Evaluation of The 1993 AASHTO Flexible Pavemen

PCA R&D Serial No.
2215
Evaluation of the 1993 AASHTO Flexible
Pavement Design Model Using the LTPP
Database
by Matthew J. Sheehan, Scott M. Tarr, and Paul A. Okamoto
Portland Cement Association 1999
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 REQUIRED INPUTS FOR THE 1993 AASHTO FLEXIBLE DESIGN
PROCEDURE.............................................................................................. 2
3.0 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS........................................................................................... 3
3.1 PRIMARY ANALYSIS GROUPS PAVEMENT TYPE.......................... 4
3.2 SECONDARY ANALYSIS GROUPS............................................................. 9
3.2.1 Climatic Region .................................................................................. 9
3.2.2 Asphalt Concrete Thickness.............................................................. 14
3.2.3 Structural Number............................................................................. 17
3.2.4 Traffic Level ....................................................................................... 21
3.2.5 Subgrade Type.................................................................................... 25
3.2.6 Subgrade Resilient Modulus ............................................................. 28
4.0 RELIABILITY LEVEL................................................................................................ 32
5.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS............................................................................... 32
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................... 35
7.0 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 36
APPENDIX A - DATA PREPARATION.......................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B - PLOTS OF PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL AND
CORRESPONDING RESIDUAL VERSUS ACTUAL........................... B-1
APPENDIX C - ANALYSIS STATISTICS ...................................................................... C-1
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Analysis Statistics for the Primary Analysis Groups Based on Pavement Type................ 5
Table 2 -Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections in Different Climatic Regions ............................... 11
Table 3 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-2 Sections in Different Climatic Regions .............................. 13
Table 4 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections for Different Asphalt Concrete Thickness
Categories................................................................................................................. 15
Categories................................................................................................................. 16
Table 6 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections for Different Structural Number Categories ........ 18
Table 7 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-2 Sections for Different Structural Number Categories ........ 19
Table 8 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections for Different Traffic Level Categories ................. 22
Table 9 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-2 Sections for Different Traffic Level Categories ................. 23
Table 10 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections for Different Subgrade Type Categories ............ 25
Table 14 - Summary of Mean Ratios of Predicted/Actual ESALs Using Backcasted Initial
Serviceabilities......................................................................................................... 34
Table A1 - Availability of IRI Data in the LTPP Database................................................... A-2
Table A2 - Typical Properties for LTPP Layer Materials ..................................................... A-6
Table A3 - Number of Sections Lost at Each Elimination Step............................................ A-8
Table C1 - All Sections (Primary Analysis Groups) - Summary Table of t-tests and
Predicted Versus Actual ................................................................................ C-1
Table C2 - Climatic Region - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual ........ C-2
Table C3 - Asphalt Concrete Thickness - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted
Versus Actual ................................................................................................ C-4
iii
Table C4 - Structural Number - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus
Actual ............................................................................................................ C-5
Table C5 - Traffic Level - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual ............. C-6
Table C6 - Subgrade Type - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus
Actual ............................................................................................................ C-7
Table C7 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted
Versus Actual ................................................................................................ C-8
Table C8 - Summary of t-test Results ("Yes" Indicates the Null Hypothesis was
Rejected)........................................................................................................ C-9
Table C9 - Summary of Standard Error Estimate (SEE); Standard Deviation of
Residuals ....................................................................................................... C-10
Table C10 - Summary of Ratio of Mean Predicted ESALs to Mean Actual ESALs ............ C-11
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 SectionsInitial
Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%................................................... 4
Figure 2 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 SectionsInitial
Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%................................................... 6
Figure 3 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Climatic Region for GPS-1 Sections
Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%.................................... 10
Figure 5 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Asphalt Concrete Thickness for
GPS-1 SectionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%........... 14
Figure 6 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Asphalt Concrete Thickness for
Figure 7 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Structural Number for GPS-1
SectionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%....................... 18
Figure 8 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Structural Number for GPS-2
SectionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%....................... 19
Figure 9 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Traffic Level for GPS-1 Sections
Figure 11 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Subgrade Type for GPS-1 Sections
Figure 13 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Subgrade Resilient Modulus for
Figure 14 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Subgrade Resilient Modulus for
Figure A1 - Change in PSI Versus Age for GPS-1 and GPS-2 LTPP Sections .................... A-3
v
Figure B1 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections
Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%.................................... B-1
Figure B2 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 SectionsInitial
Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%................................................... B-1
Figure B7 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections in
Dry-Freeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-4
Figure B8 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections in
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-4
Figure B9 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections
in Dry-Nonfreeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted,
Reliability Level = 50%.................................................................................................. B-5
Figure B10 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections
in Dry-Nonfreeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted,
Wet-Freeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-6
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-6
in Wet-Nonfreeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted,
vi
Wet-Nonfreeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-7
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-8
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-8
Dry-Nonfreeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-9
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-9
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-10
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-10
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-11
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-11
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-12
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-12
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-13
vii
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-13
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-14
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-14
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-15
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-15
Figure B31 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with
Asphalt Concrete Thicknesses < 5 in.Initial Serviceability = Backcasted,
Figure B32 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with
Asphalt Concrete Thicknesses >= 5 in.Initial Serviceability = Backcasted,
viii
with a Structural Number < 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted,
a Structural Number < 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-22
with a Structural Number >= 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-23
Figure B46 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with a
Structural Number >= 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-23
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-24
Structural Number < 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-24
a Structural Number >= 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-25
ix
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-25
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-26
Structural Number < 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-26
a Structural Number >= 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-27
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-27
Traffic Levels < 200 kESALs/yearInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-28
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-28
Traffic Levels >= 200 kESALs/yearInitial Serviceability = Backcasted,
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-30
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-30
x
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-32
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-32
Coarse Grained Subgrade SoilsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-34
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-34
Fine Grained Subgrade SoilsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-35
Figure B70 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Fine
Grained Subgrade SoilsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability
Level = 50%.................................................................................................................... B-35
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-36
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-36
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-37
xi
Level = 75%.................................................................................................................... B-37
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-38
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-38
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-39
Level = 90%.................................................................................................................... B-39
Subgrade Resilient Modulus < 10,000 psiInitial Serviceability = Backcasted,
Subgrade Resilient Modulus < 10,000 psi Initial Serviceability = Backcasted,
Subgrade Resilient Modulus >= 10,000 psiInitial Serviceability = Backcasted,
Subgrade Resilient Modulus >= 10,000 psi Initial Serviceability = Backcasted,
xii
1
EVALUATION OF THE 1993 AASHTO FLEXIBLE PAVEMENT
DESIGN MODEL USING THE LTPP DATABASE
by
Matthew J. Sheehan, Scott M. Tarr, and Paul A. Okamoto*
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the predictive capability of the 1993 AASHTO
flexible pavement design model with data obtained from the Long Term Pavement Performance
(LTPP) database. Specifically, the data used in this analysis comes from the following two
General Pavement Study (GPS) experiments:
GPS-1 Asphalt Concrete on Granular Base.
GPS-2 Asphalt Concrete on Bound Base.
The current LTPP database consists of 211 GPS-1 and 126 GPS-2 sections located throughout
the United States and Canada. A variety of information and data has been collected for each
section, including climatic, material properties, traffic loadings, profile, distress, and numerous
other types of data.
The 1993 AASHTO flexible design model was evaluated by comparing the predicted
cumulative 80 kN (18,000 lb) equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) for each test section using
the design model to the actual ESALs (estimated from LTPP traffic data) carried by the
section. The following procedure was used to accomplish this task.
1. Available pertinent data were obtained from the LTPP database.

2. The LTPP data were interpreted using the 1993 AASHTO guide (AASHTO, 1993a) in
order to determine many of the required design procedure inputs (e.g., layer drainage
coefficients, layer structural coefficients)).

* Assistant Engineer, Engineer, and Principal Engineer, respectively,
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., 5420 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, IL 60077
(847) 965-7500
2
3. Assumptions were made to determine some specific inputs required by the guide (e.g.,
overall standard deviation, reliability level, initial serviceability).

