Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 1

Conversion of Testing Frequency to Loading Time: Impact on Performance Predictions

Obtained from the M-E Pavement Design Guide
By
Raj Dongr
Dongr Laboratory Services Inc.
2821Q Dorr Avenue, Fairfax, VA 22031
Tel: (703) 395-8854
Fax: (703) 573-8391
rajdongre@dongrelabs.com
Leslie Myers
Asphalt Pavement Engineer
FHWA Headquarters
Tel: (202) 366-1198
Fax: (202) 493-2070
Leslie.Myers@FHWA.DOT.GOV
John DAngelo
Asphalt Team Leader
FHWA Headquarters
Tel: (202) 366-0121
Fax: (202) 493-2070
John.DAngelo@FHWA.DOT.GOV
Address:
Office of Pavement Technology, HIPT-10
400 7th Street SW, Room 3118 Nassif
Washington, DC 20590
Word Count:
Text = 3066
3 Tables = 750
6 Figures = 1500
Total = 5316
Submitted August 2005 to The Transportation Research Board For Presentation and Publication
at the 85
th
Annual Meeting of TRB.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 2
August 1, 2005
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 3
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the impact on performance prediction of the erroneous conversion
of the dynamic modulus master curve from frequency domain to time domain inherent in the
NCHRP 1-37A Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG). The new Simple
Performance Test (SPT) is used in determination of the dynamic (complex) modulus |E*| for
input to the MEPDG. Testing is conducted at selected temperatures and frequencies. |E*| as a
function of frequency for a total of six frequencies (0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25 Hz) are input in the
MEPDG software. From this data the MEPDG generates an |E*| master curve as a function of
frequency first and then erroneously converts it to a function of loading time. The error in
determining loading time during master curve generation is that frequency, f, in Hz is directly
converted to loading time, t, in seconds by taking the inverse of f (i.e. t = 1/f). The choice of the
unit of frequency (Hz vs. rad/s) is very important when converting from frequency domain to
loading time domain. The most widely used (correct) approach in Rheology is to first convert
the cyclic frequency in Hz (f) to angular frequency in radians/s (e, rad/s = 2tf) and then taking
the inverse to determine loading time (t=1/2tf).
The effect of the two methods of frequency to time conversion on the pavement
performance predicted using the MEPDG is studied in this paper. From this analysis and related
literature review, recommendations are made about correct frequency to time conversion
methods and appropriate use of |E*|.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 4
INTRODUCTION
This paper examines the impact on performance prediction of the conversion of
dynamic modulus |E*| as a function of frequency (frequency domain) to function of time
(time domain) as implemented in the NCHRP 1-37A Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement
Design Guide MEPDG) (1). Recommendations are made for a better way of frequency
to time conversion and appropriate use of the dynamic modulus. In the MEPDG,
frequency in Hz (f) is directly converted to loading time t (in seconds) by taking the
inverse of f (i.e. t = 1/f) during master curve generation. Appropriate use of the unit of
frequency (Hz vs. rad/s) is fundamentally important when converting from frequency
domain to loading time domain. The more accurate method is the approach widely used
in the field of Rheology. In this approach, the cyclic frequency in Hz (f) is first
converted to angular frequency in radians/s (e, rad/s = 2tf) and then taking the inverse to
determine loading time (t=1/2tf) (2). This is because it has been demonstrated by a
number of researchers in polymer rheology that 1/e is a first order approximation of
loading time when frequency is converted to loading time (3,4).
What is needed is to determine the effect of the method of frequency to time
conversion on the pavement performance predicted using the MEPDG. From this
analysis and related literature review, appropriate frequency to time conversion methods
need to be established.
BACKGROUND
To understand the frequency to time conversion issue, the determination of dynamic
modulus and its theoretical background as implemented in the MEPDG is discussed next.
The Dynamic (Complex) Modulus
In the MEPDG, hot-mix asphalt is tested in its linear viscoelastic region of behavior. The
Simple Performance Tester (SPT) is recommended by MEPDG to determine the dynamic
modulus of hot-mix asphalt for Level 1 design (5). In the SPT, hot-mix asphalt is subjected to a
