close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

2573-08

код для вставкиСкачать
Use of Pavement Management System
Data to Enhance Pavement Performance
Specifications in Canada
James Dale Smith, Stephen Lee, and Thomas J. Kazmierowski
• Limited ability for the agency to account for the changes in
performance that arise from differences in quality between the
as-designed product and the as-built product.
Most agency materials and construction specifications for pavement
rehabilitation and construction activities provide little or no linkage
between quality assurance methods and the in-service performance
of the treatment. The Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO),
Canada, is developing and implementing performance specifications
to bridge this gap. MTO defines performance specifications as specifications that describe how the finished product should perform over
time. This paper describes how MTO used historical pavement management system data to assess performance sensitivity and to create
historical performance distributions and how the agency used these
distributions to set acceptance criteria, including payment adjustment
for performance.
In recent years, agencies have explored opportunities to incorporate performance specifications that specify quality, as it relates
to desired long-term performance, into their construction contracts
(1). These specifications also provide a means to account for the
value lost or gained by variations in performance from the specified
criteria.
Previous Studies
Increasing portions of federal, provincial, and municipal resources
are being allocated to preserve and maintain Canada’s roadways.
Considering the major investments made by these transportation
agencies to construct and maintain the roadway infrastructure, it is
critical to ensure not only the initial quality but also the long-term
performance of these expenditures. Quality assurance specifications
that specify end-product quality often have been used by Canadian
transportation agencies to ensure the initial construction quality of
roadway pavements.
Most materials and construction specifications for roadway construction and maintenance offer minimal connection between quality
assurance methods and the in-service short- and long-term performance of the delivered product. This quality assurance method has
limitations for both the transportation agency and the contracted road
builder, including
The development of performance specifications and performancerelated specifications (PRS) for flexible pavements is well documented. Initial efforts to develop PRS for new hot-mix asphalt
(HMA) pavements began under NCHRP Project 10-26 (2). NCHRP
Project 09-20 developed PRS for HMA pavement on the basis of field
data (3). A revised PRS method for new HMA pavement that incorporated AASHTO mechanistic–empirical models for predicting HMA
pavement performance was developed in NCHRP Project 09-22
(4). The final report of SHRP 2 Project R07, which developed and
implemented performance specifications for rapid highway renewal,
generally supports the use of performance specifications as a viable
option for agencies interested in empowering the private sector to
provide creative rapid renewal solutions to save time, minimize disruption, and enhance durability (5). A comprehensive overview and
guidelines for pavement warranty programs are presented in NCHRP
Report 699 (6).
• Increased contract administration burden on the agency;
• Minimized flexibility for the contractor to initiate, innovate,
and introduce new products;
• Inappropriate risks and responsibilities allocated to the agency
when the contractor is best able to manage these issues;
• Focus of the contractor’s efforts on initial acceptance rather than
on long-term performance; and
Development of Performance
Warranty Requirements
Initial Trial Contracts
Since 2007, the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO), Canada,
has tendered more than 15 contracts with a 7-year pavement warranty
specification. These 7-year pavement warranty projects are unique
in North America. Contractors can bid on the pavement portion
of the project without any mandatory conventional specifications.
The contractor essentially is responsible for all aspects of pavement design, materials, and construction. MTO does not approve
the design of the pavement structure; instead, the agency relies on
performance requirements during the warranty period. This practice
J. D. Smith, Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, 301 Saint Paul Street,
Saint Catharines, Ontario L2R 7R4, Canada. S. Lee and T. J. Kazmierowski, Ministry
of Transportation of Ontario, 145 Sir William Hearst Avenue, Room 233, Downsview, Ontario M3M 1J8, Canada. Current affiliation for T. J. Kazmierowski: Golder
Associates, 6925 Century Avenue, Suite 100, Mississauga, Ontario L5N 7K2,
Canada. Corresponding author: J. D. Smith, J.Dale.Smith@ontario.ca.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2573, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016, pp. 60–68.