4. The predicted cumulative ESALs were calculated from an estimated initial serviceability
to the current serviceability for all LTPP sections using the 1993 AASHTO Flexible
Design Equation (AASHTO, 1993a).
The scope of this analysis involved looking at a number of subsets of this predicted versus actual
data. For both pavement types (GPS-1 and GPS-2), the effects of the following variables were
investigated:
Climatic Region
Asphalt Concrete Thickness
Structural Number
Traffic Level
Subgrade Type
Subgrade Resilient Modulus
In addition, the analyses were run at three different reliability levels (50, 75, and 90 percent) to
demonstrate the need to design at a level above 50 percent.
2.0 REQUIRED INPUTS FOR THE 1993 AASHTO FLEXIBLE DESIGN PROCEDURE
The following nine data elements are required to compute predicted ESALs for the 1993
AASHTO Flexible Design Procedure:
1. Layer Thicknesses (in)
2. Initial Serviceability, P1
3. Terminal (current) Serviceability, P2
4. Change in PSI (PSI = P1 - P2)
5. Reliability Level (%)
6. Overall Standard Deviation
7. Resilient Modulus (psi)
8. Structural Layer Coefficients, a
9. Layer Drainage Coefficients, m
3
Only one of the nine data elements were directly available in the LTPP databaseLayer
Thicknessesand even these data were not available for all sections. Other data elements
available in the LTPP database were used to estimate these required inputs for as many sections
as possible. Even after this effort, only 190 of 337 LTPP test sections (134 of 211 GPS-1 and 56
of 126 GPS-2) had enough available data to estimate both predicted and actual ESAL data.
The data set was further limited by the approach used for estimating the initial serviceability for
each section. The initial serviceability is a very sensitive input to the AASHTO model. Initial
serviceabilities were estimated by backcasting the initial IRI using the historical IRI versus time
series data. The IRI was then converted to initial serviceability using the relationship derived by
Al-Omari and Darter (Al-Omari and Darter 1992). The research team only had confidence in the
initial IRIs backcasted for those sections that were no more than 15 years of age. Therefore, the
data set was reduced to 97 of 337 LTPP test sections (64 of 211 GPS-1 and 33 of 126 GPS-2). A
detailed discussion of the required inputs for the 1993 AASHTO rigid design procedure, the
available LTPP data associated with each, the assumptions and procedures used to obtain the
required data elements, and the limitations of each data set are included in Appendix AData
Preparation.
3.0 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS
The 1993 AASHTO flexible pavement design model was evaluated by comparing the
predicted ESALs with the actual ESALs carried as previously stated. To obtain as much
knowledge as possible about the adequacy of this model, the overall LTPP database was
partitioned into groups of pavements having selected characteristics. For each group, the
predicted ESALs from the AASHTO model was compared with the actual ESALs carried by the
sections. Plots of predicted versus actual ESALs and residuals versus actual ESALs were
constructed, and paired t-tests and standard error of estimate statistical results were obtained.
A two tiered approach was used for the analyses. First, the LTPP pavement sections were
divided into primary analysis groups based on pavement type. Next, the pavement sections were
further divided within each pavement type into smaller secondary analysis groups. These
secondary groups include climatic region, asphalt layer thickness, structural number, traffic level,
subgrade type and subgrade resilient modulus. In addition, analyses were run on all of these
subgroups at three reliability levels to observe their effects. The results of both the primary and
4
secondary analyses are summarized independently below, and details are provided in Appendices
B and C.
3.1 PRIMARY ANALYSIS GROUPS PAVEMENT TYPE
As mentioned above, the LTPP pavement sections were first divided into primary analysis groups
based on pavement type. Two different pavement types were analyzed independently using the
LTPP dataGPS-1 and GPS-2 (unbound and bound bases, respectively). Plots of predicted
versus actual ESALs showing all of the data for both respective pavement types are presented in
Figure 1 (using backcasted initial serviceabilities and 50 percent reliability). The GPS-1 plot
indicates a large scatter of data with the majority of points centered just above the one-to-one
line, generally supporting a slight prediction bias. The GPS-2 plot shows a scatter of data with
the majority of the points centered on the one-to-one line, indicating no prediction bias in
general.
All GPS-1 Secti ons
(Rel iabil ity = 50%)
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
All GPS-2 Secti ons
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 1 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 SectionsInitial
Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
The paired t-test was used to evaluate these results for bias. The null hypothesis is that the mean
difference between predicted log ESAL and actual log ESAL is equal to zero, and the alternate
hypothesis is that it is not equal to zero (the model could over or under predict log ESAL). The
complete results of the analyses, based on pavement type, are presented in Table 1.
5
Table 1 - Analysis Statistics for the Primary Analysis Groups Based on Pavement Type
Pavement
Type
No. of
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate*
GPS-1 64 6.44 6.18 3.40 2.00 YES 1.83 0.62
GPS-2 33 6.16 6.17 -0.05 2.04 NO 0.99 0.52
* Standard deviation of the differences between predicted and actual log ESALs.
The results show for GPS-1 that the absolute value of the computed t (3.40) is greater than the
critical t (2.00) at the 0.05 level of significance; therefore, the results are significant enough to
reject the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level. For this case, the mean actual and predicted log
ESAL values are 1.5 million and 2.8 million, respectively. The mean ratio of predicted-to-actual
ESALs for all sections is calculated to be 1.83 for GPS-1 sections. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the AASHTO model predicts unbiasedly for the GPS-1 sections based on these data. The
statistical relationship between predicted and actual log ESALs supports that the AASHTO
flexible model over predicts the amount of traffic GPS-1 sections are capable of carrying.
The data indicated different results for the GPS-2 sections. The absolute value of the computed t
(0.05) is less than the critical t (2.04) at the 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the results are
not significant enough to reject the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level. For this case, the mean
actual and predicted log ESAL values are 1.5 million and 1.5 million, respectively. The ratio of
predicted-to-actual ESALs is calculated to be 0.99 for GPS-2 sections. Therefore, it can be said
that the AASHTO model predicts unbiasedly for these sections.
Residual plots of the difference between predicted log ESALs and actual log ESALs (residual)
versus actual log ESALs are shown in Figure 2. The only clear trend associated with the residual
plot of the GPS-1 sections is that the majority of the points are positive residuals. No other
trends are seen in the plot of the GPS-1 data indicating a biased prediction for this data set. The
GPS-2 residual data plot does not exhibit any systematic trends and the residuals are
approximately evenly distributed between positive and negative values. Therefore, the GPS-2
residual plot does not exhibit any trends indicating an unbiased prediction for this data set.
6
All GPS-1 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
All GPS-2 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Figure 2 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 SectionsInitial
The standard error of the estimate, or standard error of the differences between predicted log
ESAL and actual log ESAL was computed for each plot above. The results are as follows:
GPS-1: 0.62
GPS-2: 0.52
These values are higher than the overall standard deviation recommended in the AASHTO
Design guide, which for flexible pavements is 0.49. However, the standard error value for the
GPS-1 sections is more of a concern than the value for the GPS-2 sections. Therefore, the
relatively large scatter of data points on the previous GPS-1 plot of predicted log W versus
actual log W and the large standard error in prediction requires more explanation. A statistical
test was previously used to help determine if the mean difference between log W actual and log
W predicted was significantly different from zero, which is often referred to as bias. The
magnitude of variation in predicting log W for individual sections is often referred to as its
precision. Knowledge of this prediction error is important in pavement design for selecting the
standard deviation of performance and traffic prediction as used in the AASHTO Design Guide
reliability design.
7
There are at least four major components of variation associated with the overall scatter of points
about the one-to-one line between predicted and actual, and these need to be identified and
explained.
(1) Traffic Estimation. Perhaps the easiest component of variation to understand is that
associated with the so-called actual ESALs, which are accumulated historically from
the opening of a pavement section to traffic. The estimate of the historical actual
ESALs is dependent on many variables that are difficult to estimate over a multi-year
period, including volumes of each axle type and weight over the years, lane distribution
of trucks (proportion of trucks in each classification in the outer traffic lane), and
directional distribution of trucks (proportion of trucks traveling in each direction). The
error associated with estimating actual historical cumulative ESALs over many years of
the LTPP sections may be quite large as it exists today in the LTPP database. This error
may be reduced as increased monitoring data become available for these sections and the
historical and monitoring data can be compared and adjusted.
Components of variation associated with predicted ESALs from the prediction model include
the following:
(2) Errors associated with estimating each design input for each LTPP section. Some
potential errors associated with selected design inputs include:
Initial P1Initial serviceability values were calculated using a two step process.
First, initial IRI values were backcasted by fitting linear regressions through historical
IRI data. Second, a general relationship was used to convert to serviceability (Al-
Omari and Darter 1992).
Terminal (current) P2This value was estimated based on current IRI measurements,
and a general relationship was used to convert to serviceability (Al-Omari and Darter
1992).
(3) Random or normal variation between the performance of supposedly identical replicate
sections (analogous to the variation of strength between two replicate test specimens).
The causes of this random variation are not usually known (some are known in general
and include such items as variation caused by construction processes and materials
changes), but can be estimated from replicate section performance data. Note that LTPP
8
sections are only 500 feet long and do not necessarily represent longer projects due to
variations along a project.
(4) Inability of the model to predict actual pavement performance (serviceability, in this case)
due to deficiencies in the model. This is the real model associated error in prediction.
The relatively simple functional form of the model does not, of course, represent
adequately the real pavement behavior under load and climate over time.
Further analyses of these components of variation can be accomplished, but they are beyond the
scope of this report. The main conclusion is that even with errors in estimating actual ESALs,
inputs to the model, and random variation, there should be no surprise that the model error could
be large.
These variations are important because they all need to be considered in determining the overall
standard deviation for pavement design reliability using the new model. The model error is the
most important component of variation because it needs to be addressed through improved
modeling in the future.
Conclusions for analyses based on Pavement Type:
Over all climatic regions and designs, the 1993 AASHTO model appears to biasedly
predict the life of GPS-1 sections. The statistical evidence supports that on average the
AASHTO flexible model over predicts the amount of traffic GPS-1 sections are capable
of carrying.

Over all climatic regions and designs, the 1993 AASHTO model unbiasedly predicts the
life of GPS-2 sections.

The precision of prediction of the log ESALs is poor with a large standard error for GPS-
1 sections.