sinusoidal stress varying as a function of time at a frequency of cycles per second denoted as f.
Its steady state response is a strain which also varies sinusoidally at the same frequency f but lags
the stress by a phase angle, |. The imposed stress and the measured response of strain are related
by a complex number (made up of a real and imaginary part) which is a function of frequency
known as the complex modulus of hot-mix asphalt called |E*|. The absolute value of this
complex number is determined by taking a ratio of the stress amplitude and the steady state strain
amplitude. The phase lag between the stress and the strain (called the phase angle) is given by
the angle by which the stress leads the strain.
Real and Imaginary Parts of the Complex Modulus
The imposed sinusoidal stress in the SPT maybe divided in two components, one is in-
phase with the measured strain and the other at right angles to it, Figure 1. The ratio of the in-
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 5
phase component of the stress to the measured strain is called the real part of the complex
modulus, and the ratio of the 90 out-of-phase component of the stress and the measured strain is
known as the imaginary part of the modulus. The real part of the complex modulus is also called
Stress = o
0
sinet
Strain = c
0
(et-o)
Time
Stress or Strain
o (phase angle)
o c
o
0
sino
o
0
coso
o
0
0
0
*
c
o
= E
(et-o)
e=2tf
Stress = o
0
sinet
Strain = c
0
(et-o)
Time
Stress or Strain
o (phase angle)
o c
o
0
sino
o
0
coso
o
0
0
0
*
c
o
= E
(et-o)
e=2tf
FIGURE 1 Loading Scheme and Real and Imaginary Parts of Imposed Stress.
storage modulus, denoted as E, and it represents the elastic behavior of hot-mix asphalt. The
imaginary part of the complex modulus, denoted as E, is known as loss modulus and it
represents the viscous behavior of hot-mix asphalt. In other words, the response of hot-mix
asphalt has higher elastic component if the measured strain response is more in-phase with the
imposed stress (small phase angle). Whereas, the response is more viscous if the phase angle is
larger (towards 90). Energy dissipation is only possible through the viscous element, therefore
phase angle is often considered as a measure of energy loss of hot-mix asphalt.
Mathematically,
The imposed stress is applies as:
o = o
0
+o
0
sin(2tft) (1)
or
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 6
o = o
0
+o
0
sin(et) (1a)
where,
o
0
= a constant stress is applied so that the sinusoidal stress does not alternate between tension
and compression
e = angular frequency, rad/s = 2tf
f = frequency in Hz
t = time in seconds
The measured steady-state response of hot-mix asphalt is:
c
0
= c
0
sin(2tft-o) ..(2)
or
c
0
= c
0
sin(et-o) ..(2a)
The complex modulus of hot-mix asphalt is given as:
|E*| = E +iE = o
0
/c
0
..(3)
where,
|E*| = complex modulus
i = sqrt(-1)
E = storage modulus
E = Loss Modulus
o = phase angle
The storage modulus of hot-mix asphalt is given as:
E = |E*|cos(o) (4)
The loss modulus of hot-mix asphalt is given as:
E= |E*|sin(o) ...............................................(5)
In determination of the dynamic complex modulus |E*|, testing is conducted at selected
multiple temperatures and frequencies (frequency sweep). The results from the SPT test include
|E*| as a function of frequency for a total of six frequencies (0.1, 0.5, 1, 5, 10, 25 Hz). The
testing frequency is reported in hertz units (Hz, cycles per second). The MEPDG requires that
the |E*| is input as a function of frequency in Hz at various temperatures. From this data, the
MEPDG internally generates an |E*| mater curve as a function of loading time (in seconds) by
calculating time as an inverse of frequency in Hz (t=1/f, s).
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 7
Conversion of |E*| From Frequency Domain to Time Domain
The origins of converting frequency to time by inverting angular frequency e are
explained next. The linear viscoelastic (LVE) properties of hot-mix asphalt may be inter-
converted from frequency domain to time domain. Modulus in the time domain is required by
MEPDG to determine pavement response such as resilient strain and stress of the layered
pavement structure. Inter-conversion (not used in MEPDG) is necessary because strictly
speaking |E*| has physical meaning only in the frequency domain |E*| (f). In the time domain
the modulus is known as the relaxation modulus denoted as E(t). The MEPDG assumes that |E*|
is approximately equal to E(t). Inter-conversion between |E*| and E(t) is accomplished using
Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) of the storage modulus E.
Mathematically,
0
( ) ( ) exp( )
t
E t E H d t t
t