DOI: 10.3141/2573-08
60
Smith, Lee, and Kazmierowski
61
motivates contractors to provide an adequate pavement design,
to have effective quality management systems, and to construct
a durable pavement.
The earliest of these contracts were completed in 2007. Fulldepth reclamation is the pavement remedial treatment used for most
contracts, with cold in-place recycling used for others.
Contractors responded to the challenge, although some would
rather not have dealt with warranties. In most cases, the contractor
pavement designs were similar to, or more substantial than, what
MTO would have designed. Contractors used established materials
and construction methods and put significant effort into quality control. With the exception of two cases, the pavements, still within their
warranty term, generally are meeting the performance requirements.
A few pavement sections have exceeded the roughness and cracking
requirements and required corrective work, including surface course
replacement and crack sealing.
The analysis of historical performance data for the pavement management system described in this paper has helped refine and further develop the specification used for the initial trial contracts. It is
expected that the analysis, when shared with Ontario’s road building
industry, will increase bidder understanding of performance risks
and will improve the outcome of future projects that use pavement
performance specifications.
of the use of these records in developing pavement performance
specifications:
Performance Records
Performance Sensitivity Evaluation
MTO has collected pavement performance records systematically
for provincial highway pavement sections since the mid-1960s (7).
Since the early 1980s, subjective performance evaluations have been
recorded by trained evaluators using standard procedures (8). Since
the mid-1990s, objective records of pavement roughness, wheel track
rutting, and pavement crossfall have been collected with the MTO
Automatic Road Analyzer (ARAN) with a 10-m reporting interval.
An analysis of the performance records was conducted to establish
reasonable and defensible expectations of pavement performance.
Subjective evaluation records for the period from 2005 to 2011
(10,322 records) and objective ARAN records for the period from
2007 to 2010 (5,052 records) were used for the analysis. The time
periods selected are not arbitrary but contain recent records that are in
a consistent format and are suitable for statistical analysis. The subjective records were compiled by trained evaluators and the objective
records were collected with the 36 ultrasonic sensors (wheel track rutting and crossfall) and inertia profilograph (roughness) mounted on
the ARAN vehicle.
Statistically, the subjective records contain categorical paired data
and the objective records contain continuous data. An example of
continuous data is wheel track rutting depths measured and collected
along the entire length of a pavement section in both wheelpaths,
with averages reported at 10-m intervals. An example of the categorical paired data is moderate, frequent flushing. To facilitate the
analysis, it was necessary to transform the paired subjective records
to a single parameter. This transformation was achieved by applying
equal weight to the distress severity and density, with the resulting
single parameter called the distress index (DI). The DI follows the
MTO convention of reporting pavement condition indexes: a value
of 10 means perfect condition, with progressively lower condition as
the value decreases.
The performance records were collected for the purpose of networklevel pavement management. The following are some limitations
As a first step in the analysis, the researchers evaluated the performance
sensitivity to such key highway attributes as geographic region, traffic
volumes, road classification, and work type. Performance sensitivities
were addressed by one of three methods:
• Categorical, discrete pavement distress records that describe
the predominant distress only;
• Limited detail on construction and any subsequent maintenance
activity; and
• Performance evaluation limits that do not necessarily coincide
with pavement rehabilitation limits.
Recognizing the data limitations, the researchers completed detailed
field evaluations of selected pavement sections to validate the analysis
results that are described later in this paper.
MTO has established a warranty evaluation segment length (or
lot size) of 500 lane meters for pavement warranties, with a shorter
length used where necessary, such as at the limits of a project. Where
applicable, warranty requirements are specified relative to this length
(e.g., average rut depth per 500 lane meters). The 500–lane meter
length was selected to balance two factors: the contractor’s increasing risk of nonconformance with shorter lengths and the owner’s
increasing risk of unrepaired, localized areas of poor performance
with longer lengths. For analysis, the performance records were
transformed to values for a 500–lane meter length where possible.
• Varying performance requirements by attribute. Higher road
classifications exhibit lower roughness, as measured with the mean
roughness index (MRI), as is expected with the use of higher reliability and lower terminal serviceability as specified in the AASHTO
pavement design procedures.
