From Empirical Bayes to Full Bayes: Methods for Analysing Traffice Safety Data, October 25, 2004

Traffic safety engineers are among the early adopters of Bayesian statistical tools for analyzing crash data. As in many other areas of application, empirical Bayes methods were their first choice, perhaps because they represent an intuitively appealing, yet relatively easy to implement alternative to purely classical approaches. With the enormous progress in numerical methods made in recent years and with the availability of free, easy to use software that permits implementing a fully Bayesian approach, however, there is now ample justification to progress towards fully Bayesian analyses of crash data. The fully Bayesian approach, in particular as implemented via multi-level hierarchical models, has many advantages over the empirical Bayes approach. In a full Bayesian analysis, prior information and all available data are seamlessly integrated into posterior distributions on which practitioners can base their inferences. All uncertainties are thus accounted for in the analyses and there is no need to pre-process data to obtain Safety Performance Functions and other such prior estimates of the effect of covariates on the outcome of interest. In this slight, fully Bayesian methods may well be less costly to implement and may result in safety estimates with more realistic standard errors. In this manuscript, we present the full Bayesian approach to analyzing traffic safety data and focus on highlighting the differences between the empirical Bayes and the full Bayes approaches. We use an illustrative example to discuss a step-by-step Bayesian analysis of the data and to show some of the types of inferences that are possible within the full Bayesian framework.

From Empirical Bayes to Full Bayes: Methods for Analyzubg Traffic Safey Data, October 25, 2004

Traffic safety engineers are among the early adopters of Bayesian statistical tools for analyzing crash data. As in many other areas of application, empirical Bayes methods were their first choice, perhaps because they represent an intuitively appealing, yet relatively easy to implement alternative to purely classical approaches. With the enormous progress in numerical methods made in recent years and with the availability of free, easy to use software that permits implementing a fully Bayesian approach, however, there is now ample justification to progress towards fully Bayesian analyses of crash data. The fully Bayesian approach, in particular as implemented via multi-level hierarchical models, has many advantages over the empirical Bayes approach. In a full Bayesian analysis, prior information and all available data are seamlessly integrated into posterior distributions on which practitioners can base their inferences. All uncertainties are thus accounted for in the analyses and there is no need to pre-process data to obtain Safety Performance Functions and other such prior estimates of the effect of covariates on the outcome of interest. In this light, fully Bayesian methods may well be less costly to implement and may result in safety estimates with more realistic standard errors. In this manuscript, we present the full Bayesian approach to analyzing traffic safety data and focus on highlighting the differences between the empirical Bayes and the full Bayes approaches. We use an illustrative example to discuss a step-by-step Bayesian analysis of the data and to show some of the types of inferences that are possible within the full Bayesian framework.

Iowa Calibration of MEPDG Performance Prediction Models, 2013

This study aims to improve the accuracy of AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) pavement performance predictions for Iowa pavement systems through local calibration of MEPDG prediction models. A total of 130 representative pavement sites across Iowa were selected. The selected pavement sites represent flexible, rigid, and composite pavement systems throughout Iowa. The required MEPDG inputs and the historical performance data for the selected sites were extracted from a variety of sources. The accuracy of the nationally-calibrated MEPDG prediction models for Iowa conditions was evaluated. The local calibration factors of MEPDG performance prediction models were identified to improve the accuracy of model predictions. The identified local calibration coefficients are presented with other significant findings and recommendations for use in MEPDG/DARWin-ME for Iowa pavement systems.

Iowa Calibration of MEPDG Performance Prediction Models: Tech Transfer Summary

This study aims to improve the accuracy of AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) pavement performance predictions for Iowa pavement systems through local calibration of MEPDG prediction models. A total of 130 representative pavement sites across Iowa were selected. The selected pavement sites represent flexible, rigid, and composite pavement systems throughout Iowa. The required MEPDG inputs and the historical performance data for the selected sites were extracted from a variety of sources. The accuracy of the nationally-calibrated MEPDG prediction models for Iowa conditions was evaluated. The local calibration factors of MEPDG performance prediction models were identified to improve the accuracy of model predictions. The identified local calibration coefficients are presented with other significant findings and recommendations for use in MEPDG/DARWin-ME for Iowa pavement systems.

MEPDG Work Plan Task No. 8: Validation of Pavement Performance Curves for the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide, 2009

The objective of this research is to determine whether the nationally calibrated performance models used in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) provide a reasonable prediction of actual field performance, and if the desired accuracy or correspondence exists between predicted and monitored performance for Iowa conditions. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to identify the MEPDG input parameters and the MEPDG verification/calibration process. Sensitivities of MEPDG input parameters to predictions were studied using different versions of the MEPDG software. Based on literature review and sensitivity analysis, a detailed verification procedure was developed. A total of sixteen different types of pavement sections across Iowa, not used for national calibration in NCHRP 1-47A, were selected. A database of MEPDG inputs and the actual pavement performance measures for the selected pavement sites were prepared for verification. The accuracy of the MEPDG performance models for Iowa conditions was statistically evaluated. The verification testing showed promising results in terms of MEPDG’s performance prediction accuracy for Iowa conditions. Recalibrating the MEPDG performance models for Iowa conditions is recommended to improve the accuracy of predictions. ****************** Large File**************************

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.