Reliability in the MEPDG

One States Perspective

Linda Pierce, PE
State Pavements Engineer
WSDOT

Transportation Research Board

86th Annual Meeting
January 21, 2207
 Introduction
• What level of reliability to use?
• NCHRP 1-40 results
• Reliability and pavement thickness
• Thoughts on the reliability concept in
MEPDG
 What values to use?
• 1993 AASHTO Guide definition
– The actual number of ESAL’s to a terminal
serviceability level is less than the predicted
ESAL’s
• MEPDG definition
– Each key distresses will be less than the critical
distress level over the design period
• The more important the project (consequences
of failure) the higher the reliability
 MEPDG Flow Diagram

Image courtesy of Scott Wilson Pavement Engineering LTD, NCHRP 1-40A(03) Final Report
 MEPDG Reliability Process
1. Input design parameters (traffic,
climate, structure, material properties)
2. User defines target distress conditions
at the end of the design period
3. User defines reliability level
4. MEPDG estimates distress at the end
of the design year and determines
“pass” or “fail” condition
MEPDG Recommended Values

Functional Class Urban Rural

Interstate 85-97 80-95
Principal Arterial 80-95 75-90
Collectors 75-85 70-80
Local 50-75 50-75
 Distress Types
Rigid Pavement Flexible Pavement
Terminal IRI Terminal IRI
Transverse cracking Top down cracking
Faulting Bottom up cracking
Punchouts Thermal cracking
Crack width (CRCP) Rutting – total pavement
Load transfer (cracks) Rutting – HMA only
Minimum and maximum Fatigue cracking (chemically
crack spacing stabilized layer)
 WSDOT Recommendation
• Until local calibration/validation can be
completed
• New Construction
Functional Class Reliability
Interstate 95%
Principal Arterial 85%
Minor Arterial and Collector 75%

• Rehabilitation
– Reliability = 50 percent
 NCHRP 1-40 Results

• Rehabilitation design may be conduced

at a greater level
– Traffic, material properties, subgrade
moisture conditions, pavement distress can
be measured in the lab and field
 Global Calibration Hypothesis

Image courtesy of ARA

 NCHRP 1-40 Results
• For some deterioration modes there is more
calibration data at low levels of distress
• Variability for higher distress levels is likely to
be less reliable (based on fewer data points)
• Until more calibration data (at varying distress
levels) is available, it is difficult to asses the
effects of reduced input variability and
therefore, reliability of the output parameters
 NCHRP 1-40 Results
• The same standard deviations are used
for all design levels (except for thermal
cracking)
– No improvement in reliability when more
accurate input parameters are used
• Investigate the use of
– Monte Carlo simulation techniques
– Other alternative methods
 NCHRP 1-40 Results
• Insufficient data in the LTPP database to
determine the effect of input level on the
calibration error
– Except for thermal cracking properties
• Need to have accurate measure of past
traffic loadings
• Local calibration needed to confirm the
national calibration models
 NCHRP 9-30 Results
• Use of performance data from carefully
controlled experiments (WesTrack,
MnRoad, NCAT, FHWA-ALF) are more
useful for model validation/calibration
• Recalibrate MEPDG
Reliability and Thickness Design
• HMA Example
– Level 1 and 3 analysis
– 40 year design
– Reliability levels: 50 and 90
Reliability and Thickness Design

Input Distress Distress Reliability

Level R Performance Criteria Target Predicted Predicted Comment
3 50 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 226.5 13.23 Fail
3 50 AC Bottom Up Cracking (%) 100 40.9 99.999 Pass

3 50 AC Thermal Fracture (ft/mi): 100 2112 0 Fail

3 50 Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): 0.25 0.34 19.77 Fail

3 90 Terminal IRI (in/mi) 172 226.5 13.23 Fail

3 90 AC Bottom Up Cracking (%): 100 40.9 99.999 Pass

3 90 AC Thermal Fracture (ft/mi): 100 2112 0 Fail
3 90 Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in): 0.25 0.34 19.77 Fail
 Thoughts on the Reliability
Concept
• Process used in the MEPDG is a starting
point
• Local calibration is essential