• Excluding attribute by specification warrant. Highways classified as local typically exhibit markedly lower performance compared
with collector, arterial, and freeway classifications.
• Applying the worst-case performance. The performance requirement was established from wheel track rutting depths on Superpave®
Traffic Categories D and E pavements (9), on the basis of the approximately 2-mm average increase in observed wheel track rutting depths
from Category A to Category E pavements—142 contracts and
2,807 segments of 500 lane meters—shown in Figure 1. Note that
MTO uses five traffic categories:
Category A: <0.3 million equivalent single axle loads (ESALs),
Category B: 0.3 to <3 million ESALs,
Category C: 3 to <10 million ESALs,
Category D: 10 to <30 million ESALs, and
Category E: >30 million ESALs.
Figure 2 shows the sensitivity of pavement edge cracking to
highway classification, and the evidence of significantly higher
amounts of edge cracking for local highways. The reason for this
sensitivity is simple: local highways in Ontario typically are very
low volume with less HMA thickness and do not warrant partially paved shoulders. It is necessary to evaluate the sensitivity
of performance to key highway attributes before further analysis,
62
Transportation Research Record 2573
100
90
Line Distribution (continuous data) (%)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
2
Traffic Category A
4
6
8
Average Wheel Track Rut Depth (mm)
Traffic Category B
Traffic Category C
10
Traffic Category D
12
Traffic Category E
FIGURE 1 Sensitivity of wheel track rutting to Superpave traffic category after 7 years of service on the basis of 147 contracts
and 2,807 segments (500 lane meters per segment).
10
9.5
9
Distress Index
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
0
2
All highways
4
Freeways
6
8
10
12
Pavement Age (years)
Arterial highways
FIGURE 2 Sensitivity of edge cracking to highway classification.
Collector highways
14
16
Local highways
18
20
Trend (all records)
Smith, Lee, and Kazmierowski
63
because application of one of the three methods listed above may
require selective extraction of the historical data along with the
removal of outliers.
described earlier, the performance is sensitive to highway classification, and distributions are shown for freeways and arterial and
collector highways.
Performance Distribution
Performance Acceptance Limits
In the second step, the performance records for each distress type
for the performance year of interest were extracted and best-fit statistical curves were plotted through the performance distribution.
The performance year of interest was 7 years, which was selected
by MTO as the performance warranty period for new, reconstructed,
and rehabilitated flexible pavement structures and which, on the
basis of experience in Ontario, constitutes approximately 40% of
the typical 18-year design life of these structures.
Figure 3 shows the distribution of flushing performance for
445 pavement sections that were 7 years old at the time of evaluation. This distribution indicates that approximately 65% of the
pavements were evaluated as having no flushing distress. A power
function best-fit curve was plotted through the lower portion of the
distribution with probability density function y = 6 E−08e1.5485(DI).
Figure 4 shows the distribution for roughness (MRI) on the basis
of 68 contracts and 1,473 segments (500 lane meters per segment).
The distribution reflects the freeze–thaw climate and the ongoing
challenges of the low-temperature performance of asphalt cement
for road construction in Ontario, with segments of relatively high
roughness at the lower end of the distribution. For roughness, as
The third step in the process is to use the performance distribution to statistically set the acceptance limits. NCHRP Report 699:
Guidelines for the Use of Pavement Warranties on Highway Construction Projects states, “The DOT may set the threshold at 2 σ. . . .
With additional experience or improved consistency, the DOT may
decide to tighten the threshold (to between 1 σ and 2 σ) or extend
the warranty” (6).
It is critical to use reasonable performance thresholds that balance road builder risk (and project cost) and agency expectations.
Historically, MTO has balanced the risk and agency expectations
by establishing acceptance limits based on 1.5 σ or 2.0 σ from the
mean of a normalized distribution. For pavement performance specifications, MTO has selected a threshold of 1.5 σ for most distress
types, and a threshold of 2 σ for distress types that are objectively
measured and combined with payment adjustment based on performance. Payment adjustment for performance is described in the
next section of this paper.
