011) and the summaries are provided in Tables 3-5 and 3-6,
for flexible and rigid pavements, respectively. The survey indicates some preference to certain
treatments depending on climatic zones and road class. However, overall, the state of the prac-
tice among different states shows that similar preservation treatments are used in the different
climates and road classes.
3.3 Identification of AQCs and Performance Measures

PRS are founded on relationships between materials and construction (M&C) characteristics
(i.e., AQC) and expected performance measures. The M&C characteristics are parameters that
are measures of quality and are either directly or indirectly related to expected pavement perfor-
mance. As part of the literature review, several M&C characteristics related to pavement preser-
vation construction were identified. These characteristics are also the candidate AQCs for use in
preservation PRS. Tables 3-7 and 3-8 list the M&C characteristics for flexible and rigid pavement
treatments, respectively.
3.4 Service Life Extensions

The literature was also reviewed to determine the expected pavement service life extensions
(SLEs) due to different types of preservation treatments. The expected SLEs for flexible pave-
ment preservation treatments are well-documented (Peshkin et al. 2011, Eli Cuelho and Akin
2006). Typical ranges of pavement SLEs for rigid pavement preservation treatments are also
available in the literature (Peshkin et al. 2011, Hiller and Buch 2004, Yildirim et al. 2010,
Santero et al. 2009). Table 3-9 presents ranges of the SLEs for the most widely used preserva-
tion treatments.
The performance of the pavement depends not only on the treatment type but also on existing
pavement conditions (Peshkin et al. 2004, Haider and Dwaikat 2012, Haider and Dwaikat 2011);

Current Practice 19
Table 3-1. Summary of preservation treatments for flexible pavements.
Treatment Road
Purpose Performance Measures AQCs
Type/Climate Class
Seal longitudinal, transverse and Raveling, stripping bleeding Emulsion application rate
block cracking, inhibit and retard flushing, cracking and Aggregate application rate
Chip Seal raveling/weathering, improve rutting, friction loss, Application temperature Rural
(DF) friction, improve ride quality, roughness, moisture Asphalt and aggregate material type
inhibit moisture infiltration infiltration Texture depth
Structural cracking early in Longitudinal, transverse, and HMA mix design
development, prevent the reflective cracking, minor Size, depth, type of cracks
intrusion of moisture through block cracking, wear Adequate cleaning of cracks
Crack Seal cracks Types of crack sealant materials
(DF, MF) Seal existing layer adhesion Mixed
Climate (moderate temperatures and dry
pavement)
Setting time and curing time
Check for missed cracks
Slurry Seal Mostly functional, reduce tire Longitudinal and transverse Binder content, fine aggregate and filler
(MF, NF) pavement noise, not ideal for reflective cracking, rutting, materials, asphalt cement content
areas with severe cracking and stripping, raveling, Aggregate gradation
high deflection bleeding/flushing, Application temperature Urban
weathering, loss of friction,
roughness
Remove surface distresses Cracking, raveling, Layer thickness
including cracking and bleeding, weathering, friction loss, Mix design and aggregate gradation
Thin HMA improve ride, inhibit moisture bleeding, roughness, ride, Asphalt content, density, air voids
Overlay infiltration moisture infiltration Rural
(DF, MF)
Inhibit and retard Longitudinal and transverse Similar construction considerations as

raveling/weathering, retard reflective cracking, raveling, slurry seals
asphalt aging and hardening, bleeding/flushing, Aggregate must be chemically
inhibit low and medium weathering, loss of friction, compatible with emulsions
Microsurfacing
severity bleeding, improves roughness Setting time, curing time Mixed
(MF)
friction, inhibit moisture
infiltration, multiple courses can
be used to correct minor rutting
Remove low-severity Fatigue cracking, transverse Testing of recycled asphalt materials

longitudinal, block, and and longitudinal cracking, and virgin HMA if used
transverse cracking, remove block cracking, raveling, Percentage of recycling agent in the
Hot In-place raveling/weathering, improve weathering, friction loss, recycled mix design
Recycling friction, improve ride quality bleeding, roughness, Urban
Smoothness of finished surface, depth
(MF) corrugation, rutting of scarification of existing surface
course
Setting time and placement of joint
Remove low-severity Longitudinal, transverse, and Testing of recycled asphalt materials
longitudinal, block, and surface cracking, raveling, and any additional aggregate added
transverse cracking, remove weathering, friction loss, Testing of virgin HMA if used
Cold In-place raveling/weathering, improve bleeding, roughness, Size of pulverizing of existing surface
Recycling friction, improve ride quality corrugation, rutting, bumps, course
sags Rural
(DF, MF) Percentage of recycling agent in the
recycled mix design
Smoothness, depth of planning of
surface course, asphalt material
application rate

Table 3-2. Summary of preservation treatments for rigid pavements.
Treatment Road
Purpose Performance Measures AQCs
Type/Climate Class
Remove faulting, improve ride Joint faulting, slab curling Measures of or related to surface
quality and surface friction and warping, and friction smoothness
Diamond Grinding loss (grinding); friction loss Ground area, bump heights, groove Mixed
(MF, NF) and splash and spray dimensions
(grooving) Spacing of saw blades, depth of cut
Reduce moisture infiltration Longitudinal cracking, Material characteristics of sealant –
and prevent intrusion of transverse cracking, corner shape factors, sealant bond, depth of
Joint Seal/Crack Seal incompressible fines, reducing cracking - crack seal more sealant Mixed
(DF, MF, NF) cracking, less effective on effective when faulting,
pavements with faulting palling not present
Improve load transfer, reduce Joint faulting, pumping, Placement of dowel bars, number and
or eliminate pumping, faulting, corner breaks spacing
and corner breaks Selection of patch material
Load-Transfer
Compressive strength of patch material
Restoration Mixed
(DF, NF) Slot cutting sizes
Saw depth of slots, position (centered
over joint or crack, parallel to roadway
centerline)
Repair shallow spalling and Joint spalling (non-material Patch area preparation, removal
improve ride quality, restore related), weak concrete that procedures for preparation, finishing
Partial-depth Repair structural function of localized causes localized procedures, texture, material selection
deterioration deterioration Mixed
(DF, MF, NF) Use of additional materials, i.e., bonding
agents
Depth of saw cut
Table 3-3. Percent of states using various

preservation treatments (Tighe and
Gransberg 2011).
Pavement Type Treatment Percent
Chip seal 82.1
Hot patch 71.4
Thin overlay 71.4
Cold patch 67.9
Flexible Asphalt level-up 64.3
Crack seal 42.9
Fog seal 39.3
Slurry seal 39.3
Microsurfacing 35.7
Diamond grinding 92.6
Joint sealing 88.9
Dowel-bar retrofit 70.4
Crack seal 59.3
Rigid
Mud jacking 51.9
Milling 29.6
Thin PCC overlay 29.6
Shot-blasting 22.2
Table 3-4. Climatic zone descriptions (Peshkin et al. 2011).

Climate Zone FI Range Location
Deep freeze (DF) FI > 400 Northern states
Moderate freeze (MF) 50 < FI ≤ 400 Middle, central states
No freeze (NF) FI ≤ 50 Southern states and parts of coastlines

Table 3-5. Extent of use of flexible pavement preservation treatments

(Peshkin et al. 2011).
Single Multi- Thin

Climatic Crack Crack Slurry Cold Hot Cold
Road Fill Seal Seal
Chip Chip HMA
Milling IPR IPR
Region Microsurfacing Seal Seal Overlay
Deep freeze E E L M E E E L L E
Moderate
Rural E E M E L L E E L E
freeze
No freeze M M L M M M M M L L
Deep freeze E E L M M M M E L M
Moderate
Urban E E M E M L E E M L
freeze
No freeze E E M M M M M E L M
Note: IPR = In-place recycling, E = Extensive use (>66%), M = Moderate use (33% to 66%), L = Limited use (<33%)
Table 3-6. Extent of use of rigid pavement preservation treatments

(Peshkin et al. 2011).
PCC PCC Partial- Dowel-

Road Climatic Diamond
Joint Crack depth Bar
Region Grinding
Seal Seal Repair Retrofit
Deep freeze M M M E E
Rural Moderate freeze E E E E M
No freeze E E E E M
Deep freeze E M M M M
Urban Moderate freeze E E E E M
No freeze E E E E E
Note: E = Extensive use (>66%), M = Moderate use (33% to 66%), L = Limited use (<33%)
Table 3-7. Performance measures and materials and construction characteristics

for flexible pavement treatments (Peshkin et al. 2011).
Treatment Types Performance Measures Materials and Construction Characteristics
Emulsion and aggregate application rate,
application temperature
Raveling, stripping bleeding
Address existing surface conditions prior to
flushing, cracking and rutting,
Chip seal placement, i.e., raised markers, cracked areas
friction loss, roughness,
Spreader and distributor working in tandem
moisture infiltration
Asphalt and aggregate material type
Roller passes, curing time, brooming procedures
HMA mix design
Size, depth, type of cracks
Adequate cleaning of cracks
Longitudinal, transverse, and Types of crack sealant materials
Crack seal
reflective cracking, minor Adhesion between seal and existing layer
block cracking, wear Climate (moderate temperatures and dry
pavement)
Setting time and curing time
Check for missed cracks
Address existing conditions prior to
placement, i.e., raised pavement markers, any
Longitudinal and transverse areas requiring patching or crack sealing,
reflective cracking, rutting, clean surface
stripping, raveling, Binder content, fine aggregate and filler
Slurry seal
bleeding/flushing, materials, asphalt cement content
weathering, loss of friction, Proper rolling procedures
roughness Aggregate gradation
Climate conditions
Application temperature
(continued on next page)

Table 3-7. (Continued).

Layer thickness
Cracking, raveling, Mix design and aggregate gradation
Thin HMA weathering, friction loss, Asphalt content, density, air voids
overlay bleeding, roughness, ride, Pretreatment, i.e., milling, bump grinding, tack
moisture infiltration coat
Cleanliness of pavement surface, setting time
Similar construction considerations as slurry
Longitudinal and transverse seals
reflective cracking, Aggregate must be chemically compatible
Microsurfacing raveling, bleeding/flushing, with emulsions
weathering, loss of friction, Climate, avoid rain and hot or freezing
roughness extremes
Setting time, curing time
Management of specialized equipment
Fatigue cracking, transverse
Address local structural problems if present
and longitudinal cracking,
Testing of recycled asphalt materials and
Hot in-place block cracking, raveling,
virgin HMA if used
recycling weathering, friction loss,
bleeding, roughness, Percentage of recycling agent in the recycled
corrugation, rutting mix design
Smoothness of finished surface, depth of
scarification of existing surface course
Setting time and placement of joint
Management of specialized equipment
Address local structural problems
Longitudinal, transverse, Testing of recycled asphalt materials and any
and surface cracking, additional aggregate added
Cold in-place raveling, weathering, Testing of virgin HMA if used
recycling friction loss, bleeding, Size of pulverizing of existing surface course
roughness, corrugation, Percentage of recycling agent in the recycled
rutting, bumps, sags mix design
Smoothness, depth of planning of surface
course, asphalt material application rate
Table 3-8. Performance measures and materials and construction characteristics

for rigid pavement treatments (Peshkin et al. 2011).
Material characteristics of sealant – shape factors,
Longitudinal cracking,
sealant bond, depth of sealant
transverse cracking, corner
Joint reseal Cleanliness of joint or crack
cracking - crack seal more
Crack seal Placement considerations based on material,
effective when faulting,
experience, additional anticipated treatments
palling not present
Tack free sealants while setting
Surface smoothness, ground area, bump heights,
Joint faulting, slab curling and
groove dimensions
Diamond grinding warping, and friction loss
Aggregate type and hardness
and grooving (grinding); friction loss and
Spacing of saw blades, depth of cut
splash and spray (grooving)
Address existing structural deficiencies
Patch area preparation, removal procedures for
Joint spalling (non-material preparation, finishing procedures, texture, material
Partial-depth repair related), weak concrete that selection
causes localized deterioration Use of additional materials, i.e., bonding agents
Depth of saw cut
Placement of dowel bars, number and spacing
Selection of patch material
Compressive strength of patch material
Slot cutting sizes
Load-transfer Joint faulting, pumping, corner Saw depth of slots, position (centered over joint or
restoration breaks crack, parallel to roadway centerline)
Compressible inserts to prevent patching material
from entering the joint or crack
Ensure placement procedures of patching material
do not disturb dowel bar within slot

Current Practice 23
Table 3-9. SLEs for preservation treatments

(Peshkin et al. 2011, Eli Cuelho and Akin 2006,
Wu et al. 2010).
Typical Life
Pavement Type Treatment Type
Extension (Years)
Crack seal 2 to 10
Single chip seal 7 to 12
Double chip seal 5 to 10
Microsurfacing 4 to 7
Flexible Fog seal 1 to 3
Slurry seal 3 to 8
Thin Overlay 3 to 23
Hot in-place recycling 3 to 8
Cold in-place recycling 4-17
Diamond grinding 8 to 15
Joint seal/crack seal 7 to 10
Rigid
Dowel-bar retrofit 2 to 16
Partial-depth repair 5 to 15
numerous studies have shown the typical ranges of SLEs for different preservation treatments.
Variations in these may be attributed to the timings of treatment application. Appropriate pres-
ervation treatment type selection and timing depends on how the existing pavement conditions
are characterized. The survey of highway agencies has shown that different processes are used
for selecting preservation treatment type and timing strategies (Peshkin and Hoerner 2005).
Most agencies adopt simple methods for selecting treatment type and timing, including a
combination of in-house guidelines (from historical records), engineering judgment, and estab-
lished decision trees based on distress type and severity collected from pavement condition
surveys (Peshkin and Hoerner 2005). However, the agencies recognize that the selected timing
does not necessarily represent the “optimal timing” for applied treatments.
3.5 Identification of Preservation Treatments

Based on the literature review, candidate preservation treatments were selected for develop-
ing guidelines for performance-related specifications. These preservation treatments meet the
following criteria:
• Commonly used treatment in preservation practices,
• Have AQCs that are objective and measurable during or after construction, and
• Have performance measures data over time.
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 summarize the features of the most common pavement preservation treat-
ments for flexible and rigid pavements, respectively. The tables also identify climates in which
the treatments are used extensively and the road classes on which they are most commonly found
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2001). In addition, the tables outline
the AQCs taken from the M&C properties of each treatment and the associated performance
measures. The information summarized in these tables is used to identify AQCs of the different
preservation treatments which relate to expected pavement performance and could be used in
developing PRS guidelines.

Chapter 4
Guidelines for Statistical Sampling
A PRS must be supplemented by a sampling method that balances efficiency with contrac-
tor and agency risks. As noted in Chapter 2, accepting poor construction quality is sometimes
considered. The decision of accepting or rejecting a construction quality is made based on an
inference drawn on the statistical parameters of the candidate AQC obtained in the field. Usu-
ally a few samples are tested in the field and the PWL value is calculated. A contractor may be
paid an incentive if the measured quality (PWL value) is better than acceptable quality level, or
penalized if the measured quality is less than AQL. The PWL value of a lot depends on the type
of sampling method and sample size. Although the risks associated with accepting poor con-
struction quality or rejecting good quality cannot be eliminated, they can be reduced by varying
the sampling method and sample sizes. This chapter discusses ways to determine the effect of
sampling methods and sizes on the PWL estimation of a lot and their effect on the risks to the
agency and the contractor.
4.1 Types of Acceptance Sampling Plans

Inspection of construction materials or finished pavement layers is one aspect of quality
assurance. Inspection performed for acceptance or rejection of a finished product (based
on specifications) is called acceptance sampling. In highway construction, acceptance plans
are based on lot-by-lot acceptance sampling. However, acceptance sampling is not a substi-
tute for construction or production monitoring and control, or use of statistical methods
to reduce variability. The effective use of these techniques early in the construction process
can greatly reduce, and in some cases eliminate, the need for extensive sampling inspections
(Montgomery 2013).
For a typical application of acceptance sampling, the highway agency receives a notice for
completion of, for example, an HMA surface layer for a lot from a contractor. The agency needs
to make sure that the construction quality is achieved within a certain range of quality character-
istics (e.g., air voids in the finished asphalt layer ranges between 4% and 7%). Therefore, samples
are taken from the sublots to measure the as-constructed AQCs (e.g., percent air voids). A deci-
sion regarding lot disposition is made based on the information obtained from these samples.
Generally, the decision is either to accept or to reject the lot. Sometimes this decision is referred
to as lot sentencing. Although the contractor is paid in full for the accepted lots, rejected lots
should be fixed or the contractor may be subjected to some other lot disposition action, such
as reduced payment.
The purpose of acceptance sampling is to sentence lots, not to estimate its quality. Acceptance
sampling plans do not provide any direct form of quality control—they are used to simply accept
or reject lots. Although all lots may be of the same quality, sampling will accept some lots and
24

Guidelines for Statistical Sampling 25
reject others. Process controls during construction (not the acceptance sampling plans) are used
to control and systematically improve quality. Thus, acceptance sampling is used as an audit tool
to ensure that the output of a process conforms to specifications.
For acceptance sampling, typically three approaches can be used for lot sentencing: (1) accept
with no inspection; (2) 100% inspection, and; (3) acceptance sampling (Scott et al. 2014a;
Montgomery 2013; Fugro Consultants, Inc., and Arizona State University 2011). The no-
inspection alternative is useful where either the contractor’s construction process is so good that
defective units are almost never encountered or where there is no economic justification to look
for defective units. In general, 100% inspection can be used in situations where the component
is extremely critical and passing any defectives would result in an unacceptable consequence or
where the contractor’s process capability is inadequate to meet specifications. Acceptance sam-
pling is most likely to be beneficial in the following situations (Montgomery 2013):
• Testing is destructive (i.e., more resources are required to acquire and test samples).
• The cost of 100% inspection is extremely high or not feasible.
• The inspection error rate is so high that 100% inspection might lead to the acceptance of a
higher percentage of defective units than would occur with the use of a sampling plan.
• The contractor has an excellent quality history, and some reduction in inspection from 100%
is desired.
• There are potentially serious product liability risks, and a program for continuously monitoring
the product is necessary.
When compared with other approaches, acceptance sampling has the following advantages
(Montgomery 2013):
• It is usually less expensive because there is less inspection.
• There is less handling of the product, hence reduced damage.
• It is applicable to destructive testing.
• It involves fewer personnel in inspection activities.
• It reduces the amount of inspection error.
• It provides a stronger motivation to the contractor for quality improvements because it rejects
an entire lot as opposed to requiring a corrective action of defective sublots.
However, acceptance sampling also has the following disadvantages (Montgomery 2013):
• It presents the risks of accepting “bad” lots (agency’s risk) or rejecting “good” lots (contractor’s
risk).
• It usually generates limited information about the finished product or the process used for
making it.
• It requires planning and documentation of the acceptance sampling procedure.
Acceptance sampling plans can be classified by different schemes, often by attributes and vari-
ables. Attributes are quality characteristics expressed on a pass or fail basis; variables are quality
characteristics measured on a numerical scale (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering,
and Medicine 2012, TRB Committee on Management of Quality Assurance 2002).
Attribute Sampling Plan

Attribute sampling plans are typically used in manufacturing industries where a lot is inspected
by taking samples to determine if a sample passes or fails. The sentencing is based on an AQC of
interest. Such an acceptance plan can be used for pavement construction by measuring the binder
content in an asphalt mixture. A cut-off value of binder content can be decided to sentence a
sample. For example, if a sample has a binder content of less than 4.5%, it fails, otherwise it will

pass. There is a restriction on the number of sample failures if the lot is to be accepted (e.g., 5 sam-
ples can fail out of 50).
Suppose that a lot of size N has been submitted for inspection. A single-sampling plan is
defined by the sample size n and the acceptance number c. Thus, if the lot size is N = 10,000,
then the sampling plan n = 50, and c = 5 means that from a lot of size 10,000, a random
sample of n = 50 units are inspected and the number of nonconforming or defective items d
observed. If d is less than or equal to c = 5, the lot will be accepted. If d is greater than 5, the
lot will be rejected. Since the quality characteristic inspected is an attribute, each unit in the
sample is judged to be either conforming or nonconforming. One or several attributes can
be inspected in the same sample; generally, a unit that is nonconforming to specifications on
one or more attributes is said to be a defective unit. This procedure is called a single-sampling
plan because the lot is sentenced based on the information contained in one sample of size n
(Montgomery 2013).
An essential performance measure of an acceptance sampling plan is the operating charac-
teristic (OC) curve. This curve plots the probability of accepting the lot versus the lot fraction
defective. Thus, the OC curve displays the discriminatory power of the sampling plan (i.e., the
probability that a lot with a certain fraction defective will be either accepted or rejected). The
OC curve of the sampling plan n = 50, c = 5 is shown in Figure 4-1. The probability of observing
exactly d can be estimated by using the binomial distribution as follows:
n!
P ( d defective ) = pd (1 − p )n−d (Eq. 4-1)
d !( n − d ) !
The probability of acceptance can be calculated as the probability that d is less than or equal
to c as follows:
c
n!
P ( A ) = P (d ≤ c ) = ∑ pd (1 − p )n−d (Eq. 4-2)
d =0 d ! ( n − d ) !
The OC curve can be developed by using Equation 4-2 for various values of p. In attribute
sampling plans, the OC curve shows its discriminatory power. For example, in the sampling
100%
80%
60%
P(A)
n = 10
40% n = 25
n = 50
20%
0%
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50
Percent defective
Figure 4-1. OC curves for attribute

sampling plan.

plan n = 50, c = 5, if the lots are 10% defective, the probability of acceptance is approximately
0.62 (i.e., of 100 lots from a process that manufactures 10% defective product, 62 will be
accepted and 38 will be rejected). A sampling plan that discriminates perfectly between good
and bad lots would have an OC curve that looks like the solid line in Figure 4-1. The OC curve
runs horizontally at a probability of acceptance P(A) = 1.00 until a level of lot quality that
is considered “bad” is reached, at which point the curve drops vertically to a probability of
acceptance P(A) = 0.00, and then the curve runs horizontally again for all lot fraction defec-
tives greater than the undesirable level (10% in this example).
Figure 4-1 also shows the effect of sample size n on the OC curve—the OC curve becomes more
like the idealized OC curve shape as the sample size increases for a constant c. Thus, the precision
with which a sampling plan differentiates between good and bad lots or pass and fail lots increases
as the size of the sample is increased. The greater the slope of the OC curve, the greater is the
discriminatory power (Montgomery 2013). Typically, the quality engineer will focus on certain
points on the OC curve. The seller or contractor is usually interested in knowing what level of
process quality would yield a high probability of acceptance. For example, a contractor might be
interested in the 0.95 probability of acceptance point. This would indicate the level of process
fallout that could be experienced and still have a 95% chance that the lots would be accepted.
Conversely, a buyer or agency might be interested in the level of lot or process quality that will
yield a low probability of acceptance (i.e., the end of the OC curve). Therefore, an agency will
often establish a sampling plan with reference to an acceptable quality level (AQL).
The AQL represents the poorest level of quality for the seller’s process that the buyer would
consider to be acceptable as a process average. Therefore, an agency will often design the sampling
procedure so that the OC curve may give a high probability of acceptance at the AQL. The AQL is
simply a standard against which to judge the lots. An agency will also be interested in the other end
of the OC curve to protect against acceptance of a poor quality lot. In such a situation, the agency
may establish a rejectable quality level (RQL). The RQL is the lowest level of quality that the buyer
or agency is willing to accept in an individual lot, recognizing that the lot tolerance percent defec-
tive is not a characteristic of the sampling plan, but is a level of lot quality specified by the agency.
It is possible to design acceptance sampling plans that give specified probabilities of acceptance at
the RQL point. The two unknown quantities required to specify an attribute acceptance sample
plan can be determined from the simultaneous Equations 4-3 and 4-4.
d =c
n!
1− α = ∑ ( AQL )d (1 − AQL )n−d (Eq. 4-3)
d = 0 d !( n − d ) !
d =c
n!
β=∑ ( RQL )d (1 − RQL )n−d (Eq. 4-4)
d = 0 d !( n − d ) !
where
= Seller’s or contractor’s risk
a
b = Buyer’s or agency’s risk
d = Number of defective sublots
n = Sample size
Variable Sampling Plan

Generally, statistical quality control in highway industry uses a variable sampling plan because
the AQCs used are mostly measured on a numerical scale. With the variable sampling plans, the
same OC curve can be obtained with a smaller sample size than would be required by an attributes
sampling plan. Thus, a variables acceptance sampling plan that provides the same protection as

an attributes acceptance sampling plan would require less sampling (Montgomery 2013, National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012). This sampling plan will reduce the costs
of inspection when destructive testing is employed. In addition, measurement data usually provide
more information about the construction process or the lot than do attributes data. Generally,
numerical measurements of quality characteristics are more useful than simple classification of the
item as defective or non-defective. Also, when AQLs are very small, very large sample size is required
for attributes sampling plans, and it would be advantageous to switch to variables measurement.
The most important advantage of a variable acceptance plan is its use in calculating a quality mea-
sure like PWL and facilitating the implementation of pay factors. Therefore, the adoption of a vari-
able sampling plan requires the use of an AQC which is measured on a continuous numerical scale.
For the variable sampling plans, the distribution of the AQC must be known; most acceptance
plans assume normal distribution of the AQC. If the distribution is not normal, but a normal dis-
tribution is assumed, substantial deviations from the advertised risks of accepting or rejecting lots
of a given quality may be experienced. Also, variable sampling needs a separate sampling plan for
each AQC (i.e., if an item is inspected for three AQCs, three separate variable inspection sampling
plans would be required).
Variable sampling plans are used to calculate a quality measure (QM) that provides a measure
of population parameters related to quality and thus requires the mean and standard deviation
estimates, especially for AQCs with both upper and lower specification limits. AQCs that use
only the average as a QM are less effective than measuring the variability (Burati et al. 2004,
Burati et al. 2003) because the average of a QM tends to balance low and high test values to meet
specifications. Therefore, such practices may result in a multimodal population with multiple
modes or peaks and increased variability. In addition, using only the average does not lend itself
to quantifying risks because it reduces population variability. The literature (Burati et al. 2004,
Burati et al. 2003) indicates that the PWL or percent defective (PD) is the most often used QM.
This QM is used to develop the proposed guidelines.
The PWL value of a lot is calculated using the quality index (Q value) of the specification
limits. The Q-statistics are calculated using Equations 4-5 and 4-6.
x − LSL
QL = (Eq. 4-5)
s
USL − x
QU = (Eq. 4-6)
s
where
QL = quality index for the lower specification limit
QU = quality index for the upper specification limit
LSL = lower specification limit
USL = upper specification limit
_
x = the sample mean for the lot
s = sample standard deviation for the lot
The lower and upper Q-values are used to find the PWL from tables (Burati et al. 2003) or
by using a beta distribution (Willenbrock and Kopac 1978) to estimate the PWL for two-sided
specification limits by using Equation 4-7:
PWLT = PWLU + PWLL − 100 (Eq. 4-7)
Figure 4-2 shows the PWL for double- and single-sided (upper or lower specification) limits
(calculations are provided in Chapter 6).

PWL
QUxs PD
QLxs
LSL USL
(a) PWL based on double-sided specification limits
X X
PWL PWL
PD
QUxs PD
QLxs
LSL USL
(b) PWL based on lower specification limits (c) PWL based on upper specification limits
Figure 4-2. Illustration of PWL and PD for different specification limits.
PWL estimates depend on sample sizes and sampling methods. Methods for estimating
sample sizes and types of sampling methods are discussed next.
4.2 Estimating Sample Sizes

Sample sizes can be determined based on (1) standard error of the mean, (2) estimation of the
lot mean, or (3) hypothesis tests on the lot mean.
Standard Error of the Mean

This method estimates the sample size as n at which the standard error of the mean of the
sample has stabilized (i.e., any further increase in the sample size would have a negligible effect
on the standard error of the mean). Figure 4-3 (Cho et al. 2011) illustrates the standard error of
the mean versus sample sizes and shows that the standard error of the mean stabilizes around a
sample size of 20. This method requires an estimation of population standard deviation, which
can be obtained from the historical data.
Estimation of the Lot Mean

_
When n samples are measured from a lot of the true mean AQC µ, the sample mean (y ) and
standard deviation (s) of the samples can be calculated. Based on the central limit theorem (Freund

0.18%
0.16%
Standard error of the mean (%)

0.14%
0.12%
0.10%
0.08%
0.06%
0.04%
0.02%
0.00%
0 5 10 15 20 25
Sample size
Figure 4-3. Standard error of the mean versus

sample sizes (Cho et al. 2011).
_
et al. 2010), y will be normally distributed with mean µ and standard error σ n . Based
_
on the area under a normal curve, the interval µ ± 1.96σ n contains 95% of the y s in
repeated sampling. In other words, the interval y ± 1.96σ n contains the population mean
µ 95% of the times. So y ± 1.96σ n is an interval estimate of µ with a level of confidence of
95%. There are many confidence intervals for µ, depending on the level of significance. A con-
fidence level of (1 - a) can be used to calculate the confidence interval by using Equation 4-8.
CI = y ± Z α 2 σ n=y±E (Eq. 4-8)
where
CI = confidence interval
_
y = sample mean
= value of z having a tail area a/2 to its right
Z αs = population
2
standard deviation
n = sample size
E = Z α 2 σ n
The sample size can be estimated by using Equation 4-9, or Equation 4-10 can be used, if the
population standard deviation is not known and a sample is used to estimate the population
standard deviation. The tolerable error can be assumed based on engineering judgment. For
example, if the standard deviation of air void content is 2% for a lot, to estimate the true mean
of the lot with a tolerable error of 1% air void content, a sample size of 16 is needed for a 95%
confidence level.
( Z α 2 )2 σ 2
n= (Eq. 4-9)
E2
where
Z α 2 = value of Z having a tail area a/2 to its right
s = population standard deviation
E = tolerable error

( t α 2 )2 s 2
n= (Eq. 4-10)
E2
where
t α 2 = value of t having a tail area a/2 to its right
s = sample standard deviation
Hypothesis Test on Lot Mean

Another method of estimating the sample size is the hypothesis test on the mean difference of
sample and desired means of a lot. In this procedure, the sample mean is compared to the desired
lot _mean to determine if it is within the specified limits. The sample mean AQC is represented
by y and the desired lot mean AQC is designated by µ0. Equation 4-11 can be used to test if the
_
estimated sample mean y is within the desired confidence interval of µ0.
y − µ0
z= (Eq. 4-11)
σ n
where
z = z
_ value
y = sample mean
µ0 = desired mean
n = sample size
The calculated z value from Equation 4-11 is compared with the critical z values for a specified
confidence level (e.g., 95%). For example, for a confidence level of 0.95, the critical z value is 1.96.
If the calculated z value is more than 1.96, then the lot mean estimated from the sample mean
is significantly different from the desired lot mean. As with any decision process, a Type I error
can be made, i.e., by falsely rejecting the lot (contractor’s risk, a) or by falsely accepting the lot
(agency’s risk, b). The required sample size can be estimated for assumed values of both risks and
tolerable difference between the estimated lot mean and desired lot mean using Equation 4-12
(Freund et al. 2010).
( Z α + Z β )2
n = σ2 (Eq. 4-12)
∆2
where
n = sample size
Za = Z value for the required sellers’ risk
Zb = Z value for the required buyers’ risk
D = tolerable difference between the estimated lot mean and desired lot mean
As the tolerable mean difference between the estimated and desired lot mean decreases, the
number of samples required to detect the mean difference with the same confidence (1 - a)
and power (1 - b) increases, as seen in Figure 4-4. For example, to detect a mean difference of
1.5% air avoids, a sample size of 15 will have a power of 85% as compared to 35% for a sample
size of 5. This means that for a sample size of 15, the agency’s risk of not detecting this mean
difference is 15% for a given contractor’s risk of 5% (at 95% confidence level).

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Power
50%
n=5
40%
n=10
30%
n=15
20%
10%
0%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Tolerable mean difference
Figure 4-4. Power vs. tolerable mean difference

for different sample sizes.
These three approaches for determining sample size for a lot estimate a high sample size to
represent a lot. However, in practice, a sample size of at least five is typically used; a higher sam-
ple size is desirable, but may not be practical. None of these approaches adequately addresses
the optimum sample size (i.e., the most cost-effective n). These statistical methods for sample
size estimation are meant for (1) accept/reject acceptance plans, rather than pay adjustment
acceptance plans; (2) single acceptance plans (one AQC), rather than acceptance systems
(two or more AQCs); and (3) the average as the measure of quality, rather than the PWL
measure or any other measure of quality (Cho et al. 2011). In addition, highway construc-
tion and materials acceptance plans use a sample size that is often established on the basis
of practical considerations such as personnel and time constraints. Commonly used sample
sizes range between three and seven units. If this sample size is too small, the probability of
making erroneous acceptance or pay adjustment decisions would be too high for agencies.
If this sample size is too large, the cost of sampling and testing would be unnecessarily high,
especially where destructive testing is used. The current literature shows that when histori-
cal quality levels are satisfactory, the agencies may consider reducing sample size as much
as practically possible (in most cases, a sample size of three per lot for each AQC is optimal)
(Gharaibeh et al. 2010).
4.3 Types of Sampling Methods

The units selected for inspection from a lot should be chosen at random and should be repre-
sentative of all the items in the lot. Unless random samples are used, bias will be introduced and
the effectiveness of the inspection process is destroyed. Sometimes the inspector may stratify the
lot by dividing the lot into sublots and then taking random samples from each sublot. Although
this stratification is usually a subjective activity, it ensures that units are selected from all loca-
tions in the lot.
Because sample size is determined based on the mean AQC by using statistical methods,
there is a need to determine the effect of sample size on PWL for developing guidelines for
PRS. In addition, the sampling method effects on PWL have not been quantified in the past.
Therefore, the effects of three different sampling methods and four sample sizes on PWL
were evaluated in this study. The three sampling methods were (1) random sampling with
replacement, (2) stratified sampling, and (3) random sampling without replacement. For
each sampling method, sample sizes of 3, 5, 10, and 20 were evaluated. A 2-mile-long lot was
assumed for this evaluation. The lot was divided into 20 sublots, each 0.1-mile long.

(a) Sample size of 3
(b) Sample size of 5
(c) Sample size of 10
(d) Sample size of 20
Figure 4-5. Random sampling with replacement for various sample sizes.
Random Sampling with Replacement

In this sampling method, samples of different sizes are randomly selected from any location
on the lot (i.e., from one sublot or different sublots). Figure 4-5 shows examples of random
sampling with replacement for sample sizes of 3, 5, 10, and 20, respectively. In this sampling
method, the samples obtained may not represent the entire lot. This may not be a problem if the
construction variability is low (i.e., there is uniform construction quality across the entire lot).
Stratified Sampling
In this sampling method, the sublots are grouped together spatially such that the number of
samples required is equal to the number of grouped sublots (one sample must come from each
group of sublots). Figure 4-6 shows examples of stratified sampling for sample sizes of 3, 5, 10,
Figure 4-6. Stratified sampling for various sample sizes.

Figure 4-7. Random sampling without replacement for various sample sizes.
and 20. Stratified sampling reduces bias in the selection of samples because the samples col-
lected are highly representative of the lot. Stratified sampling also prevents overrepresenta-
tion of a part of the lot and provides greater precision than random sampling, especially
when construction variability is high. Therefore, it may be possible to use a smaller sample
size with this method.
Random Sampling without Replacement

This method is very similar to random sampling with replacement, except that, for a given
sample size, each sample has to be collected from a different sublot (i.e., without replace-
ment). It is possible that this method could be more precise than random sampling with
replacement because the samples selected from the lot are spread more evenly along the lot.
Figure 4-7 shows example random sampling without replacement for sample sizes of 3, 5,
10, and 20.
4.4 Effects of Sampling Methods and Sizes on PWL

The effects of the three sampling methods and sample sizes of 3, 5, 10, and 20 on the estima-
tion of PWL of a lot were evaluated. As an example, air void content was chosen as an AQC. Four
after-construction qualities (i.e., four different lots) were simulated. For each sampling method,
sample of sizes 3, 5, 10, and 20 were used to evaluate the PWL estimations. The estimated PWL
values were compared with the true PWL of the lot. The true PWL of a lot was determined based
on the simulated values of the air void contents and specifications limits (i.e., lower and upper
limits of 2% and 8%, respectively). Figure 4-8 presents the four simulated after-construction
qualities.
For this evaluation, an AQL of 90 PWL and a RQL of 60 PWL were used. For each construc-
tion quality, samples of sizes 3, 5, 10, and 20 were selected from the lot, using the different
sampling methods. Each time the samples were randomly picked, the PWL value of the lot was
estimated. This procedure was simulated 5,000 times. The percentage of PWL values below

5% 6% 4% 6% 1% 2% 1.5% 1.8% 2.1% 3.6% 6.1% 6.6% 5.6% 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 9.2% 9.7% 8.5% .8%
Good Bad Fair Good Bad

(a) Construction Quality 1
2.5% 3% 3.5% 3% 1% 2% 1.5% 1.8% 1.2% 2% 1.4% 1.8% 6.2% 6.5% 7.3% 7.8% 9.2% 9.7% 8.5% 8.8%
Fair Bad Bad Fair Bad
(b) Construction Quality 2
2.5% 3% 3.5% 3% 1% 2% 1.5% 1.8% 1.2% 2% 1.4% 1.8% 2.7% 3.2% 2.2% 3.8% 1.6% 1.1% 1.3% 1.8%
Fair Bad Bad Fair Bad

(c) Construction Quality 3
5% 6% 4% 6% 2.1% 3.6% 6.1% 6.6% 5.6% 4.6% 4.8% 5% 2.7% 3.2% 2.2% 3.8% 5.2% 4.7% 5.9% 4.2%
Good Fair Good Fair Good

(d) Construction Quality 4
Figure 4-8. Simulated construction qualities.
RQL, between AQL and RQL, and above AQL for each sampling method and size was cal-
culated (see Table 4-1). The results are shown in Figures 4-9 through 4-11. The effects of the
sampling methods and sample sizes on the PWL values relative to the true construction quality
are discussed below.
Construction Quality below RQL

The true PWL value of construction quality 3 is 55% (see Table 4-1). The established RQL
value is 60%. Out of 5,000 simulations, stratified sampling (Method 2) has a higher percentage of
PWL values less than RQL, thus better representing the true quality. As the sample size increases,
the percentage of PWL values less than RQL increases for each of the methods. However, the rate
of increase is higher for Method 2 (see Figure 4-9c). The percentage values between AQL and
RQL and above AQL for Method 2 are lower, which represents the true quality better than the
other methods. For a sample size of three, there is not much difference between the methods,
but at a sample size of five or more, Method 2 represents the true quality better than the other
two methods. This means that, for a sample size of three for a lot with poor construction quality,
none of the methods will be appropriate.
100% Method 1 100% Method 1

Method 2 Method 2
Method 3 Method 3
80% 80%
% PWL values < RQL
% PWL values < RQL

60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Sample size Sample size
(a) Construction Quality 1 (b) Construction Quality 2
100% 100% Method 1

Method 2
Method 3
80% 80%
% PWL values < RQL
% PWL values < RQL
60% 60%
40% 40%
Method 1
20% Method 2 20%
Method 3
0% 0%
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
(c) Construction Quality 3 (d) Construction Quality 4
Figure 4-9. Percentage of PWL values below RQL for various

construction qualities.

100% 100%
% PWL values between RQL and AQL

80% 80%
60% 60%
40% 40%
Method 1
Method 1 Method 2
20% Method 2 20% Method 3
Method 3
0% 0%
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
100%
100% Method 1 Method 1
Method 2 Method 2
80%
Method 3 Method 3
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Figure 4-10. Percentage of PWL values between RQL and AQL for various
Construction Quality between RQL and AQL

The true PWL values of construction qualities 1 and 2 are 75% and 65%, respectively (see
Table 4-1). The construction qualities are between the RQL of 60% and the AQL of 90%. The
results of simulations show that stratified sampling (Method 2) has a higher percentage of PWL
values between the category RQL and AQL. As the sample size increases, the percentage of PWL
values between the category RQL and AQL increases for each method, but at a higher rate for
Method 2 than the other methods. Also, the stratified sampling has higher precision than the other
methods, especially for a sample size of five or more (see Figures 4-10a and 4-10b). For Method 2
(stratified sampling), the percentage PWL values below RQL decreases more rapidly than for other
methods as the sample size increases. The percentage of PWL values less than RQL is higher for
construction quality 2 than for quality 1 because the true PWL value is closer to the RQL value for
construction quality 2. For example, for construction quality 2, there is a 65% chance of rejecting
the lot when the sample size is three for Method 2. When the sample size increases to five, there is
a 28% chance of rejecting the lot, even though the actual lot quality is 65% PWL. In addition, for
a sample size of 10, there is no chance of rejecting the lot. Therefore, if the true quality is closer to
RQL, a larger sample size is needed to represent the actual quality.

25% 30%
Method 1 Method 1
Method 2 25% Method 2
20% Method 3
Method 3
% PWL values > AQL

% PWL values > AQL
20%
15%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0% 0%
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
30% 100%
Method 1
25% Method 2
80%
Method 3
% PWL values > AQL
% PWL values > AQL

20%
60%
15%
40%
10%
Method 1
20% Method 2
5%
Method 3
0% 0%
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Figure 4-11. Percentage of PWL values above AQL for various

Construction Quality above AQL

The true PWL value of construction quality 4 is 97% (see Table 4-1) which is above the AQL
of 90%. For all methods, the percentage of PWL values greater than AQL increases with an
increased sample size. However, stratified sampling (Method 2) represents the true quality better
(as seen in Figures 4-10d and 4-11d). There is not much difference in percentage of PWL values
for all the methods in all three categories at sample size three. In case of stratified sampling, for a
sample size of three, the quality of the lot is above AQL only about 66% of the time, even though
the true quality is 97%. The estimated quality increases to 93% when the sample size is increased
to five. The stratified sampling method captures the true quality better than the other methods,
especially for sample sizes of five or more.
4.5 Quantifying Risks

The PWL value obtained from a given sampling method and size can be used to determine
whether the lot quality is below RQL, between RQL and AQL, or above AQL. However, an incor-
rect decision can sometimes be made regarding the lot quality. For example, if three samples

Table 4-1. Percentage of PWL values for various construction qualities.

Construction Quality 1 Construction Quality 2
Quality
Percent of PWL values True Percent of PWL values
Measure Sample size Sample size True PWL
Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 PWL Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
3 25% 27% 27% 3 61% 65% 61%
5 11% 0% 10% 5 43% 28% 41%
< RQL
10 1% 0% 0% 10 18% 0% 8%
20 0% 0% 0% 20 3% 0% 0%
3 56% 56% 58% 3 38% 35% 38%
RQL - 5 75% 100% 81% 5 57% 72% 59%
75% 65%
AQL 10 92% 100% 99% 10 82% 100% 92%
20 98% 100% 100% 20 97% 100% 100%
3 19% 17% 15% 3 2% 0% 1%
5 14% 0% 9% 5 0% 0% 0%
> AQL
10 7% 0% 1% 10 0% 0% 0%
20 2% 0% 0% 20 0% 0% 0%
Construction Quality 3 Construction Quality 4
Quality
Percent of PWL values Percent of PWL values
Measure Sample size True PWL Sample size True PWL
Method 1 Method 2 Method 3 Method 1 Method 2 Method 3
3 61% 65% 62% 3 0% 0% 0%
5 62% 74% 63% 5 0% 0% 0%
< RQL
10 65% 79% 70% 10 0% 0% 0%
20 72% 100% 100% 20 0% 0% 0%
3 33% 33% 34% 3 32% 34% 30%
RQL - 5 35% 26% 36% 5 20% 7% 15%
55% 97%
AQL 10 35% 21% 30% 10 8% 0% 1%
20 28% 0% 0% 20 2% 0% 0%
3 6% 2% 4% 3 68% 66% 70%
5 2% 0% 1% 5 80% 93% 85%
> AQL
10 0% 0% 0% 10 92% 100% 99%
20 0% 0% 0% 20 98% 100% 100%
from a lot are tested and the PWL value obtained is below the RQL, the lot is rejected. However,
it is possible that the three samples tested are from a sublot of a bad quality but the remaining
sublots are of good quality, and therefore an incorrect decision would have been made. In any
sampling process, an error can be made by falsely rejecting a good-quality material or falsely
accepting a bad-quality material. The error of falsely rejecting a good-quality material is a risk to
the contractor and is called contractor’s risk (a) and the error of falsely accepting a bad-quality
material is a risk to the agency and is called agency’s risk (b). The complementary of the agency’s
risk (1–b) is called the power of the sampling method.
The agency’s risk can be calculated for each sampling method. Samples of different sizes were
selected 5,000 times for each construction quality within a method. The PWL value can be calcu-
lated each time samples were selected and the mean PWL value and its standard error can also be
calculated. If the contractor’s risk was set at 0.05, the agency would reject a good-quality lot 5 out
of 100 times (an acceptable level of risk). The null hypothesis would be: the average PWL of the lot
is above RQL or above AQL. The agency’s risk would be accepting the null hypothesis, even though
the lot quality is less than RQL or AQL. These risks are calculated using Equations 4-13 and 4-14.
PWLRQL − PWLTrue 
β ( PWLTrue ) = P  z < z α − (Eq. 4-13)
 SE 
PWL AQL − PWLTrue 

β ( PWLTrue ) = P  z < z α − (Eq. 4-14)
 SE 
where
b = Agency’s risk
PWLTrue = Measured PWL value from samples

Table 4-2. Power of various sampling methods and sizes at RQL and AQL for different construction qualities.
Quality Construction Sample Method 1 Method 2 Method 3

Limits Quality Size Mean SE Power Mean SE Power Mean SE Power
3 71% 18% 0.85 15% 71% 16% 0.83 17% 71% 17% 0.84 16%
1 5 73% 12% 0.71 29% 72% 4% 0.09 91% 73% 11% 0.68 32%
10 75% 8% 0.41 59% 73% 2% 0.00 100% 74% 6% 0.25 75%
3 56% 17% 0.92 8% 58% 8% 0.92 8% 57% 14% 0.92 8%
2 5 61% 9% 0.94 6% 62% 3% 0.84 16% 62% 7% 0.91 9%
10 64% 5% 0.80 20% 64% 1% 0.01 99% 64% 3% 0.62 38%
At RQL
3 50% 27% 0.90 10% 48% 25% 0.88 12% 51% 25% 0.90 10%
3 5 53% 20% 0.90 10% 55% 8% 0.85 15% 53% 18% 0.90 10%
10 54% 13% 0.88 12% 56% 6% 0.84 16% 55% 9% 0.86 14%
3 94% 8% 0.00 100% 94% 7% 0.00 100% 93% 7% 0.00 100%
4 5 95% 5% 0.00 100% 96% 4% 0.00 100% 95% 5% 0.00 100%
10 96% 4% 0.00 100% 96% 2% 0.00 100% 96% 2% 0.00 100%
3 71% 18% 0.72 28% 71% 16% 0.68 32% 71% 17% 0.70 30%
1 5 73% 12% 0.59 41% 72% 4% 0.00 100% 73% 11% 0.54 46%
10 75% 8% 0.41 59% 73% 2% 0.00 100% 74% 6% 0.15 85%
3 56% 17% 0.36 64% 58% 8% 0.01 99% 57% 14% 0.24 76%
2 5 61% 9% 0.06 94% 62% 3% 0.00 100% 62% 7% 0.01 99%
10 64% 5% 0.00 100% 64% 1% 0.00 100% 64% 3% 0.00 100%
At AQL
3 50% 27% 0.56 44% 48% 25% 0.49 51% 51% 25% 0.53 47%
3 5 53% 20% 0.42 58% 55% 8% 0.00 100% 53% 18% 0.34 66%
10 54% 13% 0.13 87% 56% 6% 0.00 100% 55% 9% 0.01 99%
3 94% 8% 0.87 13% 94% 7% 0.86 14% 93% 7% 0.89 11%
4 5 95% 5% 0.74 26% 96% 4% 0.56 44% 95% 5% 0.74 26%
10 96% 4% 0.56 44% 96% 2% 0.09 91% 96% 2% 0.09 91%
PWLRQL = PWL value at RQL (60%)

PWLAQL = PWL value at AQL (90%)
za = z value at a = 0.05
SE = Standard error of the average PWL value
The results of risk calculations are shown in Table 4-2 and Figures 4-12 and 4-13. The power
of a sampling method increases as the sample size increases because of the decrease in the stan-
dard error of the mean PWL value. The results also show that Method 2 (stratified sampling)
has the highest power among the three methods. Method 2 requires collecting samples along
the entire lot, and hence the variability in PWL values is low. Also, as the average PWL value
gets closer to the RQL value, the power decreases and the chance of wrongly accepting a lot
increases.
4.6 Effects of Lot and Sublot Size on PWL

The AQC chosen for a preservation treatment dictates the lot, sublot, sample size, and data
collection methods (destructive versus non-destructive) for estimating the PWL. Some AQCs,
such as percent air voids, require expensive destructive testing for data collection. Generally, the
length of a pavement section constructed on the same day can be considered as a lot. The lot can
be subdivided into sublots of equal lengths (e.g., 0.1 mile) for obtaining samples to estimate the
lot’s PWL. For example, testing can start with five samples using stratified sampling by divid-
ing a lot into five sublots (one sample from each sublot). However, if the variability within the
samples is high or the PWL estimates are close to RQL, collection of additional samples should
be considered (with consideration of the costs of falsely accepting bad-quality material and the
costs of the additional testing).
For AQCs that involve continuous and non-destructive data collection, such as IRI, the PWL
value can be estimated based on all the data collected for the entire project length. In this case, the

120% 120%
Method 1 Method 1
Method 2
100% 100% Method 2
Method 3
Method 3
80% 80%
Power
Power
60% 60%
40% 40%
20% 20%
0% 0%
0 5 10 0 5 10
Sample Size at RQL Sample Size at RQL
120% 120%
Method 1
100% Method 2 100%
Method 3
80% 80%
Power
Power
60% 60%
Method 1
40% 40% Method 2
Method 3
20% 20%
0% 0%
0 5 10 0 5 10
Sample Size at RQL Sample Size at RQL
Figure 4-12. Power versus sizes at RQL for different construction qualities.
estimated PWL values and the corresponding pay adjustments might be different for different lot
and sublot sizes. The effects of lot and sublot sizes on PWL estimation were evaluated using IRI as
the AQC. The SPS-1 (flexible) and SPS-2 (rigid) test sections in the States of Montana, Nevada,
California, and North Dakota were used as individual projects of 1.2 miles long. Two different lot
sizes were evaluated: 0.1 and 1.2 miles. For each lot size, sublots of sizes 25, 50, 100, and 250 feet
were used and their corresponding IRI values were calculated from the longitudinal profile by
using ProVAL software. Figure 4-14 shows the distributions of IRI values for the 25-foot-long sub-
lots. For this evaluation, an AQL of 90 PWL and a RQL of 60 PWL were assumed. Also, an upper
specification limit of 90 inch/mile was used to calculate the PWL values, and Equation 4-15 was
used to estimate the pay factors (PF) (construction quality below RQL receives no pay):
PF = 55 + ( 0.5 × PWL ) (Eq. 4-15)
The PWL values and the corresponding pay factors were also estimated for different sublot
sizes within each lot size; results are shown in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 for lot sizes of 1.2 and 0.1 miles
long, respectively. These results show that, as the sublot size increases, if the mean IRI value of a
lot is below the upper specification limit, the variability in measured IRI values decreases and the

120% 120%
Method 1
Method 2
100% Method 3 100%
80% 80%
Power
Power
60% 60%
40% 40%
Method 1
20% Method 2
20%
Method 3
0% 0%
0 5 10 0 5 10
Sample Size at AQL Sample Size at AQL
120% 120%
Method 1
100% 100% Method 2
Method 3
80% 80%
Power
Power
60% 60%
40% 40%
Method 1
20% Method 2 20%
Method 3
0% 0%
0 5 10 0 5 10
Sample Size at AQL Sample Size at AQL
Figure 4-13. Power versus sizes at AQL for different construction qualities.
PWL value increases (as in the cases of Montana, Nevada, and California). However, as the sublot
size increases, if the mean IRI value of a lot is above the upper specification limit, the variability
in measured IRI values decreases and the PWL value decreases (as for North Dakota). If the PWL
value is estimated for the lot size of 1.2 miles (i.e., project length), the contractor may or may not
receive pay for the entire project, depending on a single estimate of PWL value. If the overall qual-
ity of the lot is good (e.g., Montana and Nevada), the effect of lot and sublot size is minimal and
the contractor gets more than 100% pay as shown in Figures 4-15a and 4-15b.
However, if the construction quality is fair (e.g., California), the estimated PWL value may
fall below or above RQL (depending on the sublot size) and the contractor receives no pay if the
sublot size is less than 100 feet (see Table 4-3), but payment would be justified if the chosen lot
size is 0.1 mile instead of 1.2 miles and some of the lots are of very good quality (see Table 4-4).
The average pay factor is 58% for the project when the lot size is 0.1 mile compared to 85% when
the lot size is 1.2 miles. The reason for these large differences is probably the masking of con-
struction variability when PWL is estimated based on the statistical parameters (i.e., mean and
standard deviation) from higher numbers of sublots (i.e., 60 sublots for 1.2 mile versus 5 sublots

70 100
90
60
80
50 70
60
40
Frequency
Frequency
50
30
40
20 30
20
10
10
0 0
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
IRI (in./mile) IRI (in./mile)
(a) Montana (b) Nevada
60 45
40
50
35
40 30
Frequency
Frequency
25
30
20
20 15
10
10
5
0 0
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
IRI (in./mile) IRI (in./mile)
(c) California (d) North Dakota
Figure 4-14. Distribution of IRI values for 25 feet sublots.

Table 4-3. PWL values and pay factors for a lot size of 1.2 miles.
State
Sublot size
Montana1 Nevada1 California1 North Dakota2
(ft)
PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF
25 94% 102 100% 105 58% 0 37% 0
50 97% 103 100% 105 59% 0 35% 0
100 99% 104 100% 105 61% 85 32% 0
250 100% 105 100% 105 64% 87 25% 0
500 100% 105 100% 105 71% 90 24% 0
Note: 1 mean IRI < 90 inch/mile, 2 mean IRI > 90 inch/mile, shaded cells mean no pay
for 0.1 mile). Similarly, for poor construction quality (North Dakota), the PWL value based on
the lot size of 1.2 miles will support no pay but will justify 8% pay if the lot size is 0.1 miles.
4.7 Summary
Two types of acceptance sampling plans are used to assure the quality of a lot. Attribute sam-
pling plans can be adopted to sentence a lot, i.e., pass/fail or accept/reject by using the mean AQC
as a threshold. Variable sampling plans are adopted when the AQC has a continuous distribu-
tion. A quality measure such as PWL can be used for assessing construction quality and also pay
adjustments based on the produced quality. In addition, the sample size required to estimate
the true construction quality is significantly less than for the equivalent attribute sampling plan.
Acceptance sampling is not a substitute for adequate construction process control or the use of
other statistical methods to drive variability reduction.
Table 4-4. PWL values and pay factors for a lot size of 0.1 mile.
Sublot size Sublot size

State 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 250 feet State 25 feet 50 feet 100 feet 250 feet
PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF PWL PF
100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
99% 104 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 99% 104 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
98% 104 99% 105 100% 105 100% 105 98% 104 99% 105 100% 105 100% 105
100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
Montana 86% 98 90% 100 100% 105 100% 105 Nevada 86% 98 90% 100 100% 105 100% 105
73% 92 84% 97 95% 102 100% 105 73% 92 84% 97 95% 102 100% 105
66% 88 68% 89 75% 92 79% 95 66% 88 68% 89 75% 92 79% 95
99% 104 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 99% 104 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
92% 101 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 92% 101 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
90% 100 97% 103 99% 105 100% 105 90% 100 97% 103 99% 105 100% 105
86% 101 95% 102 97% 104 98% 104 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105
85% 98 90% 100 94% 102 100% 105 43% 0 39% 0 34% 0 23% 0
99% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 68% 89 70% 90 72% 91 92% 101
32% 0 25% 0 21% 0 2% 0 28% 0 26% 0 16% 0 9% 0
42% 0 42% 0 41% 0 6% 0 30% 0 29% 0 23% 0 19% 0
92% 101 97% 104 100% 105 100% 105 42% 0 39% 0 36% 0 2% 0
54% 0 55% 0 60% 0 82% 96 29% 0 29% 0 23% 0 2% 0
North
California 56% 0 57% 0 61% 85 77% 94 51% 0 43% 0 40% 0 40% 0
Dakota
54% 0 56% 0 57% 0 69% 89 35% 0 32% 0 29% 0 21% 0
68% 89 72% 91 85% 97 96% 103 49% 0 49% 0 49% 0 46% 0
100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 100% 105 21% 0 14% 0 6% 0 0% 0
26% 0 25% 0 26% 0 4% 0 38% 0 35% 0 28% 0 31% 0
64% 87 72% 91 93% 102 94% 102 1% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0
64% 49 66% 50 70% 58 69% 75 36% 7 34% 7 30% 8 24% 8
Note: Shaded cells mean no pay

(a) Montana (b) Nevada
(c) California (d) North Dakota
Figure 4-15. Pay factor comparisons of different lot sizes.
The statistical approaches used for determining sample size for a lot generally estimate a large
sample size to represent a lot—none of these approaches adequately addresses the optimum sample
size. In practice, a sample size of at least five is generally used, although a larger sample size is desir-
able. The statistical approaches for sample size estimation are intended to (1) provide accept/reject
acceptance plans and not to serve as pay adjustment acceptance plans, (2) provide single acceptance
plans (one AQC) and not acceptance systems (two or more AQCs), and (3) use the average as the
measure of quality, not the PWL or other measure of quality. Typically, highway construction and
materials acceptance plans use a sample size that is often established on the basis of practical con-
siderations such as personnel and time constraints and commonly ranging between three and seven
units. If the sample size is too small, the probability of making erroneous decisions regarding accep-
tance or pay adjustment decisions will be high. If the sample size is too large, the cost of sampling
and testing will be unnecessarily high, especially where destructive testing is required.
Three sampling methods (random sampling with replacement, stratified sampling, and ran-
dom sampling without replacement) were evaluated for sample sizes of 3, 5, 10, and 20. The
samples used in random sampling with replacement may not represent the entire lot, but this

may not be a problem if the construction variability is low (i.e., there is a uniform construction
quality across the entire lot). Stratified sampling reduces the bias in selecting the samples and
provides samples representative of the lot, even when there is high construction variability.
Therefore, it may be possible to use a smaller sample size in this method. Also, random sampling
without replacement could be more precise than random sampling with replacement because
samples selected from the lot are spread more evenly along the lot.
For a sample size of three, there is not much difference between the sampling methods, but
at a sample size of five or more, the stratified sampling method represents the true construction
quality better than the other two methods. If the true quality of a lot is closer to RQL, a larger
sample size (i.e., five or more) is needed to represent the actual quality. The power of a sampling
method increases as the sample size increases. The stratified sampling method has a higher power
as compared to other sampling methods. Stratified sampling requires collecting samples along the
entire lot, and hence the variability in PWL values is less. Also, the closer the average PWL value to
the RQL value, the lower the power. This means that there is a high chance of wrongly accepting
a lot if its PWL value obtained from the sampling is near the RQL. Therefore, agencies can start
testing with five samples using stratified sampling by dividing a lot into five sublots (one sample
from each sublot) if destructive testing is needed. If the variability within the samples is high or
the PWL estimates are close to RQL, additional samples could be collected. The decision to test
additional samples can be made by evaluating the costs of falsely accepting bad-quality material
versus the costs of additional testing. For AQCs such as IRI, the data collection is continuous and
non-destructive. It is more appropriate to use a smaller lot size (e.g., 0.1-mile) in estimating PWL
to capture the construction variability and determine appropriate pay to the contractor. A mini-
mum sublot length of 100 ft can be justified based on the profile-based IRI measurements.

Chapter 5
Guidelines for Implementing PRS
The objective of this research was to develop comprehensive PRS guidelines and present
examples to illustrate their application for select preservation treatments. This chapter describes
the process for selecting these treatments and presents PRS guidelines for each of the treatments.
5.1 Treatment Identification and Selection

Six preservation treatment types were identified for possible development of PRS guidelines
and related examples based on the following:
• State of the practice and common use by SHAs
• Availability of data on initial material and construction quality characteristics and perfor-
mance over time (for use in the empirical approach)
• Known material and construction quality characteristics and performance measures (for use
in the mechanistic-empirical approach)
• Availability of test data during construction and performance (for use in the performance-
based laboratory and field test approach)
Three preservation treatments were identified for each pavement type. Also, three approaches
were adopted for establishing relationships between quality characteristics and treatment per-
formance for both pavement types: empirical, mechanistic-empirical, and performance-based
laboratory and field test properties.
Examples were presented to show how these three approaches can be used to establish rela-
tionships between material and construction quality characteristics and performance. The
examples illustrate the development of guidelines for three combinations of approaches and
preservation treatments for each pavement type, as follows:
Flexible pavements
• Example 1: Empirical approach—microsurfacing
• Example 2: Mechanistic-empirical approach—thin overlay
• Example 3: Performance-based laboratory and field tests—chip seal
Rigid pavements
• Example 1: Empirical approach—joint resealing
• Example 2: Mechanistic-empirical approach—diamond grinding
• Example 3: Performance-based field tests—dowel-bar retrofit
The appropriate selection of a preservation treatment and the corresponding design requires
proper characterization of the pretreatment pavement condition. The pavement must be struc-
turally sound, and the treatment must be applied at optimum time with respect to both distress
47

type and rate of deterioration in the existing pavement. Therefore, selection, timing, and location
of a preservation treatment are the key components for its success (Peshkin and Hoerner 2005,
Peshkin et al. 2004, Anderson et al. 2014). In this research, it was assumed that the existing condi-
tions were considered and treatments were applied at the optimum timing (Tenison and Hanson
2009, Peshkin et al. 2004, Rada et al. 2013).
Establishing relationships between material and construction quality characteristics and per-
formance measures required various data attributes: identifying the most commonly used pres-
ervation treatments for flexible and rigid pavements, establishing relationships between quality
characteristics and performance measures of the selected treatments, determining the limits or
boundaries for a particular quality characteristic based on observed or expected performance
thresholds, and estimating the quality measures (e.g., PWL) based on the construction variabil-
ity in the field (and estimating pay factor adjustments if required).
5.2 PRS Guidelines for Preservation Treatments

The guidelines developed for each selected preservation treatment and related examples are
presented in this section.
Microsurfacing
1. Selection of preservation treatment
Microsurfacing on flexible pavements is an application of a mixture of polymer-modified
emulsified asphalt, mineral aggregate, mineral filler, water, and additives over the entire pave-
ment surface (thin layer). Typically the treatment is used to inhibit raveling, weathering, asphalt
aging and hardening, bleeding, moisture infiltration, minor surface irregularities, and to improve
surface friction (Gransberg 2010). Performance measures such as surface friction and texture,
cracking, rutting, raveling, bleeding, and stripping can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
microsurfacing (Henry 2000).
2. Select candidate material and construction characteristics

In order to capture the change in surface irregularities, the mean profile depth (MPD) can be
selected as an AQC because it can be measured just after treatment application in the field using
NDT methods. Surface friction number (FN) can be designated as a performance indicator.
However, other material and construction-related aspects may be considered to enhance the
treatment effectiveness. Such design and construction aspects include
• Emulsion type (e.g., based on climatic conditions)
• Aggregate types and properties
• Fillers and other additives (e.g., use of fine materials as “mixing aids” to improve workability
and reduce curing time)
• Material application rates
3. Establish AQC-performance relationships and set specification limits

The relationship between the change in MPD and SLE due to a change in friction number
is considered as an example. MPD and FN lower limits of 0.6 and 40, respectively, are chosen
based on information reported in the literature. An empirical relationship of AQC to expected
performance can be used if data are available. The relationship between MPD and FN shown
in Equation 5-1 and the simulated MPD deterioration over time were used in these guidelines
(Rajaei et al. 2014, Henry et al. 2000).

Guidelines for Implementing PRS 49
FN = 30.62ln (CTMMPD ) + 54.912 (Eq. 5-1)
where,
CTMMPD = Mean profile depth measured by circular track meter (CTM)
Agency practice for acceptable FN typically has ranged from 30 to 45; a value of 40 was chosen
as the lower threshold associated with an MPD measurement of 0.6 (Rajaei et al. 2014).
4. Determine limits for AQC and quality measures

A quality measure DPWL can be selected while AQL and RQL selection is based on pay equa-
tion, SLE, and risk assessment. PWL is often used as a quality measure in pavement construc-
tion practices. However, for preservation treatments, a modified version of PWL can be used to
reflect a change in pavement quality due to a treatment, i.e., DPWL (PWL after treatment minus
PWL before treatment). Such a quality measure is more appropriate for pavement preservation
practices given that the goal is to extend the life of the existing pavement. However, a lower AQC
(MPD in this case) limit needs to be established for before-and-after treatment PWL calcula-
tions. AQL and RQL limits are subjective decisions based on the party setting specification limits.
Although there are typical ranges for AQL (e.g., 90 to 95) and RQL (e.g., 60), these values can
vary based on the corresponding pay adjustments, SLE, and risk analysis. However, AQL and RQL
should reflect appropriate pay (i.e., 100% pay at AQL, justified disincentive between RQL and
AQL, and corrective action below RQL).
5. Specify AQC measurement methods

Well-established standards for measuring and evaluating surface friction and texture are
available (Henry 2000, Rajaei et al. 2014, Henry et al. 2000); these should be used for specifying
AQC measurement methods.
6. Establish a sampling and measurement plan

Evaluation of surface texture requires a pass of conventional surface texture measuring devices
along a pavement length. The following process may be used for establishing a sampling and
measurement plan:
• Identify the party performing acceptance testing.
• Select an acceptance sampling plan type. Either a variable acceptance plan or a stratified sam-
pling method are ideal to assess pay adjustments for varying levels of quality.
• Develop verification sampling and testing procedures. The decision to use split or indepen-
dent sampling techniques is related to the goals of the agency and on the AQC measurement
methods. In practice, the agency’s verification test methods are used solely for verification,
and the acceptance methods proposed by the contractor must be compared to the results of
agency verification testing.
• Select a verification sampling frequency. The verification sampling frequency should be
approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contractor. In practice, the
frequency of verification sampling is selected based on economic, rather than statistical,
reasons.
• Determine a lot and sample size. The risks associated with incorrectly accepting or rejecting
lot quality are related to the sample size which depends on the treatment type and AQC. All
the data obtained from the continuous MPD data collection for a lot can be used in estimating
PWL, and a minimum of five data points should be used to calculate PWL (i.e., a lot should
be divided into a minimum of five sublots and one MPD value from each sublot). A lot size of
0.1 mile would provide a minimum of five average MPD values for calculating PWL.

7. Select and evaluate quality measurement methods

Using a quality measure, such as PWL, evaluate the PWL of each lot based on the specified
AQC limits. The PWL of the entire lot from a project can then be related to improvement in
pavement performance (SLE) to justify pay adjustments.
8. Develop pay adjustment factors for incentives and disincentives

and assess risk
Predict pavement performance as a function of quality levels in terms of DPWL. Convert the
expected performance (SLE) into pay adjustments. Adjust AQL and RQL and pay relationships
to minimize risk and ensure appropriate pay. The following steps can be used:
• Relate DPWL (determined in Step 7) to SLE distribution (determined in Step 3).
• Determine the pay adjustment factor based on LCC analysis.
• Develop an EP curve that relates the pay factors to SLE due to treatment (and awards full pay
at AQL).
• Develop an operating characteristic (OC) curve that provides the probability of awarding a
pay factor greater than 1 at AQL close to 50%.
Thin Overlay
1. Selection of a preservation treatment
The thin functional overlay typically used for flexible pavements as a preservation treatment
involves the application of a thin layer of HMA to remove minor surface distresses and improve
ride quality. Performance measures associated with thin overlays include cracking, rutting, and
surface roughness.

Several material and construction properties, such as layer thickness, asphalt mix volumetrics
(binder content, air voids, VFA, and VMA), and field density, can be used as AQCs. However,
because thin overlays are generally used to improve the functional performance of an exist-
ing pavement, IRI which captures variation in vertical surface elevations and change in surface
roughness can be used as an AQC to evaluate the quality of construction (i.e., smoothness after
thin overlay application).

The relationship between change in IRI and SLE can be established by using the mechanistic-
empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG) performance prediction models. Smooth thin
overlay will reduce surface roughness and exhibit a low IRI. A smoother pavement surface
results in less vehicle body and axle bounce, thereby reducing dynamic load damage and
increasing pavement SLE. The mechanistic-empirical approach can be used to (1) measure
before-and-after treatment surface profiles, (2) estimate dynamic load index (DLI) from pro-
files based on Figure 5-1, (3) estimate relative damage based on DLI or IRI before and after the
treatment using Equation 5-2 (regression parameters for the equation are listed in Table 5-1),
and (4) calculate the life extension based on the change in relative damage using Equation 5-3.
Relative damage = a ( DLI )3 + b ( DLI )2 + c ( DLI ) + 1 (Eq. 5-2)
Life extension = ( R − Ro ) RSL (Eq. 5-3)

Read original Profile
Transfer profile into wavelength (frequency) domain by Fast

Fourier Transform (FFT)
Split transferred profile into two profiles that have different wavelength
(frequency) ranges:
* Profile 1 : 6.71-18 m or 22-59 ft(1.5-4 Hz at the speed of 96.6 km/h or 60 mph)
* Profile 2 : 1.83-3.36 m or 6-11 ft(8-15 Hz at the speed of 96.6 km/h or 60 mph)
Transfer profile 1 and 2 into space domain by Inverse Fast Fourier

Transform (IFFT)
Calculate variances from profile 1 and 2
Calculate DLI
Figure 5-1. Procedure for determination of DLI from surface

profile (Lee et al. 2002, Chatti and Lee 2002).
where R is defined as follows:
1
R = 100  1 −  (Eq. 5-4)
 Relative damage 

A quality measure, DPWL, can be selected while AQL and RQL selection is based on pay equa-
tion, SLE, and risk assessment. Percent within limits (PWL) is often used as a quality measure
in pavement construction practice. However, for preservation treatments, a modified version of
PWL can be used to reflect a change in pavement quality due to a treatment, i.e., DPWL (PWL
after treatment minus PWL before treatment). Such a quality measure is more appropriate for
pavement preservation practices, given that the goal is to extend the life of the existing pavement.
However, an upper AQC (IRI in this case) limit needs to be established for before-and-after
treatment PWL calculations. AQL and RQL limits are subjective decisions based on the party
Table 5-1. Example of regression parameters for Equation 5-2

(Chatti et al. 2001).
Pavement type a b c R2
Rigid 2.81E-4 -6.75E-3 1.16E-1 0.954
Composite -2.52E-5 2.63E-3 5.31E-2 0.914
Flexible 2.67E-4 -5.81E-3 1.09E-1 0.932

setting specification limits. Although there are typical ranges, e.g., 90 to 95 AQL and 60 RQL, these
can vary based on the corresponding pay adjustments, SLE, and risk analysis. However, AQL and
RQL should reflect appropriate pay (i.e., 100% pay at AQL, justified disincentive between RQL
and AQL, and corrective action below RQL).

A standard for measuring and evaluating surface roughness in terms of IRI (AASHTO
PP37-04) is available and is recommended for measuring the longitudinal profile and calculating
IRI (AASHTO 2010).

Evaluation of longitudinal profile requires a pass of conventional profile-measuring devices
along a project length in different wheel-paths. The following process may be used for establishing
the sampling and measurement plan:
• Select an acceptance sampling plan type. A variable acceptance plan and stratified sampling
method are ideal to award pay adjustments for varying levels of quality.
approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contractor. In practice, the
frequency of verification sampling is selected based on economic, rather than statistical,
reasons.
lot quality is related to the sample size which depends on the treatment type and AQC. All
the data obtained from the continuous IRI data collection for a lot can be used in estimating
PWL, and a minimum of five data points should be used to calculate PWL (i.e., a lot should
be divided into a minimum of five sublots and one IRI value from each sublot). A lot size of
0.1 mile would provide a minimum of five average IRI values for calculating PWL.

Using a quality measure such as PWL, evaluate the PWL of each lot based on the previously
specified AQC limits. The PWL of the entire lot from a project can then be related to improve-
ment in pavement performance (SLE) to justify pay adjustments.

and assess risk
expected performance (i.e., SLE) into a pay adjustment. Adjust AQL and RQL and pay relation-
ships to minimize risk and ensure appropriate pay. The following steps can be used:
• Develop an EP curve that relates the pay factors to SLE due to treatment (and awards full pay
at AQL).

Chip Seal
Chip seals are typically used as preservation treatments for flexible pavements. This method
involves the application of asphalt (typically an emulsion) to the pavement surface, followed by
the application of rolled aggregate chips. Generally, chip seals are applied to seal longitudinal,
transverse, and block cracking; inhibit and retard raveling/weathering; improve friction; improve
ride quality; and/or inhibit moisture infiltration. Typical performance measures for chip seals are
aggregate loss (raveling), stripping, bleeding, and flushing.

Several material and construction properties such as emulsions and aggregate application rates,
variability between design and target application rates, emulsion-aggregate adhesive strength,
aggregate gradation, embedment depth, and mean profile depth (MPD) can be used as AQCs.

Establishing AQCs/performance relationships is a critical step in developing the preservation
PRS framework and establishing the suitability of guidelines for the PRS. This task establishes
relationships between the AQCs and pavement performance for a specific preservation treatment,
(i.e., a chip seal). In developing these relationships, certain ranges of a particular performance
measure are correlated to the threshold value of the selected AQC by analyzing performance-
related trends in historical data obtained from existing projects, establishing relationships between
AQCs and performance measures, or applying engineering judgment and statistical analyses.

Once the relationships between candidate AQCs and performance measures are established
for chip seal treatments, and the methods for measuring the AQCs are identified, the limits or
thresholds of the AQCs for acceptable levels of performance can be determined. Each of the AQCs
for chip seal treatments only requires either an upper or lower limit. A quality measure PWL can
be used after the treatment application. AQL and RQL limits are subjective decisions based on
the party setting specification limits. Although there are typical ranges (e.g., 90 to 95 AQL and
60 RQL), these can vary based on the pay adjustment level. However, AQL and RQL should reflect
appropriate pay disincentives or corrective action.

The successful adoption of a PRS requires the use of an objective test method for measuring
performance-related parameters. Methods that provide quantitative results are preferred. The
process of specifying test methods will consider the effect on user delays, the duration of collect-
ing and processing data, and the use of NDT techniques.
Two problems could be encountered in the selection of a test method: (1) the use of less-
proven methods that may be deemed undesirable by a contractor unfamiliar with the associated
calibration and analysis procedures and (2) the subjectivity of manual measurement methods
in comparison to automated data collection methods. These potential problems should be con-
sidered as part of the overall performance-based strategy, and the methods employed must be
agreed upon by both the agency and contractor. The requirements of such a test method are
discussed in this section.

The PRS provided herein should be supplemented by a sampling plan that balances efficiency
with contractor and agency risks. For example, an overly extensive sampling plan may result in

less risk to the parties involved, but may accrue higher project and user costs. Therefore, the plan
should be tailored to the type of parameter being tested, the resources available to the agency,
and the goal of the project delivery approach unique to each project. However, certain statistical
sampling concepts, such as sample size, lot size, and sampling frequency, are recurrent, regardless
of project needs. The sampling and testing frequency depends on specific project goals and needs
and can be specified locally. For example, a chip seal constructed on a high-traffic-volume arterial
roadway may require more frequent testing than a chip seal constructed on a low-volume roadway.

Using the quality measure PWL, evaluate the PWL of each lot, based on the previously speci-
fied AQCs and their limits. The PWL of the entire lot from a project can then be related to
improvement in the quality to justify pay adjustments.

and assess risk (if desired)
Pay adjustment factors are often part of acceptance plans and PRS guidelines. However, pay
reduction factors derived from reduction of service life concepts is not appropriate for perfor-
mance measures such as aggregate loss, which is the most critical distress for chip seal treatments
(Lee 2007). For instance, most aggregate loss occurs within the first days or weeks in service, and
aggregate loss early in the life of the seal does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the service
life of the seal (Im 2013). Therefore, pavement maintenance practitioners with state highway
agencies can often provide recommendations for pay adjustment factors as a starting point; these
recommendations can be evaluated prior to implementation.
Joint Resealing
Sealant materials on concrete pavement joints or cracks are applied to reduce moisture infil-
tration and prevent intrusion of incompressible fines. Performance measures associated with
joint seals include cracking, pumping, faulting, and spalling.

The material properties of sealants influence cohesion and adhesion failures at a joint and joint
seal performance effectiveness over time. Joint seal effectiveness is a measure of how much percent-
age of the sealant can prevent the infiltration of water and fines. Therefore, the percent effective
joints based on overall joint seal effectiveness (%Leff-total) for a pavement section can be used as an
AQC (Smith et al. 1999, FHWA 2003, Darter et al. 1985, Biel and Lee 1997, Evans et al. 1999).

A relationship between change in percent joint seal effectiveness (%Leff-total) and SLE due to
faulting can be considered for developing the PRS guidelines (Evans et al. 1999). A lower limit of
50% overall joint seal effectiveness is selected. A joint is considered effective if at least 75% of a
joint is sealed. FHWA recommends a minimum allowable value of 50% of effective joints (over-
all joint effectiveness) in a pavement section before requiring joint resealing (Evans et al. 1999).

A quality measure, DPWL, can be selected, while AQL and RQL selection is based on pay equa-
tion, SLE, and risk assessment. Frequently, PWL is used as a quality measure in pavement con-
struction practice. However, for preservation treatments, DPWL (PWL after treatment minus
PWL before treatment) can be used to reflect a change in pavement quality due to a treatment.

A lower AQC (%Leff-total in this case) limit needs to be established for before-and-after treatment
PWL calculations. AQL and RQL limits are subjective decisions and typical ranges (e.g., 90 to 95
AQL and 60 RQL) can vary based on the corresponding pay adjustments, SLE, and risk analysis.
However, AQL and RQL should award appropriate pay (i.e., 100% pay at AQL, justified dis
incentive between RQL and AQL, and corrective action below RQL).

The FHWA Manual of Practice (Evans et al. 1999) for repair of joint reseals in PCC pavements
may be used as a guide; it provides well-established means for measuring and evaluating joint
effectiveness.

Evaluation of joint seals requires visual inspection along a project length in different wheel-
paths. The following steps are required for developing the sampling and measurement plan:
• Identify the party (agency, contractor, or consultant) performing acceptance testing.
• Select an acceptance sampling plan type (a variable acceptance plan and stratified sampling
method are ideal to award pay adjustments for varying levels of quality).
approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contractor. In practice, the fre-
quency of verification sampling is selected based on economic, rather than statistical reasons.
• Determine the lot and sample size. The risks associated with incorrectly accepting or rejecting
the lot quality are related to the sample size, which depends on the treatment type and AQC.
All the data obtained for joint seal effectiveness is based on visual inspection of all the joints in
a lot and can be used in estimating PWL. Typically, the joint spacing of 15 ft is used for JPCP,
which means that there will be about 36 joints in a 0.1-mile pavement segment. A minimum
of five data points should be used to calculate PWL (i.e., a lot should be divided into a mini-
mum of five sublots and one %Leff-total value from each sublot, which means about seven joints
per sublot). A lot size of 0.1 mile could provide a minimum of five average %Leff-total values for
calculating PWL.

Using a quality measure such as PWL, evaluate the PWL of each lot based on the specified AQC
limits. The PWL of the entire lot from a project can then be related to improvement in pavement
performance (SLE) to justify pay adjustments.

and assess risk
Predict pavement performance as a function of levels of quality. Convert the expected perfor-
mance (i.e., SLE) into a pay adjustment. Adjust AQL and RQL and pay relationships to minimize
risk and ensure appropriate pay. The following steps can be used:
• Relate DPWL (determined in Step 7) to the SLE distribution (determined in Step 3).
• Develop an EP curve that relates the pay factors to SLE due to the treatment (and awards full
pay at AQL).

Diamond Grinding
Diamond grinding is typically used for rigid pavements as a preservation treatment. It involves
removal of a thin layer of PCC using stacked diamond-tipped cutting blades. Performance measures
associated with diamond grinding include cracking, surface roughness, and faulting.

Diamond grinding is performed to improve pavement smoothness by eliminating the surface
undulations. IRI captures variation in vertical surface elevations along the pavement length.
Hence IRI can be selected as an AQC. The effectiveness of diamond grinding can be assessed by
evaluating the IRI before and after the treatment.

The relationship between a change in IRI and SLE can be established by using the Pavement-
ME performance prediction models. A successful grinding treatment will reduce surface rough-
ness, as indicated by reduced IRI after treatment. A smoother pavement surface results in less
vehicle body and axle bounce, reducing dynamic load-related damage. It can be hypothesized
that a reduced dynamic load should result in increased pavement SLE. The mechanistic-empirical
approach can be used to (1) measure before-and-after treatment surface profiles, (2) estimate
dynamic load index (DLI) from profiles based on Figure 5-1, (3) estimate relative damage based
on DLI or IRI before and after the treatment; for example, the relative damage based on DLI can
be calculated by using Equation 4-2 and Table 5-1, and (4) calculate the life extension based on
the change in relative damage using Equations 4-3 and 4-4.

tion, SLE, and risks. Commonly, PWL is used as a quality measure in pavement construction
practice. However, for preservation treatments, DPWL (PWL after treatment minus PWL before
treatment) can be used to reflect a change in pavement quality due to a treatment. An upper
AQC (IRI in this case) limit needs to be established for before-and-after treatment PWL calcula-
tions. AQL and RQL limits are subjective decisions and typical ranges for AQL (e.g., 90 to 95)
and RQL (e.g., 60) can vary as a function of the corresponding pay adjustment, SLE, and risks.
However, AQL and RQL should assess appropriate pay (i.e., 100% pay at AQL, justified dis
incentive between RQL and AQL, and corrective action below RQL).

A standard for measuring and evaluating surface roughness in terms of IRI (AASHTO
PP37-04) is available and recommended for measuring the longitudinal profile and calculating
IRI (AASHTO 2010).

Evaluation of longitudinal profile requires a pass of conventional profile-measuring devices
along a project length in different wheel paths. The following process may be used for establish-
ing the sampling and measurement plan:


• Select an acceptance sampling plan type. A variable acceptance plan and stratified sampling
method are ideal to award pay adjustments for varying levels of quality.
approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contractor. In practice, the fre-
quency of verification sampling is selected based on economic, rather than statistical, reasons.
• Determine a lot and sample size. The risks associated with incorrectly accepting or rejecting lot
quality are related to the sample size, which depends on the treatment type and AQC. All the
data obtained from the continuous IRI data collection for a lot can be used in estimating PWL,
and a minimum of five data points should be used to calculate PWL (i.e., a lot should be divided
into a minimum of five sublots and one IRI value from each sublot). A lot size of 0.1 mile could
provide a minimum of five average IRI values for calculating PWL.

Using PWL as a quality measure, evaluate the PWL of each lot based on the specified AQC
limits. The PWL of the entire lot from a project can then be related to improvement in pavement
performance (SLE) to justify pay adjustments.

and assess risk
Predict pavement performance as a function of levels of quality. Convert the expected perfor-
mance (i.e., SLE) into a pay adjustment. Adjust AQL and RQL and pay relationships to minimize
risk and ensure appropriate pay. The following steps can be used:
• Develop an EP curve that relates the pay factors to SLE due to treatment and awards full
payment at AQL.
Dowel-Bar Retrofit
Dowel-bar retrofit (DBR) typically is used for rigid pavements as a preservation treatment for
load-transfer restoration across a rigid pavement discontinuity. Performance measures associ-
ated with DBR include joint faulting, pumping, and corner breaks.

While material characteristics such as mortar properties are relevant to the effectiveness of the
DBR, the ability to restore load transfer is critical to a successful application and effectiveness of
the treatment. Load-transfer efficiency (LTE) across a discontinuity is representative of the material
and construction characteristics (e.g., strength properties of mortar and alignment of dowel bars)
and can be used as an AQC. Faulting can be the primary performance measure, given that it is the
direct result of the pumping distress mechanisms that can occur when load transfer is poor.


The faulting model developed for the Pavement-ME can be used to establish a relationship
between changes in LTE due to DBR and predicted faulting performance. The differential energy
(DE) is a key component of the Pavement-ME faulting model. LTE and corresponding DE at
a joint can be calculated by using deflection measurements. The measured DE can be used as
inputs to the Pavement-ME faulting model to predict faulting to compare with measured fault-
ing. If necessary and data representative of local conditions is available, calibrate the faulting
model and develop a relationship between DE and LTE. Establish a relationship between DLTE
and SLE to justify pay adjustment relationships.
A 10-year study on DBRs showed that pavements with retrofitted dowel bars retained an aver-
age joint load transfer between 70 and 90% (Pierce et al. 2003). A one-sided lower specification
limit of 70% LTE can be selected, but this can vary per agency choice.

tion, SLE, and risk assessment. PWL is often used as a quality measure in pavement construc-
tion practice. However, for preservation treatments, a modified version of PWL can be used to
reflect a change in pavement quality due to a treatment, i.e., DPWL (PWL after treatment minus
PWL before treatment). Such a quality measure is more appropriate for pavement preservation
practice, given that the goal is to extend the life of the existing pavement. However, a lower AQC
(LTE in this case) limit needs to be established for before-and-after treatment PWL calculations.
AQL and RQL limits are subjective decisions based on the party setting the specification limits.
Although there are typical ranges for AQL (e.g., 90 to 95) and RQL (e.g., 60), these values can
vary based on the corresponding pay adjustments, SLE, and risk analysis. However, AQL and
RQL should reflect appropriate pay (i.e., 100% pay at AQL, a justified disincentive between RQL
and AQL, and corrective action below RQL).

A well-established standard (ASTM D4695-03) is available and can be used for measuring and
evaluating surface deflections (ASTM 2015).

The LTE is measured across a discontinuity using falling weight deflectometer (FWD) deflec-
tion data along a project length in different wheel paths. The following process may be used for
establishing the sampling and measurement plan.
• Select an acceptance sampling plan type (a variable acceptance plan and stratified sampling
method are ideal for awarding pay adjustments for varying levels of quality).
• Select a verification sampling frequency. The verification sampling frequency should be approx-
imately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contractor. In practice, the frequency of
verification sampling is selected based on economic, rather than statistical, reasons.
lot quality are related to the sample size, which depends on the treatment type and AQC. Since
the data collection method for DBR effectiveness is based on deflection testing, all the joints in

a lot can be used for estimating PWL. Typically, joint spacing of 15 ft is used for JPCP, which
means there will be about 36 joints in a 0.1-mile pavement segment. Therefore, it is recom-
mended that a lot size should be 0.1 mile such that LTE values from all the joints are used to
calculate PWL. A minimum of five LTE values should be used for calculating the PWL of a lot.

Using a quality measure such as PWL, evaluate the PWL of each lot based on the specified AQC
limits. The PWL of the entire set of samples from the project can then be related to improvement
in pavement performance (i.e., SLE) to justify pay adjustments.

and assess risk
expected performance (i.e., SLE) into a pay adjustment. Adjust AQL and RQL and pay relation-
ships to minimize risks and ensure appropriate pay. The following steps can be used:
• Develop an EP curve that relates the pay factors to SLE due to the treatment (and awards full
pay at AQL).
pay factor greater than 1 at an AQL close to 50%.

Chapter 6
Examples
6.1 Introduction
This chapter presents examples to illustrate use of the PRS guidelines developed in Chapter 5.
The examples use field data to develop AQC and performance relationships for chip seal and
diamond grinding. Examples also were developed for thin overlay, microsurfacing, joint reseal-
ing, and dowel-bar retrofit using simulated data because field data were not available. The latter
examples are presented in Appendix A.
6.2 Characterization of Pre-Existing Conditions

The selection of a preservation treatment and the resulting design depends on how the
existing pavement conditions are characterized. Sufficient pavement condition data are needed
to assess the structural deficiency in an existing pavement and the appropriate overlay thickness.
For application of preservation treatments, not only must the existing pavement be structur-
ally sound, but each treatment has a “window of opportunity” to be effective. Therefore, treat-
ment selection, timing, and location of a preservation treatment are the key components for its
effectiveness.
The selection of preservation treatments for flexible and rigid pavements was discussed in
Chapter 3. Most pavements with load-related distresses of low severity and extent are candidates
for preservation treatments. Many state DOTs use decision trees or tables from past experience
to evaluate the candidacy of pavement preservation treatments based on extent and severity of
existing surface distresses. Generally, highway agencies make such decisions prior to award of
construction contracts; thus, contractors are not responsible for treatment selection on a given
project. In this research, it was assumed that the preservation treatments are selected based on
the pre-existing condition and are applied at optimum times.
6.3 Chip Seal

The process for developing guidelines for the PRS is described in Chapter 2; step-by-step
guidelines developed specifically for chip seal construction are described in Chapter 5. In this
section, a detailed example that uses both laboratory and field data is described to illustrate the
use of the proposed PRS guidelines.
1. Select a Preservation Treatment

Chip seals are typically used as preservation treatments for flexible pavements. Chip sealing
involves the application of asphalt (typically an emulsion) to the pavement surface, followed
60

Examples 61
by the application of rolled aggregate chips. Generally, chip seals are applied to seal longitudi-
nal, transverse, and block cracking; inhibit and retard raveling/weathering; improve friction;
improve ride quality; and inhibit moisture infiltration. Typical performance measures for chip
seals are aggregate loss (raveling), stripping, bleeding, and flushing.
2. Select Candidate Material and Construction Characteristics

and Performance Measures
Table 6-1 lists the AQCs and associated performance measures identified for the chip seal
portion of the PRS. The table also lists the parameters measured in the field or laboratory for
the various AQCs, and related test methods. The relationships between the AQCs and functional
performance measures are described below.
Emulsion-Aggregate Adhesive Bond Strength

Aggregate loss is the primary form of distress in chip seals at intermediate temperatures. One
of the main causes of aggregate loss is a lack of adhesive bond strength between the aggregate and
emulsion such that significant cover aggregate is lost upon loading. The adhesive bond between
the aggregate and emulsion is a function of the construction practices used during the seal con-
struction. Construction-related factors such as the time between application of the aggregate layer
onto the emulsion and the first rolling pass, the type of compaction effort applied, the number
of roller passes, and the curing time allowed prior to traffic opening can affect the adhesive bond
formed between the aggregate and emulsion and thus the aggregate loss observed (Lee and Kim
2008). The Vialit testing of extracted field samples proposed in this PRS directly measures the
strength of the adhesive bond formed during the construction of the chip seal treatment.
Gradation
The performance-uniformity coefficient (PUC) is a performance indicator of aggregate gra-
dation and its uniformity. In chip seal surface treatments, gradations that are more uniform
perform better than those that are less uniform in terms of the aggregate loss and bleeding
failure criteria. The PUC of the aggregate source will affect the bleeding and aggregate loss per-
formance of the chip seal surface treatment being constructed. The concept of the PUC is based
on McLeod’s chip seal failure criterion that 70% is the ideal aggregate embedment for chip seal
surface treatments. The PUC is the ratio of the percentage passing at a given embedment depth
(PEM) to the percentage passing at twice the embedment depth (P2EM) in a sieve analysis curve
(Lee 2007, McLeod 1971).
Table 6-1. Proposed AQCs for the preliminary PRS.

Related Performance
AQCs Test Parameter Proposed Test Method
Measure
Emulsion-Aggregate
Aggregate Loss % Aggregate Loss Vialit Test (Lab)
Adhesive Strength
Performance-Uniformity Gradation Analysis of
Gradation Aggregate Loss
Coefficient Vialit Samples (Lab)
Mean Profile Depth
Bleeding and Skid MPD after 1 Week and
(MPD) and Visual Laser Profiler (Field)
Resistance % Bleeding
Inspection
Emulsion
Aggregate Loss and Percentage of Optimum Ignition Oven: Vialit
Application Rate
Bleeding EAR for PUC Analysis Samples (Lab)
(EAR)
Aggregate Aggregate Loss and Percentage of Optimum Ignition Oven: Vialit

Application Rate Bleeding EAR for PUC Analysis Samples (Lab)

The PEM and P2EM values represent the bleeding and aggregate loss failure criteria, respectively,
with regard to the gradation. The PEM value is defined as the percentage passing that corresponds
to 70% of the median particle size on the gradation curve. The P2EM value is defined as the percent-
age passing that corresponds to 1.4 times the median particle size, with the median particle size
defined as the particle size of which 50% of the gradation passes through the sieve. For chip seal, a
low PEM value is desired because a low percentage of the gradation passing at the bleeding failure
criterion indicates that the aggregate particles in that range of the gradation are larger and less
susceptible to bleeding. However, a high P2EM value indicates that a low percentage of aggregate
particles do not meet the aggregate loss criterion, and therefore less aggregate loss is expected.
The aggregates are assumed to be embedded in emulsion up to 70% of its median (M) particle
size. Particles smaller than 0.7M will be submerged completely in the emulsion and experience
bleeding. Therefore, smaller particles should be larger than 0.7M to avoid bleeding. In contrast,
particles bigger than 1.4M will be less than 50% embedded in emulsion and therefore are likely
to be lost when trafficked.
A PUC value close to zero indicates a more uniformly graded aggregate. Thus as the PEM value
approaches 0% and the P2EM value approaches 100%, gradation uniformity increases, resulting
in less bleeding and aggregate loss.
Mean Profile Depth

The mean profile depth (MPD) is a measure of the exposed texture depth of a chip seal surface
treatment (Transit New Zealand 2005). As the emulsion-aggregate rate (EAR) or embedment
depth increases, the MPD will decrease, and where the EAR (or embedment depth) is decreased
for a given aggregate structure, the MPD will increase. The MPD is defined as the average of the
mean segment depths of all of the segments of the profile, with the mean segment depth being
the average value of the profile depth of the two halves of a segment having a given baseline, as
shown in Figure 6-1 (ASTM E1845).
MPD is an indicator of surface roughness (i.e., macrosurface texture) and aggregate exposure
depth of the chip seal. Roughness is important because it provides the skid resistance and fric-
tion needed for vehicles to brake adequately. The aggregate exposure depth is a function of the
Figure 6-1. Schematic diagram of MPD definition (ASTM E1845).

Examples 63
aggregate embedment depth, which is directly related to bleeding performance of chip seals.
Lower MPD values increase the likelihood of bleeding and skid-resistance problems.
Emulsion and Aggregate Application Rates

The EAR and aggregate application rate (AAR) are both critical to the performance of chip
seal surface treatments. Previous research has shown a considerable variability between the mea-
sured and design EAR and AAR in chip seal construction (Adams and Kim 2011).
3. Establish AQC-Performance Relationships and Determine

Performance Limits
Table 6-1 summarizes the relationships established between the AQCs and their associated
chip seal performance measures. The performance limits related to each AQC are described in
this section.
Adhesive Bond Strength Versus Aggregate Loss

One of the most critical performance measures for a chip seal surface treatment is aggregate
loss. The strength of the adhesive bond that forms between the emulsion and aggregate used
in chip seal construction determines the ability of the chip seal to retain aggregate under traf-
fic loading. Previous research measured the adhesive bond strength directly by using Vialit
aggregate loss impact loading tests on specimens extracted directly from the constructed field
sections (Im 2013, Adams and Kim 2011). The data were obtained from various modified and
unmodified emulsion types at different test temperatures. The research showed a linear rela-
tionship between bond strength (measured using a pneumatic adhesive tensile testing instru-
ment) which tested emulsions in accordance with AASHTO TP91, “Determining Asphalt
Binder Bond Strength by Means of the Bitumen Bond Strength Test,” and percent aggregate
lost from the Vialit test (see Figure 6-2). Therefore, Vialit test aggregate loss results can be used
25
20
% Aggregate Loss
15
10
Unmodified at 15C
Modified at 15C
Unmodified at 25C
5 Modified at 25C
Poor Performing at 15C y = –0.0765x + 24.641
Linear Model R² = 0.7493
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
BBS (psi)
Figure 6-2. Bond strength versus Vialit test

aggregate loss performance (Kim et al. 2017).

as an AQC for the bond strength between the aggregate and emulsion used in a chip seal and
as an indicator of the chip seal’s resistance to aggregate loss. This research also showed that the
Vialit aggregate loss test differentiates between modified and unmodified emulsions at different
temperatures.
Vialit Test Aggregate Loss Threshold Limit Determination

To develop the Vialit test aggregate loss threshold for the PRS, limits need to be derived based
on the traffic demand expected for the constructed chip seal section. For example, roadways with
higher traffic levels often have higher speeds, and vehicles are more susceptible to windshield
damage due to aggregate loss than is the case for lower volume roads. Therefore, the acceptable
aggregate loss threshold value will be lower (i.e., more restrictive) for higher traffic levels than
lower traffic levels. In contrast, at lower traffic levels, the aggregate loss threshold should be less
restrictive compared to the threshold at higher traffic levels. The PRS will establish threshold
values for the three traffic (AADT) levels:
1. low traffic (0–500)
2. medium traffic (501–2500)
3. high traffic (2501–20,000)
These traffic levels are those used in an NCHRP project dealing with PRS for emulsified asphal-
tic binders used in preservation surface treatments (Kim et al. 2017). The research team recom-
mends 20,000 vehicles as the upper AADT limit for high traffic, based on a study of high-traffic
chip seal practices across the United States – although chip seals are constructed at AADT counts
that exceed 20,000 vehicles in California, Colorado, and Montana (Gransberg and James 2005).
Because the performance of chip seals constructed at high-traffic volumes is heavily dependent
on local factors, such as climate, traffic speed, aggregate quality, contractor’s experience, and
equipment, the high-traffic upper limit is conservatively set at 20,000 vehicles.
To develop Vialit aggregate loss limits for the PRS, an aggregate loss limit that differentiates
between acceptable and unacceptable mixture performance is needed. Two aggregate loss limits
were adopted from existing research studies, based on laboratory and field chip seal experiments.
The first limit is the maximum allowable aggregate loss limit for the lowest traffic level. The Alaska
Department of Transportation (McHattie 2001) defines “acceptable” field aggregate loss as 10%
or less for any traffic situation where a chip seal is constructed. Previous research has also found
that 10% aggregate loss limit characterizes acceptable aggregate loss performance in third-scale
model mobile load simulator (MMLS3) testing (Lee 2007, Adams and Kim 2011, Lee and Kim
2009) and that if a chip seal exhibits 10% aggregate loss in the laboratory, it is likely to exhibit
significant aggregate loss in the field.
The relationship between the MMLS3 test results and Vialit test aggregate loss results was
examined in research for the North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) (Kim and Im 2015). The research
found that, for unmodified emulsions (used for low traffic), the Vialit test aggregate loss is double
the aggregate loss caused by MMLS3 testing. For modified emulsions (used for high traffic), the
Vialit test aggregate loss is about 50% more than the aggregate loss caused by MMLS3 testing.
Therefore, aggregate loss threshold limits for the Vialit test were established as 20% for low traf-
fic and 15% for high traffic and the average of the low- and high-traffic limits for medium traffic
(i.e., 17.5% aggregate loss).
PUC (Gradation) Versus Aggregate Loss Relationship

Gradation is an AQC that relates directly to the performance of chip seal treatments. The
effect of gradation on performance is dependent on the PUC, which indicates the degree of
uniformity of the aggregate source. For chip seal surface treatments, more uniform gradations

Examples 65
perform better than less uniform gradations in terms of aggregate loss and bleeding failure cri-
teria (Adams and Kim 2011, Lee and Kim 2009). Figure 6-3 shows the relationship between the
PUC and aggregate loss performance (Adams and Kim 2011, Lee and Kim 2009).
PUC Threshold Limit Determination Approach

The approach used to determine the PUC threshold limit for the PRS is based on the concept
that 100% of the optimum EAR (which is based on the performance-based mix design) yields
the appropriate baseline for aggregate loss. The performance-based mix design has been shown
to minimize both the potential for aggregate loss and bleeding problems in chip seal mixtures
(Adams and Kim 2011). Previous research (Adams and Kim 2011) has shown that the sensitivity
of the aggregate loss performance to the PUC parameter (i.e., gradation) is related to the EAR
and, more specifically, to how close the measured EAR is to the design optimum EAR. Therefore,
the approach is as follows: First determine the asymptotic percent aggregate loss corresponding
to the optimum EAR; then for a given EAR, determine the PUC threshold value that corresponds
to this percent aggregate loss from the respective curve (e.g., Figure 6-4).
Mean Profile Depth Versus Bleeding

The mean profile depth (MPD) of a chip seal can be measured using a three-dimensional laser
profiler that tracks the MPD as a function of time. MPD is related directly to the roughness and
bleeding performance of the seal (Adams and Kim 2011). For the PRS, MPD measured after
1 week in service is proposed, because sweeping typically is conducted within 1 week after con-
struction and the MPD can be measured using the laser while traffic control is still set up. The
MPD can also be used as an indicator of potential performance problems in a chip seal treatment
(Kim and Im 2015).
The PRS threshold limit for the MPD parameter was determined based on the performance
data. The relationship between the MPD and bleeding was observed in field sections constructed
by NCDOT pavement preservation construction personnel (Adams and Kim 2011). Locations
were selected where no significant surface distresses existed before the treatment application
on straight alignment and with no steep grades. Any cracks near the sections were sealed before
construction. Figures 6-5 and 6-6 show the MPDs measured after 1 week and the performance
observed after 1 year in service for granite and lightweight aggregate, respectively. The figures
show that the sections with the lower MPD values (below 2.12 mm) after 1 week exhibited
% Aggregate Loss
PUC
Figure 6-3. Percent aggregate loss versus

PUC (Adams and Kim 2011).

16
55% of Optimum EAR
14 70% of Optimum EAR
85% of Optimum EAR
12 100% of Optimum EAR
115% of Optimum EAR
10
% Agg. Loss
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PUC
Figure 6-4. Approach for developing threshold

values for the PUC based on design rates.
Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
Figure 6-5. Bleeding (1 year) and MPD (1 week) of granite aggregate sections.

Examples 67
Section 7 Section 8 Section 9
Figure 6-6. Bleeding (1 year) and MPD (1 week) of lightweight aggregate sections.
bleeding after 1 year in service. For chip seal sections with AADT between 1,000 and 4,500 vehi-
cles, sections with a 1-week MPD below 2.12 mm exhibited bleeding within 1 year of service
but sections with a 1-week MPD above 2.12 mm did not exhibit bleeding. Therefore, 2.12 mm
was selected as the threshold value for the 1-week MPD AQC for PRS, based on the results for
granite aggregates. However, a different MPD value might be selected for higher AADT levels.

Variance from the design EAR and AAR can influence the performance of the chip seal (e.g.,
aggregate loss and bleeding). For example, applying an AAR higher than the design value on a
seal could lead to aggregate loss. The combined effects of these two parameters will ultimately
determine the performance. Therefore, these two parameters cannot be used independently to
assess penalties for chip seals.
Although the PRS will be established using Vialit test aggregate loss percentages, the PUC
and the MPD as AQCs, and the EAR and AAR need to be measured to determine the percent-
age of the optimum EAR and AAR for the PUC analysis. The EAR and AAR can be obtained by
conducting ignition oven tests (as specified in ASTM D6307) using chip seal specimens. For the
purposes of the chip seal PRS, the specimens extracted for Vialit testing will be used to determine
the percentage of aggregate loss AQC. This approach allows the EAR and AAR to be captured
without additional samples being required.
4. Determine Thresholds and Limits for AQC

The steps for establishing limits for the AQCs and quality measures outlined in Chapter 5 were
followed. These steps are summarized for chip seals as follows.
1. Determine AQC-performance relationships. The relationships between each AQC and per-
formance have been established. The aggregate loss measured from the Vialit test, the MPD,

Table 6-2. Vialit test aggregate loss PWL values.

Upper
Section Traffic Avg. Std. Sample
Spec. Q PWL Pay Conclusion
ID Volume Loss Dev. Size
Limit
MD-1 4500 15 11 2.54 1.57 9 95.2 Full Pay
MD-2 4500 15 8.4 1.46 4.52 9 100 Full Pay
MD-3 4500 15 12.2 2.1 1.33 9 91.4 Full Pay
MD-7 4500 15 2.8 0.84 14.52 9 100 Full Pay
MD-8 4500 15 4.2 1.03 10.49 9 100 Full Pay
MD-9 4500 15 1.8 1.4 9.43 9 100 Full Pay
MD-10 1000 17.5 7.3 1.67 6.11 9 100 Full Pay
MD-11 1000 17.5 9.2 3.1 2.68 9 100 Full Pay
MD-12 1000 17.5 13.6 1.75 2.23 9 99.7 Full Pay
MDV-1 2000 17.5 10.2 1.1 6.64 9 100 Full Pay
MDV-2 2000 17.5 16.7 2.7 0.30 9 59.5 <60 Lot Rejected
and the PUC demonstrates the ability to predict the key performance measures associated
with chip seal treatments.
2. Set specification limits. The specification limits for the AQCs were determined based on
laboratory and field performance data, as detailed in the previous section. For the Vialit
test aggregate loss AQC, the specification maximum limit is a function of the traffic level
as defined above. The specification minimum limit for MPD was set at 2.12 mm, based on
the results for granite aggregate. However, a different MPD value may be selected for higher
AADT levels. Lastly, for the PUC, the threshold value was determined to be a function of
the percentage of the optimum EAR and AAR measured from ignition oven tests following
chip seal construction.
3. Decide on a quality measure. The recommended quality measure for chip seals was decided
as the PWL.
4. Define AQL. The upper AQL for chip seal treatments is recommended to be a PWL of 90 for
this chip seal demonstration example, based on typical AQL values, that is, 90% of samples
from a lot must pass the AQC specification limit to receive 100% pay.
5. Define RQL. The RQL for this chip seal demonstration example was determined to be a PWL
of 60, based on the typical range of RQL values, that is, 60% of samples from a lot must pass
the specification limit to be eligible for reduced pay.
Determining PWL for Chip Seal Field Demonstration Sections

The PWLs were calculated for the chip seal field sections. Tables 6-2 and 6-3 present the PWL
values for the Vialit test aggregate loss and MPD tests, respectively. These PWL values were used
to determine whether the contractor for a sample lot would have received full pay, reduced/partial
pay, or been rejected in the proposed PRS.
Table 6-3. MPD PWL values.

Lower
Section Traffic Avg. Std. Sample
Spec. Q PWL Pay Conclusion
ID Volume MPD Dev. Size
Limit
MD-A 4500 2.12 1.99 0.24 -0.54 3 34.5 <60 lot rejected
MD-B 4500 2.12 2.2 0.06 1.33 3 100 Full pay
MD-C 4500 2.12 2.12 0.08 0.00 3 50 <60 lot rejected
MD-D 4500 2.12 2.07 0.16 -0.31 3 41.4 <60 lot rejected
MD-E 4500 2.12 2.21 0.04 2.25 3 100 Full pay
MD-F 4500 2.12 2.22 0.07 1.43 3 100 Full pay

Examples 69
5. Specify Test Methods to Measure AQC

The following section describes the test methods to measure different AQCs.
Vialit Aggregate Loss

To obtain samples for conducting the Vialit aggregate loss tests, steel Vialit plates are placed
onto the road surface prior to the start of construction. A chip seal treatment is then constructed
on top of the Vialit plates (see Figure 6-7). After the compaction phase of the construction is
complete, the sample is allowed to cure for a least 1 hour prior to starting the extraction process.
The details of the test procedure are described in Adams and Kim (2011).
Mean Profile Depth (MPD) Measurement and Visual Pavement Inspection

A three-dimensional (3-D) laser surface texture profiler is shown in Figure 6-8. This portable
laser profiler is used to obtain the MPD data used in a non-destructive manner. The test proce-
dure is described in ASTM E 1845 specifications. Using the laser profiler, the MPD is measured
1 week after construction. Because MPD measurement requires traffic control, it is recom-
mended that this task be coordinated with the sweeping procedure that typically occurs about
1 week after construction.
Current practice among state highway agencies is to inspect (visually) a newly constructed
chip seal on the day of construction and again during the first summer of construction. As
bleeding typically will occur within the first year in service (Adams and Kim 2011), conducting
a visual inspection for bleeding during the seals’ second summer in service is desirable. Because
the 1-week MPD is an indicator of bleeding potential within the first year of the life of the seal,
measuring the 1-week MPD for each constructed section and checking against the threshold
limit can identify sections that have high bleeding potential. Also, conducting a visual inspec-
tion prior to the end of the warranty period agreed upon by the contractor and agency (typically
1 year) would determine if bleeding occurred in sections that have measured MPD values below
the threshold value. If the section exhibits bleeding levels higher than 50%, the contractor should
Figure 6-7. Vialit test apparatus.

Figure 6-8. Photo of 3-D laser profiler prototype

used in this study.
repair or replace the chip seal at no cost to the agency. This requirement minimizes the risk to
the agency by ensuring that bleeding does not occur within the agreed-upon warranty period
while also avoiding penalizing the contractor unless significant bleeding can be validated instead
of relying on a predictive indicator of bleeding.
In summary, the 1-week MPD measure allows a state highway agency to identify and prioritize
potentially problematic sections. This approach allows for an efficient allocation of inspection
personnel and resources. In addition, as agencies build a database of 1-week MPD values versus
bleeding performance, the 1-week MPD limit can be calibrated locally.
The NCDOT Pavement Condition Survey Manual (NCDOT 2012) provides a visual inspec-
tion method for identifying bleeding severity in a chip seal. The manual places bleeding severity
in three categories:
• Light bleeding: condition is present on 10%–25% of the section
• Moderate bleeding: condition is present on 25%–50% of the section
• Severe bleeding: condition is present on greater than 50% of the section
In this method, each wheel path of a two-lane roadway represents 25% of the section, as defined
by the manual. Bleeding is evaluated across the entire length of the chip seal for any significantly
bled areas that justify replacement (see Figures 6-9 and 6-10).
Current practice is to replace a bled section when the bleeding is severe, or greater than 50% of
the section, as exhibited in Figure 6-10. These PRS recommend that a section that exhibits severe
bleeding within the warranty period should be rejected and replaced or repaired at the expense
of the contractor. The rationale behind this recommendation is that most highway agencies
would not repair or replace a chip seal with light or moderate bleeding as the seal would not be
considered to have reached the end of its service life.
Ignition Oven Test

The measured material application rates can be determined according to the ignition oven test
procedure in AASHTO T 308 using chip seal samples extracted from the field after construction.
Also, through ignition testing, the EAR could be determined (Adams and Kim 2011).

Examples 71
Figure 6-9. Light bleeding example (NCDOT 2012).
6. Establish a Sampling and Measurement Plan

As noted previously, the risks associated with incorrectly accepting or rejecting a lot are related
to sample size and method. The procedure outlined in Chapter 5 was followed to develop guide-
lines for a sampling and measurement plan for chip seal treatment:
1. Determine which party performs acceptance testing. The contractor and agency must agree
on the testing party.
2. Determine the type of acceptance plan to be used. Stratified random sampling, a modified
version of random sampling commonly used in pavement construction acceptance sampling,
involves dividing a lot into several sublots of equal size and selecting random samples within
each sublot.
3. Develop verification sampling and testing procedures. Verification sampling is used to verify
the accuracy of acceptance test results. The decision to use split or independent sampling
depends on the goals of the agency. For this example, it is assumed that the agency or indepen-
dent third party will measure the Vialit aggregate loss and MPD at the recommended sampling
frequency for each sublot for verification. In practice, the agency’s verification test methods
are used solely for verification, and acceptance methods proposed by the contractor are first
compared to the results of the agency verification tests.
Figure 6-10. Severe bleeding needing replacement

(NCDOT 2012).

4. Select the appropriate verification sampling frequency. The verification sampling frequency
by the agency should be approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate by the contractor.
In practice, the verification testing frequency is decided for economic, rather than statistical,
reasons and is agreed upon by the agency and contractor. For this example, it is assumed that
the procedure is already established.
5. Determine lot size and sample size. The evaluation of the aggregate loss AQC involves the
extraction of field samples for Vialit aggregate loss testing in a temperature-controlled labora-
tory environment. Therefore, lots and sublots should be defined logically as segmented lengths
of a project. For this example, the recommended lot size is 5,000 ft. long. Sublot lengths from
which stratified random sampling should be performed are recommended to be 100 ft. The
risks associated with sampling depend on sample size. Based on earlier research, it is recom-
mended that a sample size of nine be used for each sublot for the Vialit aggregate loss AQC
(Adams and Kim 2011). Because taking nine samples for each sublot throughout the entire lot
is time-consuming and transportation of these samples to the laboratory would be difficult, it
is recommended that three sublots be selected randomly from the lot for sampling. However,
individual agencies may increase the number of sublots sampled to minimize risk if sufficient
resources and personnel are available.
The same lot and sublot plan described for aggregate loss should be used for measuring the
MPD AQC. However, a sample size of three MPD laser scans could provide statistically significant
and representative results (Adams and Kim 2011). Current practice requires gradation measure-
ments taken at the aggregate quarry to ensure that the aggregate specified in the chip seal contract
meets the gradation requirements. Therefore, no field sampling is required for the evaluation of
the PUC AQC. Current quality control checks of gradation should be maintained, and the PUC
can be checked using the gradation data.
7. Develop Pay Adjustment Factors

Pay adjustment factors are necessary for acceptance plans in developing PRS. However, estab-
lishing pay reduction factors to determine partial pay using typical approaches based on reduc-
tion of service life concepts is not appropriate for performance measures such as aggregate loss,
which is the most critical distress for chip seal treatments (Lee 2007). For instance, most aggre-
gate loss occurs within the first days and weeks in service, and field observations have shown that
aggregate loss early in the life of the seal does not necessarily lead to a reduction in the service life
of the seal (Im 2013). Therefore, the opinions of State DOT pavement maintenance practitioners
regarding pay adjustment factors were used as a starting point but should be validated prior to
implementation.
Vialit Aggregate Loss

Key issues associated with aggregate loss are vehicular damage claims and the public perception
of chip seal treatments as an effective treatment alternative. Another concern with aggregate loss
is its contribution to bleeding (Lawson et al. 2007). Given the established maximum specification
thresholds of 20%, 17.5%, and 15% aggregate loss for low, medium, and high traffic, respectively,
a set of samples for a lot that fails to meet the AQL of 90, but exceeds the RQL of 60, should be
considered for partial pay.
A relationship between aggregate loss and pay factor could not be developed because of
the inability to quantify the effect of aggregate loss on bleeding failure or public perception/
satisfaction with the quality of the sealing work. However, as a starting point for these PRS, the
research team surveyed State DOT pavement maintenance practitioners to obtain recommen-
dations on reasonable partial pay factors for PWL ranging from 60 to 90. The survey results
were averaged and rounded to the nearest 5% (see Table 6-4).

Examples 73
Table 6-4. Pay factors vs. PWL

for aggregate loss.
PWL Range (%) Pay Reduction (%)
90-100 Full Pay
75-90 25% Pay Reduction
60-75 50% Pay Reduction
0-60 Reject; No Pay
Also, the survey respondents unanimously recommended that the contracted party also should
be responsible for addressing any vehicle damage claims at no cost to the state highway agency.
Mean Profile Depth (MPD) Measurements and Visual Inspection for Bleeding
The 1-week MPD and visual inspection method described for assessing bleeding potential in
a surface treatment in the PRS provides a pass/fail criterion. If bleeding over 50% is identified
visually as present, the lot is rejected and should be repaired or replaced at cost to the contractor.
If minimal or no bleeding is present, the lot passes and the contractor receives full pay.
The research team recommends that no partial pay factors should be established for bleeding
because most bleeding is a result of aggregate loss issues (Lawson et al. 2007) and thus the contrac-
tor would be penalized twice for the same problem as the proposed PRS assesses a pay reduction
for the aggregate loss that led to bleeding. The other main cause of bleeding is the lack of binder
resistance to non-recoverable strain at high temperatures (D’Angelo and Dongre 2007). This defi-
ciency is a binder performance problem addressed by the performance-graded specifications for
the binder selected for the job and is not appropriate for penalty in these PRS. Construction-related
bleeding performance is a result of either aggregate loss, which when significantly present is already
penalized in these PRS, or the over-application of emulsion (known as flushing), which could
result in a rejection of the lot based on visual inspection.
Performance-Uniformity Coefficient (PUC)

Previous research has established the importance of aggregate gradation for the performance
of chip seal surface treatments as it relates to aggregate loss and bleeding potential (Lee 2007).
State highway agencies conduct regular quality control testing to ensure that gradation is within
the specified limits. The PUC can be determined easily from the gradation analysis data to ensure
that the aggregate selected will not contribute to aggregate loss or bleeding. These PRS recom-
mend that the PUC of the aggregate should be assessed on a pass/fail basis for use in the con-
struction of chip seal treatments at the time of quality control inspection based on the PUC limit
derivation approach described above.

Significant differences between the target and design application rates can significantly affect
the performance of a chip seal treatment. However, because the effect of variance from the target
EAR and AAR would be captured by the Vialit aggregate loss test and the bleeding assessment in
these PRS, the research team decided that no separate pay factor adjustment is recommended to
account for this variance.
8. Summary
This example has demonstrated the following:
• Vialit testing of extracted field chip seal samples can be used to assess the raveling potential of
chip seals for different aggregates, binder types, design rates, and traffic levels.
• A unique relationship exists between the MPD and the percentage of bleeding under both
laboratory and field traffic loading conditions, such that threshold values can be established
according to aggregate size to predict bleeding potential in chip seals.

• The PWLs calculated for each AQC can be used to determine if a lot will receive full pay
(AQC>90), partial pay (60<AQC<90), or no pay (AQC<60) for chip seal treatments.
• The 1-week MPD measurement in combination with the visual inspection of sections below
the 1-week MPD threshold could be used as an indicator of the potential for bleeding prob-
lems within the first year in service.
• A relationship exists between the PUC measured and aggregate loss; the PUC can be used as a
performance measure for the gradation of aggregate selected for chip sealing.
• Bleeding should be addressed on a pass/fail basis, with failure defined as bleeding present
above 50%. Any repair or replacement costs should be the contractor’s responsibility.
• The PUC is an indicator of uniformity of gradation; it should be addressed on a pass/fail basis
during regular quality control testing on quarry material.
6.4 Diamond Grinding

The following AQCs and performance measures were identified and selected for diamond
grinding treatment:
1. Performance measures: Faulting, slab curling/warping, friction, and roughness
2. AQCs: Surface smoothness, aggregate type and hardness, spacing of saw blades, depth of
saw cuts
3. Final selected AQC and performance measures: Profile-based indices (IRI or DLI) as AQCs and
expected surface roughness (IRI), percent slab cracked, and faulting as performance measures.
This example demonstrates the use of a mechanistic-empirical approach for establishing such
relationships between the AQCs and performance measures. The following is the summary for
developing such relationships:
1. Determine profile-based indices from the measured longitudinal profiles before and after
application of diamond grinding.
2. Evaluate the resulting change in dynamic axle load response before and after application of
diamond grinding.
3. Use variation or changes in axle load spectra (before and after the treatment) to predict pave-
ment performance by using the Pavement-ME analysis for the pavement sections.
4. Relate change in AQCs to variation in the expected performance.
PRS guidelines assumed that the criteria for treatment selection with respect to existing pave-
ment conditions and appropriate treatment timing were established and followed. The steps
presented in the guidelines (Chapter 5) were followed to develop general PRS guidelines and this
example for diamond grinding treatment on rigid pavements.

Diamond grinding has been identified as one of the primary concrete pavement preservation
treatments used to improve pavement surface smoothness.

Roughness is a key performance measure in evaluating the effectiveness of diamond grind-
ing. Numerous profile-based indices can be used to quantify surface roughness, such as IRI
and DLI. IRI and DLI decrease in magnitude as surface roughness decreases; they are appro-
priate candidates as an AQC for PRS. Because IRI seems to give similar results to DLI, it is
recommended for use as the AQC, because it is the most commonly used index.

Examples 75
3. Establish AQC-Performance Relationships and Determine

Performance Limits
To validate relationships between the AQC and pavement performance, it was necessary to
evaluate the performance of the pavement sections that were diamond ground. The mechanistic-
analysis procedure outlined in Chapter 5 was repeated for several pavement sections to relate
IRI and DLI to expected performance. Table 6-5 summarizes the characteristics of 14 JPCP sec-
tions included in the LTPP database. These pavement sections were selected for the following
reasons:
• Data before and after longitudinal profiles are available,
• Unique file formats for profile data are available in the LTPP database,
• Distribution in the four LTPP climatic zones,
• Treated with only diamond grinding (i.e., no other maintenance treatments),
• Significant change in roughness just after diamond grinding is evident.
A few pavement sections that showed an increase in roughness after application of diamond
grinding treatment were included to explore the reasons for an ineffective treatment.
The analyses were conducted for all pavement sections to determine the effect of diamond
grinding on pavement profiles and profile-based indices, dynamic axle loads, and predicted
pavement performance in terms of faulting, cracking, and IRI for a 20-year design life using
the Pavement-ME, and the expected SLE due to diamond grinding. These analyses revealed the
following:
• The change in IRI and DLI were reasonably correlated with each other, as seen in Figure 6-11.
• Grinding treatment was generally effective for all but two pavement sections (8-3032 and
27-3009). The profiles and faulting of these sections showed that diamond grinding did not sig-
nificantly reduce the magnitude of faulting, especially in Section 27-3009. Using PSD analyses,
a sharp decrease in amplitude of wavelengths in the profile signal response was observed for the
smoothed pavement sections. The ineffective grinding in a few sections may be because grinding
only removed roughness and not the contributor to faulting (poor drainage or in-adequate load
transfer). The changes in profile indices shown in Figure 6-12 indicate that IRI and DLI follow
the same trend (increase or decrease). Because IRI is the most prevalent and well-understood
roughness index in current practice, IRI was selected as the AQC for developing general PRS
guidelines and used in the example for diamond grinding treatment of rigid pavements.
Table 6-5. LTPP concrete pavement sections selected for diamond grinding analysis.
Age (years) Slab

Section Climate Subgrade
No. State Application AAWD2 FI3 AADTT
4
thickness
ID Before After Zone type 5
1 (in)
1 6-3010 CA 9.03 10.24 11.69 DNF 55 0 4088 8.8 A-6
2 13-3017 GA 10.04 10.99 11.47 WNF 118 15 2702 9.9 A-5
3 27-4050 MN 15.73 18.92 20.82 WF 95 1452 220 8 A-3
4 42-3044 PA 10.73 10.91 11.11 WF 186 263 3864 12.7 A-2-4
5 46-3010 SD 9.84 9.88 10.81 WF 98 1055 418 9.3 A-2-4
6 55-3009 WI 10.97 11.74 11.76 WF 128 609 356 8.2 A-6
7 4-7614 AZ 12.47 14.00 14.47 DNF 36 0 1743 10 A-2-4
8 16-3017 ID 18.17 18.95 19.92 DF 89 345 748 10 A-4
9 49-C431 UT 6.98 7.73 7.78 DF 96 396 1087 9.8 A-1-b
10 8-3032 CO 17.83 18.77 20.96 DF 95 346 289 8.6 A-1-a
11 27-3009 MN 13.07 14.10 15.04 WF 119 1022 2812 7.5 A-6
12 38-3006 ND 14.76 19.84 21.00 DF 195 1417 416 8.4 A-4
13 20-3015 KS 12.48 13.75 14.36 WF 73 261 932 9.2 A-6
14 39-9006 OH 13.43 13.58 14.55 WF 134 307 3073 9.4 A-1-b
Note: 1Age at the time of treatment application, 2Average annual wet days, 3Freezing index, 4Average annual daily traffic, and 5AASHTO soil
classification

y = 0.0488x - 0.0095 6
R² = 0.8618
Change in DLI (10-2 in.)

2
0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-2
-4
-6 '+': reduction in IRI

'-': increase in IRI
-8
Change in IRI (in/mi)
Figure 6-11. Change in IRI versus change in DLI

before and after grinding.
Before grinding After grinding
200 186.6
157.5 155.3 158.5

150
Overall IRI (in/mi)
121.0 118.1
120.3
114.0 110.0
109.3
96.4
100 87.3 88.1 91.1 86.8
84.4 79.1
78.1 77.8
72.7 69.3 70.0 66.3
59.9 61.0
49.4 52.5
50 41.5
0
6-3010 13-3017 27-4050 42-3044 46-3010 55-3009 4-7614 16-3017 49-C431 8-3032 27-3009 38-3006 20-3015 39-9006
Section ID
(a) IRI
Before grinding After grinding

14
12.5
11.8 11.7
12
Overall DLI (10-2 in.)
10 9.6
8.5
7.9 8.1
8 7.4 7.7
7.2 7.0
6.0 6.2 6.0
5.5 5.9 5.8
6 5.2 5.4
4.8 4.6
4.4 4.2
3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.9
4
0
6-3010 13-3017 27-4050 42-3044 46-3010 55-3009 4-7614 16-3017 49-C431 8-3032 27-3009 38-3006 20-3015 39-9006
Section ID
(b) DLI
Figure 6-12. IRI and DLI before and after grinding.

Examples 77
• When diamond grinding reduced the surface roughness, it generally reduced the dynamic
loads. The few sections that showed higher roughness after grinding exhibited a minimal
change in dynamic loads or in some cases (Section 27-3009) higher dynamic loads. This indi-
cates a positive correlation between an effective grinding treatment that reduces roughness
and the resulting dynamic loads experienced by the pavement. Figure 6-13 is an example of
a shift in dynamic load for an effectively treated section (42-3044) versus an ineffectively
treated section (27-3009).
• The axle load spectra before and after grinding can be used as inputs in the Pavement-ME
software to predict a change in the predicted performance. A shift in the dynamic loads after
grinding should be considered to predict performance of the pavement in terms of cracking,
faulting, and IRI. The predicted performance using Pavement-ME indicated that grinding
may not always improve pavement performance and these variations are related to change in
dynamic loads and surface profile. Examples of change in performance for Sections 42-3044
and 27-3009 are shown in Figures 6-14 and 6-15, respectively. Section 42-3044, which exhib-
ited an immediate reduction in roughness due to grinding, showed an improvement in perfor-
mance over time as compared to Section 27-3009 where grinding, treatment was ineffective.
Figures 6-16 through 6-18 show the change in IRI and DLI versus the change in long-term
faulting, cracking, and roughness, respectively. Such relationships support the mechanistic-
empirical approach of relating AQCs to performance and that the AQC candidates (IRI and
DLI) correlate well with expected performance.
• The relationships established between DIRI (IRI after grinding minus IRI before grinding)
and predicted performance at 20 years (in terms of faulting, cracking, and IRI) were used
0.6 0.2
0.5
0.15
Load distribution
Load distribution
0.4
0.3 0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000
Single Axle Loads Tandem Axle Loads
Before Grinding After Grinding Before Grinding After Grinding

(a) Single axle —42-3044 (b) Tandem axle —42-3044
0.4 0.12
0.35 0.1
0.3
Load distribution
Load distribution
0.25 0.08
0.2 0.06
0.15 0.04
0.1
0.05 0.02
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000

(c) Single axle —27-3009 (d) Tandem axle —27-3009
Figure 6-13. Examples of dynamic axle load spectra before and after grinding.

100
Before Grinding
80 After Grinding
Slabs Cracked (%)

60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
Pavement Age (years)
(a) Percent slabs cracked
0.15
Before Grinding
After Grinding
0.1
Faulting (in)
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20
(b) Faulting
300
Before Grinding
250
After Grinding
200
IRI (in/mile)
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
(c) IRI
Figure 6-14. Predicted performance for

pavement Section 42-3044.

Examples 79
100
Before Grinding
After Grinding
80
Slabs Cracked (%)

60
40
20
0
0 5 10 15 20
(a) Percent slabs cracked
0.15
Before Grinding
After Grinding
0.1
Faulting (in)
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20
(b) Faulting
300
Before Grinding
250 After Grinding
200
IRI (in/mile)
150
100
50
0
0 5 10 15 20
(c) IRI
Figure 6-15. Predicted performance for

pavement Section 27-3009.

0.010 0.010
0.008 0.008
0.006 0.006
0.004 0.004
0.002 0.002
Faulting (in)
Faulting (in)
0.000 0.000
-100 -50 0 50 100 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-0.002 -0.002
y = 8×10-5x - 0.0006 y = 0.0014x + 7×10-5
-0.004 R² = 0.8096 R² = 0.7029
-0.004
-0.006 -0.006
-0.008 '+': reduction in IRI -0.008
-0.010 '+': reduction in DLI
-0.010 '-' : increase in DLI
-0.012
Change in IRI (in/mi) -0.012
(a) IRI
(b) DLI
Figure 6-16. Relationship between AQCs and 20-yr faulting performance.
to determine the SLE for each grinding treatment. The SLE was estimated by subtracting
the before grinding “time-to-threshold” from after grinding “time-to-threshold” in years.
Threshold values for faulting (0.157 inches or 4 mm), cracking (15%), and IRI (200 inch/
mile) were selected for illustration. A negative SLE reflects declining performance after grind-
ing treatment and suggests the pavement will reach a threshold sooner than the do-nothing
alternative. The relationships between SLE and DIRI and DDLI are shown in Figures 6-19 and
6-20, respectively. The relationship between a candidate AQC and expected performance can
be used to estimate rational pay adjustments based on the expected life extension.
10 10
Observed data 9
9
Non-linear Model
8 8
Change in slabs cracked (%)
7
Change in slabs cracked (%)
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 '+': reduction in IRI 2

'+': reduction in DLI
'-': increase in IRI '-': increase in DLI
1 1
0 0
-100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Change in IRI (in/mi)
(b) DLI
(a) IRI
Figure 6-17. Relationship between AQCs and 20-yr cracking performance.

Examples 81
10 10
8 8
6 y = 0.0784x - 0.3562 6
y = 1.3403x + 0.1813
R² = 0.8997 R² = 0.8295
4 4
IRI (in/mi)
IRI (in/mi)
2 2
0 0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 '+': reduction in IRI -6 '+': reduction in DLI

'-': increase in IRI '-': increase in DLI
-8 -8 -2
Change in IRI (in/mi) Change in DLI (10 in.)
(a) IRI (b) DLI
Figure 6-18. Relationship between AQCs and 20-yr surface roughness performance.

There is no single correct method for establishing specification limits. Furthermore, there is
a distinct difference between the limits of AQC and quality measures. The following steps were
used to establish limits for AQC and quality measures.
1. Determine AQC-performance relationships. These relationships have been discussed in the
previous section. Both IRI and DLI can be used to predict the immediate effect of diamond
grinding on surface roughness. Because IRI and DLI correlate well, IRI will be selected as the
primary AQC for this example.
8.0
Faulting SLE
Cracking SLE
IRI SLE 6.0
4.0
SLE (years)
2.0
0.0
-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
-2.0 '+': reduction in IRI

-4.0
IRI (in/mi)
Figure 6-19. DIRI due to grinding versus

predicted DSLE for different AQCs.

8.0
Faulting SLE
Cracking SLE
IRI SLE 6.0
4.0
SLE (years)
2.0
0.0
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-2.0 '+': reduction in DLI

'-': increase in DLI
-4.0
DLI (10-2 in)
Figure 6-20. DDLI due to grinding versus

predicted DSLE for different AQCs.
2. Set specification limits. A synthesis of current practice (Merritt et al. 2015) surveyed 22 states
regarding localized roughness provisions for IRI-based specifications. The survey found that
16 states use an IRI range of 80 to 200 inch/mile for determining pay adjustments (Merritt
et al. 2015). An NCHRP study for determining quality adjustment pay factors for pavements
suggested 65 to 95 inch/mile as an acceptable range of IRI for newly constructed pavements,
with 65 inch/mile considered to be superior ride quality that should provide an incentive
(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012). This study also suggested
75 to 120 inch/mile as a level of roughness that requires corrective action. Based on these
findings, the research team has determined that post-grinding IRI of 90 inch/mile could be
required to provide adequate smoothness. Therefore, a one-sided upper specification limit of
90 inch/mile was adopted and used for evaluating quality measures, pay adjustments, and risks.
3. Decide on the quality measure. The recommended quality measure, which is often used in
current statistical quality control in highway construction is PWL (Burati et al. 2003, National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012). An example for determining PWL
is described later.
4. Define AQL material. PWL is used as a quality measure in pavement construction practices.
However, in this case, a modified version of PWL can be used to reflect a change in pavement
quality measure due to diamond grinding, i.e., DPWL (PWL after - PWL before treatment).
The procedure to obtain this DPWL value is described below.
5. Define RQL material. The RQL is a subjective decision made by the agency or party setting
the specification limits. The DPWL value that can be used as the RQL can be obtained from
the example. A lot at RQL will receive a reduced pay factor corresponding to the level of quality;
a lot may be rejected if DPWL is at or below the RQL.
Summary:
• The AQC selected for developing diamond grinding PRS is IRI.
• Given that IRI is a measure of roughness, it theoretically should not have a negative con-
sequence for being “too smooth.” Therefore, only an upper limit of IRI of 90 inch/mile is
selected to represent adequate pavement smoothness.
• The DPWL is selected as a quality measure.

Examples 83
• The DPWL value that can be used as the AQL can be obtained as shown in the example.
• The DPWL value that can be used as the RQL can be obtained as shown in the example.

The existing well-established standards for measuring and evaluating surface roughness are rec-
ommended. Most highway agencies use lightweight profilers for measuring profile-based specifi-
cations (Merritt et al. 2015). In comparison to high-speed mounted profilers, lightweight profilers
weigh significantly less and have a more manageable, lower operating speed which is ideal for
operating in constrained conditions and along shorter sections of pavement. Lightweight profil-
ers are limited in that most are set up to only measure a single wheel path and require at least two
carefully coordinated runs to obtain a complete set of profile data for one lane.
The FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) field manual references
AASHTO PP 37-04 (now RO 43-13) and ASTM E-950 for procedures to collect IRI data (FHWA
2014). AASHTO RO 43-13 (Standard Practice for Quantifying Roughness of Pavements) details
the estimation of IRI with the use of a longitudinal profile index measured in accordance with
ASTM E-950 (Standard Test Method for Measuring the Longitudinal Profile of Traveled Sur-
faces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference). In the HPMS field manual,
IRI is reported in units of either m/km or inch/mile. These standards should be consulted by
agencies and contractors to ensure appropriate procedures are followed when collecting rough-
ness data in the field.

As previously mentioned, the risks associated with incorrectly accepting or rejecting a lot are
related to the sample size. The procedure outlined in Chapter 5 was followed to develop guide-
lines for a sampling and measurement plan for diamond grinding:
1. Determine which party performs acceptance testing. The parties (contractor and agency)
involved in the project must agree upon the duties of performing acceptance testing.
2. Determine the type of acceptance plan to be used. A variable acceptance plan is best suited
for measuring the magnitude of IRI. Construction and sampling variability can affect surface
smoothness. The variable acceptance plan can measure the variability and determine a quality
measure based on statistical parameters.
3. Develop verification sampling and testing procedures. Verification sampling is standard
procedure and used to verify the accuracy of the acceptance test results. The decision to use
split or independent sampling is unique to the goals of the agency. For this example, it is
assumed that an agency or a third party will measure the surface profile for the entire project
length. However, the speed and lateral and longitudinal reference points should match with
the acceptance testing. In practice, it is appropriate that the agency’s verification test methods
are used solely for verification and that acceptance methods proposed by the contractor must
first be compared to the results of agency verification testing.
4. Select the appropriate verification sampling frequency. As discussed before, the verification
sampling frequency of the agency should be approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling
rate of the contractor. In practice, verification testing frequency is selected based on economic,
rather than statistical, reasons. This decision must be agreed upon by agency and contractor,
and it is assumed that the procedure is already established for the purposes of this example.
5. Determine lot size and sample size. The evaluation of pavement surface roughness involves
the measurement of longitudinal profiles. Therefore, lots and sublots should logically be
defined as segmented lengths of a project. Based on a survey of highway practice, most agencies
report pavement segment lengths in 0.1-mile (500-ft) increments for IRI-based specifica-
tions (Merritt et al. 2015). For this example, an LTPP pavement section (500 feet long) can be
defined as the lot. A sublot is defined as a pavement subsection with shorter segment length

Figure 6-21. IRI before and after grinding for

Section 42-3044.
within a lot. Although the risks associated with sampling will depend on sample size, the
profile signal analysis showed poor sensitivity to the DLI (which was designed to capture the
dynamic load of truck traffic) when profile segment lengths are less than 100 ft. Given that DLI
is correlated with IRI, a sublot length of 100 feet was chosen. Thus, each of the pavement
sections evaluated in Table 6-8 are considered as a single lot from a larger project. Each lot was
subdivided into sublots of approximately 100-ft-long segments, and the IRI of each sublot
was considered as a sample. This resulted in a sample size of five for each pavement section.
The PWL estimation is based on these lot and sample sizes.
7. Select and Evaluate Quality Measurement Methods

As discussed in Chapter 5, the quality measure will be DPWL. Using the procedure outlined
above, the PWL before and after grinding was calculated for each lot. The quality measure DPWL
was developed to represent the change in quality and is calculated using Equation 6-1.
∆PWL = PWL ( IRI After ) − PWL ( IRI Before ) (6-1)
This DPWL shows how much the construction quality has statistically demonstrated a shift
toward or away from acceptable quality. A positive DPWL value indicates improvement in AQC
due to grinding; a negative value indicates a decline in quality. An example of the PWL calcula-
tion using the procedure outlined in Chapter 4 is presented for pavement Section 42-3044. Fig-
ure 6-21 presents the sampled lot measurements and Table 6-6 shows the statistical parameters
obtained for this lot.
Table 6-6. Sublot statistical

measurements for
Section 42-3044.
IRI (in/mi) IRI (in/mi)
Sublot length (ft)
Before After
0-100 105 55
100-200 133 71
200-300 190 86
300-400 227 87
400-500 133 64
Mean 157.5 72.7
Std. Dev. 49.6 14.1

Examples 85
The PWL value of a lot is calculated using the quality index (Q value) of the specification
limits. The Q-statistics are calculated using Equations 6-2 and 6-3.
x − LSL
QL = (6-2)
s
USL − x
QU = (6-3)
s
where
QL = quality index for the lower specification limit.
QU = quality index for the upper specification limit.
LSL = lower specification limit.
USL = upper specification limit.
x– = the sample mean for the lot.
s = the sample standard deviation for the lot.
Given that IRI is used as the AQC in this example, only an upper specification limit of 90 inch/
mile is used. The quality indices before and after grinding are calculated as follows:
90 − 157
QU before = = −1.3
50
90 − 73
QU after = = 1.2
14
Determine PWL from FHWA reference tables (Weed 1996) and interpolation:
PDbefore = 93.2
PWLbefore = 100 − PD = 100 − 93.2 = 6.8
PWLafter = 89.9
PDafter = 10.1
Determine DPWL using Equation 6-1:
∆PWL = PWL ( IRI after ) − PWL ( IRI before ) = 89.9 − 6.8 = 83.1
This means that, approximately, an additional 83% of the Section 42-3044 shifted into an
acceptable quality than before grinding based on the upper specification limit of IRI. This analy-
sis was done for all the pavement sections and the results are summarized in Table 6-7.
The PWL obtained from each “lot” is used to develop pay factors unique to the IRI. Based on
the AQC-performance relationships previously established, the PWL can be related to expected
performance in terms of SLE that can be used to develop a pay equation that relates PWL levels
to expected pay.
8. Develop Pay Adjustment Factors for Incentives and Disincentives

Pay adjustment factors are necessary for variable acceptance plans in developing PRS. There-
fore, a variable acceptance plan is selected for this example because samples exhibit a wide range
of IRI, which cannot be rejected on a pass/fail basis. Given the established upper specification
limit of 90 inch/mile, a set of samples that exhibit smoother (i.e., below 90 inch/mile) segments

Table 6-7. DPWL due to grinding

based on IRI.
No Section ID PWLbefore PWLafter PWL

1 6-3010 54.3 100.0 45.7
2 13-3017 59.2 100.0 40.8
3 27-4050 56.2 100.0 43.8
4 42-3044 6.8 89.9 83.1
5 46-3010 0.0 100.0 100.0
6 55-3009 0.0 100.0 100.0
7 4-7614 47.1 100.0 52.9
8 16-3017 0.0 32.1 32.1
9 49-C431 6.4 15.2 8.7
10 8-3032 12.4 11.7 -0.7
11 27-3009 57.2 0.0 -57.2
12 38-3006 100.0 100.0 0.0
13 20-3015 0.0 6.1 6.1
14 39-9006 15.7 95.5 79.8
is not only acceptable but exceeds the desired quality. Similarly, a measured roughness greater
than 90 inch/mile should not be rejected if the roughness level does not substantially exceed the
target quality, but it would not deserve full pay. Using the pay equation relationships, the rel-
evant EP and OC curves were developed for assigning pay factors to different levels of acceptable
and rejectable quality while minimizing the expected risks.
1. Predict pavement performance as a function of levels of quality. Existing PRS do not justify
pay factors for a unique AQC-performance relationship, but engineering judgment and expe
rience are used to relate PWL to SLE. However, a relationship between PWL and pavement
performance, which is substantiated by IRI-performance relationships, was established. Sub-
sequently, these results were used to develop a relationship between SLE for diamond grind-
ing performance measures and DPWL. Figure 6-22 shows the relationship between predicted
SLE (based on predicted fatigue cracking, faulting, and IRI) and DPWL for all the pavement
sections. The results show a general increase in the SLE with increasing DPWL. This suggests
that, if a grinding treatment can smooth a large percentage of a lot (a pavement section)
within the specification limits, the pavement should be expected to have an improved perfor-
mance. These quality relationships were used to develop pay equations by using SLE based
on cracking, faulting, and IRI. Equations 6-4 through 6-6 show the relationships between
predicted SLE and varying levels of DPWL.
15
SLECracking = (6-4)
1+ e −0.0783( ∆PWL )+6.958
SLE Faulting = 0.034 × ( ∆PWL ) − 0.4588 (6-5)
20
SLE IRI = (6-6)
1+ e −0.0714( ∆PWL )+ 4.3
where
SLECracking, SLEFaulting, SLEIRI = service life extensions due to cracking, faulting, and IRI,
respectively.
DPWL = difference in PWL before and after treatment
2. Convert the expected performance into pay adjustment. The pay factors for varying life
extensions can be calculated by using Equation 6-7, and they correspond to the estimated

Examples 87
16 6
14
4
12
10
2
SLE (years)
SLE (years)
8
6 0
-100 -50 0 50 100
4
-2
2
0 -4
-100 -50 0 50 100 PWL
PWL
(b) Faulting
(a) Cracking
40
36
32
28
24
SLE (years)
20
16
12
0
-100 -50 0 50 100
PWL
(c) IRI
Figure 6-22. DPWL due to grinding versus predicted SLE for different
performance measures.

change in quality ranging from 0 to 100 DPWL because SLE is a function of DPWL [see Equa-
tions 6-4 through 6-6].
C ( RD − RE )
PF = (6-7)
1 − RO
where
PF = pay adjustment factor for treatment (same units as C)
C = present total cost of treatment, use C=1 for PF
D = design life of pavement or initial treatment
E = expected life of pavement or treatment
O = expected life of successive treatments
R = (1 + INF) / (1+ INT)
INF = long-term annual inflation rate in decimal form
INT = long-term annual interest rate in decimal form
Relationships were developed between pay factors and SLEs for cracking, faulting, and IRI,
as shown in Figure 6-22.
The curves in these figures are called expected pay (EP) curves and were used to (1)
refine the levels of acceptable and rejectable quality, (2) develop OC curves to assess the
associated a and b risk, and (3) ensure that payment factors are awarded in accordance
with the level of quality achieved. Equations 6-8 through 6-10 are the pay adjustment
plans for SLE due to diamond grinding for the predicted performance measures, i.e.,
fatigue cracking, faulting, and IRI, respectively. Tables 6-11 through 6-13 show the cor
responding pay factors for various ranges of quality for each performance measure affected
by the diamond grinding treatment.
PayAdj ( % )cracking = 0.0000006 ( ∆PWL )4.21322 (6-8)
PayAdj ( % ) faulting = 1.225 ( ∆PWL ) − 8.1354 (6-9)
200
PayAdj ( % )IRI = (6-10)
1 + exp [ −0.075 ( ∆PWL ) + 3.5 ]
3. Adjust the AQL, RQL, and pay relationships to minimize risk. As discussed in the determi-
nation of AQC limits, the AQL and RQL need to be established. For establishing AQL, the
EP curves must be evaluated such that the payment plan awards 100% pay at AQL while an
incentive can be given if the quality of work is above AQL. Tables 6-8 through 6-10 show the
pay factors generated from the EP curves (see Figure 6-23).
As seen in the tables, the AQL may be chosen around DPWL = 89.4 for cracking, 88 for fault-
ing, and 47 for IRI, to ensure a contractor is not awarded bonus pay for AQL work.
For establishing RQL, the EP curves can be used to determine the level of performance (in
terms of life extension) that is deemed unacceptable and should result in reduced pay. This deci-
sion is typically made to meet the needs of the agency to ensure that the pavement performs up to
the established standards. For instance, in the cracking EP model shown in Table 6-11, an agency
may decide that a life extension of less than 1 year is undesirable. Therefore, the RQL will be set
at DPWL = 55, and any lot produced at a quality level below that will receive no pay. Simultane-
ously, the agency is also deciding that any quality between AQL of DPWL = 89.4 and that RQL

Examples 89
Table 6-8. Summary of pay

factor for cracking.
SLE
PWL PF (%)
(years)
0 0.014 0.000
5 0.021 0.001
10 0.031 0.010
15 0.046 0.054
20 0.068 0.182
25 0.101 0.466
30 0.148 1.005
35 0.218 1.924
40 0.321 3.376
45 0.469 5.545
50 0.684 8.643
55 (RQL) 0.991 12.912
60 1.421 18.629
65 2.010 26.099
70 2.795 35.662
75 3.795 47.691
80 5.007 62.591
85 6.386 80.803
89.4 (AQL) 7.7 100
90 7.846 102.802
95 9.278 129.041
100 10.586 160.171

factor for faulting.
SLE
PWL PF (%)
(years)
0 -0.2 -8.1
5 -0.080 -1.998
10 0.075 4.127
15 0.229 10.251
20 0.384 16.376
25 0.538 22.501
30 0.693 28.626
35 0.847 34.751
40 (RQL) 1.002 40.876
45 1.156 47.001
50 1.311 53.125
55 1.465 59.250
60 1.620 65.375
65 1.774 71.500
70 1.929 77.625
75 2.083 83.750
80 2.238 89.875
85 2.392 96.000
88 (AQL) 2.5 100
90 2.547 102.124
95 2.701 108.237
100 2.855 114.362


factor for roughness.
SLE
PWL PF (%)
(years)
0 0.27 5.87
5 0.38 8.42
10 0.54 12.03
15 0.76 17.03
18.9 (RQL) 1.0 22.29
20 1.07 23.86
25 1.50 32.92
30 2.07 44.57
35 2.84 58.87
40 3.82 75.54
45 5.04 93.80
46.7 (AQL) 5.5 100
50 6.50 112.47
55 8.16 130.31
60 9.92 146.24
65 11.69 159.66
70 13.36 170.41
75 14.83 178.68
80 16.08 184.84
85 17.09 189.33
90 17.87 192.54
95 18.46 194.81
100 18.90 196.40
of DPWL = 55 will be accepted, but will receive reduced pay or a disincentive. This logic can be
similarly applied to the EP models for faulting and IRI (see Table 6-11). Under the assumption
that a life extension of less than 1 year is undesirable, the RQL for faulting and IRI performance
are DPWL = 40 and 19, respectively.
Table 6-12 summarizes the final AQL and RQL for diamond grinding based on cracking,
faulting, and IRI. The OC curves were developed to assess the risk of receiving a payment that
correctly corresponds to the level of quality sampled. These OC curves are shown in Figures 6-24
through 6-26.
When evaluating the risks associated with receiving appropriate pay for predicted cracking,
OC curves can be examined. The level of quality produced by a contractor as indicated on the
x-axis can be matched with the OC curve with desired quality to evaluate the probability of
receiving a pay factor which corresponds to the desired quality. In the case of predicted cracking,
AQL is DPWL = 89.4. If a contractor produces AQL in the field, then the quality level of AQL
must be matched with the OC curve at AQL. Figure 6-24 indicates that the pay adjustment plan
that will award a pay factor greater than 1 has a probability of 50% of all lots sampled. This sug-
gests that the contractor will receive a pay greater than 100% (pay for above AQL) half the time
and receive a pay less than 100% (pay for below AQL) half the time. Given that several lots will be
sampled for quality, this averages to 100% pay throughout the project, which is characteristic of
an unbiased and fair adjustment plan to both the agency and the contractor. This also incentivizes
the contractor to consistently aim for above AQL quality to offset the probability of performing
below AQL and receive bonus pay. Also, the greater the sample size, the higher the probability
of receiving pay greater than 100% if the produced quality is above AQL. Similarly, the prob-
ability of receiving pay greater than 100% is lower if the produced quality is less than AQL.

Examples 91
120 120
PF from SLE PF from SLE

100
100 PF-PWL model PF-PWL model
80
80
Pay adjustment (%)

Pay adjustment (%)
60
60
40
40
20
20 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 -20
0 20 40 60 80 100 PWL
PWL (b) Faulting
(a) Fatigue cracking
300
PF from SLE
250 PF-PWL model
200
Pay adjustment (%)
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
PWL
(c) IRI
Figure 6-23. Pay adjustment for grinding based on various performance measures.
Table 6-11. Summary of %PF determined

from pay equation.
Quality Predicted Predicted Predicted
characteristics1 cracking faulting IRI
AQL 89.4 88 46.7
AQLSLE (years) 7.7 2.5 5.5
AQLPF (%) 100 100 100
RQL 55 40 18.9
RQLSLE (years) 0.9 1 1
RQLPF (%) 12.9 40.9 22.3
1
Quality measure in units of ∆PWL

Figure 6-24. Predicted cracking OC curves.
Figure 6-25. Predicted faulting OC curves.
Figure 6-26. Predicted IRI OC curves.

Examples 93
Table 6-12. Summary of parameters to develop diamond grinding PRS.

Items Cracking Faulting Roughness
AQC(s) IRI (in/mi)
Lot size 0.1 mi
Sample size 5
AQC threshold Upper specification limit = 90 in/mi
Quality measure PWL
Quality thresholds AQL = 89.4 PWL, AQL = 88 PWL, AQL = 46.7 PWL,
RQL = 55 PWL RQL = 40 PWL RQL = 18.9 PWL
Pay equation PF (%) = 6E- PF (%) = 1.225( PWL)- PF(%) = 200 / [1+exp(-
7( PWL)4.21322 8.1354 0.5( PWL)+3.5)]
AQL pay factor 1.0 1.0 1.0
RQL pay factor 0.129 0.40 0.22
PF(A) at AQL 50% 50% 50%
As mentioned before, an agency can set the sample size based on their resources and balancing
the risk.
Similar logic can be applied when evaluating the risks associated with receiving the appropri-
ate pay factor for predicted faulting and roughness, shown in Figures 6-25 and 6-26, respectively.
Table 6-12 summarizes the example PRS specifications for diamond grinding as evaluated for
performance improvement due to predicted cracking, faulting, and IRI.

Chapter 7
Summary, Findings,
and Recommendations
for Future Research
7.1 Summary
Quality assurance specifications that specify end-product quality have often been used by
transportation agencies as a means for ensuring construction quality of highway pavements.
However, agencies are increasingly incorporating PRS in construction contracts to specify qual-
ity in terms of parameters related to desired long-term performance. These PRS also provide a
way to account for the value lost or gained by the variances of these parameters from the speci-
fied target values during construction.
In summary, PRS are quality assurance specifications that describe the desired levels of key
materials and construction quality characteristics that have been found to correlate with the
long-term performance of the finished product, thus providing the basis for rational acceptance
and price adjustments. These characteristics will be amenable to acceptance testing at the time
of construction. Although such PRS have seen limited use in the construction of new pavements,
their use for pavement preservation treatments has generally been non-existent. If adopted, PRS
would enable agencies to ensure better quality of pavement preservation treatments while creating
a fair bid environment for contractors.
Pavement preservation treatments are actions applied to preserve an existing roadway, slow
future deterioration, and maintain and improve functional condition (without substantially
increasing structural capacity). There are no widely accepted guidelines for PRS of pavement
preservation treatments that correlate key engineering properties to treatment quality and
long-term performance. Therefore, research was needed to develop guidelines to facilitate devel-
opment and implementation of PRS for preservation treatments that provide a direct rela-
tionship of key material and construction characteristics to expected as-constructed pavement
performance. These guidelines will help highway agencies develop and incorporate PRS in
preservation treatment contracts. Consequently, agencies would be able to (1) specify an opti-
mum level of quality that represents the best balance of costs and performance and (2) establish
quality-related pay adjustment factors if desired. The objective of this research was to develop
guidelines for use in preparing PRS for pavement preservation treatments for both flexible and
rigid pavements.
Process for Developing PRS Guidelines

This research produced a process for developing pavement preservation PRS guidelines.
Assuming the existing pavement condition warrants the application of a preservation treat-
ment, the developed guidelines include identifying several quality characteristics for the most
commonly used pavement preservation treatments. In addition, the guidelines document the
94

Summary, Findings, and Recommendations for Future Research 95
rationale for selecting quality characteristics for a specific preservation treatment. The proposed
procedure for the PRS development contains the following steps:
1. Select pavement preservation treatment based on the pre-existing pavement surface condi-
tion and optimum treatment timing.
2. Select candidate material and construction characteristics (i.e., AQC) and performance mea-
sures for the selected treatment.
3. Establish relationships between quality characteristics and expected performance.
4. Determine thresholds and limits for AQC based on experience and requirements.
5. Specify test methods to measure the selected AQC for the treatment.
6. Establish a sampling plan, method, lot, and sample sizes.
7. Select a quality measurement method (e.g., PWL and DPWL)
8. Develop pay adjustment factors for incentives and disincentives based on the relationship
between PWL and expected performance.
A systematically complete and scientifically sound PRS will include the following elements:
• Variability in highway construction

• AQCs that correlate with the performance (or longevity) of the pavement are measurable
and can be controlled by the material supplier and/or contractor
• Pavement performance indicators affected by the candidate AQCs
• Relationship between AQCs and expected performance measures
• Quality measures (PWL or PD) which are superior to others (i.e., averages, absolute devia-
tions, and ranges) for evaluating construction quality
• Statistical acceptance sampling and testing plan (including definition of lots, sublots, and
sample size)
• Continuous pay adjustment plan
• OC or EP curves for evaluating proposed acceptance and payment plans
State of the Practice in Pavement Preservation

The literature review identified the types of preservation treatments used and their role in
addressing relevant distresses. The highway agencies’ current practices in preservation were
evaluated to identify frequently used treatment types, project selection criteria, and the types
of AQCs associated with the commonly used preservation treatments. Based on this informa-
tion, candidate preservation treatments that (1) are commonly used treatment in preservation
practices, (2) have AQCs that are objective and measurable during or after construction, and
(3) have performance measures data over time were selected for developing guidelines for PRS.
Sampling Plans and Methods

Two types of acceptance sampling plans are used to assess the quality of a lot. Attribute sam-
pling plans can be adopted to sentence a lot, i.e., pass/fail or accept/reject by using the mean
AQC as a threshold. Variable sampling plans are adopted when the AQC has a continuous dis-
tribution. A quality measure, such as PWL, can be used for assessing construction quality and
pay adjustments. In addition, the sample size required to estimate the true construction quality
is significantly less than for the equivalent attribute sampling plan. Acceptance sampling is not
a substitute for adequate construction process control or the use of other statistical methods to
drive variability reduction.
The statistical approaches used for determining sample size for a lot generally estimate a large
sample size to represent a lot—none of these approaches adequately addresses the optimum

sample size. In practice, a sample size of at least five is generally used, although a larger sample
size is desirable. The statistical approaches for sample size estimation are intended to (1) provide
accept/reject acceptance plans and not to serve as pay adjustment acceptance plans; (2) pro-
vide single acceptance plans (one AQC) and not acceptance systems (two or more AQCs); and
(3) use the average as the measure of quality, not the PWL or other measure of quality. Typi-
cally, highway construction and materials acceptance plans use a sample size (established on
the basis of practical considerations such as personnel and time constraints) commonly ranging
between three and seven units. If the sample size is too small, the probability of making erro-
neous decisions regarding acceptance or pay adjustment decisions will be high. If the sample
size is too large, the cost of sampling and testing will be unnecessarily high, especially where
destructive testing is required.
Three sampling methods—random sampling with replacement, stratified sampling, and ran-
dom sampling without replacement—were evaluated for sample sizes of 3, 5, 10, and 20. The
samples used in random sampling with replacement may not represent the entire lot, but this
may not be a problem if construction variability is low (i.e., there is a uniform construction
quality across the entire lot). Stratified sampling reduces the bias in selecting the samples and
provides samples that are representative of the lot, even when there is high construction vari-
ability. Therefore, it may be possible to use a smaller sample size with this method. Also, random
sampling without replacement may be more precise than random sampling with replacement
because samples selected from the lot are spread more evenly along the lot.
For a sample size of three, there is not much difference between the sampling methods, but
at a sample size of five or more, the stratified sampling method represents the true construction
quality better than the other two methods. If the true quality of a lot is closer to RQL, a larger
sample size (i.e., five or more) is needed to represent the actual quality. The power of a sampling
method increases as the sample size increases. Stratified sampling has a higher power as compared
to other sampling methods. Stratified sampling requires collecting samples along the entire lot,
so the variability in PWL values is less. Also, the closer the average PWL value to the RQL value,
the lower the power. This means that there is a high chance of wrongly accepting a lot if its PWL
value obtained from the sampling is near the RQL. Therefore, agencies can start testing with five
samples using stratified sampling by dividing a lot into five sublots (one sample from each sublot)
if destructive testing is needed. If the variability within the samples is high or the PWL estimates
are close to RQL, additional samples can be collected. This decision of whether or not to test
additional samples can be made by evaluating the costs of falsely accepting bad-quality material
and the costs of additional testing. For AQCs such as IRI, the data collection is continuous and
non-destructive. It is more appropriate to use a smaller lot size (e.g., 0.1 mile) in estimating PWL,
given that this will capture the construction variability better and thus determine appropriate pay
to the contractor. A minimum sublot length of 100 ft can be justified, based on the profile-based
IRI measurements.
PRS Guidelines and Examples

Six preservation treatments were selected for the development of PRS guidelines and examples.
These included three rigid pavement preservation treatments: (1) diamond grinding, (2) joint
resealing, and (3) dowel-bar retrofit; and three flexible pavement preservation treatments:
(1) chip seal, (2) thin overlay, and (3) microsurfacing. These treatments were selected for the
following reasons:
1. Common use by SHAs
2. Availability of initial material and construction quality characteristics and performance data
over time for the empirical approach

Summary, Findings, and Recommendations for Future Research 97
Table 7-1. AQCs and performance measures used for various

preservation treatments.
Treatment type AQC Performance measure
Diamond grinding Initial IRI (IRIo) IRI, faulting and cracking
Aggregate loss (Vialit test) Aggregate loss in field
Chip seal
Mean profile depth (MPD) Bleeding in field
Joint resealing Percent of effective joints (%Leff-total) Faulting
DBR Load-transfer efficiency (LTE) Faulting
Thin overlay IRIo IRI, rutting
Microsurfacing MPD Friction number (FN)
3. Known material and construction quality characteristics and performance measures for the
mechanistic-empirical approach
4. Availability of test data during construction and performance for the performance-based
laboratory and field test approach
The following three approaches were adopted to establish relationships between quality char-
acteristics and expected treatment performance for the selected treatments:
1. Empirical (develop direct relationship between AQC and performance measures based on
historical data)—joint resealing and microsurfacing.
2. Mechanistic-empirical (establish indirect relationship between AQC and expected perfor-
mance using existing performance models)—diamond grinding and thin overlay.
3. Performance-based laboratory and field test properties (establish relationship between
AQC and performance measure using laboratory or field test results)—DBR and chip seal.
Examples, in support of the PRS guidelines, were developed to assist highway agencies in
implementing the PRS for preservation treatment materials and practices used in constructing
these treatments. Two detailed examples were developed where field data were used to develop
AQC and performance relationships. Four other examples were developed using simulated data
when field data were not available. The AQCs and performance measures used for various pres-
ervation treatments are listed in Table 7-1:
The examples in this report are provided for guidance only and should be altered based on
needs, historical pavement performance, and local practices.
7.2 Findings
1. The guidelines for developing PRS for pavement preservation treatments should be differ-
ent when compared to rehabilitation and reconstruction of flexible and rigid pavements.
Distinct separations between pavement preservation and rehabilitation and reconstruction
are needed for the following reasons:
a. The performance of preservation treatments significantly depends on the pre-existing
pavement conditions. The pre-existing condition of a pavement entails both structural
and functional capacity. Therefore, the pre-existing pavement condition before applying
a preservation treatment plays an important role in future performance.
b. Given that preservation treatments are non-structural fixes, different performance mea-
sures should be evaluated for their functional performance. For example, texture, ravel-
ing, flushing, bleeding, and weathering are some important indicators of performance
for preservation treatments.
c. The materials used in constructing preservation treatments can be different from the
conventional pavement materials. For example, most of the preservation treatments
for flexible pavements use asphalt emulsions or polymer-modified asphalt emulsions

as compared to conventional asphalt or modified asphalt binders. Therefore, the differ-

ences in the engineering properties should be considered when developing PRS.
d. The processes used for constructing preservation treatments are much different when
compared to traditional pavement construction. For example, an important measure for
chip seal success is the embedment depth of the aggregate, whereas compaction density
is a measure of success for traditional flexible pavement construction. Therefore, these
differences in construction processes should be noted in developing PRS.
2. Variable sampling plans should be adopted to facilitate the use of a quality measure such as
PWL if the AQC has a continuous distribution.
3. Acceptance sampling should not be a substitute for adequate construction process control
and use of other statistical methods to drive variability reduction.
4. Stratified sampling should be used because the bias in selection of the samples can be reduced,
the samples collected are representative of the lot, and smaller sample size is required.
5. Agencies should use five samples using stratified sampling by dividing a lot into five sublots
(one sample from each sublot) if destructive testing is needed. If the variability within the
samples is high or the PWL estimates are close to RQL, additional samples could be col-
lected. Whether or not to test additional samples should be decided after evaluating the costs
of falsely accepting bad-quality material and the costs of additional testing.
6. For AQCs such as IRI, the data collection is continuous and non-destructive. It is more
appropriate to use a smaller lot size (e.g., 0.1 mile) in estimating PWL, given that this
will capture the construction variability better and thus determine appropriate pay to the
contractor. A minimum sublot length of 100 ft is recommended, based on the profile-
based IRI measurements.
7. For AQCs such as aggregate loss, obtain additional performance and cost data to establish
and refine pay adjustment factors for the percentage of aggregate loss observed from Vialit
testing of field samples.
8. It is recommended to use 1-week MPD data and visual observation data obtained nation-
wide for different aggregate sizes and traffic conditions to calibrate MPD threshold limits
according to aggregate size and traffic level.
9. For chip seals, it is recommended to conduct analysis of 1-week MPD data measured over
time versus bleeding found during inspections during the warranty period of the seal,
because a well-established, locally calibrated relationship may eliminate the need for follow-
up visual inspections for bleeding without adding significant risk for the agency.
10. The examples presented in this report should be used only for guidance and should be
altered based on needs, historical pavement performance, and local practices for develop-
ing PRS for pavement preservation treatments.
7.3 Recommendations for Future Research

1. More refined relationships between the AQCs and measured or predicted performance need
to be established. In addition, more realistic cost data are required to establish realistic pay
adjustment factors.
2. More field data are needed to establish and validate performance relationships with AQC
(before and after treatments). Such data should be collected from a controlled experiment
encompassing pavement preservation treatments in different conditions (structural and
environmental).
3. The sources of variability in test methods that provide a measured value of a specific material
property (AQC) need to be identified (e.g., different labs and operators). Therefore, for any
laboratory test used to measure an AQC during or after preservation treatment, a precision
statement should be developed and adopted before its implementation in the field.