= +
}
.(6)
E(t) is determined by taking the IFFT denoted as F
-1
of E as follows:
2 2
1
2 2
0
1
'( ) ( )
2 1
F E H d
e t
e t t
t e t

(
=
(
+

}
.(7)

where,
e = angular frequency in rad/s or 1/s, e = 2tf
Note: e multiplied by time t defines angular velocity as the angular deflection in radians: 2t corresponds to full
circle of 360.
f = cyclic frequency in Hz
t = loading time in seconds
Equation 7 is an integral over the relaxation spectrum multiplied by a function of et, which is
known as the intensity or the kernel function. In solving equation 6, we compare functions of
complex modulus |E*| measured at various frequencies e with those of static measurements such
as E(t) at time t being evaluated. The constraint, which is not derived here (see references 3 and
4), is:
e = 1/t or t = 1/e .....................................(8)
However, solution of equation 7 becomes an ill-posed problem when applied to measured values
of |E*| because the IFFT process is very sensitive to noise in the measured data. To overcome
this, numerical solution to the inter-conversion problem has been developed by various
researchers such as in reference (3). The details of the numerical conversion techniques are
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 8
beyond the scope of this paper. However, three common observations may be made from the
literature review of these various inter-conversion methods:
1. The widely used conversion of frequency to time by inverting angular frequency (t=1/e)
is a consequence of the IFFT of the storage or loss modulus. This is true even if the
testing is conducted in a vertical compression (MEPDG) as is done in the SPT or in an
oscillatory manner as is performed in polymer Rheology.
2. Almost all approximate inter-conversion methods use t = 1/e (e in rad/s) as a method of
converting from frequency to time. There are a few instances where f in Hz is used to
convert from frequency to time (t=1/f), however, in these cases an additional parameter is
used as a multiplier in front of |E*| (see Schapery for example) (6). Nevertheless, except
for the MEPDG, no other reference was found in the field of polymer Rheology where
frequency in Hz is directly converted to time by taking an inverse (t=1/f).
3. Complex modulus |E*| is never used in the time domain without first converting to
relaxation modulus E(t).
In the field of asphalt binder Rheology, Marasteanu has shown that when frequency is converted
to time by using e (t=1/e) the steady state complex modulus (measured using dynamic
experiments) may be converted to relaxation modulus (predicted using various inter-conversion
methods from the literature) (7). The voracity of the inter-conversion was verified using
measured relaxation modulus from transient experiments. Papazian had demonstrated as early as
1961 that in inter-converting from creep experiments to obtain complex modulus (using Fast
Fourier Transform, FFT) the time from the creep experiment is converted to frequency where the
complex modulus is predicted by taking the inverse of time (e=1/t) (8). The prediction of
complex modulus from creep data was validated by comparing to the measured complex
modulus.
Impact Of The Method Of Conversion From Frequency To Time
The impact of converting frequency to time is discussed next in the context of the inner-
workings of the MEPDG. The MEPDG does not actually function as described next but the
hypothetical process will help in better understanding of the frequency to time conversion issue.
For the sake of this discussion let us separate the MEPDG in two parts. Part I we will call
Response Model and Part II will be known as |E*| Input. Suppose the Part I requires a value
of |E*| at 10s loading time for a certain pavement structure, climate and traffic loading. There
are two possible values that can be supplied by Part II depending on the method used to convert
frequency to time.
1. convert t = 10s to frequency in Hz as done in the MEPDG. So f = 1/t = 1/10 = 0.1 Hz.
So input a value of |E*| at 0.1 Hz to Part I for further calculations.
2. convert t = 10s to frequency in rad/s as done in polymer Rheology. So e = 1/t = 1/10 =
0.1 rad/s. To compare same units: 0.1 rad/s = 0.1/2t Hz = 0.016 Hz. So input a value of
|E*| at 0.016 Hz to Part I for further calculations.
It is obvious that due to the viscoelastic nature of |E*|, the |E*| values supplied to Part I will be
different in the above 2 cases. The magnitude of the difference will depend on the characteristic
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 9
of the |E*| master curve which depends on the type of hot-mix being evaluated using the
MEPDG. The effect on different asphalt binder grades will be discussed next.
In generation of |E*| master curves, if frequency in Hz (f) is converted to time (t) without
converting it first to e (rad/s) , the resulting time (actually reduced time) t
r
gets shifted
additionally by a constant value of 1/2t. Figure 2 shows the master curve with reduced time
calculated using both t=1/f and t=1/e plotted on the same plot. For example, let us examine the
|E*| value at a reduced time of 10 s in Figure 2. The master curve with the incorrect reduced
time overestimates the |E*| value by more than two times the correct value.
To further understand the impact of the incorrect conversion of frequency to time, master
curves were constructed for |E*| values of hot-mix asphalt samples made using different PG
grade binders. Data used in this analysis was obtained from reference 9. From these master
curves |E*| values were determined as a function of time using both frequency units (Hz and
rad/s). Table 1 and Figures 3 and 4 summarize the results of this analysis. It is clear from Table
1 that the MEPDG (NCHRP 1-37A) procedure results in over estimation of the |E*| values in
both rutting and fatigue cases. The over estimation ranges are summarized in Table 2.
1
10
100
1000
10000
1.0E-6 100.0E-6 10.0E-3 1.0E+0 100.0E+0 10.0E+3 1.0E+6
Reduced Time, s
E
*
,

k
s
i
290 ksi (time = 1/f, f in Hz)
140 ksi
10
(time = 1/e, e in rad/s)
FIGURE 2 Typical Master Curve Generated Using Correct and Incorrect Reduced Time.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 10
TABLE 1 Summary of Percent Change in |E*| Due to Incorrect Frequency to Time
Conversion Inherent in the MEPDG
Percent
NCHRP 1-37 A Correct Change
t=1/f(Hz) t=1/e(rad/s) from correct
1 61 28.5 -114
10 24 11.4 -111
100 10 5 -100
1 869 558 -56
10 491 279 -76
100 238 121 -97
1 228 108 -111
10 89 40 -123
100 33 15 -120
1 1236 836 -48
10 744 437 -70
100 375 191 -96
1 65 30 -117
10 24 11 -118
100 10 5 -100
1 855 539 -59
10 472 263 -79
100 223 111 -101
1 107 49 -118
10 41 20 -105
100 17 10 -70
1 1010 602 -68
10 517 262 -97
100 218 100 -118
1 319 234 -36
10 219 174 -26
100 166 142 -17
1 1474 1079 -37
10 988 682 -45
100 619 422 -47
PG58-28
PG64-22
PG70-22
PG64-28
PG Grade
Loading Time,
s Temperature C
Distress
type
Dynamic Modulus, E*, ksi at t seconds
31.2 AC Rutting
7.3
Fatigue
Cracking
40.8
11
AC Rutting
Fatigue
Cracking
Frequency to Time Conversion Method
43.6 AC Rutting
14.2
Fatigue
Cracking
32 AC Rutting
9.2
Fatigue
Cracking
PG76-16
44.2 Rutting
22.1 Fatigue
Table 2 Minimum and Maximum Percent Change in |E*| for Rutting and Fatigue
Performance
Distress
Binder
Grade
Loading
Time, s
Maximum -123 PG64-22 10s
Minimum -17 PG76-16 100s
Maximum -118 PG64-28 100 s
Minimum -37 PG76-16 1s
Percent Change
Rutting
Fatigue
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 11
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

E
*

V
a
l
u
e
PG58-28 PG64-22 PG70-22 PG64-28 PG70-28 PG76-16
1 s 10 s 100 s
FIGURE 3 Percent Change in |E*| Value Due to Incorrect Frequency to Time Conversion
in MEPDG for Fatigue Performance.
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

C
h
a
n
g
e

f
r
o
m

c
o
r
r
e
c
t

E
*

V
a
l
u
e
PG58-28 PG64-22 PG70-22 PG64-28 PG70-28 PG76-16
1 s 10 s 100 s
FIGURE 4 Percent Change in |E*| Value Due to Incorrect Frequency to Time Conversion
in MEPDG for Fatigue Performance.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 12
Recently Charles Schwartz studied the sensitivity of |E*| to the rutting and fatigue
performance (10). Figures 4 and 5 taken from reference 10 show the extent of the changes in
|E*| and its impact on rutting and fatigue performance as predicted by the MEPDG.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
|E*| Shift
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
u
t

D
e
p
t
h
AC
Total
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
|E*| Shift
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

R
u
t

D
e
p
t
h
AC
Total
FIGURE 5 Sensitivity of AC Rut Depth Prediction in MEPDG to Change in |E*|. Figure
Taken From Reference 10.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 13
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
|E*| Shift
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

C
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
-100% -50% 0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
|E*| Shift
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