Some performance distributions were too skewed to permit normalization, for example, the performance distribution for flushing shown in Figure 3. Where normalization was not possible (on
100
Line Distribution (categorical, paired data) (%)
90
80
70
60
y = 6E–08e1.5485(DI)
R 2 = .9325
50
40
Slight–few
(0% to 10% of surface area affected)
30
20
Moderate–frequent
(20% to 50% of surface area affected)
10
0
10
9
8
7
Data points
6
5
Distress Index
4
3
Best fit, probability density function
FIGURE 3 Flushing performance distribution after 7 years of service.
2
1
0
64
Transportation Research Record 2573
100
90
Line Distribution (continuous data) (%)
80
70
Resurfacing work excluded
Freeway = 446 segments
Arterial = 694 segments
Collector = 333 segments
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
MRI (m/km)
Freeways
Arterial highways
Collector highways
FIGURE 4 Pavement roughness (MRI) performance after 7 years of service. Resurfacing work is excluded.
the basis of generally accepted limits for skew and kurtosis), the
threshold was based on the best-fit probability distribution or density function, with a probability of exceedance of 6.7%, equivalent
to 1.5 σ. The DI value for flushing at a 6.7% probability of exceedance
was 8.9. Backcalculation yielded 15.7% moderate flushing.
To illustrate, Figure 5 shows the average wheel track rut depths
on 1,125 pavement segments (500 lane meters per segment) from
64 Superpave Traffic Categories D and E contracts as measured by
ARAN. The distribution of the measured data was normalized by
a Box–Cox power transformation (10). Transformation results are
shown in Figure 6. Backtransformation yielded values for mean
+ 1.5 σ and mean + 2 σ of 6.7 mm and 7.8 mm, respectively, as
shown in Figure 5.
Performance Categories and Requirements
For flexible pavement structures, performance requirements have been
established for the following eight categories: flushing, coarse aggregate loss, wheel track rutting, roughness (MRI), alligator cracking (or
crack density), single and multiple cracking, joint separation, and differential frost heaving. For each category, some requirements apply
throughout the warranty period, including the final 12 months, and
some requirements only apply in the final 12 months of the warranty
period.
The requirements that apply throughout the warranty period are
called limits and are intended to address conditions that would affect
pavement safety, serviceability, or both. By nature, these requirements have a low probability of exceedance. The limit requirements
are based on the performance distributions, on expert judgement,
and on an assessment of the existing pavement network; for example, Table 1 shows the occurrence of different depths and interval
lengths of localized wheel track rutting on 7-year-old pavements
in the provincial highway network. The 30-m interval and 14-mm
average rut depth were selected as the limit; this limit was exceeded
on 3.5% of 7-year-old pavements or contracts.
The requirements that apply in the final 12 months of the warranty period are called levels and are the expected reasonable level
of pavement performance as determined by the statistical analysis
of historical performance described in the preceding sections.
The intent of this two-part warranty approach is (a) to reduce the
owner’s oversight burden by calling for a detailed evaluation of performance to be carried out only at the end of the warranty period and
(b) to reduce the risk to the road builder of multiple repair-related
returns to the project site. Before the final year of the warranty,
when trained evaluators conduct a detailed evaluation, including a
project-level ARAN survey, routine assessments of pavement condition, maintenance patrols, and a network-level ARAN survey are
relied on to identify limit exceedances.
Warranty performance requirements for this approach are shown in
Table 2, along with the repair that must be completed if requirements
are not met. Repairs are completed according to standard material and
construction specifications with normal owner oversight, including
material sampling and testing.