The precision of prediction of the log ESALs for GPS-2 sections appears reasonable; it is
only slightly higher than the value recommended by the 1993 AASHTO Guide for
flexible pavement design.
9
3.2 SECONDARY ANALYSIS GROUPS
As discussed previously, the pavement sections were further divided within each pavement type
into smaller secondary analysis groups. These secondary groups allowed the investigation of the
effects of many different pavement design and performance characteristics including climatic
region, asphalt concrete thickness, structural number, traffic level, subgrade type and subgrade
resilient modulus. The results from each secondary analysis group are discussed in the following
subsections.
3.2.1 Climatic Region
Four different climatic regions (dry-freeze, dry-nonfreeze, wet-freeze, and wet-nonfreeze) were
analyzed within both pavement types. Plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for these 8
different combinations of pavement type and climatic region are presented by pavement type in
Figures 3 and 4 (GPS-1 and GPS-2, respectively). The predicted ESALs in these figures were
calculated using the backcasted initial serviceability and a reliability level of 50 percent.
The GPS-1 wet-freeze and GPS-1 wet-nonfreeze data points tended to lie above the one-to-one
line indicating, in general, an over prediction bias for these regions. Data from the remaining
GPS-1 regions were centered on the one-to-one line, and the data from all GPS-2 regions were
centered on the one-to-one line. The over prediction bias for the two GPS-1 sections supports
that the AASHTO flexible design model is over predicting the amount of traffic that the sections
in these regions are capable of carrying.
The plots of the GPS-1 data in the wet-freeze climatic region and the GPS-2 data from the dry-
freeze region exhibited significant scatter with standard errors of 0.73 and 0.72, respectively. A
number of the standard error values are higher than the overall standard deviation recommended
in the AASHTO Design guide, which for flexible pavements is 0.49. The standard errors of three
of the four GPS-1 sections and two of the four GPS-2 sections exceed the value recommended by
the AASHTO Design guide.
Analysis statistics for the 8 different combinations of pavement type and climatic region are
presented by pavement type in Tables 2 and 3 (GPS-1 and GPS-2, respectively). Each table
contains paired t-test results, predicted and actual log ESALs, the calculated ratio of predicted to
actual ESALs, and the calculated standard error of the estimate.
10
GPS-1 Sections, Cl imatic Zone = Dry-Freeze
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, Cl imatic Zone = Wet-Freeze
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, Cl imatic Zone = Dry-Nonfreeze
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, Cl imatic Zone = Wet-Nonfreeze
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
The paired t-test results for the GPS-1 sections show that for the dry-freeze and dry-nonfreeze
climatic regions, the absolute value of the computed t is less than the critical t at the 0.05 level of
significance level. Therefore, the results are not significant enough to reject the null hypothesis
at the 0.05 level. The ratio of predicted-to-actual ESALs is calculated to be 1.35 and 0.70 for the
GPS-1 sections in the dry-freeze and dry-nonfreeze regions respectively. Therefore, it can be
said that the AASHTO model predicts unbiasedly for GPS-1 sections in these regions despite the
11
Table 2 -Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections in Different Climatic Regions
Climatic
Region
No. of
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
D-F 11 6.13 6.00 0.73 2.23 NO 1.35 0.59
D-NF 7 6.10 6.25 -0.65 2.45 NO 0.70 0.63
W-F 23 6.69 6.25 2.93 2.07 YES 2.78 0.73
W-NF 23 6.44 6.17 2.90 2.07 YES 1.87 0.45
average over and under predictions in the dry-freeze and dry-nonfreeze regions, respectively.
The same cannot be said for GPS-1 sections in the wet-freeze and wet-nonfreeze regions. The
paired t-test results indicate that the null hypothesis is rejected for the sections in these regions.
The AASHTO model appears to over predict allowable traffic for the GPS-1 LTPP sections in
the wet-freeze and wet-nonfreeze regions by a ratio of 2.78 and 1.87, respectively. The GPS-1
wet-freeze predicted and actual traffic values were 4.9 million and 1.8 million, respectively. The
GPS-1 wet-nonfreeze predicted and actual traffic values were 2.8 million and 1.5 million,
respectively.
The paired t-test results for GPS-2 sections show that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected for
any of the regions examined (all are based on a 0.05 level of significance). Therefore, based on
the LTPP data it can be said that the AASHTO Design model predicts unbiasedly for these
sections. The average predicted to average actual ESALs ratio for these sections ranges from
0.86 to 1.52.
versus actual log ESALs were prepared for the 8 different combinations of pavement type and
climatic region and are included in Appendix B. The GPS-1 plots show vertical shifts of the data
representing the slight over predictions for the wet-freeze and wet-nonfreeze climatic regions (as
discussed above); however, no other trends were observed. The remaining GPS-1 and GPS-2
plots do not appear to exhibit additional trends.
12
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
The standard error of the estimate, or standard error of the difference between predicted log
ESAL and actual log ESAL was computed for each data set (resulting from the combination of
pavement type and climatic region) and included in Tables 2 and 3. Again these values are quite
high as compared to the overall standard deviation recommended in the AASHTO Design Guide,
which for flexible pavements is 0.49. The highest observed values came from the GPS-1 wet-
freeze region (0.73) and the GPS-2 dry-freeze region (0.72).
13
Table 3 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-2 Sections in Different Climatic Regions
Climatic
Region
No. of
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
D-F 7 5.96 5.87 0.32 2.45 NO 1.22 0.72
D-NF 2 7.47 7.29 1.02 12.71 NO 1.52 0.25
W-F 6 6.68 6.67 0.06 2.57 NO 1.02 0.45
W-NF 18 5.93 5.99 -0.55 2.11 NO 0.86 0.51
Conclusions for analyses based on Climatic Region:
The LTPP data indicates a biased AASHTO flexible model prediction for the GPS-1 wet-
freeze and wet-nonfreeze regions.

A significant over prediction of allowable traffic was observed for the GPS-1 wet-freeze
and wet-nonfreeze regions.

The LTPP data indicates an unbiased prediction for the GPS-1 dry-freeze and dry-
nonfreeze regions.

The precision of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-1 dry-freeze, dry-nonfreeze and
wet-freeze regions exceeded the AASHTO flexible design recommended value for
standard deviation.

The precision of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-2 dry-freeze and wet-nonfreeze
regions exceeded the AASHTO flexible design recommended value for standard
deviation.
14
3.2.2 Asphalt Concrete Thickness
The effects of asphalt layer thickness were analyzed within each of the LTPP pavement types by
dividing each of the primary data sets into categories of thinner (< 5-inch) and thicker (>= 5-
inch) pavements. Plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for the 4 different combinations of
pavement type and asphalt layer thickness are presented in Figures 5 and 6 (GPS-1 and GPS-2,
respectively). Analysis statistics for the 4 different combinations are presented by pavement type
in corresponding Tables 4 and 5. The predicted ESALs for these analyses were calculated using
the backcasted initial serviceability and a reliability level of 50 percent.
GPS-1 Sections, AC Thi ckness < 5 i n.
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, AC Thi ckness >= 5 i n.
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 5 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Asphalt Concrete Thickness for GPS-1
SectionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
The plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for both pavement types show a fairly large scatter of
data. The thinner sections for both pavement types show a tendency to be centered on the one-to-
one line indicating no prediction bias. However, the majority of the thicker sections for GPS-1
sections have a tendency to lie slightly above the one-to-one line indicating a slight over
prediction for those sections. The thicker GPS-2 sections on average appear to lie below the one-
to-one line indicating a slight under prediction relative to the LTPP data.
15
Categories
AC
Thickness
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
<5 in. 32 6.11 6.06 0.43 2.04 NO 1.12 0.63
>=5 in. 31 6.71 6.28 5.01 2.04 YES 2.70 0.48
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 6 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Asphalt Concrete Thickness for GPS-2
The paired t-test results for GPS-1 sections indicate that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at
the 0.05 significance level for sections with asphalt thickness less than 5 inches. However, the
paired t-test results for GPS-1 sections indicate that the null hypothesis should be rejected at the
0.05 significance level for sections with asphalt thickness equal to or greater than 5 inches. The
model over predicts ESALs for thinner and thicker GPS-1 pavements by a ratio of 1.12 and 2.70,
respectively. Therefore, the LTPP data supports that the AASHTO model predicts unbiasedly for
GPS-1 sections with thicknesses less than 5 inches. However, the data indicates that the
16
Categories
AC
Thickness
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
<5 in. 18 6.33 6.11 2.02 2.11 NO 1.64 0.45
>=5 in. 15 5.97 6.24 -2.15 2.14 YES 0.54 0.49
AASHTO flexible model provides a biased estimate of allowable ESALs for GPS-1 sections
with asphalt layers greater than or equal to 5 inches.
the 0.05 significance level for sections with asphalt thickness less than 5 inches. However, the
paired t-test results for GPS-2 sections support that the null hypothesis should be rejected at the
0.05 significance level for sections with asphalt thickness greater than or equal to 5 inches. The
model over predicts ESALs for thinner GPS-2 pavements by a ratio of 1.64 and under predicts
ESALs for thicker GPS-2 sections by a ratio of 0.54. Therefore, the LTPP data supports that the
AASHTO model predicts unbiasedly for GPS-2 sections with thicknesses less than 5 inches.
However, the data indicates that the AASHTO flexible model provides a biased estimate of
allowable ESALs for GPS-2 sections with asphalt layers greater than or equal to 5 inches.
versus actual log ESALs were constructed for the 4 different combinations of pavement type and
slab thickness category and are included in Appendix B. The plots for the GPS-1 and GPS-2
sections with asphalt thicknesses greater than or equal to 5 inches support a model prediction
bias; the majority of the GPS-1 section residual plot data points lie above the zero residual line,
and the majority of the GPS-2 section residual plot data points lie below the zero residual line.
However, the residual plots do not show any systematic trends.
pavement type and slab thickness category) and included in Tables 4 and 5. The value for the
17
GPS-1 sections thinner than 5 inches was 0.63. However, the standard error values for the GPS-
1 sections with asphalt thickness greater than or equal to 5 inches and both GPS-2 asphalt
thickness categories were less than the overall standard deviation recommended in the AASHTO
Design guide, which for flexible pavements is 0.49.
Conclusions for analyses based on Asphalt Concrete Thickness:
The LTPP data supports that the AASHTO flexible model provides an unbiased
prediction for log ESALs for GPS-1 and GPS-2 sections with thicknesses less than 5
inches.

The model predicts unbiasedly, however, it tends to over predict more for both the GPS-1
and GPS-2 sections in the thinner category (< 5 in.).
The LTPP data indicates that the AASHTO flexible model provides a biased prediction
over predicting allowable log ESALs for GPS-1 sections with thicknesses greater than or
equal to 5 inches.

under predicting allowable log ESALs for GPS-2 sections with thicknesses greater than
or equal to 5 inches.

The precision of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-1 thinner sections (< 5 in.)
exceeded the AASHTO recommended value for standard deviation.

