Investigation of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design/DARWin-ME Performance Prediction Models for Iowa Pavement Analysis and Design, 2015

The Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) was developed under National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 1-37A as a novel mechanistic-empirical procedure for the analysis and design of pavements. The MEPDG was subsequently supported by AASHTO’s DARWin-ME and most recently marketed as AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software as of February 2013. Although the core design process and computational engine have remained the same over the years, some enhancements to the pavement performance prediction models have been implemented along with other documented changes as the MEPDG transitioned to AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software. Preliminary studies were carried out to determine possible differences between AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design, MEPDG (version 1.1), and DARWin-ME (version 1.1) performance predictions for new jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP), new hot mix asphalt (HMA), and HMA over JPCP systems. Differences were indeed observed between the pavement performance predictions produced by these different software versions. Further investigation was needed to verify these differences and to evaluate whether identified local calibration factors from the latest MEPDG (version 1.1) were acceptable for use with the latest version (version 2.1.24) of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design at the time this research was conducted. Therefore, the primary objective of this research was to examine AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design performance predictions using previously identified MEPDG calibration factors (through InTrans Project 11-401) and, if needed, refine the local calibration coefficients of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design pavement performance predictions for Iowa pavement systems using linear and nonlinear optimization procedures. A total of 130 representative sections across Iowa consisting of JPCP, new HMA, and HMA over JPCP sections were used. The local calibration results of AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design are presented and compared with national and locally calibrated MEPDG models.

Embankment Quality and Assessment of Moisture Control Implementation, TR-677, 2016

A specification for contractor moisture quality control (QC) in roadway embankment construction has been in use for approximately 10 years in Iowa on about 190 projects. The use of this QC specification and the development of the soils certification program for the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) originated from Iowa Highway Research Board (IHRB) embankment quality research projects. Since this research, the Iowa DOT has applied compaction with moisture control on most embankment work under pavements. This study set out to independently evaluate the actual quality of compaction using the current specifications. Results show that Proctor tests conducted by Iowa State University (ISU) using representative material obtained from each test section where field testing was conducted had optimum moisture contents and maximum dry densities that are different from what was selected by the Iowa DOT for QC/quality assurance (QA) testing. Comparisons between the measured and selected values showed a standard error of 2.9 lb/ft3 for maximum dry density and 2.1% for optimum moisture content. The difference in optimum moisture content was as high as 4% and the difference in maximum dry density was as high as 6.5 lb/ft3 . The difference at most test locations, however, were within the allowable variation suggested in AASHTO T 99 for test results between different laboratories. The ISU testing results showed higher rates of data outside of the target limits specified based on the available contractor QC data for cohesive materials. Also, during construction observations, wet fill materials were often observed. Several test points indicated that materials were placed and accepted at wet of the target moisture contents. The statistical analysis results indicate that the results obtained from this study showed improvements over results from previous embankment quality research projects (TR-401 Phases I through III and TR-492) in terms of the percentage of data that fell within the specification limits. Although there was evidence of improvement, QC/QA results are not consistently meeting the target limits/values. Recommendations are provided in this report for Iowa DOT consideration with three proposed options for improvements to the current specifications. Option 1 provides enhancements to current specifications in terms of material-dependent control limits, training, sampling, and process control. Option 2 addresses development of alternative specifications that incorporate dynamic cone penetrometer or light weight deflectometer testing into QC/QA. Option 3 addresses incorporating calibrated intelligent compaction measurements into QC/QA.