The performance requirements in the final 12 months of the warranty period are based on a +1.5 σ threshold, except for those categories with a payment adjustment for performance, which are based on
a +2 σ threshold. Payment adjustment for performance is applied
only to categories measured objectively by ARAN: cracking, wheel
track rutting, and roughness. These three categories are the key
Smith, Lee, and Kazmierowski
65
300
250
Count
200
150
Skew = 1.501
Kurtosis = 3.014
100
+1.5 σ = 6.74 mm
+2 σ = 7.84 mm
50
10 9
.8
11 8
.3
11 6
.8
12 4
.3
12 3
.8
13 1
.2
13 9
.7
8
14
.2
6
91
10
.3
43
9.
94
9.
46
8.
98
8.
49
7.
01
7.
53
7.
04
6.
56
6.
08
5.
59
5.
11
4.
63
4.
14
3.
66
3.
18
2.
69
2.
21
1.
73
1.
0.
0.
24
0
Average Segment Wheel Track Rut Depth (mm)
FIGURE 5 Average depth of wheel track ruts after 7 years of service.
140
120
100
λ = –0.71601
Skew = –3.4 E–08
Kurtosis = –0.378
Count
80
60
40
20
0.
7
0.
7
0.
8
0.
8
0.
9
0.
9
0.
9
1.
0
1.
0
1.
1
1.
1
1.
1
1.
2
1.
2
1.
3
1.
3
1.
3
1.
4
1.
4
1.
5
1.
5
1.
6
1.
6
1.
6
1.
7
1.
7
1.
8
1.
8
1.
8
1.
9
0
Average Segment Wheel Track Rut Depth (normalized)
FIGURE 6 Normalized distribution of wheel track rut depth (l 5 Box–Cox transformation parameter).
66
Transportation Research Record 2573
TABLE 1 Occurrence of
Localized Wheel Track Rutting
on 7-Year-Old Pavement
sufficient to shift the road builder’s performance target from one that
fulfills the minimum warranty requirements to one that will result in
a payment increase.
Because of the analysis’s limitations described earlier, detailed
field evaluations were carried out to verify the results of the statistical analysis. Figure 7 shows the results of detailed field evaluations of coarse aggregate loss on 729 segments (500 lane meters per
segment) of 7-year-old pavement from 36 contracts. These evaluations showed that 65 of the 729 segments (8.9%) exceeded the level
requirement of no more than 10% loss of moderate coarse aggregate, and 25 of the 729 segments (3.4%) exceeded the limit requirement that there be no severe or very severe coarse aggregate loss. Of
the 65 segments that exceeded the level requirement, 36 were part of
a single problematic contract, and most of the locations of severe or
very severe coarse aggregate loss were localized potholes requiring
minor repairs. The detailed field evaluations generally verified the
expected statistical nonconformance rates of 6.7% (1.5 σ) for levels
and 2.3% (2 σ) for limits, for all distresses.
The performance analysis was based on subjective evaluations
by experienced, trained evaluators and on ARAN measurements of
network-level roughness and wheel track rutting. In 2012, MTO purchased a new ARAN to replace the older ARAN that provided the
analysis data. The new ARAN is equipped with an advanced laser
measurement system whose capabilities include crack measurement.
Data collected by the new ARAN are analyzed as they become available each year for comparison with the analysis results; reasonable
agreement has been found to date. Future refinements to the Table 2
performance requirements are anticipated after sufficient data are
obtained from the new ARAN.
Occurrence (%), by
Average Rut Depth
over Interval
Interval (m)
16 mm
14 mm
7.7
4.2
2.4
0.7
11.3
4.9
4.2
3.5
10
20
25
30
performance categories of flexible pavement. Measurements taken
by ARAN have been found to be repeatable and accurate, and maintenance and calibration of the equipment is annual and ongoing. In addition, a protocol is being developed for field calibration immediately
before the measurement of pavement warranty segments.
Warranty performance evaluations are completed by the owner
or a representative of the owner. The contractor may challenge the
evaluation results and request remeasurement.
Payment adjustment calculations apply to each warranty evaluation segment, which typically is 500 lane meters. A payment increase
applies to performance that exceeds the −1 σ threshold and a payment decrease applies to performance between the +1 σ and +2 σ
thresholds. Performance measured beyond +2 σ requires repair.