The precision, or standard error of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-2 thinner
sections (< 5 in.) and the GPS-1 and GPS-2 thicker sections (>= 5 in.) did not exceed the
AASHTO recommended value for standard deviation.
3.2.3 Structural Number
The effects of pavement structural capacity were analyzed within each of the LTPP pavement
types by dividing each of the primary data sets into categories of lower (< 4) and higher (>= 4)
structural numbers. Plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for these 4 different combinations of
pavement type and structural numbers are presented in Figures 7 and 8 (GPS-1 and GPS-2,
18
respectively). Analysis statistics for the 4 different combinations are presented by pavement type
in corresponding Tables 6 and 7. The predicted ESALs for these analyses were calculated using
the backcasted initial serviceability and a reliability level of 50 percent.
GPS-1 Sections, Structural Number < 4
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, Structural Number >= 4
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 7 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Structural Number for GPS-1 Sections
Table 6 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections for Different Structural Number Categories
Structural
Number
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
< 4 27 6.06 5.96 1.22 2.06 NO 1.25 0.42
>= 4 37 6.72 6.33 3.26 2.03 YES 2.42 0.72
The plot of predicted versus actual ESALs for GPS-1 pavement types with a higher structural
number (<= 4) exhibits the largest scatter of data. The sections with a lower structural number (<
4) for both GPS-1 and GPS-2 pavement types tend to be centered on the one-to-one line
19
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 8 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Structural Number for GPS-2 Sections
Table 7 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-2 Sections for Different Structural Number Categories
Structural
Number
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
< 4 19 5.83 6.00 -1.60 2.10 NO 0.68 0.46
>= 4 14 6.62 6.40 1.50 2.16 NO 1.65 0.54
indicating no prediction bias. The GPS-2 sections with a higher structural number (>= 4) also
tend to be centered on the one-to-one line. However, the majority of the GPS-1 sections with a
higher structural number (>= 4) have a tendency to lie slightly above the one-to-one line
indicating a slight over prediction for those sections.
The paired t-test results for GPS-1 sections in the lower structural number (<4) category show
that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at the 0.05 significance level for both slab thickness
categories. Therefore, it can be said that the AASHTO flexible design model predicts allowable
20
traffic without bias, but the model over predicts ESALs for GPS-1 sections with lower structural
numbers by a ratio of 1.25.
The paired t-test results for GPS-1 sections in the higher structural number (>= 4) category
support that the null hypothesis should be rejected at the 0.05 significance. Therefore, the LTPP
data indicates that the AASHTO flexible design model provides a biased prediction of allowable
traffic The model over predicts ESALs for the GPS-1 sections with higher structural numbers by
a ratio of 2.42; the predicted and actual allowable traffic for these sections is 5.3 million and 2.1
million ESALs, respectively.
The paired t-test results for both of the GPS-2 section categories support that the null hypothesis
cannot be rejected at the 0.05 significance level. The model under predicts ESALs for GPS-2
pavements with a lower structural number (< 4) by a ratio of 0.68 and over predicts GPS-1
sections with a higher structural number (>= 4) by a ratio of 1.65. Therefore, it can be said that
the model predicts without bias for GPS-2 sections in both structural number categories.
structural number category and are included in Appendix B. The GPS-1 plot for sections with
higher structural numbers (>= 4) shows that the majority of points lie above the zero residual
line, which is consistent with the prediction bias determined from the paired t-test results.
However , plot does not show any additional systematic trends. The GPS-1 plot for sections with
a lower structural number (< 4) and the GPS-2 plots for both structural number categories do not
exhibit any clear trends indicating an unbiased prediction for these data sets.
pavement type and structural number category) and included in Tables 6 and 7. The values for
the lower structural number category (< 4) for both the GPS-1 and GPS-2 pavement sections
were below the overall standard deviation recommended in the AASHTO Design guide (0.49).
However, the values for the higher structural number category (>= 4) for both the GPS-1 and
GPS-2 pavement sections exceed the overall standard deviation recommended in the AASHTO
Design guide. The highest observed value was 0.72 for GPS-1 sections with higher structural
numbers (>= 4).
21
Conclusions for analyses based on Structural Number:
The LTPP data supports that the AASHTO flexible model provides an unbiased
prediction for log ESALs for GPS-1 sections with lower structural numbers (< 4).

for GPS-1 sections with higher structural numbers (>= 4).

The model tends to over predict more for both structural number categories of the GPS-1
pavement sections.

The LTPP data indicates that the AASHTO flexible model provides an unbiased
prediction for GPS-2 sections in both structural number categories.

The precision, or standard error of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-1 and GPS-2
sections with higher structural numbers (>= 4) exceeded the AASHTO recommended
value for standard deviation.

The precision, or standard error of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-1 and GPS-2
pavement sections with lower structural numbers (< 4) did not exceed the AASHTO
recommended value for standard deviation.
3.2.4 Traffic Level
The effects of traffic level were analyzed within each of the LTPP pavement types by dividing
the primary data sets into categories of low traffic (< 200 kESALs/year) and high traffic (>= 200
kESALs/year) pavements. Plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for these 4 different
combinations of pavement type and traffic level are presented in Figures 9 and 10 (GPS-1 and
GPS-2, respectively). Analysis statistics for the 4 different combinations are presented by
pavement type in corresponding Tables 8 and 9. The predicted ESALs for these analyses were
calculated using the backcasted initial serviceability and a reliability level of 50 percent.
The plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for the GPS-1 pavement types show a large scatter of
data. The model shows a general over prediction of allowable ESALs for GPS-1 sections in both
traffic categories as the data points mostly lie above the one-to-one line. The GPS-2 section data
22
GPS-1 Sections, Traffi c < 200 kESALs/year
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, Traffi c >= 200 kESALs/year
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 9 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Traffic Level for GPS-1 SectionsInitial
Table 8 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections for Different Traffic Level Categories
Traffic
Level
(kESALs/yr)
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
< 200 45 6.15 5.97 2.13 2.02 YES 1.52 0.57
>= 200 19 7.14 6.68 2.84 2.10 YES 2.84 0.70
for both traffic categories appear to be centered on the one-to-one line indicating no prediction
bias. In addition, the LTPP data from the GPS-2 sections appear to exhibit less scatter.
The paired t-test results for GPS-1 sections show that the null hypothesis should be rejected at
the 0.05 significance level for both traffic level categories. The model over predicts ESALs for
GPS-1 pavements with low traffic (< 200 kESALs/year) by a ratio of 1.52 and over predicts
23
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Table 9 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-2 Sections for Different Traffic Level Categories
Traffic
Level
(kESALs/yr)
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
< 200 22 5.84 5.83 0.12 2.08 NO 1.03 0.47
>= 200 11 6.80 6.84 -0.19 2.23 NO 0.92 0.63
ESALs for GPS-1 pavements with high traffic (>= 200 kESALs/year) by a ratio of 2.84.
Therefore, the paired t-test results support that the model provides a biased prediction for the
GPS-1 sections in both traffic level categories.
The paired t-test results for GPS-2 sections show that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected at
the 0.05 significance level for either of the traffic level categories. The model slightly over
predicts ESALs for GPS-2 pavements with low traffic (< 200 kESALs/year) by a ratio of 1.03
and under predicts ESALs for GPS-2 pavements with high traffic (>= 200 kESALs/year) by a
24
ratio of 0.92. Therefore, the paired t-test results support that the model predicts without bias for
GPS-2 sections in both traffic level categories.
traffic level category and are included in Appendix B. The GPS-1 plots do not show any clear
trends beyond the vertical shift of the data points representing the over predictions discussed
above. The GPS-2 plots do not show any clear or systematic trends of the data points indicating
a biased prediction.
pavement type and traffic category) and included in Tables 8 and 9. These values for both of the
GPS-1 categories are high compared to the overall standard deviation recommended in the
AASHTO Design guide, which for flexible pavements is 0.49. The only data set exhibiting a
standard error less than the AASHTO recommended overall standard deviation are the GPS-2
sections with low traffic (< 200 kESALs/year).
Conclusions for analyses based on Traffic Level:
The LTPP data supports that the AASHTO model provides a biased prediction for GPS-1
sections regardless of traffic level category (< 200 kESALs/year or >= 200 kESALs/year).

The model tends to over predict for both traffic categories of the GPS-1 pavement
sections.

The LTPP data supports that the AASHTO model provides an unbiased prediction for
GPS-2 sections regardless of traffic level category (< 200 kESALs/year or >= 200
kESALs/year).

The precision, or standard error of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-2 sections
with low traffic (< 200 kESALs/year) did not exceed the AASHTO recommended value
for standard deviation; the standard errors for the remaining GPS-1 and GPS-2 section
categories exceeded the AASHTO recommended value.

3.2.5 Subgrade Type
25
The effects of subgrade type were analyzed within both of the LTPP pavement types by dividing
each of the primary data sets into categories of pavements with coarse and fine grained subgrade
soil. Plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for these 4 different combinations of pavement type
and subgrade type are presented in Figures 11 and 12 (GPS-1 and GPS-2, respectively). Analysis
statistics for the 4 different combinations are presented by pavement type in corresponding
Tables 10 and 11. The predicted ESALs for these analyses were calculated using the backcasted
initial serviceability and a reliability level of 50 percent.
GPS-1 Sections, Subgrade = Coarse
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, Subgrade = Fi ne
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Table 10 - Analysis Statistics for GPS-1 Sections for Different Subgrade Type Categories
Subgrade
Type
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
Coarse 33 6.40 6.17 1.96 2.04 NO 1.67 0.66
Fine 31 6.49 6.18 2.89 2.04 YES 2.02 0.59
26
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Subgrade
Type
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
Coarse 10 5.84 5.98 -0.91 2.26 NO 0.73 0.48
Fine 23 6.30 6.25 0.47 2.07 NO 1.13 0.54
The plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for the GPS-1 pavement types show a large scatter of
data. The GPS-1 sections also appear to slightly above the one-to-one line indicating an over
prediction bias in general for those sections. The GPS-2 sections tend to be centered on the one-
to-one line indicating no prediction bias for those sections.
the 0.05 significance level for the coarse subgrade type category. However, the paired t-test
results for GPS-1 sections show that the null hypothesis should be rejected at the 0.05
27
significance level for fine subgrade types. The model over predicts ESALs for GPS-1 pavements
with coarse and fine grained subgrade soils by a ratio of 1.67 and 2.02, respectively. Therefore,
the LTPP data supports that the model predicts allowable traffic without bias for GPS-1 sections
over coarse subgrade types, but it provides biased predictions for GPS-1 pavements on fine
subgrade types.
the 0.05 significance level for both subgrade type categories. The model under predicts ESALs
for GPS-2 pavements with coarse grained subgrade soils by a ratio of 0.73 and over predicts
GPS-2 pavements with fine grained subgrade soils by a ratio of 1.13. Therefore, the LTPP data
supports that the model predicts without bias for GPS-2 pavements in both subgrade type
categories.
subgrade type category and are included in Appendix B. The GPS-1 plots do not show any clear
pavement type and subgrade category) and included in Tables 10 and 11. These values for both
of the GPS-1 categories are high compared to the overall standard deviation recommended in the
AASHTO Design guide, which for flexible pavements is 0.49. The only data set exhibiting a
standard error less than the AASHTO recommended overall standard deviation are the GPS-2
sections with coarse subgrade types.
Conclusions for analyses based on Subgrade Type:
The LTPP data indicates that the AASHTO model provides a biased prediction for GPS-1
sections with fine grained subgrade soils.