F
a
t
i
g
u
e

C
r
a
c
k
i
n
g
FIGURE 6 Sensitivity of Fatigue Cracking Prediction in MEPDG to Change in |E*|. Figure
Taken From Reference 10.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Several other researchers with expertise in the general field of Rheology and asphalt
Rheology were surveyed about the frequency to time conversion issue. The results of the survey
are shown in Table 3. As is clear from the table, there are various approaches taken to convert
frequency to time. It seems that the simplest approach is to convert angular frequency in rad/s to
time by taking a direct inverse. This approach is universally taken by rheologists when using
inter-conversion equations to obtain time domain properties from frequency domain test data.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 14
TABLE 3 Different Approaches Taken by Various Researchers to Convert Testing
Frequency to Loading Time.
Source Author Frequency to Time conversion
Time t in s
Angular Frequency e in rad/s
Cyclic Frequency f in cycles/s
Book: Physical Properties
of Polymers
J. D. Ferry t = 1/e
Personal Communication Dr. R. Schapery t = 0.1/f
TRB Paper Kim and Daniels t = 0.08/f
Personal Communication Dr. M. G. Sharma t = 1/e
NCHRP 9-29 Report Dr. Ramon
Bonaquist
t = 1/f
RECOMMENDATIONS
From the data analysis presented in this paper, the following recommendations are made:
1. The relaxation modulus, E(t), should be used if modulus value is needed in the time
domain. The dynamic (complex) modulus |E*| has no physical meaning in the time
domain. It is strictly valid only in the frequency domain where it is measured. E(t) can
be predicted from the storage modulus E if phase angle data from the |E*| measurements
is reliable. Approximate conversion methods are widely available in the literature.
2. If the calculation of E(t) is considered too complicated, then as a first step |E*| may be
used as an approximation (direct replacement) of E(t). However, frequency in rad/s
(e=2tf) must be used in conversion of frequency to time (t = 1/e). As shown in this
paper, the advantage of instituting this change in the MEPDG is that by doing so the
enhancements affected by polymer modification in the time dependence of asphalt
binders may be fully realized. In other words, a shift in 1/2t on the time axis will allow
the use of |E*| values in the loading time region where rutting resistance is better
characterized for unmodified and modified hot-mix asphalt.
3. The correct frequency to time conversion procedure should be further investigated for
hot-mix asphalt. To do this, data from transient time domain tests such as creep or
relaxation step tests should be used to predict complex modulus in frequency domain
(using both 1/f and 1/e conversion method). To validate the correct frequency
conversion method, the predicted complex modulus must then be compared to complex
modulus measured from frequency domain tests such as the SPT. Both these tests must
be conducted within the linear viscoelastic limits of hot-mix asphalt.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 15
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank Mr. Brendan Morris, Mr. Fazlidin Shamsiev, and Mr.
Josh Thompson from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Mobile Asphalt Testing
Laboratory for performing the SPT tests. We are also grateful to Mr. Satish Ramaiah, Mr. David
Heidler and Mr. Thomas Jackson of FHWA Asphalt Binder Testing Laboratory for their expert
services in determining and compiling asphalt binder properties. We also appreciate the data
compilation assistance and helpful comments provided by Mr. Chuck Paugh and Mr. Jagan
Guddimettla of the FHWA mobile hot-mix asphalt Laboratory.
REFERENCES:
1. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Development of the 2002 Guide for
the Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. NCHRP 1-37A Unpublished
Final Report, National Research Council, 2004.
2. N. W. Tschoegl, The Phenomenological Theory of Linear Viscoelasticity: An
Introduction, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1989.
3. Schwarzl, F. R., Numerical calculation of stress relaxation modulus from dynamic data
for linear viscoelastic materials, Rheologica Acta, Vol. 14, pp. 581-590, (1975).
4. Christensen, R. M., Theory of Viscoelasticity, Academic Press, New York, 1982.
5. Kaloush, K., Simple Performance Test for Permanent Deformation of Asphalt
Mixtures, Ph. D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, (2001).
6. Schapery, R. A., Park, S. W., Methods of Interconversion between Linear Viscoelastic
Material Functions. Part II- An Approximate Analytical Method. International Journal
of Solids and Structures, Vol. 36, pp. 1677-1699, (1999).
7. Marasteanu, M. O., Anderson, D. A., Comparison of Moduli for Asphalt Binders
Obtained from Different Test Devices, Journal of The Assosciation of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, AAPT, Vol. 69, pp. 574-606, 2000.
8. Papazian, H. O., The Response of Linear Viscoelastic Materials in Frequency Domain,
Ph.D. Dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1961.
9. Dongre, et al., Field Evaluation of Witczak and Hirsh Models for Predicting Dynamic
Modulus of Hot-Mix Asphalt, Journal of The Assosciation of Asphalt Paving
Technologists, AAPT, Vol. 74, 2005.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.
Dongre, Myers, and DAngelo 16
10. Schwartz, Charles, W., Evaluation of The Witczak Dynamic Modulus Prediction
Model, Presented at the 84
th
Annual Meeting of The Transportation Research Board
(Practical Papers), TRB, Washington, D.C., January 2005.
TRB 2006 Annual Meeting CD-ROM Original paper submittal not revised by author.