Payment adjustments are intended to be quality incentives that are
TABLE 2 Performance Requirements for Warranty Contracts
Entire Warranty Period (Limits)
Final 12 Months of Warranty Period (Levels)
Measurement
Performance Requirement
Repair
Performance Requirement
Repair
Coarse aggregate
loss
SP-024 evaluation
No severe or very severe
requirements
Flushing
SP-024 evaluation
No severe or very severe
requirements
Moderate coarse aggregate
loss shall be <10% of
segment length
Moderate flushing shall be
<10% of segment length
Alligator cracking
SP-024 evaluation
Remove HMA surface
course uniform
depth and replace
Remove HMA surface
course uniform
depth and replace
Reconstruct
Cracking
ARAN
No moderate, severe,
or very severe
requirements
na
Remove HMA surface
course uniform depth
and replace
Remove HMA surface
course uniform depth
and replace
Reconstruct
Wheel track
rutting
ARAN
Roughness
ARAN
ASTM E 950-09
profilometer
Joint separation
Direct measure
na
Differential frost
heaving
ASTM E 950-09
profilometer
No lane segments ≥ 30 m
with MRI > 6.0 m/km
Performance
Category
Note: na = not applicable.
No wheelpath locations
≥ 30 m with average
rut depth > 14 mm
No lane segments ≥ 30 m
with MRI > 2.6 m/km
Reconstruct
Remove HMA variable
depth and replace
Slight alligator cracking
shall be <10% of
segment length
Length of cracking up to
20 mm in width shall
be <160% of segment
length
No cracks >20 mm
Average depth of wheel
track rutting per segment
<8.0 mm
Average MRI per segment
<1.6 m/km (freeway)
<1.75 m/km (arterial)
<1.90 m/km (collector)
Separation shall be <5 mm
Separation shall be <20 mm
Reconstruct
na
Remove and replace
HMA full depth
Full-depth crack repair
Remove HMA
variable depth and
replace
Remove HMA
variable depth and
replace
Seal joints
500-mm-wide strip
repair
Smith, Lee, and Kazmierowski
67
100
90
Pavement Area Affected (%)
80
70
60
Nonconformances
Level: 65/729 (8.9%)*
Limit: 25/729 (3.4%)
50
*36 on one contract
40
30
20
10
0
0
51
101
151
201
251
301
Moderate
351
401
Segment
451
501
551
601
651
701
Severe to very severe
FIGURE 7 Detailed field evaluation of coarse aggregate loss from 7-year-old pavement.
Warranty Limitations
Summary and Future Work
The performance requirements were established with data from
pavements across Ontario and reflect typical in-service conditions.
The requirements are not valid for extreme or unexpected in-service
conditions and events that cannot be accounted for by pavement
design. To minimize contractual dispute, conditions are specified
that will void the pavement warranty, in whole or in part. Limitations have been established for unexpected traffic increases, temperature extremes, and damage to or alteration of the work resulting
from vehicular accidents, fuel spills, natural disasters, nonroutine
maintenance, construction, and similar events, as shown in Table 3.
This paper details how compiled data from MTO’s pavement management system were used to develop distributions for several categories
of flexible pavement performance. Through the use of these distributions, practical and measurable performance acceptance limits
are being established to meet the performance specification objective of describing how the pavement should perform over time.
Detailed field evaluations were used to validate the acceptance
limits, and analysis of data from the new, more advanced ARAN
acquired by MTO in 2012 is expected to lead to future refinements
to the acceptance limits.