GPS-1 sections with coarse grained subgrade soils.

28
The model tends to over predict for both subgrade soil categories of the GPS-1 pavement
sections.

GPS-2 sections regardless of subgrade soil category (coarse grained or fine grained).

The precision, or standard error of the prediction of log ESALs for the GPS-2 sections
with coarse grained subgrade soils did not exceed the AASHTO recommended value for
standard deviation; the standard errors for the remaining GPS-1 and GPS-2 section
categories exceeded the AASHTO recommended value.

The standard error was observed to be generally larger for GPS-1 sections than for GPS-2
sections (regardless of subgrade type category).
3.2.6 Subgrade Resilient Modulus
The effects of subgrade resilient modulus were analyzed within both of the LTPP pavement types
by dividing each of the primary data sets into categories of pavements with low (< 10,000 psi)
and high (>= 10,000 psi) subgrade moduli. Plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for these 4
different combinations of pavement type and subgrade moduli are presented in Figures 13 and 14
(GPS-1 and GPS-2, respectively). Analysis statistics for the 4 different combinations are
presented by pavement type in corresponding Tables 12 and 13. The predicted ESALs for these
analyses were calculated using the backcasted initial serviceability and a reliability level of 50
percent.
The plots of predicted versus actual ESALs for both pavement types show a large scatter of data.
The GPS-1 sections for the low subgrade moduli (< 10,000 psi) category tend to be centered on
the one-to-one line indicating no prediction bias for those sections. However, the GPS-1 sections
for the high subgrade moduli (>= 10,000 psi) category tend to lie slightly above the one-to-one
line indicating an over prediction bias in general for those sections. The GPS-2 sections appear
to be centered on the one-to-one line indicating no prediction bias for either of the subgrade
moduli categories.
29
GPS-1 Sections, Subgrade Mr < 10,000 psi
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
GPS-1 Sections, Subgrade Mr >= 10,000 psi
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 13 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Subgrade Resilient Modulus for GPS-1
Subgrade
Resilient
Modulus
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
<10,000 38 6.19 6.10 0.85 2.03 NO 1.23 0.66
>=10,000 26 6.81 6.29 5.63 2.06 YES 3.28 0.47
the 0.05 significance level for the low resilient modulus (< 10,000 psi) category. However, the
paired t-test results for GPS-1 sections show that the null hypothesis should be rejected at the
0.05 significance level for the high resilient modulus (>= 10,000 psi) category. The model over
predicts ESALs for GPS-1 pavements with lower and higher resilient moduli by a ratio of 1.23
and 3.28, respectively. Therefore, the LTPP data supports that the model predicts allowable
30
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure 14 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots by Subgrade Resilient Modulus for GPS-2
Subgrade
Resilient
Modulus
No.
Sections
Pred.
Log
ESALs
Actual
Log
ESALs t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
Reject Null
Hypothesis?
Ratio of
Pred. to
Actual
ESALs
Standard
Error of
the
Estimate
<10,000 20 5.90 6.08 -1.57 2.09 NO 0.67 0.50
>=10,000 13 6.57 6.31 2.09 2.18 NO 1.82 0.45
traffic without bias for GPS-1 sections with lower subgrade moduli (< 10,000 psi), but it
provides biased predictions for GPS-1 pavements with higher subgrade moduli (>= 10,000 psi).
the 0.05 significance level for either subgrade modulus category. The model under predicts
ESALs for GPS-2 pavements with lower subgrade moduli (< 10,000 psi) by a ratio of 0.67 and
over predicts GPS-2 pavements with higher subgrade moduli (>= 10,000 psi) by a ratio of 1.82.
Therefore, the LTPP data supports that the model predicts without bias for GPS-2 pavements in
both subgrade modulus categories.
31
subgrade type category and are included in Appendix B. The GPS-1 plots do not show any clear
pavement type and resilient modulus category) and included in Tables 12 and 13. These values
for the GPS-1 and GPS-2 low resilient modulus (< 10,000 psi) categories are higher than the
overall standard deviation recommended in the AASHTO Design guide, which for flexible
pavements is 0.49. The standard error values for the GPS-1 and GPS-2 sections with higher
resilient moduli (>= 10,000 psi) did not exceed the standard deviation value recommended by
AASHTO.
Conclusions for analyses based on Subgrade Resilient Modulus:
GPS-1 sections with lower subgrade moduli (< 10,000 psi).

The LTPP data indicates that the AASHTO model provides a biased prediction for GPS-1
sections with higher subgrade moduli (>= 10,000 psi).

The model tends to over predict for both subgrade modulus categories of the GPS-1
pavement sections.

The model shows unbiased prediction for GPS-2 sections regardless of subgrade resilient
modulus category.

The precision, or standard error of the prediction of log ESALs for both pavement types
(GPS-1 and GPS-2) in the lower subgrade modulus (< 10,000 psi) category exceed the
AASHTO recommended value for standard deviation; the standard errors for both
pavement types in the higher resilient modulus (>= 10,000 psi) category did not exceed
the AASHTO recommended value.

32
4.0 RELIABILITY LEVEL
Each of the individual investigations was performed at three different reliability levels50, 75,
and 90 percent. The results presented previous sections have been those at the 50 percent
reliability level. An increase in reliability level causes model predictions to become more
conservative. This is seen as a straight downward translation of the data in the many predicted
versus actual plots.
The magnitude of this translation can be expressed as a constant percentage of predictions at the
50 percent level. This can best be explained by looking a the calculated ratios of predicted to
actual ESALs. At 75 percent reliability, the ratio of predicted to actual ESALs for a data set will
be 0.55 times the ratio calculated at the 50 percent reliability level. Likewise, at 90 percent
reliability, the ratio of predicted to actual ESALs for a data set will be 0.32 times the ratio
calculated at the 50 percent reliability level.
For example, the ratio of predicted to actual ESALs for all GPS-1 sections was calculated to be
1.83 at the 50 percent reliability level. Therefore, the ratio of predicted to actual ESALs for all
GPS-2 sections would be 0.55 * 1.83 = 1.01 at the 75 percent reliability level, and 0.32 * 1.83 =
0.59 at the 90 percent reliability level. This trend holds true for all data sets, and is seen in all of
the tables contained in Appendix C. This essentially means that if the model is predicting well,
the designer is designing the pavement for 1.8 times the expected ESALs when using a 75
percent reliability, and 3.2 times the expected ESALs when using 90 percent reliability.
5.0 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
The 1993 AASHTO Design Guide model for flexible pavements was evaluated using LTPP data
from the GPS-1 (Asphalt Concrete on Granular Base) and 2 (Asphalt Concrete on Bound Base)
experiments. The evaluation was conducted by comparing the predicted log ESALs (from the
flexible pavement model) with the actual log ESALs as obtained from the LTPP database. The
following aspects were evaluated: pavement type, climatic region, asphalt concrete thickness,
structural number, traffic level, subgrade type, subgrade resilient modulus and reliability level.
The general results of these evaluations, using backcasted initial serviceability levels, are
presented in Table 14.
33
Table 14 shows that the 1993 AASHTO flexible pavement model over predicts the number of
allowable ESALs for a significant portion of the LTPP GPS-1 pavement sections. However, the
model provides reasonable predictions of allowable ESALs for LTPP GPS-2 pavement sections.
When the model over predicts ESALs, the amount of over prediction depends on pavement
design features and environmental conditions. The largest over prediction occurs for GPS-1
pavements located in wet-freeze climates, that have asphalt concrete thicknesses equal than or
greater to 5 inches, that carry equal to or greater than 200,000 ESALs per year, or that are
constructed on subgrades with a high resilient modulus. The largest under prediction occurs for
GPS-2 sections that have asphalt concrete thicknesses equal to or greater than 5 inches. The
statistical analysis indicates that the AASHTO flexible pavement model provides biased
predictions for ESALs for a significant portion of the LTPP data, especially for the GPS-1 test
sections.
34
Table 14 - Summary of Mean Ratios of Predicted/Actual ESALs Using Backcasted Initial
Serviceabilities
Analysis
Description
Pavement
Type
No. of
Sections
Mean Ratio
Pred./ Actual
ESALs Comments
All Sections GPS-1
GPS-2
64
33
1.83
0.99
Large over prediction for GPS-1 sections.
Good prediction for GPS-2 pavement types.
Dry-Freeze
Climate
GPS-1
GPS-2
11
7
1.35
1.22
General over prediction for both pavement
types.
Dry-Nonfreeze
Climate
GPS-1
GPS-2
7
2
0.70
1.52
General under prediction for GPS-1 sections
and over prediction for GPS-2 sections.
Wet-Freeze
Climate
GPS-1
GPS-2
23
6
2.78
1.02
Very large over prediction for GPS-1 sections.
Good prediction for GPS-2 sections.
Wet-Nonfreeze
Climate
GPS-1
GPS-2
23
18
1.87
0.86
AC Thickness
< 5 in
GPS-1
GPS-2
32
18
1.12
1.64
General over prediction for GPS-2 sections.
AC Thickness
>= 5 in
GPS-1
GPS-2
31
15
2.70
0.54
Large under prediction for GPS-2 sections.
Low Structural
Number (< 4)
GPS-1
GPS-2
27
19
1.25
0.68
General under prediction for GPS-2 sections.
High Structural
Number (>= 4)
GPS-1
GPS-2
37
14
2.42
1.65
Low ESALs
(< 200 kESALs/yr)
GPS-1
GPS-2
45
22
1.52
1.03
High ESALs
(>= 200 kESALs/yr)
GPS-1
GPS-2
19
11
2.84
0.92
Coarse Grained
Subgrade
GPS-1
GPS-2
33
10
1.67
0.73
Fine Grained
Subgrade
GPS-1
GPS-2
31
23
2.02
1.13
Low Subgrade Mr
(< 10,000 psi)
GPS-1
GPS-2
38
20
1.23
0.67
High Subgrade Mr
(>= 10,000 psi)
GPS-1
GPS-2
26
13
3.28
1.82
35
6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted by Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc., under the
sponsorship of the Portland Cement Association (PCA Project Index No. 95-02). The contents
of this report (PCA R&D Serial No. 2215) reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Portland Cement Association.
36
7.0 REFERENCES
Al-Omari, B. and M.I. Darter. (1992). Relationships Between IRI and PSR. Civil Engineering
Studies, Number 69, Federal Highway Administration.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1993a). AASHTO Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1993b). AASHTO Guide
for Design of Pavement Structures, Volume 2Appendices. Washington, DC: AASHTO.
Daleiden, J.F. et al. (1994). Evaluation of the AASHTO Design Equations and Recommended
Improvements. Strategic Highway Research Program Report SHRP-P-394. Washington,
DC: National Research Council.
Hoerner, T.E., M.I. Darter, and E. Owusu-Antwi. (1996). Evaluation of the 1993 AASHTO
Rigid Pavement Design Model Using the LTPP Database: Draft Final Report. Prepared
for Portland Cement Association: PCA Contract 95-02a, ERES Consultants, Inc.
APPENDIX A - DATA PREPARATION
A-1
APPENDIX A - DATA PREPARATION
Flexible Design Equation Inputs
Most of the inputs required for the 1993 AASHTO flexible design equation had to be estimated
or interpreted from other data elements available in the LTPP data. A detailed discussion of the
inputs required for the 1993 AASHTO rigid design procedure is included below. The discussion
specifically addresses the available LTPP data associated with each required data element, the
assumptions and procedures used, and the limitations of each data set.
Layer Thicknesses (in)
Two different sources of layer thickness are available in the LTPP database; 1) design thickness
from inventory data, and 2) mean core thickness from testing data. For this analysis, the mean
core thicknesses were used first, and inventory data were used as a supplement when testing data
were not available, or were unreasonable.
Initial Serviceability, P1
The initial serviceability value is not included in the LTPP database. Initial serviceabilities were
estimated by backcasting the initial IRI using the historical IRI versus time series data. The IRI
was then converted to initial serviceability using the following equation (Al-Omari and Darter
1992):
PSI
TERMINAL
= 5 * EXP[-0.0038 * IRI
MEASURED(in/mi)
] Eq. A-1
where:
PSI
TERMINAL
= PSI estimated from the measured IRI value.
IRI
MEASURED(in/mi)
= Measured IRI value retrieved from the database (in units of
inches/mile).
An inspection of this data shows that the 64 GPS-1 sections have initial serviceabilities that
range from 3.25 to 4.67 with an average of 4.02. The 33 GPS-2 sections have initial
serviceabilities that range from 3.42 to 4.61 with an average of 4.11.
A-2
Terminal Serviceability, P2
The terminal serviceability is not directly available in the LTPP database, however, it can be
estimated from IRI data that is available in the database. The following procedure was used to
determine the terminal serviceability value.
1. Selection of Representative IRI Value
IRI data measured between 1989 and 1993 were retrieved and plotted versus time for each LTPP
section. The most recent reasonable IRI value, as determined by the individual graphs, was
selected to represent each respective section. IRI data were missing for several sections. Table
A-1 shows the availability of IRI data for each of the GPS groups.
Table A1 - Availability of IRI Data in the LTPP Database
Pavement
Type
Total No.
of Sections
No. of Sections
with NO IRI Data
No. of Sections with
POOR IRI Data Trends
No. of Sections
with IRI Data
GPS-1 211 22 1 188
GPS-2 126 23 0 103
Totals 337 45 1 291
2. Estimation of Terminal Serviceability from IRI Data
The IRI data retrieved in step 1 is translated into a representative terminal PSI value using the
relationship derived by Al-Omari and Darter (Al-Omari and Darter 1992) (see equation A-1).
Change in PSI (DPSI = P1 P2)
The change in PSI is calculated as the initial serviceability minus the estimated serviceability at
the most recent IRI survey (P1-P2). For the 64 GPS-1 sections, this change in PSI was observed
to range from 0.10 to 2.22 with an average of 0.55. For the 33 GPS-2 sections, this change in
A-3
PSI was observed to range from 0.05 to 1.61 with an average of 0.61. A plot of the change in
PSI versus age is presented in figure A-1 for the GPS-1 and GPS-2 sections included in this
analysis.
Reliability Level (%)
Analyses were conducted at three different reliability levels50, 75, and 90 percent. The
respective standard normal deviates are then 0, -0.674, and -1.282.
Overall Standard Deviation
An overall standard deviation of 0.49 was chosen for use in this analysis. This is the value
recommended by the AASHTO guide for flexible pavement design with a traffic error.
GPS 1: y = 0.0409x
R2 = 0.3338
GPS 2: y = 0.0437x
R2 = 0.0879
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (years)
C
h
a
n
g
e

i
n

P
S
I

(
P
1

-

P
2
)
GPS 1
GPS 2
Linear (GPS 1)
Linear (GPS 2)
Figure A1 - Change in PSI Versus Age for GPS-1 and GPS-2 LTPP Sections
A-4
Resilient Modulus (psi)
Since resilient modulus data was not directly available in the LTPP database, the values were
estimated using the backcalculation procedure presented in Part III: Section 5.3.4 of the
AASHTO guide (AASHTO 1993a). Deflection data collected for a previous study were used for
this analysis (Daleiden et al. 1994). Following the recommendations in the guide, the design
resilient moduli were then estimated using the following equation:
Design M
R
= C * [(0.24 * P)/(d
r
*

r)] Eq. A-2
where:
Design M
R
= backcalculated subgrade resilient modulus, psi.
C = an adjustment factor required to make the calculated
value consistent with the value used to represent the
AASHO road test subgrade. C is assumed to equal 0.33.
P = the dynamic load (approximately 9,000 lbs or 40 kN) of the
nondestructive testing (NDT) device used to obtain
deflections.
r = radial distance from the plate load center to the point at
which the deflection is measured (r = 60 in or 1.5 m).
d
r
= measured deflection at radial distance r, inches.
Since this backcalculation procedure does not consider seasonal effects, the reasonableness of
the backcalculated values were checked for each pavement cross section using engineering
judgement.
Structural Layer Coefficients, a
Structural layer coefficients were assumed for the different LTPP layer materials using the
guidelines provided in Part II: Section 2.3.5 of the 1993 AASHTO guide (AASHTO 1993a). The
structural layer coefficient values used for this analysis are presented in Table A-2 below.
Layer Drainage Coefficients, m
Engineering judgement was used to determine the appropriate layer drainage coefficients
associated with each LTPP layer material. Drainage coefficient ranges were identified using the
A-5
values presented in Table 2.4 from Part II: Section 2.4.1 of the AASHTO guide (AASHTO
1993a). The quality of drainage of each layer was estimated as good, fair, or poor (no materials
were assumed to have excellent or very poor drainage). The identified drainage coefficient range
was also dependent on the identified climatic region. Those sections in the dry regions (sections
with <25 inches of average annual precipitation) were assumed to be exposed to moisture levels
approaching saturation less than one percent of the time. Those sections in the wet regions
(sections with >=25 inches of average annual precipitation) were assumed to be exposed to
moisture levels approaching saturation greater than one percent of the time. These categories
helped determine the specific layer drainage coefficient ranges for each material type. The
identified layer drainage coefficient ranges are presented in table A-2.
The actual LTPP section layer drainage coefficients were determined by interpolating within the
range identified for each material type. The LTPP section with the smallest average annual
precipitation was assumed to have the largest possible drainage coefficient in the identified
range. Conversely, the LTPP section with the largest average annual precipitation was assumed
to have the smallest possible drainage coefficient in the identified range. Using these two LTPP
sections to identify the boundary conditions, the measured average annual precipitation of the
other LTPP sections was then used to linearly interpolate appropriate layer drainage coefficients
within the identified material specific drainage coefficient ranges.
A-6
Table A2 - Typical Properties for LTPP Layer Materials
LTPP
Layer
Elastic
Assumed
Layer
Assumed Layer Drainage
Coefficient (m)
Code Material Description Stabilized or Unbound Permeable Modulus
(psi)
Coefficient
(a)
Dry
Regions
Wet
Regions
1 Hot Mixed, Hot Laid AC, Dense Graded - Surface Layer Stabilized No 750,000 0.42 **** ****
1 Hot Mixed, Hot Laid AC, Dense Graded - Below Surface Layer Stabilized No 750,000 0.44 **** ****
2 Hot Mixed, Hot Laid AC, Open Graded - (Porous Friction Course) Stabilized Yes 600,000 0.42 **** ****
22 Gravel (Uncrushed) Unbound No 20,000 0.10 1.10 0.70
23 Crushed Stone, Gravel or Slag (<=10% passing #200 sieve) Unbound Yes 30,000 0.14 1.30 1.07
23 Crushed Stone, Gravel or Slag (>10% passing #200 sieve) Unbound No 30,000 0.14 1.15 0.70
24 Sand Unbound Marginal, depending on
gradation
15,000 0.07 1.20 0.90
25 Soil-Aggr. Mixture (predominantly fine-grained soil) Unbound No 15,000 0.07 1.10 0.70
26 Soil-Aggr. Mixture (predominantly coarse-grained soil) Unbound No 20,000 0.10 1.15 0.80
27 Soil Cement Stabilized No 100,000 0.15 **** ****
28 AC Bound Base (dense graded, hot laid, central plant mix) Stabilized No 400,000 0.32 **** ****
29 AC Bound Base (dense graded, cold laid, central plant mix) Stabilized No 300,000 0.26 **** ****
30 AC Bound Base (dense graded, cold laid, mixed in-place) Stabilized No 150,000 0.19 **** ****
31 AC Bound Base (open graded, hot laid, central plant mix) Stabilized Yes 300,000 0.26 **** ****
32 AC Bound Base (open graded, cold laid, central plant mix) Stabilized Yes 200,000 0.22 **** ****
33 AC Bound Base (open graded, cold laid, mixed in-place) Stabilized Yes 150,000 0.19 **** ****
34 Recycled AC, Plant Mix, Hot Laid Stabilized No, unless open graded 300,000 0.26 **** ****
37 Cement-Aggregate Mixture Stabilized Possible, depending on
gradation
700,000 0.20 **** ****
38 Lean Concrete (<3 sacks cement/cy) Stabilized No 1,500,000 0.30 **** ****
41 Limerock, Caliche (soft carbonate rock) Unbound (behaves as
stabilized)
No 100,000 0.09 1.10 0.70
42 Lime-Treated Subgrade Soil Stabilized No 50,000 0.15 **** ****
43 Cement-Treated Subgrade Soil Stabilized No 50,000 0.15 **** ****
44 Pozzolanic-Aggregate Mixture Stabilized Possible, depending on
gradation
400,000 0.08 **** ****
46 Sand Asphalt **** **** **** 0.14 **** ****
78 Dense Graded Asphalt Concrete Interlayer **** **** **** 0.20 **** ****
A-7
Structural Number, SN
The structural number was calculated for each LTPP section with available data using the
following equation presented in the 1993 AASHTO guide (Part I: Section 1.2) (AASHTO
1993a):
SN = a
1
D
1
+ a
2
D
2
m
2
+ a
3
D
3
m
3
Eq. A-3
where:
SN = structural number indicative of the total pavement
thickness required.
a
i
= i
th
layer coefficient.
D
i
= i
th
layer thickness (inches).
m
i
= i
th
layer drainage coefficient (only applies to unbound
layers; all stabilized layers have an m = 1).
Engineering judgment was used to check the reasonableness or each calculated section
structural number with the given pavement cross-section.
Preparation of Actual LTPP Traffic Data
Annual historical ESAL data were obtained from the database and plotted versus time for all
available sections. A best fit regression curve was fitted through the data. Some of the data were
highly variable. The total accumulated ESALs (estimated using the regression equations) were
summed for each year, from the traffic opening date to the appropriate IRI profile date (the date
at which an IRI was selected to estimate the terminal serviceability).
Development of LTPP Data Analysis Sets
As stated before, the current LTPP database consists of 211 GPS-1 and 126 GPS-2 sections
located throughout the United States and Canada. However, not all required data elements were
obtainable from the database for all of these 337 sections. Assumptions were made when
possible (as described above), however, many sections had to be eliminated from the final data
sets due to these data limitations. The following procedure was used to eliminate LTPP sections
from the final GPS-1 and GPS-2 data analysis sets:
A-8
1. All sections with no actual traffic data were eliminated.
2. All sections with poor traffic trends were eliminated. Traffic trends on the actual LTPP
traffic data were determined for each section (when data were available) by searching for
good regression equations representing the time series ESAL data.
3. All sections with missing IRI data or poor IRI trends were eliminated. IRI data was
needed to estimate the terminal serviceability value for the pavement sections.
4. All sections with missing resilient moduli were eliminated.
Table A-3 shows the resulting number of sections in each of the data sets after each of the four
elimination steps outlined above.
Table A3 - Number of Sections Lost at Each Elimination Step
Pavement
Type
Total No.
of
Sections
Lost Due
to No
Traffic
Data
Lost Due to
Poor Traffic
Trends
Lost Due to No
IRI Data or
Poor IRI
Trends
Lost Due to
No
Resilient
Modulus
Total No. of
Sections in the
Analysis Data
Set
GPS-1 211 32 14 70 31 64
GPS-2 126 23 14 23 33 33
Totals 337 55 28 93 64 97
APPENDIX B - PLOTS OF PREDICTED VERSUS ACTUAL AND CORRESPONDING
RESIDUAL VERSUS ACTUAL
B-1
All GPS-1 Secti ons
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
All GPS-2 Secti ons
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure B1 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 SectionsInitial
All GPS-1 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
All GPS-2 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-2
All GPS-1 Secti ons
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
All GPS-2 Secti ons
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
All GPS-1 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
All GPS-2 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-3
All GPS-1 Secti ons
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
All GPS-2 Secti ons
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
All GPS-1 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
All GPS-2 Secti ons
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-4
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Dry-Freeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Figure B8 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections in Dry-Freeze
Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
B-5
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Dry-Nonfreeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-6
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Wet-Freeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-7
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Wet-Nonfreeze Climatic RegionsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-8
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-9
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-10
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-11
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-12
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-13
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-14
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-15
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-16
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Asphalt Concrete Thicknesses < 5 in.Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Figure B32 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Asphalt
Concrete Thicknesses < 5 in.Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
B-17
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Asphalt Concrete Thicknesses >= 5 in.Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Concrete Thicknesses >= 5 in.Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
B-18
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-19
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-20
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-21
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-22
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure B43 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with a
Structural Number < 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-23
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Structural Number >= 4Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-24
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-25
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-26
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-27
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-28
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure B55 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Traffic
Levels < 200 kESALs/yearInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Figure B56 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Traffic
B-29
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Levels >= 200 kESALs/yearInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-30
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-31
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-32
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-33
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-34
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure B67 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Coarse
Grained Subgrade SoilsInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Figure B68 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Coarse
B-35
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure B69 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Fine
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-36
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-37
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-38
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-39
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-40
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Figure B79 - Predicted ESAL Versus Actual ESAL Plots for GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Subgrade
Resilient Modulus < 10,000 psiInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Figure B80 - Residual Versus Actual ESAL Plots for All GPS-1 and GPS-2 Sections with Subgrade
Resilient Modulus < 10,000 psi Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
B-41
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
Resilient Modulus >= 10,000 psiInitial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
Resilient Modulus >= 10,000 psi Initial Serviceability = Backcasted, Reliability Level = 50%
B-42
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-43
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-44
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
B-45
4
5
6
7
8
9
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
P
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d

L
o
g

W
'
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4 5 6 7 8 9
Actual Log W
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l

(
L
o
g

W
'

-

L
o
g

W
)
APPENDIX C - ANALYSIS STATISTICS
C-1
Table C1 - All Sections (Primary Analysis Groups) - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual
Pavement
Type
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean Pred.
Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev(Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-1 50 64 3.40 2.00 YES NO 6.44 6.18 1.83 0.62
75 64 -0.84 2.00 NO YES 6.11 6.18 0.86 0.62
90 64 -4.70 2.00 YES NO 5.81 6.18 0.43 0.62
GPS-2 50 33 -0.05 2.04 NO YES 6.16 6.17 0.99 0.52
75 33 -3.66 2.04 YES NO 5.84 6.17 0.46 0.52
90 33 -6.95 2.04 YES NO 5.54 6.17 0.23 0.52
C-2
Table C2 - Climatic Region - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual
Pavement
Type
Climatic
Region
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean Pred.
Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev (Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-1 D-F 50 11 0.73 2.23 No Yes 6.00 6.13 1.35 0.59
75 11 -1.10 2.23 No Yes 6.00 5.81 0.63 0.59
90 11 -2.77 2.23 Yes No 6.00 5.51 0.32 0.59
D-NF 50 7 -0.65 2.45 No Yes 6.25 6.10 0.70 0.63
75 7 -2.02 2.45 No Yes 6.25 5.77 0.33 0.63
90 7 -3.27 2.45 Yes No 6.25 5.47 0.16 0.63
W-F 50 23 2.93 2.07 Yes No 6.25 6.69 2.78 0.73
75 23 0.77 2.07 No Yes 6.25 6.37 1.31 0.73
90 23 -1.21 2.07 No Yes 6.25 6.07 0.66 0.73
W-NF 50 23 2.90 2.07 Yes No 6.17 6.44 1.87 0.45
75 23 -0.60 2.07 No Yes 6.17 6.11 0.88 0.45
90 23 -3.78 2.07 Yes No 6.17 5.81 0.44 0.45
C-3
Table C2 - Climatic Region - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual Continued
Pavement
Type
Climatic
Region
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean Pred.
Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev (Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-2 D-F 50 7 0.32 2.45 No Yes 5.87 5.96 1.22 0.72
75 7 -0.89 2.45 No Yes 5.87 5.63 0.57 0.72
90 7 -2.00 2.45 No Yes 5.87 5.33 0.29 0.72
D-NF 50 2 1.02 12.71 No Yes 7.29 7.47 1.52 0.25
75 2 -0.82 12.71 No Yes 7.29 7.14 0.71 0.25
90 2 -2.50 12.71 No Yes 7.29 6.84 0.36 0.25
W-F 50 6 0.06 2.57 No Yes 6.67 6.68 1.02 0.45
75 6 -1.71 2.57 No Yes 6.67 6.35 0.48 0.45
90 6 -3.32 2.57 Yes No 6.67 6.05 0.24 0.45
W-NF 50 18 -0.55 2.11 No Yes 5.99 5.93 0.86 0.51
75 18 -3.30 2.11 Yes No 5.99 5.60 0.40 0.51
90 18 -5.80 2.11 Yes No 5.99 5.30 0.20 0.51
C-4
Table C3 - Asphalt Concrete Thickness - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual
Pavement
Type
AC
Thickness
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean Pred.
Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev (Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-1 <5 in. 50 32 0.43 2.04 No Yes 6.06 6.11 1.12 0.63
75 32 -2.53 2.04 Yes No 6.06 5.78 0.52 0.63
90 32 -5.23 2.04 Yes No 6.06 5.48 0.26 0.63
>=5 in. 50 31 5.01 2.04 Yes No 6.28 6.71 2.70 0.48
75 31 1.20 2.04 No Yes 6.28 6.39 1.27 0.48
90 31 -2.26 2.04 Yes No 6.28 6.09 0.64 0.48
GPS-2 <5 in. 50 18 2.02 2.11 No Yes 6.11 6.33 1.64 0.45
75 18 -1.05 2.11 No Yes 6.11 6.00 0.77 0.45
90 18 -3.84 2.11 Yes No 6.11 5.70 0.39 0.45
>=5 in. 50 15 -2.15 2.14 Yes No 6.24 5.97 0.54 0.49
75 15 -4.77 2.14 Yes No 6.24 5.64 0.25 0.49
90 15 -7.15 2.14 Yes No 6.24 5.34 0.13 0.49
C-5
Table C4 - Structural Number - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual
Pavement
Type
Structural
Number
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean Pred.
Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev (Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-1 < 4 50 27 1.22 2.06 No Yes 5.96 6.06 1.25 0.42
75 27 -2.88 2.06 Yes No 5.96 5.73 0.59 0.42
90 27 -6.61 2.06 Yes No 5.96 5.43 0.30 0.42
>= 4 50 37 3.26 2.03 Yes No 6.33 6.72 2.42 0.72
75 37 0.47 2.03 No Yes 6.33 6.39 1.14 0.72
90 37 -2.07 2.03 Yes No 6.33 6.09 0.57 0.72
GPS-2 < 4 50 19 -1.60 2.10 No Yes 6.00 5.83 0.68 0.46
75 19 -4.74 2.10 Yes No 6.00 5.50 0.32 0.46
90 19 -7.59 2.10 Yes No 6.00 5.20 0.16 0.46
>= 4 50 14 1.50 2.16 No Yes 6.40 6.62 1.65 0.54
75 14 -0.77 2.16 No Yes 6.40 6.29 0.77 0.54
90 14 -2.84 2.16 Yes No 6.40 5.99 0.39 0.54
C-6
Table C5 - Traffic Level - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual
Pavement
Type
Traffic
Category
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections
t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean
Pred. Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev (Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-1 < 200 50 45 2.13 2.02 Yes No 5.97 6.15 1.52 0.57
kESALs/yr 75 45 -1.70 2.02 No Yes 5.97 5.82 0.71 0.57
90 45 -5.20 2.02 Yes No 5.97 5.52 0.36 0.57
>= 200 50 19 2.84 2.10 Yes No 6.68 7.14 2.84 0.70
kESALs/yr 75 19 0.79 2.10 No Yes 6.68 6.81 1.34 0.70
90 19 -1.08 2.10 No Yes 6.68 6.51 0.67 0.70
GPS-2 < 200 50 22 0.12 2.08 No Yes 5.83 5.84 1.03 0.47
kESALs/yr 75 22 -3.13 2.08 Yes No 5.83 5.52 0.48 0.47
90 22 -6.09 2.08 Yes No 5.83 5.22 0.24 0.47
>= 200 50 11 -0.19 2.23 No Yes 6.84 6.80 0.92 0.63
kESALs/yr 75 11 -1.91 2.23 No Yes 6.84 6.48 0.43 0.63
90 11 -3.48 2.23 Yes No 6.84 6.18 0.22 0.63
C-7
Table C6 - Subgrade Type - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual
Pavement
Type
Subgrade
Type
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections
t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean
Pred. Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev (Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-1 Coarse 50 33 1.96 2.04 No Yes 6.17 6.40 1.67 0.66
75 33 -0.91 2.04 No Yes 6.17 6.07 0.79 0.66
90 33 -3.53 2.04 Yes No 6.17 5.77 0.40 0.66
Fine 50 31 2.89 2.04 Yes No 6.18 6.49 2.02 0.59
75 31 -0.23 2.04 No Yes 6.18 6.16 0.95 0.59
90 31 -3.07 2.04 Yes No 6.18 5.86 0.48 0.59
GPS-2 Coarse 50 10 -0.91 2.26 No Yes 5.98 5.84 0.73 0.48
75 10 -3.06 2.26 Yes No 5.98 5.52 0.34 0.48
90 10 -5.02 2.26 Yes No 5.98 5.22 0.17 0.48
Fine 50 23 0.47 2.07 No Yes 6.25 6.30 1.13 0.54
75 23 -2.45 2.07 Yes No 6.25 5.97 0.53 0.54
90 23 -5.10 2.07 Yes No 6.25 5.68 0.27 0.54
C-8
Table C7 - Subgrade Resilient Modulus - Summary Table of t-tests and Predicted Versus Actual
Pavement
Type
Subgrade
Resilient
Modulus
Reliability
Level, %
No. of
Sections t-calc
t-critical
(0.05
level)
ABS(t-calc)
> t-critical
Good
Predictor
Mean
Actual Log
ESALs,
W
A
Mean
Pred. Log
ESALs,
W
P
Ratio of Pred.
to Actual
ESALs,
W
P
/W
A
Standard Error
of the Estimate,
St. Dev (Log
W
P
-Log W
A
)
GPS-1 < 10,000 50 38 0.85 2.03 No Yes 6.10 6.19 1.23 0.66
psi 75 38 -2.23 2.03 Yes No 6.10 5.86 0.58 0.66
90 38 -5.04 2.03 Yes No 6.10 5.56 0.29 0.66
>= 10,000 50 26 5.63 2.06 Yes No 6.29 6.81 3.28 0.47
psi 75 26 2.05 2.06 No Yes 6.29 6.48 1.54 0.47
90 26 -1.22 2.06 No Yes 6.29 6.18 0.77 0.47
GPS-2 < 10,000 50 20 -1.57 2.09 No Yes 6.08 5.90 0.67 0.50
psi 75 20 -4.49 2.09 Yes No 6.08 5.57 0.31 0.50
90 20 -7.15 2.09 Yes No 6.08 5.27 0.16 0.50
>= 10,000 50 13 2.09 2.18 No Yes 6.31 6.57 1.82 0.45
psi 75 22 -0.71 2.08 No Yes 6.31 6.16 0.70 0.45
90 13 -2.95 2.18 Yes No 6.31 5.95 0.43 0.45
C-9
Table C8 - Summary of t-test Results ("Yes" Indicates the Null Hypothesis was Rejected)
GPS-1 Sections GPS-2 Sections
Secondary Group Analysis Category Reliablity Level, % Reliablity Level, %
50 75 90 50 75 90
All All Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Climatic Region D-F No No Yes No No No
D-NF No No Yes No No No
W-F Yes No No No No Yes
W-NF Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
AC Thickness <5 in. No Yes Yes No No Yes
>=5 in. Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Structural Number < 4 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
>= 4 Yes No Yes No No Yes
Traffic Category < 200 kESALs/yr Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
>= 200 kESALs/yr Yes No No No No Yes
Subgrade Type Coarse No No Yes No Yes Yes
Fine Yes No Yes No Yes Yes
Resilient Modulus < 10,000 psi No Yes Yes No Yes Yes
>= 10,000 psi Yes No No No No Yes
C-10
Table C9 - Summary of Standard Error Estimate (SEE);
Standard Deviation of Residuals
Secondary Group Analysis Category GPS-1 Sections GPS-2 Sections
All All 0.62 0.52
Climatic Region D-F 0.59 0.72
D-NF 0.63 0.25
W-F 0.73 0.45
W-NF 0.45 0.51
AC Thickness <5 in. 0.63 0.45
>=5 in. 0.48 0.49
Structural Number < 4 0.42 0.46
>= 4 0.72 0.54
Traffic Category < 200 kESALs/yr 0.57 0.47
>= 200 kESALs/yr 0.70 0.63
Subgrade Type Coarse 0.66 0.48
Fine 0.59 0.54
Resilient Modulus < 10,000 psi 0.66 0.50
>= 10,000 psi 0.47 0.45
C-11
Table C10 - Summary of Ratio of Mean Predicted ESALs to Mean Actual ESALs
GPS-1 Sections GPS-2 Sections
Secondary Group Analysis Category Reliablity Level, % Reliablity Level, %
50 75 90 50 75 90
All All 1.83 0.86 0.43 0.99 0.46 0.23
Climatic Region D-F 1.35 0.63 0.32 1.22 0.57 0.29
D-NF 0.70 0.33 0.16 1.52 0.71 0.36
W-F 2.78 1.31 0.66 1.02 0.48 0.24
W-NF 1.87 0.88 0.44 0.86 0.40 0.20
AC Thickness <5 in. 1.12 0.52 0.26 1.64 0.77 0.39
>=5 in. 2.70 1.27 0.64 0.54 0.25 0.13
Structural Number < 4 1.25 0.59 0.30 0.68 0.32 0.16
>= 4 2.42 1.14 0.57 1.65 0.77 0.39
Traffic Category < 200 kESALs/yr 1.52 0.71 0.36 1.03 0.48 0.24
>= 200 kESALs/yr 2.84 1.34 0.67 0.92 0.43 0.22
Subgrade Type Coarse 1.67 0.79 0.40 0.73 0.34 0.17
Fine 2.02 0.95 0.48 1.13 0.53 0.27
Resilient Modulus < 10,000 psi 1.23 0.58 0.29 0.67 0.31 0.16
>= 10,000 psi 3.28 1.54 0.77 1.82 0.70 0.43

Evaluation of The 1993 AASHTO Flexible Pavemen

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evaluation of The 1993 AASHTO Flexible Pavemen

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PCA R&D Serial No.

You might also like