Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Evaluation of AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide for Designing Rigid Pavements in Louisiana
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Evaluation of AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide for Designing Rigid Pavements in Louisiana
Do you wish to request the book?
Evaluation of AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide for Designing Rigid Pavements in Louisiana
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Evaluation of AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide for Designing Rigid Pavements in Louisiana
2014
Overview
This paper presents a recent study on using AASHTO Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) design software (Pavement ME(TM)) to evaluate the performance of typical Louisiana rigid pavement structures as compared to the existing pavement performance data available in the pavement management system (PMS). In total, 19 projects with two pavement structure types, Portland cement concrete (PCC) over unbound base and PCC over asphalt mixture blanket, were analyzed. Results show that the national model over-predicts transverse cracking and under-predicts joint faulting. Therefore, a preliminary calibration was conducted to adjust Pavement ME for Louisiana's condition. In addition to comparing the measured and predicted performance, the recommended thickness from the current and the new design methods was also compared. It was found that the two design methods are comparable with an average difference of 2 cm or 7 percent (Pavement ME requires a thinner pavement). At the end of this paper, problems, challenges and possible solutions for fully implementing the new design method are discussed.
Publisher
中華鋪面工程學會,Springer Nature B.V