References
AASHTO (2010) “Accepting Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems,”
AASHTO R 54-10.
Adams, J., and Y. R. Kim (2011) Development of a New Chip Seal Mix Design Method, NCDOT HWY-2008-04.
Anderson, R. M., et al. (2014) “Optimal Timing of Preventive Maintenance for Addressing Environmental Aging in
Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements,” Department of Transportation, Research Services & Library MN/RC 2014-45.
ARA, Inc. (2009) NCHRP Project 1-40B, “Local Calibration Guidance for the Recommended Guide for
Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures,” Final NCHRP
Report.
ASTM (2015) “D4695-03 Standard Guide for General Pavement Deflection Measurements.”
Biel, T. D., and H. Lee (1997) Performance Study of Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Joint Sealants, Journal of
Transportation Engineering, vol. 123, pp. 398–404, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(1997)123:5(398).
Burati, J., et al. (2003) Optimal Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications, FHWA-RD-02-09.
Burati, J., et al. (2004) Evaluation of Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications, FHWA-HRT-04-046
Chatti, K., and D. Lee (2002) Development of New Profile-Based Truck Dynamic Load Index, Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1806, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 149–159.
Chatti, K., et al. (2001) “Development of Roughness Thresholds for the Preventive Maintenance Action Aimed
at Reducing Dynamic Loads,” Michigan Department of Transportation, RC-1396.
Chatti, K., et al. (2009) “The Effect of Michigan Multi-Axle Trucks on Pavement Distress,” Michigan State Uni-
versity RC-1504.
Cho, D., et al. (2011) Determining Optimum Acceptance Sample Size, Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2228, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, pp. 61–69.
D’Angelo, J. A., and R. N. Dongre (2007) Creep and Recovery, Public Roads, vol. 70, pp. 24–30.
Darter, M., et al. (1985) NCHRP Report 281: Joint Repair Methods for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Eli Cuelho, R. M., and M. Akin (2006) “Preventive Maintenance Treatments of Flexible Pavements: A Synthesis
of Highway Practice,” Montana Department of Transportation.
Epps, J. A., et al. (2002) NCHRP Report 455: Recommended Performance-Related Specification for Hot-Mix Asphalt
Construction: Results of the WesTrack Project, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
Evans, L. D., et al. (1999) “Materials and Procedures for Repair of Joint Seals in Portland Cement Concrete Pave-
ments - Manual of Practice,” FHWA-RD-99-146.
FHWA (1999) TechBrief: Resealing Concrete Pavement Joints, FHWA-RD-99-137.
FHWA (2003) “Construction Inspection Checklist #06 Joint Sealing Portland Cement Concrete Pavements,”
FHWA-IF-03-00.3.
FHWA (2014) “Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual,” Office of Highway Policy Information,
OMB Control No. 2125-0028.
Freund, R. J., et al. (2010) Statistical Methods, 3rd ed. London, UK: Academic Press, An Imprint of Elsevier.
Fugro Consultants, Inc., and Arizona State University (2011) NCHRP Report 704: A Performance-Related Specifi-
cation for Hot-Mixed Asphalt, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Gharaibeh, N., et al. (2010) Determining Optimum Sample Size for Percent-Within-Limits Specifications, Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2151, Transportation Research
Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 77–83.
99

Gransberg, D. (2010) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 411: Microsurfacing, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Gransberg, D., and D. James (2005) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 342: Chip Seal Best Practices, Trans-
portation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Haider, S., and M. Dwaikat (2012) Estimating Optimum Timings for Treatments on Flexible Pavements with
Surface Rutting, Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 139, pp. 485–493, https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000525.
Haider, S., and M. Dwaikat (2011) Estimating Optimum Timing for Preventive Maintenance Treatment to Miti-
gate Pavement Roughness, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2235, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 43–53.
Hall, J. W., et al. (2009) NCHRP Report 634: Texturing of Concrete Pavements, Transportation Research Board,
National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Henry, J. (2000) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 291: Evaluation of Pavement Friction Characteristics,
Henry, J., et al. (2000) Determination of the International Friction Index using the Circular Track Meter and the
Dynamic Friction Tester, Proceedings of SURF 2000.
Hiller, J. E., and N. Buch (2004) Assessment of Retrofit Dowel Benefits in Cracked Portland Cement Concrete
Pavements, Journal of Constructed Facilities, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(2004)18:1(29).
Hughes, C. (1996) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 232: Variability in Highway Pavement Construction,
Hughes, C. S. (2005) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 346: State Construction Quality Assurance Programs,
Im, J. H. (2013) “Performance Evaluation of Chip Seals for High Volume Roads Using Polymer-Modified Emul-
sions and Optimized Construction Procedures, Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University.
Kim, Y. R., and J. H. Im (2015) “Extending the use of chip seals to high volume roads by using polymer-modified
emulsions and optimized construction procedures,” North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh,
NC. FHWA/NC/2011-03.
Kim, Y. R., et al. (2017) NCHRP Report. 837: Performance-Related Specifications for Emulsified Asphaltic Binders
Used in Preservation Surface Treatments, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
Kogler, R., et al. (2008) Transportation System Preservation Research, Development, and Implementation Roadmap.
FHWA.
Lawson, W. D., et al. (2007) “Maintenance Solutions for Bleeding and Flushed Pavements Surfaced with a Seal
Coat or Surface Treatment,” Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Implementation
Office 0-5230-1.
Lee, D., et al. (2002) Development of Roughness Thresholds for Preventive Maintenance Action Aimed at Reduc-
ing Dynamic Loads, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1816,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 26–33.
Lee, J. (2007) “Performance-Based Evaluation of Asphalt Surface Treatments Using the Third Scale Model Mobile
Loading Simulator,” Ph.D. Dissertation, North Carolina State University.
Lee, J. and Y. R. Kim (2009) Performance-Based Uniformity Coefficient of Chip Seal Aggregate, Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2108, pp. 53–60, https://doi.org/
10.3141/2108-06.
Lee, J. and Y. R. Kim (2008) Quantifying the Benefits of Improved Rolling of Chip Seals, FHWA/NC/2006-63.
McHattie, R. L. (2001) “Asphalt surface treatment guide,” Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facil-
ities, FHWA-AK-RD-01-03.
McLeod, N. W. (1971) “A General Method of Design for Seal Coats and Surface Treatments,” Association of
Asphalt Pavement Technology, pp. 537–628.
Merritt, D. K., et al. (2015) Best Practices for Achieving and Measuring Pavement Smoothness, A Synthesis of
State-of-Practice, FHWA/LA.14/550.
Montgomery, D. C. (2013) Introduction to Statistical Quality Control, 7th ed.: John Wiley & Sons.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2012). NCHRP Research Results Digest 371: Quality-
Related Pay Adjustment Factors for Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.
org/10.17226/22656.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2001). NCHRP Research Results Digest 254: Assessing
Pavement Layer Condition Using Deflection Data. Transportation Research Board of The National Academies,
Washington, DC.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (2012) “NCDOT Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures.”
Perera, R. W., et al. (1998) “Investigation of Development of Pavement Roughness,” FHWA, FHWA-RD-97-147.

References 101
Peshkin, D. G., et al. (2004) NCHRP Report 523: Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment
Applications, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Peshkin, D., and T. Hoerner (2005) “Pavement Preservation: Practices, Research Plans, and Initiatives,” Contrac-
tor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-07, Task 184. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?
doi=10.1.1.129.5584&rep1&type=pdf.
Peshkin, D., et al. (2011) Guidelines for the Preservation of High-Traffic-Volume Roadways, SHRP2-S2-R26-RR-2.
Pierce, L. M., et al. (2003) Ten-Year Performance of Dowel-Bar Retrofit: Application, Performance, and Lessons
Learned, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1853, Transporta-
tion Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 83–91, https://doi.org/10.3141/1853-10.
Rada, G. R., et al. (2013) NCHRP Report 747: Guide for Conducting Forensic Investigations of Highway Pave-
ments, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, https://doi.org/
10.17226/22507.
Rajaei, M., et al. (2014) Establishment of Relationship Between Pavement Surface Friction and Mixture Design
Properties, Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2457, Trans-
portation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 114–120, https://doi.org/
10.3141/2457-12.
Santero, N., et al. (2009) “Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Dowel Bar Retrofit,” presented at National Conference on
Preservation, Repair, and Rehabilitation of Concrete, St. Louis, MO, pp. 183–205.
Scott, S., et al. (2014a) Performance Specifications for Rapid Highway Renewal, S2-R07-RR-1, https://doi.org/
10.17226/22560.
Scott, S., et al. (2014b) “Framework for Performance Specifications, Guide for Specification Writers,” SHRP-2,
Washington, DC, S2-R07-RR-3.
Smith, G. (1998) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 263: State DOT Management Techniques for Materials
and Construction Acceptance, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Smith, K., and A. Romine (1999) “LTPP Pavement Maintenance Materials: SHRP Crack Treatment Experiment,”
Final Report, ERES Consultants, Inc., Federal Highway Administration, Turner Fairbank Hwy Research
Center, FHWA-RD-99-143.
Smith, K. L., et al. (1999) “LTPP Pavement Maintenance Materials: SPS-4 Supplemental Joint Seal Experiment,
Final Report,” FHWA, FHWA-RD-99-151.
Tenison, J., and D. Hanson (2009) NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 388: Pre-Overlay Treatment of Existing
Pavement, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Tighe, S., and D. Gransberg (2011) NCHRP Research Results Digest 365: Sustainable Pavement Maintenance
Practices, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
Transit New Zealand (2005) “Chipsealing in New Zealand,” Wellington, New Zealand, https://www.nzta.govt.nz/
assets/resources/chipsealing-new-zealand-manual/docs/00-forward-contents-and-preface.pdf.
TRB Committee on Management of Quality Assurance (2002) Transportation Research E-Circular E-C037:
Glossary of Highway Quality Assurance Terms, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, DC.
Weed, R. M. (1996) Quality Assurance Software for the Personal Computer FHWA Demonstration Project 89,
Quality Management, FHWA-SA-96-026, New Jersey Department of Transportation.
Willenbrock, J. H., and P. A. Kopac (1978) Development of a Highway Construction Acceptance Plan, Transporta-
tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 16–22.
Wu, Z., et al. (2010) “Performance Evaluation of Various Rehabilitation and Preservation Treatments, ” FHWA-
HIF-10-020.
Yildirim, Y., et al. (2010) “Service Life of Crack Sealants,” presented at First International Conference on Pave-
ment Preservation.

Abbreviations, Acronyms,
Initialisms, and Symbols
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

AQC Acceptance quality characteristic
AQL Acceptable Quality Level
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
CI Confidence Interval
CIR Cold In-Place Recycling
CPF Composite Pay Factors
CTM Circular Track Meter
DBB Design-Bid-Build
DBOM Design-Build-Operate-Maintain
DBR Dowel-Bar Retrofit
DE Differential Energy
DF Deep Freeze
DF Dry-Freeze
DLI Dynamic Load Index
DNF Dry-No Freeze
DOT Department of Transportation
EP Expected Pay
ERS End-Result Specifications
ESAL Equivalent Single-Axle Load
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FN Friction Number
FWD Falling Weight Deflectometer
HIR Hot In-place Recycling
HMA Hot-Mix Asphalt
HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System
IA-VAC Iowa Vacuum
IPR In-Place Recycling
IRI International Roughness Index
JPCP Jointed Plain Cement Concrete
LCC Life Cycle Cost
LSL Lower Specification Limit
LTE Load-Transfer Efficiency
LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance
MAP Moving Ahead for Progress
MCS Monte Carlo Simulation
MF Moderate Freeze
MPD Mean Profile Depth
102

Abbreviations, Acronyms, Initialisms, and Symbols 103
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NDT Non-Destructive Testing
NF No Freeze
OC Operating Characteristics
PBS Performance-Based Specifications
PCC Portland Cement Concrete
PD Percent Defective
PF Pay Factor
PRS Performance-Related Specifications
PSD Power Spectral Density
PWL Percent Within Limits
QA Quality Assurance
QAS Quality Assurance Specifications
QM Quality Measure
RQL Rejectable Quality Level
SE Standard Error
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
SLE Service Life Extension
SPS Specific Pavement Studies
US United States
USL Upper Specification Limit
VFA Voids Filled with Asphalt
VMA Voids in the Mineral Aggregate
WF Wet-Freeze
WNF Wet-No Freeze

Appendix A
Examples
Joint Resealing
The steps presented in Chapter 5 were followed to develop an example for joint seal/reseal
treatment in rigid pavements.

Joint resealing and crack sealing of PCC pavements are performed to prevent (1) the infiltration
of moisture into the pavement structure, and (2) the accumulation of incompressible materials in
discontinuities. The intent is to minimize the development of moisture-related distresses such as
spalling or faulting (Peshkin et al. 2011). Joint resealing requires removal of the existing deterio-
rated sealant and installation of new sealant material.

The material and construction variables that can be used as AQCs for joint resealing include
• Sealant type: adhesiveness and cohesiveness properties, durability, extensibility, resilience, and
curing time
• Pre-formed sealant placement configurations: reservoir configuration is dependent on the
sealant material used, anticipated subsequent or simultaneous treatments, and aesthetic
considerations
• Effectiveness of resealing: sealant or filler material failure caused by improper installation.
Common performance measures addressed by joint resealing follow:

• Faulting, pumping, spalling, cracking: sealant keeps moisture and incompressible materials
out of the pavement structure and discontinuities which mitigates faulting, spalling, pumping
and cracking in rigid pavements
• Sealant weathering: oxidation, weathering of sealant surface, cracking, surface erosion, debris
intrusion
• Cohesion/adhesion failure of the sealant: a cohesive failure can occur as the sealing splits par-
allel to the joint and adhesion failures can also occur between the face of the slab and sealant.
The material, cohesion, and adhesion properties of sealants influence the performance of joint
reseal and its effectiveness. Joint seal/reseal effectiveness is a measure of how the percentage of
the sealant can prevent the infiltration of water and fines into a joint. An FHWA manual of practice
suggests evaluating joint reseal performance by measuring the resistance of the sealant to intru-
sion of water and debris. The joint reseal effectiveness can be determined by using Equation A-1
(Evans et al. 1999).
104

Appendix A 105
Lf
% L fail = × 100 (A-1)
Ltotal
where
%Lfail = percent length of a joint allowing water to enter
Lf = total length of a joint allowing entrance of water
Ltotal = total joint length evaluated
These percentages can be determined through a visual examination or using devices such as
the Iowa vacuum (IA-VAC) tester, developed by the Iowa DOT (Evans et al. 1999). Equation A-2
estimates joint seal effectiveness (%Leff) as the ratio of the percent of joint adequately covered by
sealant to the total length of the joint.
% Leff = 100 − % L fail (A-2)
where
%Leff = percent joint seal effectiveness
%Lfail = percent length allowing water to enter joint
An individual joint is considered serviceable or “effective” when %Leff is at least 75% (FHWA
1999, Smith and Romine 1999). For an entire pavement section, FHWA suggests a minimal
overall allowable effectiveness level of 50% (Evans et al. 1999, FHWA 1999) which indicates the
need for joint reseal treatment. In other words, a pavement section is a candidate for sealant
repair when only 50% of sealed joints remain with a %Leff of 75%. This minimum allowable
level can vary by agency practices. These criteria were used for developing the PRS guidelines
for joint resealing in PCC pavements. Joint reseal effectiveness (%Leff) was used as an AQC,
given that it is associated with moisture-related performance measures such as faulting and
pumping.
3. Establish AQC-Performance Relationships and Performance Limits

Typically, an agency should develop a performance-based relationship for joint resealing by
measuring joint effectiveness over time for several in-service pavement sections in order to exam-
ine performance trends in the field. For this example, the joint deterioration data for several pave-
ment sections were simulated, based on the trends presented in the FHWA Manual of Practice of
joint seal repair (Evans et al. 1999, FHWA 1999). The trends show examples of deterioration in
the percentage of effective joints in several pavement sections (i.e., percentage of joints in a section
measuring Leff of 75%) ranging from 100 to 20% effective joints from the start to after 7 years,
respectively (Evans et al. 1999). These ranges were used to simulate joint reseal effectiveness over
time for multiple sections as shown in Figure A-1.
Each of the sections shown in Figure A-1 was assumed to have measured percent effective joints
and faulting values each year. For this example, a relationship between the percent of effective
joints and faulting was simulated as shown in Figure A-2. Faulting at various joint effectiveness
levels for each section was predicted by using this relationship (see Figure A-3).
The effect of change in AQC (percent effective joints, %Leff) due to the treatment (joint reseal-
ing) on after-treatment condition for each section needs to be determined. In this example,
Section 1 deterioration was assumed to be the required after-treatment performance. An agency
can set its own target after-treatment condition based on its local experience. The performance
of each pavement section was compared with the performance of Section 1 to evaluate the effect
of the change in AQC (%Leff) due to joint resealing.

Percent of “effective” joints
Age (years)
Figure A-1. Deterioration of percent of effective

joints on PCC pavement sections.
Faulting (mm)
% of effective joints in a pavement section
Figure A-2. Relationship between percent effective

joints and faulting.
Figure A-3. Joint faulting over time for PCC

pavement sections.

Appendix A 107
The change in performance was quantified using the SLE, which is the difference in the time
between before and after treatment to an established threshold for faulting. The SLE can be
determined by using Equation A-3.
SLE = t % Leff =98% − t % Leff =n (A-3)
where
t%Leff=98% = time-to-threshold for after-treatment faulting using initial %Leff of 98%
t%Leff=n = time-to-threshold for before treatment faulting using varying initial %Leff
To determine SLE, a faulting threshold of 6 mm was used in this example. Each pavement
section’s performance (i.e., Sections 2 through 5) was compared to Section 1 performance to
calculate SLE. Figure A-4 shows an example calculation for Section 2.
The FHWA recommendation for a minimum allowable joint effectiveness (50% of effective
joints in a section) should not be confused with the actual %Leff. Rather, the previously specified
75% joint effectiveness as found in the literature (FHWA 1999) is only needed to measure the
effectiveness of individual joints within a section. Both of these measures of joint reseal effective-
ness are crucial in developing the PRS for the treatment. These two parameters are distinguished
below and will be noted hereafter as follows:
1. %Leff = percent of a single joint that is effectively sealed (minimum value should be 75%)
2. %Leff-total = percent of joints within a section that are effectively sealed (a minimum of 50% of
all joints should have greater than 75% of the joint sealed)
To translate the above AQC for measuring construction quality for a preservation treatment,
a change in the AQC before and after joint resealing must be measured. Therefore, measuring
the magnitude of D%Leff-total before and after the treatment can quantify the effectiveness of joint
resealing treatments. The D%Leff-total can be calculated as follows:
∆% Leff −total = % Leff −total(after ) − % Leff −total(before ) (A-4)
where
D%Leff-total = change in %Leff-total due to treatment
%Leff-total(after) = monitored %Leff after warranty period
%Leff-total (before) = immediate monitored %Leff before treatment
Faulting (mm)
Figure A-4. Example SLE calculation for joint

seal treatment.

Figure A-5. Relationship between change in percent

of joints effectively resealed and SLE.
Equation A-4 shows that a positive or negative value of D%Leff-total correlates with a positive or
negative effect of joint resealing, i.e. a positive parameter (increase in percent of joints effectively
resealed) is desirable and a negative parameter (decrease in percent of joints effectively resealed)
is undesirable.
A relationship between the change in AQC and the improvement in pavement performance
(in terms of SLE) was established as shown in Figure A-5. The relationship shows that a higher
D%Leff-total will result in a higher SLE. This relationship is provided only for illustration rather than
an actual standard specification. An agency can adopt this procedure using measured D%Leff-total
data to establish a similar relationship for the development of PRS guidelines for joint resealing.

There is no single correct method for establishing specification limits. Furthermore, there
is a distinct difference between the limits of AQC and quality measures (i.e., PWL). The steps
outlined below were used for establishing limits for AQC and quality measures:
1. Determine AQC-performance relationships. These relationships were discussed in the pre-
vious section. Figure A-5 demonstrates a relationship that can be developed between the
percent of joints effectively resealed (AQC) and SLE (based on faulting).
2. Set specification limits. As described previously, an individual joint within a section is con-
sidered effectively sealed if at least 75% of the sealant is intact. However, given that the change
in the percent of joints effectively resealed is the AQC associated with performance, a lower
one-sided specification limit of 50% of total joints effectively sealed (%Leff-total) in a section
was used for evaluating quality measures, pay adjustments, and risks.
3. Decide on the quality measure. The recommended quality measure often used in current sta-
tistical quality control in highway construction is PWL (Burati et al. 2003, National Academies
of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012).
quality measure due to joint resealing, i.e., DPWL (PWL after - PWL before treatment). The
procedure to obtain the DPWL that could be used as AQL is described below.
5. Define RQL material. The RQL is also a subjective decision made by the agency or party set-
ting the specification limits. The DPWL that can be used as the RQL can be obtained from the
example. A lot at RQL will receive a reduced pay factor corresponding to the level of quality;
a lot may be rejected if DPWL is at or below RQL.

P e r f o r m a n c e - R e l a t e d S p e c i f i c a t i o n s f o
Appendix A 109
Summary
• The AQC selected for the development of the joint reseal PRS guidelines is percent of joints
effectively sealed within a section (D%Leff-total).
• The percent of joints effectively sealed and amount of faulting over time were used to develop
a relationship between AQC and SLE.
• A lower specification limit of 50%Leff-total was established.
• The DPWL that can be used as the AQL can be obtained as shown in the example.
• The DPWL to be used as RQL can be obtained as shown in the example.

The previously mentioned Equations 1 and 2 recommended in the Manual of Practice were
used to evaluate the effectiveness of the joint sealant (Evans et al. 1999). It is recommended that
such methods be used for measuring the AQC.

The risks associated with incorrectly accepting or rejecting a lot are related to the sample size.
The procedure outlined in Chapter 5 was followed to develop guidelines for a sampling and
measurement plan:
1. Determine which party performs acceptance testing. The decision about the party testing a
lot must be agreed upon by the contractor and agency.
2. Determine the type of acceptance plan to be used. The relationships established between
percent joints effectively sealed and the SLE showed varying degrees of effectiveness in terms
of life extension for different levels of D%Leff-total. The variable acceptance plan was used to
measure the change in quality due to variations in the %Leff-total.
3. Develop verification sampling and testing procedures. Verification sampling is standard pro-
cedure and used to verify the accuracy of the acceptance test results. Chapter 4 provides guide-
lines for different sampling methods, but the decision on whether to use split or independent
sampling is unique to the goals of the agency. In practice, it is appropriate that the agency’s
verification test methods are used solely for verification and the acceptance methods proposed
by the contractor must first be compared to the results of agency verification testing.
of the agency should be approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contrac-
tor. In practice, verification testing frequency is decided for economic, rather than statistical,
reasons. Again, this decision must be agreed upon by agency and contractor and it is assumed
that the procedure is already established for the purposes of this example.
5. Determine lot size and sample size. The evaluation or visual inspection of the joints is simply
an inspection of the joints along the length of a sublot. Therefore, lots and sublots can be defined
as segmented lengths of a project. Based on a survey of highway practice, most agencies report
pavement segment lengths in 0.1-mile (500 ft) increments for roughness specifications (Merritt
et al. 2015). For joint reseal, it is possible that a similar approach may be followed by a highway
agency. A lot size of 0.1 mile could provide a minimum of five average %Leff-total values that can be
used for calculating PWL (e.g., a sublot of about seven joints, assuming the joint spacing is 15 ft).

The PWL of each lot was estimated before and after joint resealing. The quality measure
DPWL was developed to represent the change in quality and is calculated using Equation A-5.
∆PWL = PWL ( % Leff −total )After − PWL ( % Leff −total )Before (A-5)
C o p y r i g h t N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y
Table A-1. Summary of data for joint resealing.

%Leff-total (before) PWLbefore %Leff-total (after) PWLafter D%Leff-total SLE DPWL
56 73 75 100 19 6.9 27
52 56 78 100 26 8.4 44
53 62 76 100 23 7.8 38
58 77 74 100 16 6.1 23
58 79 75 100 17 6.4 21
55 67 75 100 20 7.1 33
54 66 74 100 20 7.1 34
60 83 72 100 12 5.0 17
60 84 73 100 13 5.3 16
59 80 72 100 13 5.3 20
61 86 72 100 11 4.8 14
60 83 70 100 10 4.5 17
58 79 72 100 14 5.6 21
57 76 72 100 15 5.7 24
55 69 69 100 14 5.6 31
53 62 71 100 18 6.5 38
The DPWL shows how much the construction quality has statistically demonstrated a shift
toward or away from acceptable quality. A positive DPWL value indicates an improvement in
AQC due to resealing; a negative value indicates a decline in quality. Table A-1 lists the DPWL
values within 16 simulated lots.
The SLE was calculated for each D%Leff-total as shown in Table A-1. Using the relationship
(between AQC and SLE) and the DPWL measurements, a relationship was developed between
the SLEs and the DPWL. This provides the pavement performance prediction as a function of
varying quality levels as shown in Figure A-6. The relationship shows that no change in quality
would result in no SLE.

The relevant expected pay (EP) and operating characteristic (OC) curves were developed to
assign pay factors to appropriate levels of acceptable and rejectable quality while minimizing the
expected risks to both contractor and agency.
1. Predict pavement performance as a function of levels of quality. For joint reseal PRS, a rela-
tionship between PWL and pavement performance in terms of life extension was established
(see Figure A-6).
12
y = 1.4618x0.4423
10 R² = 1
8
SLE (years)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
PWL
Figure A-6. Relationship between DPWL and SLE.

Appendix A 111
2. Convert the expected performance into pay adjustment. The pay factors, calculated by using
Equation A-6, correspond to the estimated change in quality ranging from 0 to 100 DPWL
because SLE is a function of DPWL (see Figure A-6). Figure A-7 shows the relationship
between DPWL and pay factor.
C ( RD − RE )
PF = (A-6)
1 − RO
where
PF = pay adjustment factor for new pavement or treatment (same units as C)
C = present total cost of treatment, use C = 1 for PF
O = expected life of successive treatments
R = (1 + INF)/(1+ INT)
= long-term annual inflation rate in decimal form
INF
= long-term annual interest rate in decimal form
INT
Equation A-7 can be used for risk assessment to develop EP curves, assess the associated a
and b risk, and determine the appropriate AQL and RQL levels necessary to award payment
factors.
PF = 22.4 × ∆ PWL0.418 (A-7)
3. Adjust the AQL, RQL, and pay relationships to minimize risk. As discussed in the deter-
mination of AQC limits, the AQL and RQL need to be established. The key principle in any
fair payment plan is that a contractor should be awarded 100% pay for producing an AQL
quality. For establishing AQL, the EP curves must be evaluated such that the payment plan
awards 100% pay at AQL, while an incentive can be given if the quality of work is above AQL.
Table A-2 shows the pay factors generated from the EP curve by using Equation A-7. As seen
in the table, the AQL may be selected at a DPWL = 34 to ensure a contractor is not awarded
bonus pay.
For establishing the RQL, the EP curves can be used to determine the level of performance
(in terms of life extension) that is deemed unacceptable and should result in reduced pay.
180
160
140
Pay adjustment (%)
120
100
80
60
40 y = 22.405x0.4177
20 R² = 0.9988
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
PWL
Figure A-7. Relationship between DPWL and

pay adjustment.

Table A-2. Summary
of EP curve values for
varying joint resealing
quality levels.
DPWL SLE PF%

(years)
0 0.2 3.12
5 (RQL) 3.0 46.07
10 4.0 61.28
15 4.8 72.16
20 5.5 80.89
25 6.1 88.29
30 6.6 94.75
34 (AQL) 7.0 100.00
40 7.5 105.75
45 7.9 110.55
50 8.2 114.99
55 8.6 119.12
60 8.9 123.00
65 9.3 126.65
70 9.6 130.10
75 9.9 133.37
80 10.2 136.49
85 10.4 139.47
90 10.7 142.31
95 11.0 145.05
100 11.2 229.74
This decision is typically made to meet the needs of the agency to ensure that the pavement
performs up to established standards. For instance, in the EP curve values shown in Table A-2,
an agency may decide that a life extension of less than 3 years is undesirable. Therefore, the
RQL will be set at DPWL = 5, and any lot produced at a quality level below that will receive
no pay. The agency may also decide that any quality level between an AQL of 34 and an RQL
of 5 will be accepted, but will receive a reduced pay or disincentive.
Table A-3 summarizes the final AQL and RQL for joint resealing based on faulting. The OC
curves shown in Figure A-8 were developed to assess the risk of receiving a payment that cor-
rectly corresponds to the level of quality.
When evaluating the risks associated with receiving appropriate pay for a predicted change
in PWL, OC curves can be examined. Figure A-8 shows the OC curves for a desired quality of
DPWL = 34 (i.e., AQL) for sample sizes of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30. The level of quality produced by a
contractor (as indicated on the x-axis) can be matched with the OC curve with desired quality
to evaluate the probability of receiving a pay factor which corresponds to the desired quality. In
this case, the established AQL is DPWL = 34. If a contractor produces AQL quality in the field,
then the quality level must be matched with the OC curve at AQL. Figure A-8 indicates that
Table A-3. Pay factor summary for

joint reseal.
Quality levels and pay
Quality characteristics
adjustment
AQL (∆PWL) 34
AQLSLE (years ) 7.0
AQLPF (%) 100
RQL (∆PWL) 5
RQLSLE (years) 3.0
RQLPF (%) 46.07

Appendix A 113
Probability of receiving a pay factor > 1

0.9
n=3
0.8
5
0.7
10
0.6
20
0.5 30
0.4
AQL = PWL of 34
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
100 80 60 40 34 20 0
PWL
Figure A-8. Predicted OC curves.
the pay adjustment plan that will award a pay factor greater than 1 has a probability of 50% of
all lots sampled. This suggests that the contractor will receive pay greater than 100% (pay for
above AQL) half the time and receive pay less than 100% (pay for below AQL) half the time.
Given that several lots will be sampled for quality, this will average to 100% pay throughout
the project, which is characteristic of an unbiased and fair adjustment plan to both agency and
contractor. This also incentivizes the contractor to consistently aim for above AQL quality to
offset the probability of lower quality and receive bonus pay. Also, the greater the sample size,
the higher the probability of receiving pay greater than 100% if the produced quality is above
the AQL. Similarly, the probability of receiving pay greater than 100% is lower if the produced
quality is less than the AQL. As previously mentioned, an agency can set the sample size based
on their resources and balancing the risk. Table A-4 summarizes the example PRS specifications
for joint resealing.
Dowel-Bar Retrofit
The steps presented in Chapter 5 were followed to develop an example for dowel-bar retrofit
treatment in rigid pavements.
1. Select Preservation Treatment

Dowel-bar retrofit (DBR) or load-transfer restoration is a rigid pavement preservation treat-
ment used to restore the load-transfer efficiency (LTE) across rigid pavement discontinuities.
Table A-4. Example PRS for joint resealing of PCC pavement.

PRS Item Measurement
AQC(s) Change in % of effective joints ( %L eff-total )
Lot size 0.1 miles
Sample size 5
AQC lower limit 50% joints in a section are “effective” (%Leff ≥ 75)
Quality measure PWL
Quality thresholds AQL = 34 PWL , RQL = 5 PWL
Pay Equation PF (%) = 22.405( PWL)0.4177
AQL pay factor 1
RQL pay factor 0.46
P(PF>1) at AQL 50%


The candidate material and construction variables that can be used when performing DBRs
include
• Mortar properties (flow, compressive and flexural strength, shrinkage, bond strength,
absorption)
• Installation (reliant on dowel-bar alignment, consolidation of mortar around dowel bar,
preventing the intrusion of mortar into the adjacent crack/joint, etc.)
The common performance measures addressed by DBR are joint faulting, pumping, and
corner breaks.
The DBR treatment can improve LTE across a crack or a joint which mitigates joint/crack
faulting, pumping, corner breaks, and spalling. The final orientation of the dowel bars and con-
solidation of mortar around dowel bars after construction affect the LTE. Therefore, LTE was
used as an AQC for this example. Faulting in concrete pavements is a direct result of pumping
that causes excessive uneven elevations between the approach and leave slabs in rigid pavements.
Grinding treatment is performed to correct low levels of faulting. However, where faulting
exceeds 3 mm (0.125 inch) for an un-doweled JPCP discontinuity, DBR is a common treatment.
Hence, faulting was the primary performance measure considered for this example.

The Pavement-ME faulting model was used to develop performance-based relationships
between LTE and faulting. The mechanistic-empirical model is shown below (AASHTO 2008;
ARA, Inc. 2003).
m
Fault m = ∑ ∆Fault i (A-8)
i =1
∆Fault i = C34 × ( FAULTMAX i−1 − Fault i−1 )2 × DEi (A-9)

m
FAULTMAX i = FAULTMAX 0 + C 7 × ∑ DE j × Log (1 + C5 × 5.0 EROD )C6 (A-10)
j =1
P200 × WetDays   C6
FAULTMAX 0 = C12 × δ curling ×  Log (1 + C5 × 5.0 EROD ) × Log    (A-11a)
  ps 
where:
Faultm = Mean joint faulting at the end of month m, in.
DFaulti = Incremental change (monthly) in mean transverse joint faulting during month i, in.
FAULTMAXi = Maximum mean transverse joint faulting for month i, in.
FAULTMAX0 = Initial maximum mean transverse joint faulting, in.
EROD = Base/sub-base erodibility factor
DEi = Differential density of energy for subgrade deformation accumulated during month i
dcurling = Maximum mean monthly slab corner upward deflection due to temperature curling
and moisture warping.
PS = Overburden on subgrade, lb/ft2.
P200 = Percent subgrade material passing #200 sieve.
WetDays = Average annual number of wet days (greater than 0.1 inch rainfall).
C1,2,3,4,5,6,7,12,34 = Global calibration constants (C1 = 1.0184; C2 = 0.91656; C3 = 0.002848; C4 =
0.0008837; C5 = 250; C6 = 0.4; C7 = 1.8331)

Appendix A 115
C12 = C1 + C 2 × FR0.25 (A-11b)
C 34 = C 3 + C 4 × FR0.25 (A-11c)
where:
FR = Base freezing index defined as percentage of time the top base temperature is below freezing
(32 °F) temperature.
The differential energy (DE) in the above model is a function of corner deflections. LTE is a
function of loaded and unloaded slab corner deflections. Therefore, to develop an appropriate
prediction model using faulting data from existing projects, DE must be determined from mea-
sured deflections and must be related to the LTE across the same joints. The following procedure
was used to develop a performance-based relationship between LTE and faulting:
1. Select rigid pavement preservation treated sections from LTPP database (SPS-4 experiment
sections).
2. Calculate the LTE and corresponding differential energy (DE) from the deflection data for
the pavement sections by using the following equations:
δL
LTE ( % ) = × 100 (A-12)
δU
k
DE = ( δ 2L − δU2 ) (A-13)
2
where
dL = Loaded corner deflection (inch)
dU = Unloaded corner deflection (inch)
k = Calculated modulus of subgrade reaction (pci)
SPS-4 sections do not necessarily have DBR applications. However, given that DBR
improves LTE (reduces DE), varying the magnitude of DLTE can simulate the effectiveness
of DBR treatment. The DLTE is calculated as follows:
∆LTE ( % ) = LTE Before iDBR − LTE After iDBR (A-14)
3. Establish models to predict LTE and DE with age using the data from Step 2.
4. Evaluate measured faulting with pavement age for each pavement section.
5. Use the DE calculated in Step 2 as inputs in the Pavement-ME faulting model (Equa-
tions A-8 through A-11) to perform mechanistic-empirical prediction of faulting.
6. Compare the predicted faulting in Step 5 to the measured faulting in Step 4.
7. If the faulting model predictions are comparable, then use the DE and LTE prediction mod-
els in Step 3 to develop a relationship between DE and LTE. If the predicted faulting model
does not reasonably reflect measured faulting, perform a local calibration of the model to
accurately reflect existing conditions (ARA, Inc. 2009).
8. Use the DE prediction model established in Step 7 to predict the DE as a function of time
for different initial LTE levels (i.e., begin with 95% LTE in the first year of pavement life and
predict the propagation of DE over time). Repeat this process, but begin with 90% LTE in
the first year of pavement life. Obtain a series of relationships that demonstrate the change
in DE over time for various values of initial LTE.
9. Use the calculated DE as inputs in the faulting model to predict faulting over time for vari-
ous initial LTE levels. Establish a faulting threshold that requires a DBR treatment and cal-
culate the SLE at different levels of initial LTE. A faulting threshold of 5 mm is used in this
example to estimate SLE. SLE can be determined using Equation A-15. A maximum LTE

Figure A-9. Measured LTE and DE with age for

Section 32-A410.
was established as 95%, given that an LTE of 100% is difficult to achieve. Typically, a LTE of
90 to 95% can be achieved through a successful DBR.
SLE ( years ) = t LTE =95% − t LTE =n% (A-15)
where
tLTE=95% = time-to-threshold for predicted faulting using initial LTE = 95%
tLTE=n% = time-to-threshold for predicted faulting using varying initial n% LTE levels
10. Use Equation A-15 to develop a relationship between DLTE and SLE. This model can be used
to predict the expected performance (SLE) in terms of DLTE and develop pay adjustments
that can be justified by the magnitude of treatment life extension.
This analysis procedure was performed on Section 32-A410 in the LTPP database for illustra-
tion purposes. The FWD data from the J4 sensor were used to determine LTE and DE at the joints
for a 9,000 lb. drop load. The DE values were predicted with age (see Figure A-9) and multiplied
by the average equivalent single-axle loads (ESALs) per year to obtain the total DE per year. The
total DE per year was used in the faulting model to predict joint faulting over time. Figure A-10
Faulting (mm)
Figure A-10. Predicted and measured faulting for

Section 32-A410.

Appendix A 117
Figure A-11. DE prediction model for

Section 32-A410.
shows the predicted faulting over time for the pavement section. Given that the predicted value
for faulting reasonably correlates with the measured value at about 7 years, the DE and LTE
models shown in Figure A-9 were used to develop a relationship between LTE and DE (see Fig-
ure A-11). The model shown in Figure A-11 can be used to predict DE at varying levels of LTE
over time. By using incremental initial LTE values, the change in rate of DE over time can be used
to observe the change in rate of the predicted faulting (see Figure A-12).
An initial LTE of 95% after treatment was desired in this example. Different levels of initial
LTEs were compared to the desired value of 95% to calculate SLEs using Equation A-15. Fig-
ure A-13 provides an example of SLE and DLTE calculation.
Faulting threshold = 5 mm
tLTE=95% = 6.9 years
tLTE(n=90%) = 6.1 years
SLE = 6.9 - 6.1 = 0.8 years
SLE (years) = tLTE=95% - tLTE(n=90%) = 6.9 - 6.1 = 0.8 years
DLTE = 95 - 90 = 5%
Faulting (mm)
Figure A-12. Predicted faulting over time for

varying LTEo for Section 32-A410.

Figure A-13. Example SLE calculation for

Section 32-A410.
Figure A-14 shows the relationship established between DLTE and SLE for Section 32-A410.
The relationship shows that a larger change in DLTE results in a higher SLE. This relationship
suggests that DBR is more effective when treating pavements with poorer load transfer, which
seems counterintuitive to the concept of preservation. However, for preservation treatment, an
earlier application (optimum time) should be preferred.

The following steps were used for establishing limits for the AQC and quality measure (PWL)
for DBR treatment.
1. Determine AQC-performance relationships. The relationship between LTE and perfor-
mance was discussed in the previous section. The DLTE for treatment was used as the AQC.
2. Set specification limits. A 10-year study on dowel-bar retrofit showed that retrofitted dowel
bars retained an average joint load transfer between 70 and 90% over a period of 10 years
(Pierce et al. 2003). A one-sided lower specification limit of 70% LTE was used for evaluating
quality measures, pay adjustments, and risks.
Figure A-14. Relationship between DLTE and SLE for

Section 32-A410.

Appendix A 119
3. Decide on the quality measure. The recommended quality measure often used in statisti-
cal quality assurance in highway construction practices is PWL (Burati et al. 2003, National
Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012).
quality measure due to DBRs, i.e., DPWL (PWL after - PWL before treatment). The procedure
to obtain the DPWL value that can be used as an AQL is described below.
the specification limits. The DPWL value to be used as the RQL can be obtained from the
example. A lot at RQL will receive a reduced pay factor corresponding to level of quality; a lot
may be rejected if DPWL is at or below RQL.
Summary
• The AQC selected for the development of DBR PRS is DLTE.
• Given that lower LTE values have consequences in the form of severe distresses, a lower speci-
fication limit of 70% was selected for this example.
• The DPWL was selected as a quality measure.
• The DPWL value that can be used as the AQL can be obtained as shown in the example.
• The DPWL value that can be used as the RQL can be obtained as shown in the example.
5. Specify Test Methods to Measure the Selected Characteristics

Well-established standards exist for evaluating and measuring surface deflections. Such meth-
ods can be used for measuring pavement deflections for LTE calculations (Hall et al. 2009, Chatti
et al. 2009).

The risks associated with incorrectly accepting or rejecting a lot are related to the sample
size. The procedure outlined in Chapter 5 was followed to develop guidelines for a sampling
measurement plan:
involved in the project must agree upon who performs the duties of acceptance testing.
LTE and SLE show varying degrees of effectiveness in terms of life extension for different levels
of DLTE. The variable acceptance plan can be used to measure the change in quality due to
variations in the LTE.
3. Develop verification sampling and testing procedures. Chapter 4 provides guidelines for
different sampling methods, but the decision on whether to use split or independent sam-
pling is unique to the goals of the agency. In practice, it is appropriate that the agency’s verifi-
cation test methods are used solely for verification and that acceptance methods proposed by
the contractor must first be compared to the results of agency verification testing, if chosen
for verification use.
of the agency should be approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contrac-
tor. In practice, verification testing frequency is decided for economic, rather than statistical,
reasons. This decision must be agreed on by the agency and the contractor and the procedure
is assumed to be established for the purposes of this example.
5. Determine lot size and sample size. The standards in the PRS guidelines should be followed
for the required number of deflection tests for a given pavement section length. The LTPP

field manual for measuring FWD deflections specifies several sampling plans which cor-
respond to experiment and pavement type. For rigid pavements, the guidelines specify a
maximum of 100 deflection tests performed within a 500-ft pavement section (FHWA
2000). For a typical joint spacing of 15 ft for JPCP, there will be about 36 joints in a 0.1-mile
pavement segment. A lot size of 0.1 mile could provide a minimum of 5 LTE values for
calculating PWL.

As discussed in Chapter 5, the quality measure PWL of each lot was estimated before and
after the DBR treatment. The quality measure DPWL was developed to represent the change in
quality as shown below:
∆PWL = PWL ( LTE After ) − PWL ( LTE Before ) (A-16)
toward or away from acceptable quality. A positive value of DPWL indicates an improvement in
AQC due to DBR; a negative value indicates a decline in quality. Table A-5 summarizes DPWL
values calculated for a range of LTE values.
The SLE was calculated for each DLTE as shown in Table A-5. Using the relationship (between
AQC and SLE) and the DPWL measurements, a relationship was developed between the SLE
values and the DPWL. This allows the prediction of pavement performance in terms of SLE for
varying levels as shown in Figure A-15.

expected risks to both the contractor and agency.
1. Predict pavement performance as a function of levels of quality. A relationship between
PWL and pavement performance in terms of life extension was established.
Table A-5. Summary of simulated DPWL

based on LTE before and after DBR.
LTEbefore PWLbefore LTEafter PWLafter LTE PWL

65 15.9 95 100 30 84.1
66 21.2 95 100 29 78.8
67 27.5 95 100 28 72.5
68 34.5 95 100 27 65.5
69 42.1 95 100 26 57.9
70 50.0 95 100 25 50.0
71 57.9 95 100 24 42.1
72 65.5 95 100 23 34.5
73 72.5 95 100 22 27.5
74 78.8 95 100 21 21.2
75 84.1 95 100 20 15.9
76 88.5 95 100 19 11.5
77 92.0 95 100 18 8.0
78 94.6 95 100 17 5.4
79 96.5 95 100 16 3.5
80 97.8 95 100 15 2.2

Appendix A 121
SLE (years)
PWL
Figure A-15. Predicted SLE due to DPWL for

Section 32-A410.
2. Convert the expected performance into pay adjustment. The pay factors are calculated using
Equation A-17 which considers the estimated change in quality ranging from 0 to 100 DPWL
because SLE is a function of DPWL (see Figure A-15). The relationship between the DPWL
and the pay factor is shown in Figure A-16.
C ( RD − RE )
PF = (A-17)
1 − RO
where
PF = pay adjustment factor for new pavement or treatment (same units as C)
O = expected life of successive treatment
R = (1 + INF)/(1 + INT)
Figure A-16. Relationship between DPWL and

pay factor.

Equation A-18 can be used for risk assessment to develop EP curves, assess the associated
a and b risk, and determine the appropriate AQL and RQL levels necessary to award pay-
ment factors.
PayAdj ( % ) = 25.34 ( ∆PWL0.36 ) (A-18)
3. Adjust the AQL, RQL, and pay relationships to minimize risk. As discussed in the deter-
mination of AQC limits, the AQL and RQL need to be established. The key principle in any
fair payment plan is that a contractor should be awarded 100% pay for producing an AQL
quality. For establishing the AQL, the EP curves must be evaluated such that the payment plan
awards 100% pay at AQL, while an incentive can be given if the quality of work is above the
AQL. Table A-6 shows the pay factors generated from the EP curve by using Equation A-18.
As seen in Table A-6, the AQL may be chosen at approximately 44 to ensure a contractor is
not awarded bonus pay.
For establishing the RQL, the EP curves can be used to determine the level of performance
(in terms of life extension) that is deemed unacceptable and should result in reduced pay.
Typically, this decision is made to meet the needs of the agency to ensure the pavement per-
forms to established standards. For instance, in the EP curve values shown in Table A-6, an
agency may decide that a life extension of less than 5 years is undesirable. Therefore, the RQL
will be set at DPWL = 5, and any lot produced at a quality level below that will receive no pay.
Further, the agency may also decide that any quality level between an AQL of 44 and an RQL
of 5 will be accepted, but will receive a reduced pay or disincentive.
Table A-7 summarizes the finalized AQL and RQL for DBR based on faulting. The OC curves
were developed to assess the risk of receiving a payment that correctly corresponds to the level
of quality. Figure A-17 shows these OC curves.
Table A-6. Summary
of simulated DPWL
based on LTE.
PWL SLE (years) PF%
0 0.4 4.53
5 (RQL) 5.1 48.33
10 6.7 61.63
15 7.8 70.73
20 8.8 77.83
25 9.6 83.71
30 10.3 88.76
35 11.0 93.19
40 11.6 97.15
44 (AQL) 12.0 100.00
45 12.1 100.76
50 12.6 104.02
55 13.1 107.05
60 13.6 109.86
65 14.0 112.48
70 14.4 114.94
75 14.8 117.26
80 15.2 119.45
85 15.6 121.53
90 15.9 123.51
95 16.3 125.39
100 16.6 127.19

Appendix A 123
Table A-7. Pay factor

summary for dowel-bar
retrofit.
Quality levels
Quality
and
characteristics
pay adjustment
AQL ( PWL) 44
AQLSLE (years) 12
AQLPF (%) 100
RQL ( PWL) 5
RQLSLE (years) 5.1
RQLPF (%) 48.33
When evaluating the risks associated with receiving appropriate pay for the predicted change
in the PWL, the OC curves can be examined. Figure A-17 shows the OC curves of desired quality
DPWL = 44 (i.e. AQL) for sample sizes of 3, 5, 10, 20 and 30. The level of quality produced by
a contractor (as indicated on the x-axis) must be matched with the OC curve with the desired
quality to evaluate the probability of receiving a pay factor which corresponds to the desired
quality. In this case, the established AQL of DPWL = 44. If a contractor produces AQL in the
field, then the quality level must be matched with the OC curve at AQL. Figure A-17 indicates
that the pay adjustment plan that will award a pay factor greater than 1 has a probability of
50% of all lots sampled. This suggests that the contractor will receive pay greater than 100%
(pay for at AQL) half the time and receive pay less than 100% (pay for below AQL) half the
time. Given that several lots will be sampled for quality, this averages to 100% pay throughout
the project, which is characteristic of an unbiased and fair adjustment plan to both agency and
contractor. This also incentivizes the contractor to consistently aim for above AQL to offset
the probability of lower quality and receive bonus pay. Also, the greater the sample size, the
higher the probability of receiving pay greater than 100% if the produced quality is above AQL.
Similarly, the probability of receiving pay greater than 100% is lower if the produced quality is
less than AQL. As mentioned before, an agency can set the sample size based on their resources
and balancing the risk. Table A-8 summarizes the example PRS specifications for dowel-bar
retrofit.
Figure A-17. Predicted OC curves for faulting

performance due to change in LTE.

Table A-8. Example PRS for DBR

of PCC pavement.
AQC(s) Change in LTE ( LTE)
Lot size 0.1 mile
Sample size Minimum 5
AQC threshold 70% LTE
Quality measure PWL
Quality thresholds AQL = 44 PWL, RQL = 5 PWL
Pay Equation PF (%) = 25.34( PWL)0.36
AQL pay factor 1.0
RQL pay factor 0.4833
PF(A) at AQL 50%
Thin Overlay
The PRS guidelines presented in Chapter 5 were used to develop an example for thin overlay
treatment in flexible pavements. The following AQCs and performance measures were identi-
fied and selected:
1. Performance measures: Cracking, raveling, weathering, friction loss, bleeding, roughness
2. AQCs: Surface smoothness, layer thickness, mix design, binder content, density, air voids
3. Selected AQC and performance measure: Profile-based indices (IRI and DLI) as AQCs and
expected surface roughness (IRI), fatigue cracking and rutting as performance measures.
This example also demonstrates the use of a mechanistic-empirical approach for establish-
ing AQC-performance relationships. The procedure is similar to the one used for the diamond
grinding example, given that functional thin overlay can be applied to reduce surface roughness.
The following are the steps for developing such relationships:
1. Determine profile-based indices from the measured longitudinal profiles for before and after
application of thin overlay.
2. Evaluate the resulting change in dynamic axle load response before and after application of
thin overlay.
3. Use changes in axle load spectra (before and after the treatment) to predict pavement perfor-
mance by using the mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG) analysis for the
pavement sections.
4. Relate change in AQCs to variation in the expected performance.
The following steps were used to develop an example for thin overlay treatment.

Thin overlay is a preservation treatment used for asphalt pavements. The treatment involves
the application of 1-in-thick or less asphalt layer on an existing pavement to address minor sur-
face distresses and reduce roughness.

The reduction in surface roughness due to functional thin overlay application is an important
quality characteristic to measure the effectiveness of the treatment. Numerous profile-based
indices, such as IRI and DLI, can be used to quantify surface roughness. As with the diamond
grinding treatment, a mechanistic-empirical approach was adopted to develop relationships

Appendix A 125
between existing surface roughness and predicted performance measures of asphalt pavements.
The IRI and DLI are expected to decrease in magnitude as roughness decreases. They are appro-
priate candidates as AQCs for PRS.

To validate relationships between the AQC and pavement performance, the profile data from
14 overlaid LTPP SPS-3 test sections were collected. The mechanistic-empirical procedure out-
lined previously for diamond grinding was repeated for this analysis. Table A-9 shows the char-
acteristics of 14 pavement sections selected for the following reasons:
• Data before and after longitudinal profiles
• File formats available for profile data in the LTPP database
• Distributed in the four LTPP climatic zones
• Significant change in the roughness just after thin overlay.
A few pavement sections that showed an increase in roughness after thin overlay were included
to explore the reasons for an ineffective treatment. The mechanistic-empirical analysis was
applied to each of these sections to determine the effect of thin overlay on pavement profiles and
profile-based indices, dynamic axle loads, predicted pavement performance (in terms of faulting,
cracking, and IRI at a 20 years design life using the Pavement-ME), and the SLE due to overlay.
Figure A-18 shows the change in profile indices (DIRI and DDLI) for all sections due to thin
overlay. The analyses revealed the following:
• Overlay treatment was generally effective for all but three pavement sections (4-A310,
32-B310, and 17-B310).
• An examination of the profile elevations before and after the treatment showed that thin
overlay treatments did not adequately reduce surface irregularities for the same three sec-
tions (4-A310, 32-B310, and 17-B310). This is evident not only in the profile elevations of
these sections, but also in the PSD of the profiles. The poor performance in terms of immedi-
ate roughness after treatment could be a result of various environmental, construction, and
material factors.
• Because IRI seems to give similar results to DLI (see Figure A-19), it is recommended for use
as the AQC, because it is the most commonly used index.
Table A-9. Summary of asphalt pavement sections used in analysis.

Age (years) Overlay
Climate Subgrade
S. No Section ID State AAWD2 FI3 AADT4 thickness
Before Application1 After Zone type5
(in)
1 16-B310 ID 0.01 0.12 0.21 DF 112 627 532 1.1 A-1-b
2 16-C310 ID 0.01 0.12 0.22 DF 98 642 356 1.2 A-1-b
3 53-A310 WA 0.01 0.02 0.34 DF 128 282 294 1.8 A-1-b
4 20-B310 KA 0.00 0.50 0.57 WF 85 195 300 1.5 A-7-6
5 4-C310 AR 0.21 0.20 1.03 DNF 60 1 475 1.6 A-2-6
6 4-A310 AR 0.22 0.34 1.05 DNF 26 1 350 1.2 A-2-6
7 32-B310 NE 0.03 0.16 0.15 DF 66 310 801 1.5 A-4
8 49-A310 UT 0.00 0.01 0.18 DF 79 315 160 1 A-2-4
9 49-B310 UT 0.01 0.01 0.18 DF 113 278 160 1.7 A-2-4
10 17-B310 IL 0.49 1.05 1.51 WF 123 630 312 1.2 A-4
11 53-C310 WA 0.02 0.00 0.49 WNF 198 23 184 1.1 A-1-a
12 18-A310 IN 0.83 0.51 1.80 WF 123 182 1384 1 A-4
13 20-A310 KA 0.00 0.42 0.58 WF 83 253 129 1.2 A-7-6
14 32-A310 NE 0.73 0.71 0.83 DNF 51 101 113 1.1 A-7-6
Note: 1Age at the time of treatment application, 2Average annual wet days, 3Freezing index, 4Average annual daily traffic, 5AASHTO soil classification

200
Before grinding
After grinding
157.2
150
137.2 135.0 136.2
Overall IRI (in/mi)
115.2
109.1
102.2
100 92.0
77.7 80.9 80.2 79.5 82.2
67.4 71.5 71.1 70.2
63.4 66.0
56.0 53.7 53.9 55.2 54.3 58.0
50 45.9
37.4 38.6
0
16-B310 16-C310 53-A310 20-B310 4-C310 4-A310 32-B310 49-A310 49-B310 17-B310 53-C310 18-A310 20-A310 32-A310
Pavement profile section no.
(a) IRI
18
Before grinding 16.0 15.8
16 After grinding
14.0 14.1 14.3
14 13.0 13.3
12.1 11.8
11.4
Overall DLI (10-2 in.)
12
10.3
10 9.0 9.3
8.4 8.4
7.7 7.8
8 7.2 6.9 7.0 7.1 6.9 6.7
6.6 6.3 6.1
6 5.0
3.7
4
0
16-B310 16-C310 53-A310 20-B310 4-C310 4-A310 32-B310 49-A310 49-B310 17-B310 53-C310 18-A310 20-A310 32-A310
Pavement profile section no.
(b) DLI
Figure A-18. Change in IRI and DLI before and after thin overlay for all sections.
7
6
5 y = 0.0679x + 0.2493
R² = 0.6632
4
3
DLI (10-2 in)
2
1
0
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-1
-2
-3
-4
IRI (in/mile)
Figure A-19. IRI versus DLI before and after

thin overlay.

Appendix A 127
• The results of the dynamic load analysis for the pavement sections showed that treatments
which could reduce the surface roughness generally reduced the dynamic loads. This suggests
that there is a positive correlation with an effective thin overlay treatment which reduces
roughness and the resulting dynamic loads experienced by the pavement.
• The sections which showed an increase in roughness, or else a minimal change in roughness,
after thin overlay exhibited a minimal change in dynamic loads or in some cases a greater
dynamic response. Figure A-20 shows the minimal shift in dynamic load for the three sections
on which thin overlay was ineffective.
0.6 0.5
0.5 0.4
Load distribution
Load distribution
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000

(e) Single axle —4-A310 (f) Tandem axle —4-A310
0.6 0.16
0.14
0.5
0.12
Load distribution
Load distribution
0.4
0.1
0.3 0.08
0.06
0.2
0.04
0.1
0.02
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000

(g) Single axle —32-B310 (h) Tandem axle —32-B310
0.6 0.5
0.5 0.4
Load distribution
Load distribution
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 0 20000 40000 60000 80000

(i) Single axle —17-B310 (j) Tandem axle —17-B310
Figure A-20. Example dynamic axle load spectra before and after thin overlay.

• A shift in the dynamic loads after thin overlay treatment should be reflected in the resulting
predicted performance (cracking, rutting, and IRI). For this example, only IRI was considered
as the primary performance measure for evaluating the SLEs due to thin overlay. Although
fatigue cracking, rutting, longitudinal cracking, and thermal cracking were evaluated in the
analysis, the decision to omit these performance measures when evaluating SLEs was based
on the following reasons:
– There were no clear trends between AQC and performance when attempting to relate the
change in performance in terms of fatigue cracking, longitudinal cracking, and transverse
cracking to the change in IRI. The trends vary significantly between the evaluated pavement
sections.
– This variation may result from construction and material factors, including mix design,
pavement layer structure, and climate.
– The pavement sections experienced varying levels of predicted fatigue and longitudinal
cracking. Thin overlays are not typically designed to reduce the amount of load-related
cracking on flexible pavements.
– Asphalt overlays used in preservation are often much thinner than a concrete pavement
slab. An improvement in terms of load-related cracking performance prediction may be
unreliable for thin overlay.
– Thermal cracking depends on climate; therefore, predicted performance in terms of trans-
verse cracking is difficult to directly relate to thin overlay treatment.
– It is questionable to draw direct conclusions from the rutting performance, because perma-
nent deformation (i.e., rutting) in asphalt pavements is attributed to gross vehicle weights
rather than dynamic loads.
• The results of the mechanistic-empirical performance prediction indicated that thin overlay
may not always improve pavement performance and such variations are associated with an
increase or decrease in dynamic loads and changes in the surface profile. This is a similar
observation to trends observed in the diamond grinding example. Figure A-21 shows the rela-
tionships between before and after IRI and DLI with the predicted long-term roughness. Such
relationships validate the mechanistic-empirical approach for relating AQC to performance.
A general trend can be seen in these figures that an increase in DIRI or DDLI demonstrates an
improvement in pavement performance in terms of IRI.
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
IRI (in/mi)
IRI (in/mi)
20 20
0 0
-50 0 50 100 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
-20 -20
-40 -40
-60 -60
IRI (in/mi) DLI (10-2 in)
(a) IRI (b) DLI
Figure A-21. Relationship between AQCs and 20-yr roughness performance.

Appendix A 129
• The relationships established between DIRI (IRI after overlay - IRI before overlay, similarly
with DLI) and predicted performance at the end of 20 years (in terms of IRI) were used to
determine the SLE for each overlay treatment. The SLE was estimated by subtracting the
before overlay “time-to-threshold” from after thin overlay “time-to-threshold” in years
in terms of IRI (threshold being the pretreatment IRI). This threshold was selected for
illustration. A negative SLE reflects poor performance after overlay treatment and sug-
gests that the pavement will reach a threshold sooner than the do-nothing alternative.
The relationships between DIRI and DDLI with SLE are shown in Figures A-22 and A-23,
respectively. These figures show that a relationship between a candidate AQC and expected
performance can be established and used to estimate rational pay adjustments based on
the expected SLE.

There is no single correct method for establishing specification limits. Furthermore, there is
a distinct difference between the limits of AQC and quality measures. The following steps were
adopted for establishing limits for AQC and quality measures:
1. Determine AQC-performance relationships. These relationships have been discussed in the
previous section. Both IRI and DLI can be used to predict the immediate effect of thin overlay
on surface roughness. Because IRI and DLI correlate well, IRI was selected as the primary AQC
for this example.
2. Set specification limits. A synthesis of current practice surveyed 22 states regarding localized
roughness provisions for IRI-based specifications (Merritt et al. 2015). Of these states, 16 use
an IRI range of 80 to 200 inch/mile for determining pay adjustments. An NCHRP study for
determining quality adjustment pay factors for pavements suggested 65 to 95 inch/mile as
an acceptable range of IRI for newly constructed pavements, with 65 inch/mile considered
to be superior ride quality that should provide an incentive (National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine 2012). The same study suggested 75 to 120 inch/mile as a level
of roughness that requires a corrective action. Based on these findings, the research team has
determined that a post-overlay treatment IRI of 90 inch/mile was deemed to provide adequate
60
Rutting SLE
IRI SLE
50
40
SLE (years)
30
20
10
0
-50 0 50 100
IRI (in/mi)
Figure A-22. DIRI vs. SLE.

60
Rutting SLE
IRI SLE
50
40
SLE (years)
30
20
10
0
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
DLI (10-2 in)
Figure A-23. DDLI vs. SLE.
smoothness. Therefore, a one-sided upper specification limit of 90 inch/mile was adopted and
used for evaluating quality measures, pay adjustments, and risks.
3. Decide on the quality measure. PWL is the recommended quality measure used in current
quality control in highway construction (Burati et al. 2003, National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine 2012).
4. Define AQL material. PWL is used as a quality measure in pavement construction practice.
quality measure due to thin overlay, i.e., DPWL (PWL after - PWL before treatment). The
procedure to obtain the DPWL value that could be used as AQL is described below.
the specification limits. The DPWL value that could be used as RQL can be obtained from the
example. A lot at RQL will receive a reduced pay factor corresponding to the level of quality;
a lot may be rejected if DPWL is at or below RQL.
Summary
• The AQC selected for development of thin overlay PRS is IRI.
• Given that the IRI as a measure of roughness should not have a negative consequence for
being “too smooth,” only an upper limit IRI of 90 inch/mile is selected to represent adequate
pavement smoothness.
• The DPWL value that can be used as an AQL can be obtained as shown in the example.
• The DPWL value that can be used as an RQL can be obtained as shown in the example.

The existing well-established standards for measuring and evaluating surface roughness are
recommended. Most highway agencies use lightweight profilers for measuring profile-based
specifications (Merritt et al. 2015). In comparison to high-speed mounted profilers, lightweight
profilers weigh significantly less and have a more manageable, lower operating speed which is
ideal for operating in constrained conditions and along shorter sections of pavement. Lightweight

Appendix A 131
profilers are limited in that most are set up to only measure a single wheel path and require at
least two carefully coordinated runs to obtain complete profile data for one lane.
The FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) field manual references
AASHTO PP 37-04 (now RO 43-13) and ASTM E-950 for procedures to collect IRI data (FHWA
2014). AASHTO RO 43-13 (Standard Practice for Quantifying Roughness of Pavements) details
the estimation of IRI with the use of a longitudinal profile index measured in accordance with
ASTM E-950 (Standard Test Method for Measuring the Longitudinal Profile of Traveled Sur-
faces with an Accelerometer Established Inertial Profiling Reference). In the HPMS, roughness
is reported in IRI units of either m/km or inch/mile. These standards should be consulted by
agencies and contractors to ensure appropriate procedures are followed when collecting rough-
ness data in the field.

measurement plan:
involved in the project must agree upon the duties of performing acceptance testing.
2. Determine the type of acceptance plan to be used. A variable acceptance plan is best suited
for measuring the magnitude of IRI. Construction and sampling variability can affect surface
smoothness. The variable acceptance plan can measure this variability and determine a qual-
ity measure based on statistical parameters.
3. Develop verification sampling and testing procedures. Verification sampling is a standard
procedure used to verify the accuracy of the acceptance test results. Chapter 4 provides guide-
lines for different sampling methods, but the decision on whether to use split or independent
sampling is unique to the goals of the agency. For this example, it is assumed that an agency
or a third party will measure the surface profile for the entire project length. However, the
speed and lateral and longitudinal reference points should match with the acceptance test-
ing. In practice, it is appropriate that the agency’s verification test methods are used solely for
verification and that acceptance methods proposed by the contractor must first be compared
to the results of agency verification testing.
4. Select the appropriate verification sampling frequency. The verification sampling fre-
quency of the agency should be approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the
contractor. In practice, verification testing frequency is decided for economic, rather than
statistical, reasons. This decision must be agreed upon by the agency and contractor and it is
assumed that the procedure is already established for the purposes of this example.
5. Determine lot size and sample size. The evaluation of pavement surface roughness involves the
longitudinal measurement of pavement profiles. Therefore, lots and sublots should logically be
defined as segmented lengths of a project. Based on a survey of highway practice, most agencies
report pavement segment lengths in 0.1-mile (500-ft) increments for IRI-based specifications
(Merritt et al. 2015). For this example, the LTPP pavement sections are only 500 ft long, which
can be defined as the lot size. A sample is defined as a segment with a shorter length within a lot.
Although the risks associated with sampling will depend on sample size, profile signal analysis
showed poor sensitivity to the DLI (which was designed to capture the dynamic load of
truck traffic) when profile segment lengths were less than 100 feet. Given that DLI is correlated
with IRI, a sublot length of 100 ft is selected. Thus, each of the pavement sections evaluated in
Table A-9 will be considered as a single lot from a larger project. Each lot will be subdivided into
sublots of approximately 100 ft, and the IRI of each sublot will be considered as a sample. This
results in the sample size of five for each pavement section. The statistical evaluations will be
based on these established lot and sample sizes.


As discussed in Chapter 5, the quality measure will be DPWL. Using the procedure outlined
above, the PWL before and after thin overlay of each lot was calculated. The quality measure
DPWL was developed to represent the measure of change in quality and is calculated using
Equation A-19.
∆PWL = PWL ( IRI After ) − PWL ( IRI Before ) (A-19)
toward or away from acceptable quality. A positive DPWL value indicates improvement in AQC
due to thin overlay; a negative value indicates a decline in quality. An example of the PWL calcu-
lation using the procedure outlined in the diamond grinding example is presented. Table A-10
summarizes DPWL values for different sections.
The PWL obtained from each “lot” was used to develop pay factors unique to the IRI. Based on
the AQC-performance relationships previously established, the PWL can be related to expected
performance in terms of SLE that can be used to develop a pay equation that relates PWL levels
to expected pay.

Pay adjustment factors are necessary for variable acceptance plans in developing PRS. For
reasons similar to those of the diamond grinding example, a variable acceptance plan is selected
for thin overlay because pavement lots can exhibit a wide range of IRI that cannot be rejected
solely on a pass/fail basis. Given a selected upper specification limit of 90 inch/mile for thin
overlay PRS, a sampled lot which is smoother (i.e., below 90 inch/mile) is not only acceptable
but exceeds the desired quality. Similarly, a measured roughness greater than 90 inch/mile may
still be feasible if the roughness level does not substantially exceed the target quality, but it would
not deserve full pay. Using the pay equation relationships, the relevant EP and the OC curves
were developed to assign pay factors to different levels of acceptable and rejectable quality while
minimizing the expected risks.
1. Predict pavement performance as a function of levels of quality. A relationship between PWL
and pavement performance was established and then substantiated by the IRI-performance
Table A-10. Summary of DPWL based

on IRI before and after thin overlay.
No. Section ID PWLbefore PWLafter PWL

1 16-B310 90.7 100.0 9.3
2 16-C310 100.0 100.0 0.0
3 53-A310 34.0 100.0 66.0
4 20-B310 0.0 100.0 100.0
5 4-C310 100.0 100.0 0.0
6 4-A310 100.0 100.0 0.0
7 32-B310 100.0 86.9 -13.1
8 49-A310 0.0 93.9 93.9
9 49-B310 0.0 45.0 45.0
10 17-B310 76.6 70.7 -6.0
11 53-C310 100.0 100.0 0.0
12 18-A310 25.8 30.4 4.5
13 20-A310 0.0 100.0 100.0
14 32-A310 100.0 100.0 0.0

Appendix A 133
relationships developed. Subsequently, these results were used to develop a relationship

between SLE due to thin overlay and DPWL. DPWL is the change in the PWL of a lot
after treatment, i.e. it is a change in the measure of quality of the selected AQC (IRI). In
developing models that relate DPWL and SLE, it was found that Sections 16-C310, 4-C310,
4-A310, 53-C310, and 32-A310 exhibited a significant improvement in life extension, but
had a DPWL equal to zero. Closer examination of these sections shows that the PWL before
treatment and after treatment were both 100%, indicating the pavement sections were
already within AQLs and did not necessarily require the treatment based on the previously
specified upper quality limit of 90 inches per mile. The inclusion of the SLE versus PWL
trends of these sections can result in incorrect conclusions, namely that a change in PWL of
zero can still result in some life extension. Therefore, these sections were not considered in
developing a pay adjustment curve to ensure that the payment accurately reflects the quality
of the lot.
Figure A-24 shows the relationship between predicted SLE based on roughness and DPWL
for all the pavement sections considered. As determined in the evaluation of the predicted
performance of thin overlay treatments before and after treatment, the performance mea-
sures of alligator, longitudinal, rutting and thermal cracking will not be used to develop pay
equations.
The results show a linear trend in SLE versus DPWL for IRI. This suggests that, if a thin
overlay treatment can smooth a large percentage of a lot (a pavement section) into acceptable
levels of roughness, the pavement should expect an improvement in expected performance.
These performance relationships can be used to justify a pay equation which relates quality
(DPWL) to expected pay.
2. Convert the expected performance into pay adjustment. The pay factors for varying life
extensions can be calculated by using Equation A-20 which corresponds to the estimated
change in quality ranging from DPWL = 0 to DPWL = 100, given that SLE is a function of
DPWL (see Figure A-24).
60
50
40
30
SLE (years)
y = 0.4417x
20 R² = 0.9273
10
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100
-10
PWL
Figure A-24. SLE versus quality measure DPWL.

C ( RD − RE )
PF = (A-20)
1 − RO
where
PF = pay adjustment factor for new pavement or overlay (same units as C)
C = present total cost of resurfacing, use C = 1 for PF
D = design life of pavement or initial overlay
E = expected life of pavement or overlay
O = expected life of successive overlays
R = (1 + INF)/(1+ INT)
The relationships were developed between pay factors and SLE for IRI as shown in Fig-
ure A-25. These expected pay (EP) curves were used to (1) refine the levels of acceptable and
rejectable quality, (2) develop OC curves to assess the associated a and b risk, and (3) ensure
that payment factors are awarded in accordance with the level of quality achieved. Table A-11
summarizes the calculated SLE and pay adjustment factors for predicted roughness.
nation of AQC limits, the AQL and RQL need to be established. For establishing AQL, the EP
curves must be evaluated such that the payment plan awards 100% pay at AQL while incentive
can be given if quality of work is above AQL. Table A-11 shows the pay factors generated from
the EP curves (see Figure A-25).
As seen in the table, the AQL may be chosen at approximately DPWL of 20.5 for IRI to
ensure a contractor is not awarded bonus pay for AQL work. For establishing RQL, the EP
curves can be used to determine the level of performance (in terms of life extension) that is
deemed unacceptable and should result in reduced pay. This decision is typically made to
meet the needs of the agency to ensure the pavement performs to established standards. For
instance, as seen in Table A-11, an agency may decide that a life extension of less than 2 years
is undesirable. Therefore, the RQL will be set at 5 DPWL, and any lot produced at a quality
300
PF from SLE
250
PF-PWL model
200
Pay adjustment (%)
150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
-50
PWL
Figure A-25. Predicted IRI EP model.

Appendix A 135
Table A-11. Summary of

pay factor for roughness.
SLE PF
PWL
(years) (%)
100 44 274
95 42 272
90 40 268
85 38 263
80 35 257
75 33 249
70 31 241
65 29 231
60 27 220
55 24 207
50 22 193
45 20 178
40 18 162
35 15 145
30 13 126
25 11 106
20.5
9 100
(AQL)
20 9 85
15 7 62
10 4 38
5
2 13
(RQL)
0 0 -13
level below that will receive no pay. Simultaneously, the agency is also deciding that any qual-
ity between AQL of 20.5 DPWL and RQL of 5 DPWL will be accepted, but will receive reduced
pay or a disincentive.
Table A-12 summarizes the finalized AQL and RQL for thin overlay based on performance
due to roughness. For samples of sizes 3, 5, 10, 20, and 30, the OC curves were developed to
assess the risk of receiving a payment that correctly corresponds to the level of quality sampled.
Figure A-26 shows these OC curves.
When evaluating the risks associated with receiving appropriate pay for predicted IRI, OC curves
can be examined. The level of quality produced by a contractor as indicated on the x-axis can be
matched with the OC curve with desired quality to evaluate the probability of receiving a pay
factor which corresponds to the desired quality. In the case of predicted IRI, recall the established
AQL of 20.5 DPWL. If a contractor produces AQL in the field, then the quality level of AQL must
be matched with the OC curve at AQL. Figure A-26 indicates that the pay adjustment plan with
Table A-12. Summary of

pay factor for IRI.
Quality1 Predicted IRI

AQL 20.5
AQLSLE (yrs) 9
AQLPF (%) 100
RQL 5
RQLSLE (yrs) 2
RQLPF (%) 13
1
Quality measure in units of ∆PWL

Figure A-26. Predicted roughness OC curves.
award pay factor greater than 1 has a probability of 50% that the contractor will receive pay greater
than 100% (pay for above AQL) half the time and receive pay less than 100% (pay for below AQL)
half the time. Given that several lots will be sampled for quality, this averages to 100% pay through-
out the project, which is characteristic of an unbiased and fair adjustment plan to both the agency
and the contractor. This also incentivizes the contractor to consistently aim for above AQL quality
to offset the probability of performing below AQL and receive bonus pay. The greater the sample
size, the higher the probability of receiving pay greater than 100% if the produced quality is above
AQL. Similarly, the probability of receiving pay greater is lower than 100% if the produced quality
is less than AQL. An agency can set the sample size based on their resources and balancing the risk.
Table A-13 summarizes the example PRS specifications for thin overlay.
Microsurfacing
The PRS guidelines presented in Chapter 5 were followed to develop an example for micro-
surfacing treatment in flexible pavements.

Microsurfacing treatment involves laying a mixture of crushed, well-graded aggregate, min-
eral filler, and latex-modified emulsified asphalt over the full width of a pavement. The treatment
Table A-13. Example PRS for thin

overlay treatment.
AQC(s) IRI (inch/mile)
Lot size 0.1 mile
Sample size 5
AQC threshold Upper specification limit = 90 inch/mile
Quality measure PWL = PWL(IRIBEFORE) - PWL(IRIAFTER)
Quality AQL = 20.5 PWL, RQL = 5 PWL
thresholds
Pay Equation PF (%) = -0.0252 PWL 2+5.39 PWL -13.15
AQL pay factor 1.0
RQL pay factor 0.13
PF(A) at AQL 50%

Appendix A 137
is applied on an existing pavement surface primarily to seal low-severity cracks and rutting and
to mitigate raveling and asphalt oxidation (Peshkin et al. 2011).

The material and construction variables that can be used as AQCs for microsurfacing include
• Emulsion type: application rate depends on the climatic conditions
• Aggregate type: depends on the aggregate source properties (e.g., sand equivalent, soundness,
abrasion resistance, and crushed particles)
• Fillers/additives: Portland cement or other fine materials are used as “mixing aids” to extend
mixing time, improve workability, and reduce curing time
• Aggregate application rates: high application rates may cause the mix to segregate and leave a
flushed or excessively smooth surface texture
• Surface texture: micro- and macro-textures.
The following are common performance measures addressed by microsurfacing:

• Surface friction
• Raveling which is caused by insufficient aggregate embedment, poor quality mix bond,
excessively thin application, premature opening to traffic, i.e., insufficient curing
• Delamination caused by improper preparation of the substrate before applying microsurfac-
ing, or caused if emulsion breaks too quickly.
Microsurfacing treatment can improve surface friction and address minor surface irregulari-
ties. Typically, the treatment is used to address surface friction problems on an existing asphalt
surface. Currently, laser scanners [e.g., circular track meter (CTM)] are being used in the field
to measure surface texture in terms of mean profile depth (MPD). Therefore, MPD was selected
as the AQC for developing PRS guidelines for microsurfacing applications. Although multiple
AQCs can be considered for PRS development, MPD was selected because it is an essential
component of macrotexture measurements and can be measured during construction by using
conventional high-speed laser measurement devices (Henry 2000).
3. Establish AQC-Performance Relationships

and Determine Performance Limits
An agency can develop an AQC-performance relationship if MPD can be related to friction
of pavement surface. For this example, a relationship between MPD and friction number (FN)
developed for microsurfacing treatment was used. The relationship is shown by Equation A-21
(Rajaei et al. 2014):
FN = 30.362 × LN (CTMMPD ) + 54.912 (A-21)
where
CTMMPD = mean profile depth measured using circular track meter
The CTM consists of a laser displacement sensor on an arm that rotates to measure MPD in
accordance with ASTM E2157 (Rajaei et al. 2014). The relationship was developed using the
results of several measured test sections, as illustrated in Figure A-27.
Given that field monitoring data were not available, a series of pavement sections with vary-
ing MPD deterioration rates over time were established, using typical MPD ranges identified in
Figure A-27. Table A-14 shows the simulated MPDs over time.

Figure A-27. Relationship of

texture and friction to CTM MPD
from field (Rajaei et al. 2014).
Equation 6-2 was used to estimate the friction number (FN) for given MPD values in Table A-14.
In this example, the desired after-treatment condition was assumed to be the deterioration of
MPD observed in Section 1 (maximum MPD of 1.5). An agency can set its own target for after-
treatment conditions based on its experience. The performance of each pavement section was
compared with the performance of Section 1 to evaluate the effect of the change in AQC (MPD)
due to microsurfacing. The change in FN was quantified using the SLE which is the difference
in time between before- and after-treatment states to an established threshold for FN. The SLE
can be determined by using Equation A-22.
SLE ( years ) = t MPD=1.5 − t MPD=n (A-22)
where
tMPD=1.5 = time-to-threshold for after treatment FN using initial MPD = 1.5
tMPD=n = time-to-threshold for before treatment FN using varying initial MPD
A survey of 11 state highway agencies showed that most specifications have a minimum FN
requirement ranging from 30 to 45 (Henry 2000). The FN threshold of 40 is used in this example
to estimate SLE. Figure A-28 shows the ranges of predicted FN over time.
Each pavement section (i.e., Sections 2 through 5) was compared with Section 1 to calculate
SLE. Figure A-29 shows an example SLE calculation.
Table A-14. Simulated MPD over time.

Age Section Section Section Section Section
(yrs) 1 2 3 4 5
0 1.50 1.25 1.15 1.00 0.85
1 1.39 1.16 1.06 0.92 0.77
2 1.28 1.06 0.97 0.83 0.69
3 1.17 0.97 0.88 0.75 0.62
4 1.06 0.87 0.79 0.67 0.54
5 0.94 0.78 0.71 0.58 0.46
6 0.83 0.68 0.62 0.50 0.38
7 0.72 0.59 0.53 0.42 0.31
8 0.61 0.49 0.44 0.33 0.23
9 0.50 0.40 0.35 0.25 0.15

Appendix A 139
Figure A-28. Predicted FN over time.
To translate the above AQC for measuring construction quality for a preservation treatment, a
change in the AQC before and after microsurfacing must be measured. Therefore, measuring the
magnitude of MPD before and after treatment can quantify the effectiveness of microsurfacing.
The formulation for DMPD is as follows:
∆ MPD = MPD(after ) − MPD(before ) (A-23)
where
DMPD = change in MPD due to treatment
MPD(after) = existing monitored MPD immediately after treatment
MPD(before) = existing monitored MPD before treatment
Equation A-23 shows that a positive or negative value of DMPD correlates with a positive or
negative effect of microsurfacing, i.e., an increase in MPD is desirable and vice versa. By measur-
ing the DMPD due to the treatment, the pavement section’s SLE corresponds to a change in the
AQC. A relationship between the change in the AQC and the SLE can be established as shown
in Figure A-30. A larger change in MPD results in greater improvement in pavement SLE. This
Figure A-29. Example SLE calculation based on

FN comparison for microsurfacing treatment.

Figure A-30. Performance-based relationship

between change in MPD and SLE.
relationship is established only as an example for illustration and not as a standard specification.
An agency can adopt this procedure using measured DMPD data to establish such relationships
to develop PRS guidelines for microsurfacing.

There is no single correct method for establishing specification limits. Furthermore, there is a
distinct difference between the limits of AQC and quality measures (PWL). The following steps
were used for establishing limits for AQC and quality measures:
1. Determine AQC-performance relationships. The relationships have been discussed previ-
ously. The results in Figure A-30 demonstrate a relationship can be developed between the
MPD (AQC) and SLE (based on FN).
2. Set specification limits. Different highway agencies have specifications with a minimum FN
requirement ranging from 30 to 45 (Henry 2000). Therefore, a one-sided lower performance
specification limit of 40 FN was adopted. All quality measures, pay adjustments, and risks will
be evaluated based on this assumption.
3. Decide on the quality measure. PWL is the recommended quality measure used in current
statistical quality control in highway construction (Burati et al. 2003, National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2012).
4. Define AQL material. PWL is used as a quality measure in pavement construction practice.
quality measure due to microsurfacing, i.e., DPWL (PWL after - PWL before treatment). The
procedure to obtain this DPWL value is described below.
the specification limits. The DPWL value that can be used as RQL is described below. A lot at
RQL will receive a reduced pay factor equivalent to that level of quality; a lot may be rejected
if DPWL is at or below RQL.
Summary
• The AQC selected for development of the microsurfacing example is MPD.
• A lower specification limit of 40 FN (corresponding to approximately 0.6 MPD) is used.
• The DPWL value that can be used as an AQL can be obtained as shown in the example.
• The DPWL value that can be used as an RQL can be obtained as shown in the example.

Appendix A 141

Established standards, such as ASTM E2157, can be used for measuring and evaluating surface
texture.

measurement plan:
involved in the project must agree on the duties of performing acceptance testing.
MPD and SLE show varying degrees of effectiveness in terms of life extension for different
levels of DMPD. The variable acceptance plan can be used to measure the change in quality
due to statistical variation of the MPD.
3. Develop verification sampling and testing procedures. Verification sampling is a standard
procedure used to verify the accuracy of the acceptance test results. Chapter 4 provides the
guidelines for different sampling methods, but the decision as to whether to use split or inde-
pendent sampling is unique to the goals of the agency. In practice, it is appropriate that the
agency’s verification test methods are used solely for verification and that acceptance methods
proposed by the contractor must first be compared to the results of agency verification testing.
of the agency should be approximately 10% of the acceptance sampling rate of the contractor.
In practice, verification testing frequency is decided for economic, rather than statistical, rea-
sons. Again, this decision must be agreed on by the agency and contractor, and it is assumed
that the procedure is already established for the purposes of this example.
5. Determine lot size and sample size. The evaluation of pavement surface texture requires the
pass of conventional surface texture measuring devices over pavement profiles. Therefore, lots
and sublots can be defined as segmented lengths of a project. Based on a survey of highway
practice, most agencies report pavement segment lengths in 0.1-mile (500 ft) increments for
roughness specifications (Merritt et al. 2015). For microsurfacing, a similar approach may be
followed by a highway agency.

The PWL of each lot was estimated before and after microsurfacing. The quality measure
DPWL was developed to represent the measure of change in quality and is calculated using
Equation A-24.
∆PWL = PWL ( MPDafter ) − PWL ( MPDbefore ) (A-24)
toward or away from acceptable quality. A positive DPWL value indicates an improvement in
AQC due to microsurfacing; a negative value indicates a decline in quality. Table A-15 summa-
rizes DPWL values calculated for a range of values of MPD within 16 simulated lots.
The SLE was calculated for each DMPD as shown in Table A-15. Using the relationship (between
DMPD and SLE) and the DPWL measurements, a relationship was developed between SLEs and
DPWL. This allows the prediction of pavement performance in terms of SLE as a function of
quality levels as shown in Figure A-31. The relationship shows that no change in quality would
result in no SLE.

Table A-15. Summary of simulated MPD before

and after microsurfacing.
MPDbefore PWLbefore MPDafter PWLafter MPD SLE PWL
0.3 19.1 1.5 100 1.3 12.5 80.9
0.3 22.5 1.5 100 1.2 11.8 77.5
0.3 26.1 1.5 100 1.2 11.2 73.9
0.4 30.1 1.5 100 1.1 10.5 69.9
0.4 34.3 1.5 100 1.1 9.9 65.7
0.5 38.7 1.5 100 1.0 9.2 61.3
0.5 43.2 1.5 100 1.0 8.6 56.8
0.6 47.8 1.5 100 0.9 8.0 52.2
0.6 52.5 1.5 100 0.9 7.4 47.5
0.7 57.1 1.5 100 0.8 6.9 42.9
0.7 61.6 1.5 100 0.8 6.3 38.4
0.8 66.0 1.5 100 0.7 5.8 34.0
0.8 70.2 1.5 100 0.7 5.2 29.8
0.9 74.1 1.5 100 0.6 4.7 25.9
0.9 77.8 1.5 100 0.6 4.2 22.2
1.0 81.1 1.5 100 0.5 3.8 18.9

expected risks to both the contractor and agency.
1. Predict pavement performance as a function of levels of quality. A relationship between

PWL and pavement performance in terms of life extension was established. Figure A-31
shows the performance in terms of quality.
2. Convert the expected performance into pay adjustment. The pay factor is calculated by
using Equation A-25, which corresponds to the estimated change in quality ranging from 0
to 100 DPWL because SLE is a function of DPWL (see Figure A-31). Figure A-32 shows the
relationship between DPWL and pay factor.
C ( RD − RE )
PF = (A-25)
1 − RO
16
14
y = -0.0004x2 + 0.1798x
12 R² = 1
10
SLE (years)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PWL
Figure A-31. Performance-based relationship

between PWL and SLE.

Appendix A 143
250
y = -0.0139x2 + 3.72x
200 R² = 0.9996
Pay adjustment (%)

150
100
50
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
PWL
Figure A-32. EP model based on predicted MPD

and associated FN.
where
PF = pay adjustment factor for treatment (same units as C)
D = design life of pavement or initial overlay
E = expected life of pavement or overlay
O = expected life of successive overlays
R = (1 + INF)/(1+ INT)
Equation A-26 can be used in the risk assessment to develop OC curves, assess the associ-
ated a and b risk, and determine the appropriate AQL and RQL levels necessary to award
payment factors.
PF ( % ) = − 0.014 × ( ∆ PWL2 ) + 3.72 × ( ∆PWL ) (A-26)
nation of AQC limits, the AQL and RQL need to be established. The key principle in any fair
payment plan is that a contractor should be awarded 100% pay for producing an AQL quality.
For adjustment of AQL, the EP curves must be evaluated such that the payment plan awards
100% pay at AQL while incentive can be given if quality of work is above AQL. Table A-16
shows the pay factors generated from Equation A-26. As seen in Table A-16, the AQL may be
chosen to be just above DPWL = 30 to ensure a contractor is not awarded bonus pay for AQL
work. For establishing RQL, the EP curves can be used to determine the level of performance
(in terms of life extension) that is deemed unacceptable and should result in reduced pay. This
decision is typically made to meet the needs of the agency to ensure the pavement performs
to established standards. For instance, in the EP curve shown in Table A-16, an agency may
decide that a life extension of less than 2 years is undesirable. Therefore, the RQL will be set
at DPWL = 10, and any lot produced at a quality level below that will receive no pay. Further,
the agency may also decide that any quality between an AQL of 30.3 and an RQL of 10 will be
accepted, but will receive a reduced pay or disincentive.
Table A-17 summarizes the finalized AQL and RQL for microsurfacing based on performance
due to friction number (FN). The OC curves were developed to assess the risk of receiving a

Table A-16. Summary
of EP curve for varying
microsurfacing quality
levels.
PWL SLE (yrs) PF%

0 0.0 0.04
5 0.9 19.30
10 (RQL) 1.8 37.51
15 2.6 54.66
20 3.4 70.85
25 4.2 86.13
30.3 (AQL) 5.0 100.00
35 5.8 114.17
40 6.5 127.03
45 7.3 139.18
50 8.0 150.65
55 8.7 161.49
60 9.3 171.72
65 10.0 181.39
70 10.6 190.51
75 11.2 199.13
80 11.8 207.26
85 12.4 214.94
90 12.9 222.17
95 13.5 229.00
100 14.0 235.42
payment that correctly corresponds to the level of quality sampled. Figure A-33 shows these
OC curves.
When evaluating the risks associated with receiving appropriate pay for the predicted change
in PWL, Figure A-33 can be examined. Figure A-33 shows the OC curves of desired quality
DPWL = 30.3 (i.e., AQL) for a sample size of 3, 5, 10, 20, and 30, respectively. The level of qual-
ity produced by a contractor as indicated on the x-axis must be matched with the OC curve
with desired quality to evaluate the probability of receiving a pay factor which corresponds to
a desired quality. In this case, recall the established AQL of DPWL = 30.3. If a contractor pro-
duces AQL quality in the field, then quality level must be matched with the OC curve at AQL.
Figure A-33 indicates that the pay adjustment plan will award a pay factor greater than 1 at a
probability of 50% for all lots sampled. This suggests that the contractor will receive pay greater
than 100% (pay for above AQL) half the time and receive pay less than 100% (pay for below
AQL) half the time. Given that several lots will be sampled for quality, this averages to 100% pay
throughout the project, which is characteristic of an unbiased and fair adjustment plan to both
Table A-17. Pay
factor summary for
microsurfacing.
Quality
Quality levels and
characteristics pay
adjustment
AQL ( PWL) 30.3
AQLSLE (years ) 5
AQLPF (%) 100
RQL ( PWL) 10
RQLSLE (years) 1.8
RQLPF (%) 37.51

Appendix A 145
1
n=3
0.9
1
5
Probability of receiving a pay factor

0.8 10
20
0.7
30
0.6
0.5
0.4 AQL = PWL of 30.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
100 80 60 40 30.3 20 0
PWL
Figure A-33. Predicted OC curves for microsurfacing.
Table A-18. Example PRS for microsurfacing.

AQC(s) MPD
Lot size 0.1 miles
Sample size Minimum 5
AQC threshold 0.6 MPD (translates to 40 FN)
Quality measure PWL
Quality thresholds AQL = 30.3 PWL, RQL = 10 PWL
Pay Equation PF (%) = -0.014( PWL 2) + 40.2 ( PWL)
AQL pay factor 1.0
RQL pay factor 0.375
P(PF>1) at AQL 50%
agency and contractor. This also incentivizes the contractor to consistently aim for above AQL
quality to offset the probability of defective construction and receive bonus pay. The greater
the sample size, the higher the probability of receiving pay greater than 100% if the produced
quality is above AQL. Similarly, the probability of receiving pay greater than 100% is lower if
the produced quality is less than AQL. Table A-18 summarizes the example PRS specifications
for microsurfacing.
References
AASHTO (2015) Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide: A Manual of Practice, 2nd Edition.
ARA, Inc. (2009) NCHRP Project 1-40B, Local Calibration Guidance for the Recommended Guide for Mechanistic-
Empirical Pavement Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Final NCHRP Report.
Burati, J. L., et al. (2003) Optimal Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications, FHWA, FHWA-RD-02-095.
Chatti, K., et al. (2009) The Effect of Michigan Multi-Axle Trucks on Pavement Distress, Michigan State University,
RC-1504.
Evans, L. D., et al. (1999) Materials and Procedures for Repair of Joint Seals in Portland Cement Concrete Pavements,
Manual of Practice, FHWA, FHWA-RD-99-146.
FHWA (1999) TechBrief: Resealing Concrete Pavement Joints, FHWA-RD-99-137.
FHWA (2000) “LTPP Manual for Falling Weight Deflectometer Measurements Operational Field Guidelines”
FHWA (2014) “Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual,” Office of Highway Policy Information,
OMB Control No. 2125-0028.
Hall, J. W., et al. (2009) NCHRP Report 634: Texturing of Concrete Pavements Transportation Research Board of
The National Academies, National Research Council, Washington, DC.

Henry, J. J. (2000) NCHRP Synthesis 291: Evaluation of Pavement Friction Characteristics, Transportation Research
Board of The National Academies, National Research Council, Washington, DC.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2012). NCHRP Research Results Digest 371: Quality-
Related Pay Adjustment Factors for Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://
doi.org/10.17226/22656
Merritt, D. K., et al. (2015) Best Practices for Achieving and Measuring Pavement Smoothness, A Synthesis of
State-of-Practice, FHWA/LA.14/550.
Peshkin, D., et al. (2011) Guidelines for the Preservation of High-Traffic Roadways, SHRP-S2-R26-RR-2.
Pierce, L. M., et al. (2003) Ten-Year Performance of Dowel-Bar Retrofit: Application, Performance, and Lessons
Learned, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1853, Transporta-
tion Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 83–91, https://doi.org/10.3141/1853-10
Rajaei, M., et al. (2014) Establishment of Relationship Between Pavement Surface Friction and Mixture Design
Properties, Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2457, Transporta-
tion Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC, pp. 114–120, https://doi.org/10.3141/2457-12
Smith, K. and A. Romine (1999) LTPP Pavement Maintenance Materials: SHRP Crack Treatment Experiment,
Final Report, ERES Consultants, Inc., FHWA, Turner Fairbank Hwy Research Center, FHWA-RD-99-143.

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications:

A4A Airlines for America
AAAE American Association of Airport Executives
AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America
ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
APTA American Public Transportation Association
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATA American Trucking Associations
CTAA Community Transportation Association of America
CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOE Department of Energy
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015)
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program
IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials
NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NTSB National Transportation Safety Board
PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users (2005)
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TDC Transit Development Corporation
TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998)
TRB Transportation Research Board
TSA Transportation Security Administration
U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
Washington, DC 20001
500 Fifth Street, NW
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
NON-PROFIT ORG.
ISBN 978-0-309-44661-7
COLUMBIA, MD
PERMIT NO. 88
U.S. POSTAGE
90000
PAID
9 780309 446617

Performance Pavement PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Performance Pavement PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS

This PDF is available at http://nap.edu/24945 SHARE

Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Preservation

158 pages | 8.5 x 11 | PAPERBACK

– Access to free PDF downloads of thousands of scientiﬁc reports

Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 857

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 857

Published research reports of the

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM

Transportation Research Board

and can be ordered through the Internet by going to

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP RESEARCH REPORT 857

NCHRP PROJECT 10-82A PANEL

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

4 Chapter 2 Process for Developing PRS Guidelines

17 Chapter 3 Current Practice

24 Chapter 4 Guidelines for Statistical Sampling

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

29 4.2 Estimating Sample Sizes

47 Chapter 5 Guidelines for Implementing PRS

94 Chapter 7 Summary, Findings, and Recommendations

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.2 Research Approach

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

1.3 Report Organization

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Process for Developing

2.2 Characteristics of Performance Specifications

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Process for Developing PRS Guidelines 5

2.3 Performance-Related Strategy

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

6 Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Preservation Treatments

6. Identify deficiencies in strategy,

Step 1: Identify User Needs and Goals

Step 2: Relate Needs and Goals to Performance Parameters

Step 3: Consider the Project Delivery Approach

Step 4: Determine the Appropriate Measurement Strategy

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Process for Developing PRS Guidelines 7

Figure 2-1. Process for developing a performance-based strategy

• Defining performance parameters and associated performance measures,

Each of these components must be determined through a detailed evaluation of candidate

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

8 Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Preservation Treatments

Step 5: Establish Incentive Strategies and Payment Mechanisms

Step 6: Identify Deficiencies in Strategy

Step 7: Identify and Evaluate Risks

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Process for Developing PRS Guidelines 9

Step 8: Develop the Specification

2.4 Guidelines for PRS Development

Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

10 Performance-Related Specifications for Pavement Preservation Treatments

Guidelines for PRS Development

94 Chapter 7 Summary, Findings, and Recommendations