TABLE 3 Warranty Limitations (11)
Condition
Limitation
Impact
Traffic increase
Cumulative actual ESAL during the warranty period exceeds projected
warranty period ESAL by more than 40%
Annual lowest daily temperature is less than the mean + 2 σ value from
LTPPBind v3.1 (11)
Total degree days above 10°C in a year is greater than the mean + 2 standard
deviation value from LTPPBind v3.1 (11)
Pavement damaged by vehicular accidents, fires, hazardous materials, chemical
and fuel spills, military actions, civil commotions, natural disasters,
or other force majeure incidents
Pavement altered by the failure or deterioration of underlying roadway
elements such as drainage structures or by construction or nonroutine
maintenance carried out by others
Entire warranty voided
Low temperature
High temperature
Third-party damage
Alteration
Performance requirement for cracking
voided
Performance requirements for flushing
and wheel track rutting voided
Entire warranty voided at location of
damage
Entire warranty voided at location of
alteration
68
Initial trials that used a 7-year pavement warranty have shown
that pavement performance specifications can be incorporated into
innovative alternate delivery contracts. The analysis described in
this paper has been incorporated into an updated 7-year pavement
warranty specification, along with guidelines for associated project
selection, design, estimation, contract oversight, and performance
evaluation. MTO is evaluating automated performance data collection for surface distresses to improve the safety of data collection
and the objectivity of the performance evaluations.
Cost and performance information on all 7-year pavement warranty specification projects will be compiled and evaluated. When
repairs are required during the warranty period, the contractor’s
response will be monitored to assess the strengths and weaknesses
of the specification. This information will be used to guide future
updates of the specification.
MTO will continue to pursue the use of alternate models of contract delivery to expand the available options for program delivery
in the face of increasing resource constraints, to allocate appropriate risk to those who can best manage these responsibilities, and to
promote partnerships and collaboration between stakeholders.
In recent years, MTO has awarded design–build contracts in addition to traditional design–bid–build contracts. In the next 5 years,
MTO plans to increase the use of design–build projects. Each MTO
region will develop a 5-year plan both for rehabilitation and for
expansion projects. Performance specifications will be integral to
these ambitious plans.
Transportation Research Record 2573
References
2. Anderson, D. A., D. R. Luhr, and C. E. Antle. NCHRP Report 332: Framework for Development of Performance-Related Specifications for Hot-Mix
Asphaltic Concrete. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1990.
3. Epps, J. A., A. Hand, S. Seeds, T. Scholz, S. Alavi, C. Ashmore, C. L.
Monismith, J. A. Deacon, J. T. Harvey, and R. Leahy. NCHRP Report 455:
Recommended Performance-Related Specifications for Hot-Mix Asphalt
Construction: Results of the WesTrack Project. TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 2002.
4. El-Basyouny, M., and M. G. Jeong. Probabilistic Performance-Related
Specifications Methodology Based on Mechanistic–Empirical Pavement
Design Guide. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2151, Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 93–102.
5. Scott, S., III, L. Konrath, and T. Ferragut. SHRP 2 Report S2-R07-RR-1:
Performance Specifications for Rapid Highway Renewal—Final Report.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2013.
6.Scott, S., III, T. Ferragut, M. Syrnick, and S. Anderson. NCHRP
Report 699: Guidelines for the Use of Pavement Warranties on Highway Construction Projects. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.
7.Pavement Design and Rehabilitation Manual, 2nd ed. Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Canada, 2013, pp. 362–379.
8. Chong, G. J., W. A. Phang, and G. A. Wrong. Manual for Condition
Rating of Flexible Pavements: Distress Manifestations. In Publication
SP-024, Ministry of Transportation, Ontario, Canada, 1990.
9.Standard Practice for Superpave Volumetric Design for Asphalt Mixtures.
AASHTO R 35-15. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2015.
10. Box, G. E. P., and D. R. Cox. An Analysis of Transformations. Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), Vol. 26, No. 2,
1964, pp. 211–252.
11. LTPPBind: A New Tool for Selecting Cost-Effective Superpave Asphalt
Binder Performance Grades. Report FHWA-RD-99-082. FHWA, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1999.
1.Transportation Research Circular E-C137: Glossary of Highway Quality Assurance Terms, Fourth Update. Transportation Research Board of
the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009.
The Standing Committee on Flexible Pavement Construction and Rehabilitation
peer-reviewed this paper.
Документ
Категория
Без категории
Просмотров
3
Размер файла
2 650 Кб
Теги
2573
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа