3 ”gm...

. ,. .1“.

in. u
. m.

5.3 4....
5 .1.

 

 

 

c.
a... L
I.

r
3 .71.“:
. .

i;

,. um“? g,
i x ; Ab. )
u... .sfifimupim2 Lam
1.x? 1:
, . A. r

it £1... , ...
531.24,
:5.

r£.?.w......

u.. «31‘ -

$.44... h

.9 raft...
3.3

ulna“: I!

 

 

u: .-
52.5.5... .. :5.
is: . «a. air-.5
1.33 :1. r‘ k 3
13.2.

b 3.... 9.1.11-
. .1? (51..., 1
ff‘x : .

arl|
1'. . ‘1.
.2! watts

‘¢ XE: i... .

5.5

Him. : a. 55.2: J.» .

2...?

 

w , ET. I.
A», F.

 

 

 

Q LQPQA DY
5mm Michigan State
, University '

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

EFFECTS OF lNCENTlVE/DISINCENTIVE PROGRAM ON
PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

presented by

Brent Charles Leverett

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Civil Engineering
Science

 

 

 

a g Major Professor’s Signature

/Z//o:/g§’

Date

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KzlProj/Acc8PrelelRClDateDue.indd

EFFECTS OF INCENTIVE/DISINCENTIVE PROGRAM ON
PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

By

Brent Charles Leverett

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Civil Engineering

2008

ABSTRACT

EFFECTS OF INCENTIVE/DISINCENTIVE PROGRAM ON PAVEMENT
PERFORMANCE

By

Brent Charles Leverett

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has been using monetary incentive
payments for many years to improve contractors’ conformance with specifications and
their overall workmanship. It is believed that incentive/disincentive (I/D)
payments/penalties have a positive impact on the long-term pavement performance by
extending its pavement life. However, these impacts have not been clearly determined.
Therefore, the determination of the costs and benefits of the MDOT I/D program would
be greatly beneficial. To explore whether or not the MDOT data files and records house
the necessary data for the analyses, the project files and records of seventy-seven
pavement projects constructed between 1994 and 2002 were examined. It was found that
most project files and records are missing some data elements. Therefore, it was
determined that ideal and comprehensive analyses of the costs and benefits of each
specific pay item within the MDOT I/D program cannot be conducted. However, analyses

based on the costs and benefits of the I/D program as a whole, can be conducted.

TO MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Gilbert Baladi, for his
patience, effort, and guidance during this study. I would also like to extend my thanks to
the other members of my advisory committee, Dr. Karim Chatti and Dr. Syed Waqar
Haider.

I would also like to thank the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
for their financial support of the study. Thanks also to the MDOT research advisory panel
including Mr. Dave Smiley, Mr. Robert Pena, and Mr. Benjamin Krom for all their
valuable assistance. A special thanks also to MDOT employees Mrs. Julie Baldwin, Mr.
Dan Sokolonicki, and Mr. Benjamin Gowell who were of great assistance in the data
collection process.

Finally, a great deal of thanks is owed to my parents for their encouragement and

support throughout my college career. Without them this thesis would not be possible.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Problem Statement ................................................................... 1

1 .1 Background ........................................................................... 1

1 .2 Objectives ............................................................................. 5
1.3 Research Plan ......................................................................... 5
1.4 Thesis Layout ......................................................................... 8
CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction ........................................................................... 9
2.1 MDOT Practice ...................................................................... 10
2.2 General Practice ...................................................................... 11
2.3 Terminologies for I/D ................................................................ 16
2.4 Attributes of I/D Programs .......................................................... 20
2.5 I/D Attributes Versus Pavement Performance .................................... 24
2.6 Other Contracting Method — Warranty Specifications ........................... 25
CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION

3.0 Introduction and Background ...................................................... 28
3.1 Pavement Project Data Collection ................................................. 30
CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH PLAN — PHASE II

4.0 Objectives of the Phase 11 Study ................................................... 42
4.1 Research Plan ......................................................................... 43
4.2 Project Benefits ....................................................................... 47
4.3 Implementation ....................................................................... 47
4.4 Examples .............................................................................. 47
CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, EXAMPLES, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Summary of the Findings of Phase I ............................................... 49
5.1 Example 1 — Assessment of I/D Payments ....................................... 52
5.2 Example 2 — Assessment of I/D Pay Rate ......................................... 63
5.3 Conclusions ........................................................................... 85
5.4 Recommendations .................................................................... 85

APPENDIX A ................................................................................. 87

APPENDIX B ................................................................................. 89

REFERENCES ................................................................................. 172

vi

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

4.1

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6

5.7

5.8

5.9

5.10

5.11

5.12

LIST OF TABLES

Attributes used for QC and acceptance of HMA .................................. 14
Attributes used for QC and acceptance of PCCP ................................. 15
A summary of available and missing data elements .............................. 37
Available data for seventy-seven pavement projects .............................. 38
Project data matrix for material and ride quality initiatives ..................... 48
Project data matrix for material and ride quality initiatives ..................... 51
Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the I—94 J RCP project reconstructed ........ 54

in 1995; CS 11015, IN 29580 (from MDOT PMS distress data)

Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the I-69 JPCP project reconstructed ........ 55
in 2002; CS 12033, IN 49921 (from MDOT PMS distress data)

Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-94 JRCP project .............. 58
reconstructed in 1995; CS 11015, JN 29580
Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-69 J PCP project ............... 58
reconstructed in 2002; CS 12033, JN 49921
Predicted pavement life and remaining service life ............................. 62
Summary of J PCP reconstruction pavement projects ........................... 63

Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the I-75 J PCP project reconstructed ....... 66
in 1998; CS 82194, IN 36005 (from MDOT PMS distress data)

Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the I-69 J PCP project reconstructed ....... 67
in 2000; CS 12033, IN 45877 (from MDOT PMS distress data)

Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the I-69 JPCP project reconstructed ....... 69
in 2000; CS 12033, IN 45535 (from MDOT PMS distress data)

Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the 1-75 J PCP project reconstructed ....... 72
in 1999; CS 47065, IN 28215 (from MDOT PMS distress data)

Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the I-94 JPCP project reconstructed. . . . . ...74
in 1997; CS 11017, IN 38094 (from MDOT PMS distress data)

vii

5.13

5.14

5.15

5.16

5.17

5.18

5.19

Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-75 JPCP project .............. 75
reconstructed in 1998; CS 82194, IN 36005

Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-94 J PCP project .............. 76

reconstructed in 1997; CS 11017, JN 38094

Summary of the weighted average DI for the [-69 J PCP project ............... 77
reconstructed in 2000; CS 12033, JN 45877

Summary of the weighted average DI for the [-69 J PCP project ............... 78
reconstructed in 2000; CS 12033, IN 45535

Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-75 J PCP project ............... 79
reconstructed in 1999; CS 47065, JN 28215

Best fit polynomial equations for the six pavement projects .................... 81

Predicted pavement life and remaining service life of six JPCP ................ 84

reconstruction projects

viii

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

LIST OF FIGURES

The average D1 of two rigid pavement projects versus time after .............. 62
construction

DI comparison of six JPCP pavement projects ................................... 83
D1 comparison of three J PCP pavement projects ................................. 83
Pavement life estimated from MDOT revised logistical growth ............... 84

model vs. I/D pay rate

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has been using monetary incentive
payments for many years to improve contractors’ conformance with specifications and
their overall workmanship. It was envisioned that incentive/disincentive (I/D)
payments/penalties would have a positive impact on the long-term pavement performance
by extending its expected life. However, these impacts have been neither quantified, nor

qualified.

1.1 BACKGROUND

In the 19705, the concept of incentive pay clauses for items that were exceptionally better
than required by the specifications were adopted by various State Highway Agencies
(SHAs). This new concept was complementary to that of disincentive pay clauses
previously used. The envisioned benefits of incentive pay clauses include improved
workmanship by encouraging contractors to apply appropriate quality control (QC)
measures. The agencies rationale for pay incentives is that the additional cost to assure

uniform QC practices will reduce future pavement rehabilitation and maintenance costs.

The main objective of disincentive pay clauses is for the SHAs to recoup part of the
anticipated future costs that are likely to arise due to less than satisfactory material and
ride qualities. For some highway projects and for a variety of reasons, QC measures are
either absent or ineffective, which likely leads to less than satisfactory work. If the

quality of such projects is not seriously deficient, it is not practical to require replacement

(reject the work item). Hence, the practical solution is to accept the work at a reduced
price. Said price reduction is usually difficult to quantify at the time of execution. Better
estimates of the agency costs due to substandard material quality can be determined after

long—term pavement performance data are collected and analyzed.

The pay schedule for incentives/disincentives is a function of some of the established
specification parameters (pay items). Current acceptance parameters of MDOT for
concrete pavements include strength, air content, and slump and for HMA, density, air
voids, and asphalt content (mix conformance) (9, 10). For a given pavement project, an

example of the pay rate schedule for HMA material quality is enumerated below.

1. A negative 50 percent adjustment for the bituminous mixture unit price will be
imposed if during initial base or leveling course mixture production any sublot

value for pavement density is less than 90 percent.

2. A negative 25 percent adjustment for the bituminous mixture unit price will be

imposed for either of the following pavement density conditions:

a) The lot average pavement density is less than 91 percent but equal to or
greater than 90 percent.

b) The conditions of column 4 of the pavement density core table are satisfied.
The column states the minimum number of cores having density less than 91

percent for a given number of cores extracted from a lot.

3. A negative 10 percent adjustment for the bituminous mixture unit price will be

imposed for either of the following pavement density conditions:

a) The lot average pavement density is less than 92 percent but equal to or
greater than 91 percent.

b) The conditions of column 3 of the pavement density core table are satisfied.
The column states the minimum number of cores having density less than 92

percent for a given number of cores extracted from a lot.

If during quality control testing a deviation occurs that requires production to be
suspended and the contractor continues to operate, then the tonnage for that sublot
and any subsequent tonnage will be subject to negative 25 percent adjustment for
the bituminous mixture unit price until all measured parameters are within quality

control tolerances.

If the lot average HMA density is more than 91 percent but less than 92 percent of
the maximum theoretical density, the penalty is 10 percent of the bituminous

mixture contract unit price.

The contractor will be paid an additional 6 percent of the bituminous mixture
contract unit price if the lot average and lot cores meet all of the following

criteria:

a) The lot average pavement density is equal to or greater than 94 percent.
b) The conditions of column 2 of the pavement density core table are satisfied.
The column states the minimum number of cores having density equal to or

greater than 92 percent and the minimum number of cores having density

equal to or greater than 94 percent for a given number of cores extracted from
a lot.

c) The mixture within the lot is not subject to any price adjustments for asphalt
binder content, air voids, voids in mineral aggregate (VMA), or theoretical

maximum density (TMD).

7. The contractor will be paid an additional 4 percent of the bituminous mixture

contract unit price if all of the following criteria are met:

a) The lot average absolute deviation from each measured parameter of the lot
does not exceed the quality control running average tolerance.

b) There are no laboratory test failures on the asphalt binder.

c) The lot average VMA is equal to or greater than the minimum design value

for the bituminous mixture as per the mix design criteria.

For MDOT to realize the full benefits of their I/D pay schedule, the specified I/D pay
items (parameters) should relate to long-term pavement performance. The long-term
pavement performance to be used in the analyses of the benefits is the pavement life in
years between construction and the year when the pavement distress index (DI) reaches
50 distress points. Since there are numerous factors that adversely affect long-term
pavement performance, such relationships are not easy to obtain on a project by project
basis. Hence, data for a large number of projects both with and without I/D specifications

must be collected and analyzed.

1.2 OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of the I/D study is to analyze the costs and benefits of the MDOT
I/D program. Such analyses cannot be conducted unless the MDOT project files and
records contain the necessary data elements to conduct the analyses. Hence, the study

was divided into the following two phases:

Phase I - Data Search/Preliminary Assessment - The primary objective of Phase I of
this study is to conduct an exploratory search to identify available data in the MDOT data
files and project records and to perform preliminary data assessment to determine
whether or not the available data would support analyses of the costs and benefits of the

MDOT I/D program.

Phase II - Data Analyses - The objectives and activities of Phase II of this study will be
developed, if and only if, the results of the Phase I study indicate that the MDOT data
files and project records contain sufficient data to perform analyses of the costs and

benefits of the I/D program.

1.3 RESEARCH PLAN

To accomplish the primary objective of the Phase I study, a research plan consisting of

three tasks was developed. For convenience, the three tasks are presented below.

Task 1 — Review and Project Identification - The activities of the research team in this

task are divided into two subtasks as follows:

Subtask 1-1 - Review - In this subtask, the research team will:

1.

Review and summarize MDOT’s historical use of pavement project
incentives/disincentives and their parameters (pay items).

Identify the pay items for incentives/disincentives including payment
schedules.

Compose a list of data elements that are necessary to conduct the analyses in
Phase II of this study to determine the costs and benefits of the MDOT

incentive/disincentive pay items. These data are envisioned to include:

a. The incentive/disincentive pay item.

b. The type of project (capital preventive maintenance (CPM), overlay,
reconstruction, etc).

c. Historical (raw) distress data, including the last distress data before the
project and at least four cycles of distress data since project completion.

d. The distress index (DI) and the remaining service life (RSL) that
represents the distress data in item c above.

6. Traffic data before and after the project.

f. Any subsequent improvement actions after completion of the project in
question.

g. Ride quality index.

h. Rut depth and/or longitudinal profile data.

i. Skid resistance data.

The necessary data listed above may be modified based on the results of items

1 and 2 above.

4. Using the MDOT compiled list of pavement projects with

incentives/disincentives, conduct the following:

a. Eliminate from the list all projects that received only I/D for ride quality,
which will be analyzed in Phase II.

b. Sort the project list by pavement type (composite, flexible, rigid). For each
pavement type, sort the projects by type of work (rehabilitation, CPM,
reconstruction, etc). This would create three independent lists, one for

each pavement type.

5. Select randomly five pavement projects from each list for the data collection

activities in subtask 1-2.

Subtask 1-2 — Data Collection
In this subtask, do the fifteen randomly selected projects of item 5 above, the

research team will search the MDOT data files and project records to:

1. Identify the type of data contained in the files that are relevant to the analyses
of the costs and benefits of the VB program (Phase II).

2. Summarize all available data elements and identify the missing data elements.

Task 2 —Data Examination - In this task, the research team will determine whether
or not the data obtained in subtask 1-2 are sufficient to conduct further analyses and
to support the activities and the research plan (to be developed) for Phase II of this

study. It is assumed herein that if the MDOT data files and project records of 70

percent or more of the projects contain sufficient data to support analyses of the costs
and benefits of the I/D program, then the overall objective of the study can be
satisfied. In this case, the objectives and research plan for the Phase II study will be
developed. Otherwise, recommendations will be made regarding data collection for

possible future analyses of the impacts of the I/D program on pavement performance.

It should be noted that the number of projects (fifteen) to be searched in Phase I is
related to the available study budget and not necessarily any statistical analysis of the

sample size.

Task 3 — Deliverables - Interim Report - Upon completion of task 2, the research
team will submit to MDOT an interim report detailing the findings. The report will
include a summary of the activities and findings of Phase I, the three lists of
pavement projects with and without I/D specifications, and a determination of

whether Phase II of the project can be executed.

1.4 THESIS LAYOUT

The materials in this thesis are presented in five chapters as follows:
Chapter 1 — Introduction

Chapter 2 — Literature Review

Chapter 3 — Data Collection

Chapter 4 - Research Plan — Phase 11

Chapter 5 — Summary, Examples, Conclusions, & Recommendations

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The highway sector in the USA and the rest of the world is perhaps the most conservative
segment of the construction industry. Although highway contractors have implemented
many new construction technologies, until recently, the contracting methods have
basically remained the same. After the designs of highway projects were completed and
approved, State Highway Agencies (SHAs) have traditionally awarded them to the lowest
bidder. This approach while providing a level ground for contractors has its limitations.
For example, sometimes, the method may not emphasize product quality and other

factors that affect the long-term pavement performance.

Since the 1980’s, rehabilitation, resurfacing, reconstruction, or restoration works have
characterized the majority of the highway construction projects. These types of projects
require a high-quality product and timely completion to minimize the negative impact
(such as safety, traffic delays, and economic loss) to the traveling public. The above
requirements and the limited available resources for highway construction and
maintenance accelerated the search for alternatives to the traditional lowest bidder
approach. Most SHAs modified their quality assurance (QA) programs and some
included in the pavement project proposals, specifications for incentive/disincentive (I/D)
pay adjustments. Over time the attributes of I/D programs used by SHAs have been

expanded to include ride quality, early completion, material quality and so forth.

2.1 MDOT PRACTICE

In the beginning, the I/D provisions used by the Michigan Department of Transportation
(MDOT) addressed extra payments/penalties for early or late finish of paving projects. In
February 2000, MDOT completed an evaluation of the use of early completion clauses on
26 projects let and completed in 1998 and 1999. The average I/D pay amount for these 26
projects was $18,500 (about 1.5% of the contract amount) and the average project user
delay savings was estimated at $610,500. Results of the evaluation indicated that 65% of
the 26 projects were completed early, 12% were completed on time and 23% were
completed late. MDOT found that the average completion time of pavement projects with
early completion incentives was 19% less than similar projects without I/D provisions for
early completion, although the contracts for the latter projects include an expedited

schedule clause requiring the contractor to work a six calendar-day week (21).

Later, special l/D provisions for ride quality were included in MDOT project contracts,
and even later, special I/D provisions for material quality (such as strength, air voids,
asphalt content, aggregate gradation) were included (examples of these I/D provisions are
included in Chapter 1). These special I/D provisions were dynamic in nature and they
were often changed from one year to another. The special l/D provisions included
specified acceptance levels, the pay scale and the pay items (21). The main objective of
these special I/D provisions was to get the contracting community to employ different
and innovative techniques to improve the paving operation, and therefore improve the
long-term pavement performance. These efforts have precipitated the first performance

based contract project for the rehabilitation of 5.5 mile long segment of M1 15 in Clare

10

County, Michigan and the replacement of the superstructure on two bridges. The project

was let in 2007 and is scheduled for completion in late 2008 (27).

Like MDOT, other SHAs used I/D provisions and specifications to improve pavement
performance. Their practices and the terminologies used in the provisions are

summarized in the next section.

2.2 GENERAL PRACTICE

Most State Highway Agencies and Departments of Transportation (DOT), including
MDOT, have used bonus payment systems or I/D programs for a number of years in
order to improve project construction quality. The envisioned benefit of the I/D programs
include improved workmanship by encouraging contractors to apply appropriate quality
control (QC) measures. Most, if not all SHAs have learned from long-term experience
that failure to satisfy material and construction specifications, in most cases, results in
premature failure of some of the pavement components (19). Hence, since the late 1950’s
and early 1960’s, SHAs became aware of the importance of developing and
implementing quality assurance (QA) programs to ensure satisfactory or acceptable
quality of materials and pavement construction. The contents of QA programs have
evolved over time and currently most SHAs implement third or fourth generation QA
programs. Some QA programs include QC components only, whereas others contain QC
and independent assurance (IA) components. The process or procedures used in the
implementation of QA programs vary substantially from one State Highway Agency

(SHA) to another. Such variations are related to many issues including (16):

ll

l. The number of factors or attributes and their levels used in the QC components of the
QA program for acceptance purposes. For example, early finish, ride quality, material
quality and so forth.

2. The test methods, frequencies, and sample locations included in the QC.

3. The levels of risks used for acceptance (no pay adjustment), rejection (no pay
adjustment), and for incentives/disincentives (pay adjustment).

4. The I/D pay schedule or rates.

5. The outfit (whether a contractor or the agency) that conduct the QC tests and the
method of verification of the test results.

6. The method by which the independent assurance component of the QA program is

administered.

The above six issues are addressed in the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 346 (16) as follows: “The ways these issues have been
addressed reflect the evolutionary process that the QA programs have undergone over the
last thirty years.” Some of the major changes that have taken place emerged from title 23,
part 637, Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 637), the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) “Quality Assurance Procedures for Construction.” The 23 CFR
637 regulations that were adopted in 1995 require among many other construction related
issues, that each SHA develop a QA program for the National Highway System under

their jurisdiction.

12

In the NCHRP Synthesis 346, forty-five SHAs were surveyed regarding their I/D
specifications, I/D pay items, and QA programs. Results of the survey are summarized

below.

Regarding pay adjustment provisions for HMA (16):
o Thirty-nine SHAs use pay adjustment provisions
0 Six SHAs use an accept/reject plan

0 No single agency uses only incentive clauses, whereas nine agencies use only

disincentive clauses, and thirty-two use both

Relative to the type of QA programs for hot-mix asphalt (HMA) (16):

0 Two SHAs use material quality and methods provisions.

0 Twenty-one SHAs use QA programs with the contractor controlling the quality and
the agency performing the acceptance tests (QC).

0 Twenty-five SHAs use QA programs with the contractor controlling the quality and

the agency using contractor test results for acceptance.

For asphalt pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, the attributes that are
most often used by SHAs for QC and acceptance of HMA vary from one agency to
another. Based on their responses to the NCHRP questionnaire, the numbers of agencies

using the specified attributes for QC and acceptance are listed in Table 2.1 (16):

13

Table 2.1 Attributes used for QC and accgptance of HMA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attributes QC Acceptance

Asphalt content 40 40
Gradation 43 33
Compaction 28 44
Aggregate fractured faces 25 23
Air voids 20 26
Voids in mineral aggregates 26 23
Voids filled with asphalt l9 l3
Asphalt film thickness 13 22
Ride quality - 16 39
**Based on responses from 44 SHAs

 

Likewise, the SHAs were surveyed regarding Portland cement concrete pavements

(PCCP). Their responses are summarized below.

Regarding pay adjustment clauses (l 6):
o Twenty-eight SHAs use I/D pay adjustment clauses
0 Seventeen agencies use an accept/reject plan

0 One agency uses only incentives, twelve use only disincentives, and sixteen use both

Regarding the PCCP QA programs (16):
0 Fifteen agencies use material quality and methods provisions.
0 Eleven agencies perform QC testing for acceptance.

0 Sixteen agencies use QA programs with the contractor controlling the quality and the

agency performing the acceptance tests (QC).

0 Thirteen agencies use QA programs with the contractor controlling the quality and the

agency using contractor test results for acceptance.

For concrete pavement reconstruction and rehabilitation, the attributes that are most often

used by SHAs for QC and acceptance of PCCP vary from one agency to another. Based

14

on their responses to the NCHRP questionnaire, the numbers of agencies using the

specified attributes for QC and acceptance are listed in Table 2.2 (16):

Table 2.2 Attributes used for QC and acceptance of PCCP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attributes QC Acceptance

Air content 25 38
Thickness 14 36
Slump 24 33
Cylinder strength 18 31
Gradation 25 26
Beam strength 14 18
Water-cement ratio 12 16
Aggregate fractured faces 7 6
Sand equivalence 0 3
Permeability 0 3
Core strength 0 2
Ride quality 1 15
“Based on the responses of 40 SHAs

 

In the 19705, the concept of incentive pay clauses (pay adjustment) for product quality
that was exceptionally better than the one required by the specifications arose amongst
many SHAs. This concept was complementary to the disincentive pay clauses previously
used for a product of which quality did not meet specifications (13). According to a
research study conducted by the Oregon State Highway Division and Oregon State
University in 1979, the Illinois Department of Transportation was the only agency to
provide a bonus (incentive) payment for high quality and uniform work. Most SHAs
applied a negative pay adjustment for construction and material qualities that did not
meet the specifications (3). The incentive and disincentive payments encouraged
contractors to apply appropriate QC measures to ensure that the finished product quality

will equal to or exceed the specified quality levels.

15

The rationale of the SHAs for using incentive payments is that the small additional cost
of good QC practices spent in advance is better than being faced with the anticipated
future costs of poor quality construction, which may lead to premature failure of
pavements, excessive maintenance repairs and possibly unsafe driving conditions (16).
For example, from a statistical review of fifiy pavement projects in California it was
determined that the costs of projects with I/D specifications increased by approximately
three percent. Analysis of the QC test data from these projects indicated that the increase
in cost is more than compensated for by the projected reductions in future rehabilitation

costs (2).

To this end, SHAs and Transportation Departments in the USA and in other countries use
various terminologies in their I/D programs. For completion purposes and for the benefits

of the reader, these terminologies are captured in the next section.

2.3 TERMINOLIGIES FOR I/D

The term incentive/disincentive (I/D) is not unique nor is it universal. Several
terminologies have been used to express different I/D clauses. These include I/D,
liquidated damages, and lane rentals. A contract provision that is called “disincentives” in
one SHA might be called “liquidated damages” in another. Regardless of the terminology
used, there is a basic and single principle included in every type of I/D clause.
Contractually, the clause states that the payment amount is contingent on variations in the
outcomes. The simplest clause in a construction contract specifies the work to be

performed and the price to be paid for it, leaving claims attributed to variations from the

16

uniquely specified outcomes to be settled through administrative or legal processes.

Nevertheless, the various terminologies used are summarized below.

Incentives/disincentives (I/D)

Construction specifications containing I/D clauses are considered end-result
specifications. End—result specifications require the contractor to take the entire
responsibility for producing and placing a product. The SHAs responsibility is to either
accept or reject the final product or to apply a price adjustment appropriate with the
degree of compliance with the specifications (1, 5). The pay adjustments may include
incentives, disincentives or both. For example, for late or early completion, the
disincentive specification dictates a payment reduction, typically assessed on a per-day
basis, for the tardy completion of construction or of some intermediate milestones. The
incentive specification, on the other hand, dictates a bonus, also typically assessed on a
per-day basis, for the early completion of construction or of some intermediate
milestones. The specifications ofien set a cap on the size of the incentive payment, but
not on the disincentive reduction. Since 1984, VD specifications have been acceptable for
all Federal Aid Highway projects. Currently, the FHWA suggests that the I/D amounts be
based upon estimates of items such as traffic safety, traffic maintenance, and road user
delay costs. The I/D specifications may include pay adjustment for material quality and
for pavement smoothness (ride quality) (21). Examples of MDOT I/D specifications for

material quality are provided in Chapter 1 of this report.

17

Liquidated Damages

Liquidated damages are equivalent to disincentive payments; they do not include
incentive payments. In general, liquidated damages are related to administrative,
engineering, supervisory, inspection costs, and other expenses that the agency incurs due,
for example, to late project completion. Typically, liquidated damages do not consider
the cost impact on the road users (21, 32). The most common type of liquidated damage
specifications are disincentives for late project completion. A typical liquidated damages
clause specifies that payment reduction be assessed on a per day basis. Finally, liquidated

damages can be applied at interim milestones (15).

Lane Rentals

The lane rental concept was first developed and implemented by the British Department
of Transport in 1983. The lane rental clause assesses a rental fee against the contractor,
typically on a per-lane per-hour basis, for the length(s) of time that a contractor closes
one or more lanes of an existing road. A fee based on the estimated hours of closure is
incorporated into the contract specifications, so that if the work is completed on time the
contractor will be paid the bid price. The user cost and/or the impacts of traffic
redistribution due to traffic disruption form the basis for the lane rental fee (21, 25, 28).
Typical projects in which lane rentals are often implemented include pavement joint

repair, replacement of overhead signs, and paving (17).

Between 1984 and 1989 the British Department of Transport implemented lane rental
contracts on 100 projects at a total contract price of $500 million. They estimated that
more than 2400 days of lane closure were saved compared to conventional contracts,

which represents economic savings of approximately $100 million. The total bonus cost

18

(incentive) was about $16 million or 3.2 percent of the total contract price of the projects

(4)-

Lane rental has the highest potential for reducing lane occupancy during construction,
especially on projects with high-traffic volumes. The Oklahoma Department of
Transportation has adopted the “Construction Lane-mile Rentals” policy as common
practice. The practice was initiated to reduce user delay by encouraging contractors to
work during nonpeak hours and to minimize the length of work zone closures. Limiting
the length of work zones increases the public’s acceptance of the work zone, because
they no longer see miles of work zones without construction activity. Similarly, the
Oregon Department of Transportation has a lane rental specification allowing lane rental
in 15 minute increments, with charges as high as $50,000 per lane per hour during peak

use periods, with no fees during nighttime hours (15).

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has also implemented the lane
rental concept into a few of its pavement projects and the benefits of this concept as

observed by field personnel include (1 1):

Contractors were faster at taking down lane closures

0 Contractors were required to think more about reducing contract time during the

bidding process

0 Inspectors saw a reduction in lane closures where no/minimal amount of work

was being done

0 Incentives for limited lane rentals encouraged contractors to reduce lane closure

times

19

The most commonly used attributes in I/D, liquidated damages, and lane-rental programs

are summarized below.

2.4 ATTRIBUTES OF I/D PROGRAMS
A given I/D program may include one or more categories of attributes. In general, the
three categories used by most SHAs are early completion, ride quality and material

quality. These are summarized below.

Early Completion

It has been determined that traffic volumes are continuing to rise on the majority of roads
throughout the country. With the rising traffic volumes, highway capacities during peak
hours of the day are nearing capacity. Disruption to the traffic flow due to road
construction during these peak hours can cause high levels of user costs (delay, wear and
tear, etc.). While the level of user costs is difficult to quantify, it is a national consensus
that it needs to be reduced as much as possible. For early completion programs, SHAs set
UD payments in an attempt to reward the contractor with an amount that is equal to the
benefit of early completion or the cost of delayed completion (18). In the summary of the
NCHRP Project 20-7, it is stated that contractors and the highway agencies in favor of
awarding early completion bonuses believe that the amount assessed against the

contractor for late completion should equal that for early completion (21).

Ride Quality
The ride quality of a pavement can be defined as the level of ride comfort experienced by

the passengers of a vehicle as it traverses the pavement at the posted speed limit.

20

Equipment such as the California profilograph, regular straightedge, profilometer, and
rolling straightedge are most commonly used for measuring pavement smoothness or ride
quality (23). Numerous studies from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), and the National Asphalt
Pavement Association (N APA) have found that pavements built smoother tend to last
longer. The main reason is the effect of the dynamic loading caused by rougher

pavements, which results in higher loads (22, 31).

The two most commonly used pavement roughness indices are the International
Roughness Index (IRI) and Profilograph Index (PrI). The [RI can be calculated from the
longitudinal pavement profile measured by any profiler calibrated to the outputs of the
quarter car simulator. The PrI is based on profilograph measurements of a pavement
longitudinal profile. Computer programs are then used to compute the PrI. The PrI is
determined by counting the number of locations along a pavement section where the
profile trace falls outside a specified limit. Both IRI and PrI are reported in units of
inches/mile or meters/kilometer and are collected in either one or both of the wheelpaths

within a pavement lane (26).

Some of the other smoothness indices used by SHAs include (26):
0 RN : Ride Number (used by Florida and New Hampshire DOTS for HMA
specifications)
0 MRN: Mays Ride Number (used by Arizona and South Carolina DOTS)
0 CSI: Cumulative Straightedge Index (used by North Carolina DOT for HMA

specifications)

21

o RQI: Ride Quality Index (used by MDOT for both HMA and PCCP

specifications)

The application of ride quality I/D specifications for either flexible or rigid pavements
motivate the contractors to construct the pavement to a predetermined desired
smoothness. Most SHAs use ride quality incentive specifications and virtually all SHAs
require that the contractor either correct a pavement that doesn’t meet a specified
smoothness level or accept a pay reduction (disincentive). For the SHAs which do use
ride quality I/D, pay adjustments generally take the form of either a lump-sum dollar
amount for each lot, or a multiplier applied to the contract unit price paid for the paving
material (24). The I/D payments for pavement smoothness in current specifications are
based on subjective judgment. The extent to which they actually reflect cost benefits (or
lack thereof) is unknown. It has been suggested that the I/D should be rationally based on
the increase or decrease in future costs that will be incurred by the SHA and by the users
over the life of the pavement (22). Further, most SHAs permit diamond grinding for
correction of both FCC and HMA surfaces to achieve desired smoothness specifications,
while others require full removal and replacement or additional overlay for correction of

HMA pavement.

Material Quality

The primary goal of a highway quality assurance (QA) program is to produce pavements
that will provide adequate service throughout their intended design lives with minimal
maintenance. Therefore, several SHAs incorporate material quality I/D specifications into

their construction contracts. Examples of the MDOT I/D specifications for material

22

quality are included in Chapter 1 of this report. The material quality l/D specifications
vary amongst the SHAs and depend upon the pavement type (asphalt or concrete). Some

of the most commonly used parameters include:

Asphalt pavements

 

0 Density

0 In-place air voids

o Asphalt content

0 Aggregate gradation

o Voids in mineral aggregate (VMA)

0 Thickness

Concrete pavements
0 Thickness
0 Air content
0 Slump
0 Strength
0 Gradation

- Water-cement ratio

Most SHAs pay schedules express the material quality I/D payment amount as a
percentage of a unit bid price and then multiplied by the appropriate quantity to obtain
the amount by which the contractor’s payment is increased or decreased. However, while
this material quality pay adjustment approach to highway quality assurance is becoming

more popular amongst SHAs, there still is not a consistency of practice regarding the

23

magnitude of pay adjustment judged appropriate for varying level of as-built quality.
Therefore, there is a need for a method to relate the as—built material quality to the actual

pavement performance (31).

2.5 I/D ATTRIBUTES VERSUS PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

To increase the benefits of the I/D program regarding material and ride quality, the
specifications must be related to long-term pavement performance. Performance-related.
specifications (PRS) describe the desired level of material and construction factors that
have been found to correlate with fundamental engineering properties that affect and
predict long-term pavement performance (8). These factors are amenable to acceptance
testing at the time of pavement construction. Performance-related specifications are
difficult to develop, but offer the ideal parameters for I/D payments that results in the

ultimate benefits to the agency by decreasing the life cycle cost (3, 30).

PRS are intended to identify the level of quality providing the best balance between cost
and performance. Typical material parameters that can be used in perforrnance-related
specifications include air voids, asphalt content, density and strength. Presently, the use
of performance-related specifications in the USA is limited. The NCHRP synthesis 212
reports that in 1995 several performance-related federal and state projects were underway
and that only the New Jersey DOT has implemented PRS for PCC pavements only (14).
Subsequent to the NCHRP report, several studies were initiated to develop PRS for
asphalt concrete pavements. NCHRP and FHWA have funded a five-year study
(Westrack) to develop PRS for asphalt concrete pavements using the Westrack facilities.

The study, which was completed in February 2000 included PRS based on the HMA

24

volumetric factors only. Questions have been raised regarding the broad applicability of
these PRS given that all performance data resulted only from the testing in Nevada. It is
expected that future reports will resolve some of these issues. In the mean time, the use of
Westrack-based PRS would require substantial field calibration (21). In discussions about
the future directions of PRS, it was stated that PRS, when correctly applied, could
identify the level of quality that provides the best balance between cost and performance

and ensure the attainment of that level in the constructed pavements (20).

In Canada, the agencies that have implemented PRS include the highway departments of
British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Public Works and
Government Services Canada, and the Department of National Defense. Most of the
agencies with the exception of Quebec have only recently implemented a PRS system
and are using it on a limited number of projects. In Quebec, PRS are included in all of
their major pavement construction and rehabilitation contracts. Additionally, Quebec has
indicated that it is very difficult to evaluate the effect of implementing PRS on the service
life, construction costs, and maintenance requirements on the pavements. However, the
general consensus is that the implementation of PRS have increased initial construction
costs and reduced the variability in pavement construction, which would likely result in

an increased pavement life and reduced maintenance costs (7).

2.6 OTHER CONTRACTING METHOD - WARRANTY SPECIFICATIONS
A warranty specification is a type of performance-based contract in which the SHA
specifies pavement performance only and the contractor warrants the pavement for

performance over a specific period of time (33). During the warranty period, the

25

contractor is responsible to repair, at their own expense, any pavement defects. This type
of warranty assigns a large portion of the pavement performance risk to the contractor.
Traditionally, within the United States construction contracts usually require the
contractor to provide warranty for a pavement project for only one year after project
completion although the design life of most pavements is much longer than one year.

Therefore, SHAs are increasingly requesting longer term warranties (6).

Examples of the pavement performance thresholds for a five year warranty specification,

used by the Indiana Department of Transportation include (29):

o IRI — 133 inches/mile

o Rut depth —0.375 inches

0 Surface friction number — average of 35 and no single section below 25
0 Transverse cracking — Severity 2 as defined by Indiana DOT

0 Longitudinal cracking — 18 ft per 500 ft pavement section

Warranty specifications usually specify performance over two to seven years and have
been specified for up to twenty years. Some European highway agencies have been using
asphalt pavement warranties for more than forty years, but they have been used sparingly
in the United States. This is mainly due to the industry being reluctant to change and due
to the severe legal restrictions that the Federal Government places on warranty use (29).
However, the Wisconsin DOT has occasionally used a five-year asphalt pavement
warranty program. After examination of case study data from their warranty program it

was determined that the data shows a significant improvement in the quality of

26

construction when comparing ride and distress values for warranted and non-warranted

pavement sections (12).

27

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION

3.0 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has initiated an in-house study of
the MDOT incentive/disincentive (I/D) program to determine its costs and benefits.
During the study, a list of 612 pavement projects was compiled (the majority of which
have I/D specifications and have been constructed between 1990 and 2006). The

information for the compiled list of projects were obtained from the following sources:

0 A new software (called “Bridge”) that links various data files to identify each
pavement project by its control section and job number.

0 Conversations with various Regions, Cities and Transportation Service Centers (TSC)

and MDOT personnel.

The MDOT list contained the following information:

0 Key ID number related to the source of the information
0 Control section

0 Job number

0 Route number

0 Project beginning and ending mileposts

0 Description of project location

0 Type of work done

0 Basis for I/D payments

0 Year of construction

28

At the beginning of this study, the Michigan State University (MSU) research team
divided the MDOT l/D project list into two groups. One group included all pavement
projects that included ride quality I/D specifications. The second group included the rest
of the pavement projects (few projects have no I/D specifications whereas the majority of

the projects have material quality I/D specifications).

During the course of this study, the MSU research team randomly selected seventy-seven
pavement projects from the MDOT list and requested from MDOT available project
records and data files. These include the project contract proposal, the project financial
files and the project distress data since construction (34 to 80). In addition, the research
team used the MDOT projectwise software and viewed available microfilms to obtain
additional data elements that are related to the analyses of the costs and benefits of the
MDOT I/D program and to pavement performance. Results of the data collection search

are presented in the next section.

Prior to the commencement of the data search of the seventy-seven pavement projects,
the MSU research team compiled an initial list of data elements that are needed to
conduct complete and comprehensive analyses of the costs and benefits of the MDOT I/D

program. These data are listed below.

0 The monetary size of the l/D
0 The specifications as applied to the I/D (pay items)
0 Quality assurance, quality control (QA/QC) test results as they relate to UD

0 The locations along the pavement project where I/D are applied

29

o The pavement’s condition prior to improvement

0 The type of fix (overlay, overlay with repair patching, etc.)

o Sufficient and reliable pavement condition (distress) data after project completion

0 Sufficient and reliable ride quality data in term of the ride quality index (RQI)

0 Traffic levels before and after the project completion

0 Subsequent pavement fixes and routine maintenanccs and their associated costs since
project completion, such as the data compiled by the current MDOT pavement

performance study

The above data list will be used by the search team as a reference in its data collection

activities.

3.1 PAVEMENT PROJECT DATA COLLECTION

The data collection activities was commenced when the research team started receiving
from MDOT the requested data files and project records of the seventy-seven pavement
projects and when access to the projectwise software was granted. Seventy-two project
files were received from MDOT. The files of five pavement projects were not located by

MDOT by the time when this thesis was written.

The seventy-two pavement project files and records were then examined. It was found
that sixty-two project files contain I/D specifications whereas ten project files have no

I/D specifications. Results of the data search are summarized below.

30

0 The data files and project records of forty-four pavement projects with VB
specifications were found to have sufficient data to perform further analyses of the
costs and benefits of the MDOT I/D program.

9 The files and records of eleven pavement projects were not complete. Some of the
records such as the financial records were missing or contained some relevant but
unexplained data. For example, the financial record of the project contains incentive
payments in different parts of the record without explaining the meaning or the
differences between the parts.

9 The files and records of four pavement projects without I/D specifications were
found to have sufficient data to compare the projects to those with I/D specifications.

0 The files and records of six pavement projects indicated that the type of fix was
preventive maintenance; hence, for these six projects, no further project data were
requested or collected.

9 Seven pavement projects were recently constructed. Hence, no sufficient distress
data are available to analyze long-term pavement performance. Hence, no further
data were collected for these projects.

9 The files and records of five pavement projects were not located in time to be

included in thesis, summarizing the Phase I study.

Table 3.1 provides a generic list of the available and missing data elements. It should be
noted that the available data elements in the table are those found in forty-four pavement
projects. The data files and project records of the remaining eighteen projects were found

to have some of the available data listed in Table 3.1. Further, all the available data

31

elements in the table were obtained from the MDOT files. The missing data elements, on

the other hand, were not located in any of the files searched by the research team.

For the seventy-seven pavement projects, Table 3.2 provides a detailed list of all
available data that were found in the MDOT data files and project records and are
relevant to this study. As can be seen from the table, the data for most pavement projects

include:

0 Control section, job number, route number, and beginning and ending mile posts
(descriptions of project limits), these data were used to link different data files related
to the project history such as the distress data files.

0 Year of construction, the data were and will be used to restart the clock on the distress
index.

0 Type of fix, the data will be used to compare one pavement project with I/D
specifications to a comparable one without I/D specifications.

0 The I/D pay specification (i.e., bituminous quality initiative, concrete quality
initiative); the data will be used to compare the pavement type to that found in the
PMS data and to match the project to a similar one without I/D specifications.

0 Total paving cost and I/D payments; the data were and will be used to compute the
rate of I/D payment/penalty per total paving material costs. Originally, it was
proposed to normalize the VB payments relative to project length, this however was
inadequate because of the thickness of the pavement surface layer. The rate of I/D

payment will be compared to the planned rate and will be used to compare the

32

performance of pavement projects having different I/D pay rates or no I/ D
specifications.

0 UD specification and pay rate schedule; the data will be used to identify the basis for
I/D payment/penalty.

0 Planned and placed quantities; the data will be used to indicate whether or not l/D
payments are made along the full or partial length of the project.

0 Historical and detailed distress data and distress index for each 0.1 mile of pavement
along the project; the data will be used to determine the types of distress along the
project, the distribution of DI, the average DI for the entire project, the remaining

service life (RSL), and to estimate the pavement performance in term of pavement

life.

For all seventy—two pavement projects, there are at least four missing data elements (see
Table 3.1). The role of the missing data elements and their ramification relative to the

analyses of the I/D program are addressed below.

0 QA/QC test results - No QA/QC test results were found in any MDOT data files and
project records. The ramification of these missing data is that certain type of analyses

or information cannot be obtained. These include:

1. The basis for I/D payments/penalties (such as density, asphalt content, air voids,
etc.).

2. The level at which the as-constructed material quality met the I/D specifications.

3. The percent of the project or the number of lots or sublots that met the I/D

specifications and received I/D payments/penalties.

33

4. The distribution of I/D payments/penalties and I/D pay schedule along the project.

5. The impact of the level of material quality on long-term pavement performance.

Reference location along the project where I/D payments/penalties were made —

For any given pavement project with I/D specifications, the I/D payments/penalties

may have been carried out in various scenarios as follows:

1.

The extent of the I/D payments/penalties is along the entire length of the
pavement project.

I/D payments are made along portions of the pavement projects.

I/D penalties were applied along portions of the pavement project.

I/D payments and penalties were made along different portions of the pavement

project.

The lack of I/D payments/penalties reference location along the project prevents the

analyses of the following issues:

. The true impact of the I/D payments/penalties on long-term pavement

performance of that portion of the project where I/D payments/penalties were
applied.

The true l/D pay rate for that portion of the project where I/D payments/penalties
were applied.

The impact of the true I/D pay rate on pavement performance.

The above consequences of the missing reference location of l/D payments/penalties

can be partially alleviated by:

34

1. Calculating the rate of the actual l/D payments/penalties as percent of the paving
material cost. The calculated I/D rate will always be less than the specified rate.

Higher calculated I/D rates may indicate one of the following scenarios:

a) The entire pavement project or higher fraction of the project received
incentive payments.
b) Higher level of material quality was met.

0) No disincentive penalties were applied.

Regardless which scenario is true, care must be taken as not to jump to early

conclusions.

2. Calculating the average long-term pavement performance in term of pavement life
for the entire pavement project.
3. Studying the impact of the calculated I/D rate on the average performance of the

pavement project.

Basis for [ID payments — While it is evident from the financial files that a material
quality I/D payment/penalty has been made, it is unknown as to what pavement
property qualified for I/D payment/penalty (i.e., density, air voids, VMA, etc.). The
lack of this data is aggravated by the lack of the QA/QC test results discussed above.
The consequence of the missing data is that one cannot conclude whether or not the
specific (material property) basis for I/D payments/penalties should be included or

excluded in the future from the l/D program.

35

0 Initial Ride Quality Index (RQI) —— For pavement projects with ride quality l/D
specifications, the initial RQI for which I/D payment/penalty were made is not
available in the MDOT data files and records. Hence, the impact of the RQI level on
pavement performance cannot be determined. Further, one cannot determine whether
or not the ride quality I/D pay rate needs to be adjusted to impact pavement
performance more favorably. However, analyses based on the average pavement
performance of ride quality I/D projects as compared to projects without ride quality
I/D specifications can be conducted. It should be noted that for concrete pavement
projects with ride quality I/D specifications, the contractor always has the option to

grind the pavement surface to receive incentive payment.

In summary, the ramification of these findings is that complete and comprehensive costs-
benefits analyses of each pay provision of the I/D specifications cannot be accomplished.
However, the available data support the analyses of the costs and benefits of the I/D
specifications as a whole (the I/D program) and perhaps, the effects of pavement type, fix
type, and the I/D payment rates on the pavement life improvement of projects with VB
payments. Based on the findings of the Phase I study, a research plan for the Phase II
study was developed and is detailed in Chapter 4 of this thesis. Examples of the data

assessment are presented and discussed in Chapter 5 of this thesis.

36

Table 3.1 A summary of available and missing data elements

 

Desirable data for ideal analyses of the costs
and benefits of the I/D program

 

Project identification

Available
data

Missing
data

 

. Control section

 

. Job number

 

. Route number

 

. Location description

 

. Pavement type

 

. Type and cost of fixes

 

. Year of construction

 

. BMP

 

\OWQQM-hWNp—s

. EMP

NNNNNXflNN

 

Material

 

. Planned quantities

 

. Final or placed quantities

 

. Flamed material cost

 

. Final material cost

xxxx

 

. QC and/or QA test results

 

. Reference location of I/D

 

\IGKII-hUJN—n

. Basis for I/D payments

 

8. Planned incentive ($)

 

9. Final paid incentive and penalty($)

N

 

10. Rate for pay adjustment scale

 

 

Ride Quality

 

1. Initial ride quality index (RQI)

 

Traffic

 

1. Traffic Data

 

Pavement Performance Data

 

. Control section

 

. BMP and EMP

 

. Route number

 

. Pavement type

 

. Uniform sections (RSL)

 

. 0.1-mile DI before & after construction

 

. Raw distress data for each 0.1-mile

 

 

oouoxmAwN—t

. RQI history

 

KflXKNKXN

 

 

37

 

 

Key ID # cs

IN

38

Project Information

Limits Description of Project

to

Type of Work Done

 

 

 

 

Incentive/Disincentive

Pay Rate/ Quantity Quantity Flamed Paid I/D per Paid Paid of Total
Schedule (Ton - Flex; m2 - D per project Paving

I/D Pay Item Spec.

 

 

 

Year

Key ID #

CS

IN

40

Project Information

Limits Description of Project

Type of Work Done

 

 

 

 

able 3.2

I/D Pay Item

41

Incentive/Disincentive

Pay Rate/ Quantity Quantity
Schedule (Ton - Flex; (ton - Flex;

Spec.

Planned
Incentive

Paid UD ($)

Distress Data

1/10th
mile DI
Data

Detailed
Distress
Data

 

 

 

 

Bases

llsur

Oilht

4.0 (‘
(this;

rcscar

A

 

 

 

0U1C0
|

pregr

anal;

'10 .

C

CXur

CHAPTER 4

RESEARCH PLAN - PHASE II

Based on the findings of the Phase I study (see Chapter 3), a research plan for the Phase
II study was developed and is presented below. Examples of the proposed data analyses

of the Phase 11 research plan are presented and discussed in Chapter 5 of this thesis.

4.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE PHASE II STUDY

Considering the stated ramifications of the missing project data, the objectives and
research plan for Phase II were developed accordingly to achieve the best possible
outcomes. The objective of Phase II is to conduct economic analyses of the MDOT I/D
program as it relates to pavement materials (HMA and concrete) and ride quality. The

analyses have two parts:

a) Determine whether or not the VB program impacts pavement performance (pavement
life, ride quality and others).

b) If the answer to item (a) above is positive, compare the extra cost of l/D payments to
the benefit derived from improved pavement life. Otherwise, determine, if possible,

the reasons for no such improvement.

To accomplish this objective, the findings of the Phase I Study were thoroughly

examined and a research plan was designed. and is presented below.

42

4.1 RESEARCH PLAN
To accomplish the objective of the Phase II study, a research plan consisting of the
following five tasks was developed to evaluate the benefits (improvement in pavement

life) and costs of the material and ride quality incentives.

Task 1 — Review and Project Identification

In this task, the research team will continue the Phase I literature review. The review will
include Transportation Research Board (TRB) publications, National Cooperative
Highway Research Program (NCHRP) reports, and telephone conversations with
personnel of some State Highway Agencies (SHAs). The review will also include any

new information regarding MDOT practices and the development of the VB program.

Task 2 — Pavement Project List and Project Data

In this task, a list of MDOT pavement projects with and without I/D specifications that
were constructed during 1994 to 2002 will be compiled. In addition, this list will include
the pavement projects from the previous MDOT in-house I/D study and the current
MDOT pavement performance study. These sources may be expanded if the project list is
deemed insufficient. For each project, all available data will be obtained as listed in

Table 3.1 from the appropriate MDOT sources.

Task 3 — Project Data Matrix
Table 4.1 represents a data matrix design for experimental investigation. Pavement
projects with and without I/D specifications will be divided into two incentive categories

pertaining to material quality and ride quality. For each incentive type, a pavement

43

project will be placed into the appropriate cell of Table 4.1 according to the following

pavement project attributes:

Functional Class: freeway and non-freeway

o Pavement Type: flexible, composite, jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP), jointed

reinforced concrete pavement (J RCP), and rubblized
o Pavement Fix Type: new and reconstruction, mill and fill, overlay, and others

- I/D Pay Rate: propose three rates per Table 4.1, and projects without I/D project

provisions

The proposed breakdown of project attributes (Table 4.1) is preliminary and could be
modified during the data search task. If this occurs, the data analyses described in Task 4

will be modified accordingly.

Task 4 — Data Analyses

In this task, the analyses will determine whether or not the VB program significantly
impacts pavement performance (pavement life). Projects with and without I/D
specifications, per Table 4.1, will be analyzed by proper statistical methods. If the
analysis finds a positive relationship, then economic analyses will be performed.

Otherwise, an explanation (reason) of the findings will be provided.

Economic Analyses
If the results of the analyses indicate that incentives produce a significant improvement in
pavement life, costs-benefits analyses will follow. The program benefit will be measured

as the difference in years between the improvement in the pavement lives of all paired

44

pavement projects with and without I/D specifications. The incentive payment cost of the
improvement will be normalized relative to the material cost for each individual project.
The reason for the normalization is that various pavement projects have different lengths,
different number of lanes, and different material thicknesses. For each pavement project
without I/D specifications, the cost of the pavement life obtained is equal to one hundred
percent of the material costs of that project. For each pavement project with VB
specifications, the I/D payment/penalty will be calculated as percent of the material cost

of that project. The I/D program will then be evaluated using the following steps:

1. Use the distress index data and the MDOT pavement performance curve form to
estimate the average pavement life of all projects with VB specifications (PLl) and
the average pavement life (PL2) of all projects without I/D specifications. Calculate

the pavement life improvement (PLI) due to the I/D specifications as follows:

PLI = PLl — PL2
2. Calculate the average yearly cost (AYC2) of PL2 as follows:
AYC2 = 100/PL2
3. Use the average l/D payments/penalties (AIP) in percent of the material costs of all

pavement projects with I/D specifications to calculate the average costs per year

(ACYl) ofthe PM as follows:

ACYl = AIP/PLI
4. Compare ACY2 and ACYl
Depending on the results of the above analyses, the research team and the MDOT

Research Advisory Panel (RAP) may jointly conduct separate analyses using the MDOT

45

Road Quality Forecasting System (RQF S) to evaluate the impact of the I/D program on

the network.

Task 5 - Deliverables — Quarterly and Final Report
Throughout the duration of the Phase II study, the research team will submit quarterly

progress reports to the MDOT RAP for their comments. The quarterly report will include:

o The accomplishments of the research team during the reporting quarter
0 Significant findings
0 Scheduled activities for the next quarter

0 Project status

Upon completion of the Phase II study, the research team will submit a draft final report
to members of the RAP for review, comments and subsequent acceptance. Upon
receiving their comments, revise the final report and submit it to MDOT for acceptance.

The final report will include:

0 Complete lists of all collected data for all pavement projects (pavement projects with
and without I/D specifications).

0 Results of the data analyses

0 Conclusions

0 Recommendations regarding appropriate reform of the current l/D program and
additional data needs to be retained in project files to perform the intended ideal and

comprehensive analyses of the benefits and costs of MDOT’s I/D program.

46

4.2 PROJECT BENEFITS

The expected results of this study should provide MDOT with the necessary evidence to
modify the current practice regarding project data retention and retrieval. In general, the
objectives of this study support the following goals of MDOT’s Research Development

and Technology Transfer Program:

Specification Improvement

Material quality

Long-term pavement performance

Research partnership

4.3 IMPLEMENTATION
The final report will provide a plan and suggested actions to assist MDOT with

implementing the study findings.

4.4 EXAMPLES
Examples of the proposed data analyses of the Phase 11 research plan are presented and

discussed in Chapter 5 of this report.

47

 

Table 4.1 Project data matrix for material and ride quality initiatives

 

Disincentive (% of paving cost)

Incentive (% of paving cost)

 

Pavement

 

Class

Type

Fix Type

<-l0 -lOto -5 >-5t00

>0 t05

>5t010

>10

No l/D
clauses

 

New or Rec.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overlay
Flexible
Mill & Fill
Others
Overlay
Composite Mill & Fill
Others
.1 New or Rec.
Freeway R P Overlay
i C
P Others
g
i J New or Rec.
d
R Overlay
C
P Others
Overlay
Rubblized Mill & Fill
Others
New or Rec.
Overlay
Flexible
Mill & Fill
Others
Overlay
Composite Mill & Fill
Others
New or Rec.
Non- P
freeway R C Overlay
i
P Others
8
i J New or Ree.
d
R Overlay
C ,
P Others
Overlay
Rubblized Mill & Fill
Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48

 

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, EXAMPLES, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS OF PHASE I

Recall that the Phase I of the study consisted of exploratory efforts to identify the
available data in the MDOT data files and project records that can be used to analyze the
costs and benefits of the incentives/disincentives (I/D) program. The Phase I study began

on the first of October 2007; the findings of the research team are summarized below:

1. A list of data elements that are necessary to conduct ideal and comprehensive
analyses of the costs and benefits of the MDOT I/D program was compiled.

2. A search of the MDOT project and data files of seventy-seven pavement projects was
conducted. Results of this search were summarized in Chapter 3, and can be seen in

detail in Table 3.2.

As noted above, during the Phase I study, the research team requested and obtained from
MDOT the files and records of seventy-seven pavement projects that were randomly
selected from the MDOT compiled list of pavement projects with I/D specifications. The
project files and records were then examined and available data was obtained. Based on
the data elements of each pavement project, the project was placed in the appropriate cell
of the project data matrix shown in Table 5.1. The number in each cell in the matrix
indicates the number of pavement projects that were found during the Phase I of the study

to have the appropriate data elements for that cell.

49

     
 
  

Inn” ‘
glut: l ‘
..IWH
1.9..

'9lt.‘

 

Examination of the data in Table 5.1 indicates that of the seventy-seven pavement
projects that were randomly selected from the MDOT I/D list, the research team found

that:

1. The files and project records of forty-four pavement projects with I/D specifications
contain the proper data elements to conduct further analyses of the costs and benefits
of the I/D program.

2. The files and project records of only four pavement projects without I/D
specifications contain the proper data elements that will support the comparison of

their pavement performances to those of compatible projects with I/D specifications.

The main reason for the low number of pavement project without I/D specifications in
Table 5.1 is that, during the Phase I study, the MSU research team concentrated its efforts
on the MDOT list of pavement projects with VB specifications. The four pavement
projects in Table 5.1 without I/D specifications were included in the MDOT list. The
MSU research team did not compile additional list of pavement proj ects without I/D

specifications. Such list will be compiled during the Phase II of the study.

50

 

Table 5.1 Project data matrix for material and ride quality initiatives

 

Disincentive (% of paving cost)

Incentive (% of paving cost)

 

Pavement

 

Class

Type

Fix type

<-lO -10t0 -5 >-5 toO

>0105 >51010 >l0

No l/D
clauses

 

Freeway

Flexible

New or Rec.

 

Overlay

 

Mill & Fill

 

Others

 

Composite

Overlay

 

Mill & Fill

 

Others

 

"unnot—

New or Rec.

 

Overlay

 

Others

 

a—«m

which

 

New or Rec.

 

Overlay

 

Others

 

Rubblized

Overlay

 

Mill & Fill

 

Others

 

 

Non-
freeway

Flexible

New or Rec.

 

Overlay

 

Mill & Fill

 

Others

 

Composite

Overlay

 

Mill & Fill

 

Others

 

110,139-

New or Rec.

 

Overlay

 

Others

 

o.—-oo

1075'—

 

New or Rec.

 

Overlay

 

Others

 

 

Rubblized

Overlay

 

Mill & Fill

 

 

Others

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

Based upon the available data elements (see Table 3.1) of the forty-eight pavement
projects listed in Table 5.1, it was determined that ideal and comprehensive analyses of
the costs and benefits for specific pay items of the I/D program cannot be accomplished.
However, using the available data elements and a large pool of pavement projects,
analyses of the costs and benefits of the I/D program as a whole can be conducted.
Further, the effects of the I/D pay schedule (pay rate) on pavement performance may be

assessed.

Two examples of such assessment and analyses are presented below. In the first example,
the performances of two rigid pavement reconstruction projects (one with and one
without I/D specifications) were compared. In the second example, the performances of
six pavement projects that were subjected to similar fix type but different I/D pay

schedule (rate) are compared.

5.1 EXAMPLE 1 - ASSESSMENT OF I/D PAYMENTS

In this example, the performances of two rigid pavement reconstruction projects (one
with and one without I/D specifications) are compared. First, available historical (since
reconstruction) distress data and distress indices for each 0.1 mile segment along each of
the two projects were requested and obtained from the Pavement Management System
(PMS) database of MDOT. Further, the weighted average historical DI values for each of
the two pavement projects were requested and obtained from the MDOT pavement
performance study files. Upon receiving the two sets of data from MDOT, the research
team calculated the historical weighted average DI values for each pavement project

using:

52

. The beginning and ending mileposts (the project boundaries) found in the MDOT

pavement performance study list.
The PMS detailed DI data, for the eastbound or northbound directions, within the

above stated project boundaries.

Tables 5.2 and 5.3 provide a list of the historical detailed DI data obtained from the PMS

database of MDOT and the calculated weighted average DI values for each pavement

project. Other information that were obtained from the MDOT files and project records

that are pertinent to the assessment of the effects of the I/D program are listed in Tables

5.4 and 5.5. For each of the two pavement projects, the information in the tables include:

The pavement type; Table 5.4 for jointed reinforced concrete pavement (J RCP) and
Table 5.5 for jointed plain concrete pavement (J PCP)

The road number; I-94 and I-69

The source of the information including the PMS database of MDOT, the file of the
MDOT pavement performance study, the project list of the MDOT I/D study, the
project proposal, and the project financial records

The time in year for pavement reconstruction and distress data collection

The beginning and ending mileposts (BMP and EMP)

The project length

53

 

 

 

 

IN 29580 from MDOT PMS distress

reconstructed in 1995‘ CS 110

Table 5 .2 Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the I—94 JRCP
— Y
Weighted
DI BMP EMP DI

we‘gh’ed BMP EMP DI “76%?th BMP DI

 

Weighted
D1 D1
.44

 

 

54

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53 meg g .o E ”was... enemas»
a? one 892 8nd was one :92 80.2 cod 86 2.92 82—
:S :3 8nd 84.2 was v2 892 Bed one one 82— coed
a: a: 8,5 83 a? of 84.2 802 m2 3: 8:2 8nd
2:. 8d cons 8N3 «so ...8 802 8nd Se 86 802 8N2
cod 8o cows 8:2 N2 N2 8&2 med cod 85 82.2 02.2
25 8d 2:.2 892 cod 2; mad Bed 23 86 82.2 892
8e 23 252 8a.: 86 cod mood 8a.: 86 86 80.2 8a.:
one One Sq: 8a: 9: 9: 8a.: 8a: Se 23 8a.: 8a:
who 42 8a: 85: NS NS 8e: 85: 85 Se 8e: 85:
8d 8.0 8b.: 8a.: 92 one 8e: 80.: 86 3o 85: 80.:
cod 85 80.: Sc: 85 8a 8a.: 8o: 86 8d 80.: 8n:
one one 80: 8s: 85 86 En: 8s: 85 85 So: 84.:
85 85 8a.: So: 86 Se 8a.: 8m: 85 3o 84.: 80:
as one So: 08.: Se 8.0 8m: 8w: 8d 86 8e: 8A.:
8.0 Be com: 8:: Se cod now: 82.: cod 85 Se: 02.:
86 cod 2:: 8a.: cod 85 8a: 25.: Se 23 82.: 89:
a; s2 89.: 8.3: 23 8.0 30.: 82: one one 8a.: some
5 E 5
easy; 5 Em Em ceases 5 gm Em Saws? 5 .95 3.8
«-88 TBS 788
Gowuogwfioo “or? 930.? i so?

 

 

3% $0me
mEm Hon: 823 783 7: £82 m0 mmoom E 883382 “8.8:“ mon: mo; 0590 0:8 mo :08 no.“ 8% 3055 m.m 033.

55

o For each year, two weighted average distress indices between the given mileposts that
were obtained from the MDOT pavement performance study and calculated by the
research team using the MDOT PMS data.

0 The I/D specifications

0 The amount of incentive payment in terms of dollars and as percent of the paving
material cost

0 The type and years of maintenance and pavement preservation fixes that were taken

after reconstruction

The data in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 indicate that the project boundaries (the beginning and
ending mileposts) obtained from the pavement performance study do not change from
one year to another. Whereas the project boundaries (the beginning and ending mileposts)
obtained from the PMS distress data vary slightly from one year to another. Such
variability and differences were expected and are normal. It is not possible to exactly
identify the beginning and ending mileposts of the project from the videotape of each
year. During the review of the videotape, the location reference data (the mileposts) are

estimated from the videotape.

Nevertheless, the variability in the beginning and ending mileposts caused insignificant
differences between the weighted average DI data obtained from the MDOT pavement
performance study and the calculated weighted average DI using the PMS detailed DI
data along the projects. A thorough discussion with members of the MDOT Research
Advisory Panel (RAP) of this study was held regarding the source of the data to be used

to study the pavement performance. It was decided to use the weighted average DI values

56

from the MDOT pavement performance study list after comparing the values with the

calculated weighted average DI values using the PMS distress data and distress indices.

The financial record of the 2002 JPCP reconstruction project located along Interstate 69
and listed in Table 5.5 indicates that the project contractor received $49,988.40 or 2.58
percent of the paving material costs as extra payment for concrete quality initiative. The
data for the 1995 JRCP pavement reconstruction project (see Table 5.4) located along
Interstate 94 indicate that no I/D specifications or payments were included in the project
proposal or in the financial record. The performances of the two pavement projects were
compared based on the weighted average DI data listed in Tables 5.4 and 5.5 that were
obtained from the MDOT pavement performance study data files. Although the two
projects have different pavement types, their performances were compared for the

following reasons:

1. The two pavements are concrete and were designed for twenty year pavement
performance period. That is the design life (DL) of each of the two pavement sections

is 20 years.

57

Table 5.4 Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-94 JRCP project reconstructed

in 1995; CS 11015, IN 29580

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P . tl rth Wei hted Maintenance/
Data source Year BMP EMP I'OJCC. eng g I/D rehabilitation
(miles) average DI . .
Since construction
1995 19.381 23.353 3.972 0.1
2003 & 2004 -
MDOT- 1997 19.381 23.353 3.972 0.4 Concrete
pavement 1999 19.381 23.353 3.972 2.7 pavement repair
performance 2004 D' on (1
study 2003 19.381 23.353 3.972 15.1 '. tam
grinding
2005 19.381 23.353 3.972 2.9
1995 19.38 23.45 4.07 0.11
1997 19.32 23.38 4.06 0.31
MDQT' PMS 1999 19.34 23.4 4.06 2.28
distress data
2003 19.36 23.42 4.06 15.41
2005 19.3 23.35 4.05 2.97
MDQT' .1”) 19.80 23.431 3.631
pr0ject list
Financial
records

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5.5 Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-69 J PCP project reconstructed in
2002; CS 12033, JN 49921

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Weighted xZL‘SSEZZZZ
Data source Year BMP EMP length average I/D since
(miles) DI construction
MDOT- 2003 10.976 12.603 1.627 0.1
pavement 2005 10.976 12.603 1.627 0.5
performance
study 2007 10.976 12.603 1.627 1.627
2003 11.006 12.649 1.643 0.125
MDOT'PMS 2005 11.001 12.611 1.61 0.668
distress data
2007 11.00 12.607 1.607 1.681
Concrete
MDOT ' .1“) 9.7 12.378 2.678 Quality
pr0ject list . . .
Initiative
Concrete
Quality
Financial Initiative -
records $48,988.40 —
2.58% (% of
paving cost)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

58

 

2. The pool of projects investigated in the Phase I study did not include any JRCP with
I/D specifications or JPCP without I/D specifications. This is mainly due to the fact
that, in the Phase I study, the seventy-seven pavement projects that were randomly
selected by the research team from the MDOT list of I/D pavement projects did not
include any JRCP project with l/D specifications or JPCP projects without I/D
specifications.

3. As stated in the research plan for the Phase II study (see Chapter 4), one of the
proposed analyses consists of comparison of all pavement projects, with and without

I/D specifications, regardless of the pavement type.

Figure 5.1 depicts the average DI values (listed in Tables 5.4 and 5.5) obtained from the
MDOT pavement performance study for each of the two rigid pavement projects plotted
as a function of time since reconstruction. The data in the figure indicate that the average

DI value for the JRCP project along 1-94 (solid squares):

a) Increases from 0.1 to 15.1 in eight years after construction.

b) Decreases from 15.1 to 2.9 between the eighth and the tenth year after reconstruction.
The improvement in the average DI value is due to the pavement rehabilitation
actions listed in Table 5.4 (concrete pavement repair and diamond grinding) and
stated in the figure, which were undertaken between 8 and 10 years after

reconstruction.

Figure 5.1 also shows the average DI values for the J PCP project along 1-69 (solid
triangles) plotted against time since reconstruction. It can be seen from the figure that

about six years after construction, the average D1 of the JRCP project is significantly

59

higher than that for the J PCP project. It can also be seen that the rate of deterioration of

the JRCP project is much higher than that of the J PCP project.

In order to estimate the pavement life of each of the two rigid pavement reconstruction

projects, two methods were employed:

1.

The best fit curves between the average DI and time (T) in year were obtained using

polynomial functions. The resulting correlation equations are stated below:

For the I-94 JRCP project D1 = 0.3001(T)2 — 0.532(T) + 0.1314 (1)

For the [-69 JPCP project D1 = 0.0909(T)2 — 0.1635(T) + 0.1726 (2)

Equations 1 and 2 were used to estimate the lives of the 1-94 and I-69 rigid pavement
reconstruction projects, respectively. This was accomplished by solving each
equation for the time “T” for which the DI value equal to fifty distress points (the
MDOT DI threshold value defining pavement life (PL)). Further, the remaining
service life (RSL) of each pavement project was calculated by subtracting the number
of years between reconstruction and the last distress survey year (or the pavement
surface age) from the estimated pavement life. Table 5.6 provides the estimated PL

and RSL for both pavement projects using Equations 1 and 2.

For each pavement project, the best fit curve of the data was obtained by MDOT
using the MDOT revised logistical growth model. The model was then used to
estimate the PL and the RSL of each rigid pavement reconstruction project. These

values are also listed in Table 5.6

60

It is evident from the PL and RSL values listed in Table 5.6 that the JPCP project along I-
69 has performed much better than the JRCP project along I-94. Indeed, the J RCP
project has been subjected to some fixing whereas the JPCP project has not. Certainly,
many factors affect the performance of both pavement projects. However, traffic is not
one of them because both pavement projects were designed to accommodate the
projected traffic for a 20 year period. The other factors affecting the performance of both

projects include:

1. Pavement Type - J PCP and JRCP, in this department, one should expect that the
JRCP would perform better than the JPCP. However, this is not the case for those two
projects.

2. Incentive Payments - The contractor of the J PCP received incentive payment while
no incentive payments were scheduled or paid to the JRCP contractor. Incentive
payment implies that the parameters of the J PCP pavement are equal to or exceed the

specifications. Hence, one should expect better pavement performance.

61

N
01

..___— *me ‘4‘"— —== -—-2 :

i1-94 Noll/D 6:15;: '
El I-94 (DI after pavement repair and diamond grinding)
{1'62 VP PIOJ'eSt

 

N
O

 

U2
is
'9'."
a
Q
5
h
o i
"a 15 A - - i 2 - —l a —I'.—A 2 i 2
c: / l '
2 l l ‘ l
.2 l 2 / j .
t 10 L - L ,1 / .1 ._ ---L
l 3 i l j .
i o 4’ . Concrete repair&
15 5 g ,2 - f _k ff .- , ,_.; diamond grinding f
i go i / i l
l 3 ,’ , ‘ _
‘ < 0.5 .
l 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

 

 

 

 

 

Years, relative to construction year

 

 

 

 

Figure 5.1 The average D1 of two rigid pavement projects versus time after construction

Table 5.6 Predicted pavement life and remaining service life

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I-69 1-94
I/D project No I/D project
MDOT MDOT
Best fit revised Best fit revised
Source polynomial logistical polynomial logistical
equation growth equation growth
model model
Pavement 24.33 22.1 13.81 11.04
life (years)
Remaining
service 19.33 17.1 5.81 3.04
life (years)

 

 

 

The two scenarios above should not lead to any conclusion regarding the effect of the l/D

program on pavement performance or pavement longevity. Much larger pool of pavement

projects must be analyzed first, before any conclusion can be made. The analyses of the

62

performance of the two pavement projects in this section should be handled as an
example of the analyses to be conducted on much larger pool of projects in the Phase II

study. It should not be regarded as analyses of the benefits and costs of the VB program.

5.2 EXAMPLE 2 — ASSESSMENT OF I/D PAY RATE

In this example, the performances of six jointed plain concrete pavement (.l PCP)
reconstruction projects, containing I/D specifications, and with different I/D pay rates (as
percentage of paving material cost) are compared. A summary of the six projects can be

seen in Table 5 .7.

Table 5.7 Summary of J PCP reconstruction pavement projects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Route Control 10b Year I/D rate
de51gnation section number constructed (%)
1 L75 82194 36005 1998 2.15
2 1-94 11017 38094 1997 2.29
3 [-69 12033 45 877 2000 2.38
4 1-69 12033 49921 2002 2.58
5 1-69 12033 45535 2000 2.69
6 1-75 47065 28215 1999 3.18

 

 

First, available historical (since reconstruction) distress data and distress indices for each
0.1 mile segment along each of the six projects were requested and obtained from the
Pavement Management System (PMS) database of MDOT. Further, the weighted average
DI for each of the six pavement projects was requested and obtained from the MDOT
pavement performance study files. As in Example 1, upon receiving the two sets of data
from MDOT, the research team calculated the weighted average DI for each pavement

project using:

63

1.

The beginning and ending mileposts (the project boundaries) found in the MDOT

pavement performance study list.

2. The PMS detailed DI data within each project boundaries.

Tables 5.8 to 5.12 provide a list of the historical detailed DI data obtained from the PMS

database of MDOT and the calculated weighted average DI for each pavement project.

Other information that were obtained from the MDOT files and project records that are

pertinent to the assessment of the effects of the I/D program are listed in Tables 5.13 to

5.17. For each of the six pavement projects, the information in the tables include:

The pavement type; All 6 projects are jointed plain concrete pavements (J PCP)
The road number; I-75, I-94, and I-69

The source of the information including the PMS database of MDOT, the file of the
MDOT pavement performance study, the data file of the MDOT I/D study, the
project proposal, and the project financial records

The time in year for pavement reconstruction and distress data collection

The beginning and ending mileposts (BMP and EMP)

The project length

The weighted average distress index (DI) between the given mileposts

The I/D specifications

The amount of incentive payment in terms of dollars and as percent of the paving
material cost

The type and years of maintenance and pavement preservation fixes that were taken

after reconstruction

64

It should be noted that, the distress data from the PMS database and the summary of the
weighted average DI values for the I-69 project (CS 12033 IN 49921), which was also

part of Example 1, are provided in Tables 5.3 and 5.5, respectively.

As was noticed in Example 1, there is minor variability between the project boundaries
(beginning and ending mileposts) from one year to another in the PMS distress data.
Whereas, the project boundaries listed in the MDOT pavement performance study files
do not change from one year to another. These project boundaries can be seen in Table
5.5 and in Tables 5.13 to 5.17 for each of the six pavement projects. Again, after
discussions with the MDOT Research Advisory Panel (RAP) regarding this variability, it
was decided to use the average DI values from the MDOT pavement performance study

rather than the calculated weighted average DI values from the PMS distress data.

65

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ww~.~ fidmo wdwo omo.o HQ
owm8>< nod—EBB
oo.o oo.o wddd oodd
wo.o_ ww.m oodd dowd oo.o oo.o Nwdd oodd oo.o oo.o oddd wowd
wwo ow.o dowd momd do; do; oodd oowd woo woo wowd womd oo.o oo.o wodd oomd
oo.o oo.o momd momd oo.o oo.o oowd oomd do.o moo womd womd oo.o oo.o oomd oomd
wwo wwo moNd mood oo.o oo.o oomd oomd oo.o oo.o womd wo_d oo.o oo.o oomd oofi d
odo odd mo_d mood oo.o oo.o oomd oood oo.o oo.o wo_d wood oo.o oo.o ooo d oood
mm.~ mm.~ mood mood oo.o oo.o oofi d oood woo woo wood wood oo.o oo.o oood oood
oo.o oo.o mood mowd oo.o oo.o oood oood oo.o oo.o wood wowd oo.o oo.o oood oomd
woo woo momd mood oo.o oo.o oood oowd do.“ do; wood wood oo.o oo.o oowd oood
oo.o oo.o mood modd oo.o oo.o oomd oood oo.o oo.o wood wodd oo.o oo.o oood oodd
oo.o oo.o modd modd oo.o oo.o oood oodd do; do." wodd wodd oo.o oo.o oodd oomd
oo.o oo.o modd mowd oo.o oo.o oodd oodd oo.o oo.o wodd wowd oo.o oo.o oodd oowd
oo.o oo.o mowd momd oo.o oo.o oowd oowd oo.o oo.o wowd womd oo.o oo.o oowd oomd
wmo mwo momd momd oo.o oo.o oowd oomd oo.o oo.o womd womd od.o odo oomd oomd
o_.m ofim momd mofid 8N 3N oomd oomd om; ow; womd ond Ed 3d oomd oomd
oo.o oo.o mood mood oo.o oo.o oomd oo~d oo.o oo.o wofid wood oo.o oo.o ooHd oood
ww._ wwA mood moo.w oo.o oo.o oood oood oo.o oo.o wood woo.w oo.o oo.o oood ooo.w
odd odd moow moww odo odo oood ooo.w mdo mdo woo.w woo.w oo.o oo.o ooo.w ooo.w
do.2 dodfi moww moow do.o moo ooo.w ooo.w woo woo woo.w woo.w oo.o oo.o ooww ooo.w
HO HO HO HO
gimme? HQ Em Em oofiwooa HQ mEm Ezm 8:383 HQ Em mEm oofiwmoo? HQ gm 52m
o - doom d I mooN m - Hoom #1 ooo~
832.528 8am 38> - 58>

A88 828%

MSE HOQE Eobvdoodm 7C. .wofiww m0 mwooo E 885.5888 “8.3%“ mun: do; 05 mo 0:8 Ho :08 do.“ 8% 805me wd 03mg.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0f

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oo.o oo.o m.o Nd oo.o oo.o domm doN.m oo.o oo.o domm doN.w oo.o oo.o m.o N.w
oo.o oo.o N.m m.o oo.o oo.o doN.w do_.w oo.o oo.o doN.m domm oo.o oo.o N.w mm
oo.o oo.o mm m oo.o oo.o do_.w woo.w oo.o oo.o domm doom oo.o oo.o mm m

od.o odo w o.o oo.o oo.o woo.w doo.o oo.o oo.o doom doo.o oo.o oo.o w o.o
oo.o oo.o o.o w.o oo.o oo.o doo.o domo oo.o oo.o doo.o dowo oo.o oo.o o.o w.o
oo.o oo.o w.o o.o oo.o oo.o dowo doo.o oo.o oo.o dowo doo.o oo.o oo.o w.o o.o
oo.o oo.o o.o d.o oo.o oo.o doo.o dodo oo.o oo.o doo.o dod.o oo.o oo.o o.o d.o
oo.o oo.o d.o m.o oo.o oo.o dod.o dodo oo.o oo.o dod.o dod.o oo.o oo.o d.o w.o
N_.o N_.o m.o w.o oo.o oo.o dodo dowo oo.o oo.o dod.o dow.o oo.o oo.o m.o w.o
woo woo w.o m.o oo.o oo.o dowo dom.o oo.o oo.o dow.o dom.o oo.o oo.o w.o m.o
oo.o oo.o m.o N.o oo.o oo.o dom.o doNo oo.o oo.o dom.o doN.o oo.o oo.o m.o N.o
woo woo N.o _.o ow.o ow.o doN.o do—o oo.o oo.o doN.o do_.o oo.o oo.o N.o m.o
oo.o oo.o m.o o odo od.o domo doo.o oo.o oo.o domo doo.o oo.o oo.o m.o o

oo.o oo.o o od oo.o oo.o doo.o mood oo.o oo.o doo.o dood oo.o oo.o o od
oo.o oo.o od md oo.o oo.o mood domd oo.o oo.o dood domd oo.o oo.o od wd
oo.o oo.o md od oo.o oo.o wood wood oo.o oo.o dowd dood oo.o oo.o wd od
oo.o oo.o od dd oo.o oo.o mood dodd oo.o oo.o dood dodd oo.o oo.o od dd
od._ odm dd dd oo.o oo.o dodd dodd oo.o oo.o dodd dodd oo.o oo.o dd dd
mm: mm; dd wd oo.o oo.o dodd dowd oo.o oo.o dodd dowd oo.o oo.o dd wd
oo.o oo.o wd md oN.o oN.o dowd domd oo.o oo.o dowd domd oo.o oo.o wd md
odo odo md Nd oo.o oo.o domd moNd oo.o oo.o domd doNd oo.o oo.o md Nd
oo.o oo.o Nd md wN.o wN.o doNd domd oo.o oo.o doNd domd oo.o oo.o Nd md
oo.o oo.o _d d oo.o oo.o domd dood oo.o oo.o domd dood oo.o oo.o md d

odo odo d od oo.o oo.o wood wood oo.o oo.o dood dood oo.o oo.o d od
odo od.o od wd oo.o oo.o dood domd oo.o oo.o dood dowd oo.o oo.o od wd

“Schmuck, HQ mEm Elm USMMQB HQ Em Adam cowhmg? HQ Em Em dohMoo? HQ n=2m 595
o - oooN d . doON m - mooN. m - mooN
885.538 Home 38> - 80>
A88 $0me

SE e092 865 Rm? 7: .202 8 58m 5 6868882 Hosea 8.: of 2:6 6:8 3 n68 so and aged 8 some

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

025

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dde vddod No.3 3 :Q
odfio>< voids?

oo.o oo.o dd: dd: oo.o oo.o 3d.:: 3d.:: oo.o oo.o dodd: dedd: oo.o oo.o dodd: dd:
oo.o oo.o dd: dd: 93 ovd 3:: dodd: oo.o cod dddd: dodd: oo.o oo.o dd: dd:
33.3 oo.o dd: dd: oo.o oo.o dodd: 3d.:: oo.o cod dddd: dodd: oo.o oo.o dd: dd:
oo.o oo.o dd: v.0: oo.o oo.o 3d.:: 3:: 03.0 8.0 dodd: dovd: oo.o oo.o dd: :3:
oo.o 8.3 v3: dd: 33.3 oo.o 3:: 3nd: oo.o oo.o dovd: ddmd: 8.0 8.3 w.o: dd:
30.0 oo.o dd: Nd: Ndd de 32: 3N3: 33.3 8.3 demd: dde: oo.o oo.o dd: N3:
:3 :3 N3: :3: N:.o N:.o 3Nd: 3:3: oo.o oo.o dde: 3:: oo.o oo.o N3: :3:
8.3 00.3 :3: :: odd odd 3:3: 3:2: 8.3 30.3 3:3: 303: oo.o 8.3 :.o: o:
N: .o N:.o :: dd cod oo.o dood: 3dd oo.o oo.o dood: dedd 8.3 8.3 c: dd
odd odd dd dd VNd VNd 3dd 3dd oo.o oo.o dedd dddd 8.0 8.0 dd dd
Odd Odd dd dd oo.o oo.o 3dd dodd oo.o oo.o dedd dodd oo.o oo.o dd dd
oo.o oo.o dd dd 03.3 oo.o dodd 3dd oo.o oo.o dedd dedd oo.o oo.o dd dd
00.3 cod dd dd 8.3 cod 3dd dodd oo.o cod dodd dddd oo.o oo.o dd dd
oo.o oo.o dd vd oo.o oo.o 3dd dovd 03.: do: dedd dovd 30.3 8.3 dd vd
oo.o oo.o vd dd oo.o oo.o 3vd domd oo.o oo.o dovd domd oo.o oo.o vd dd
odd Odd dd Nd oo.o oo.o dedd 3Nd oo.o . oo.o dedd dONd oo.o oo.o dd Nd
oo.o oo.o Nd :d 03.0 oo.o 3Nd 3:.d oo.o oo.o dONd do:.d ocd oo.o Nd :d
VNd VNd :d d 8.0 oo.o 3:.d dood oo.o oo.o dc:.d dood oo.o oo.o :d d
oo.o oo.o d dd 8.3 oo.o 3od 3dd oo.o oo.o dood dOdd oo.o 8.3 d dd
oo.o oo.o dd dd 8.0 00.0 3dd dodd Odd oo.o dOdd dedd oo.o oo.o dd dd
odd Odd dd dd oo.o oo.o dodd 3dd oo.o oo.o dddd dedd oo.o oo.o dd dd
3.: 3.: dd dd oo.o oo.o 3d.d 3dd oo.o oo.o dodd dodd oo.o oo.o dd dd
00.3 03.3 dd dd 00.3 oo.o dodd 3dd oo.o oo.o dedd dodd oo.o oo.o dd dd
oo.o oo.o dd vd oo.o oo.o 3dd dovd oo.o oo.o dedd dovd 03.0 8.3 dd vd
odd odd vd dd 03.3 8.3 3vd 3md oo.o oo.o dovd demd oo.o oo.o vd dd

dBMMQB :9 gm gm: dobflo? :Q Em: mEm: BLMDB :n: Em Em BLMQB :n: mEm Adam:

d - dOON d - dOON m - mOON : .. :OON

 

 

 

 

GOmuogmfloo Hofim muao> .. 30>

 

 

 

.3253 a 2%,:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22.2 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 22.2 22.2 83 83 82 82 83 82
22.2 82 83 82 82 82 82. 82.3 222 222 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 v2 82 82 82 222 82 82 82 82 82 82. 83
82 82 83 82 N2 N2 82 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 82 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 22.2 82 83 83
22 22 82 83 82 82 83 83 222 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
N2 N2 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 222 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 32 32 83 83 82 82 83 83 222 222 83 83
82 82 82.3 83 N2 N2 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 N2 N2 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 32 32 83 83 82 22.2 83 83 82 82 83 83
22 22 83 83 N2 N2 83 83 222 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
22 22 8: 83 22 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 22.2 82 83 83
22 22 83 82 82 82 83 82 82 222 83 82 82 82 83 82
22 22 82 82 N2 N2 822 82 82 82 822 82 82 82 82 82
82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 222 82 82
22 22 82 82 82 82 82 82 222 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
22 22 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 82 82 82 82 222 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 222 82 82
82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 22.2 222 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 82 82 82 82 222 82 82 82 22.2 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 22.2 82 82
82 82 82 282 82 82 82 822 82 82 82 822 82 82 82 822
22%;? a 82m 32m 82%23 5 3m 3m 22%”? 5 3m 3m 82%; 5 3m 3m
2-823 3823 2.823 3383
GOmHOgmGOU How“ MHNU> I HMO?

 

A83 28me
dEn: H09): :85 d dd dv 2H .mmdN: do mOOON 2: 885.5308.— Hoofioa no“: dd-: 2:3 2:8 :.o :30 8d 82d 8285 o:.d Band

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

33 33 82 82 82 82 82 82 22.2 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 22.2 82 282 82 82 82 822 82 82 82 822 82 82 82 282
82 22.2 282 83 22.2 82 822 83 22.2 82 822 83 82 82 82 83
23 23 83 83 82 22 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 22.2 83 83
82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
222 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
222 222 83 83 82 22.2 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
22.2 82 83 83 22.2 82 83 83 22.2 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 222 83 83 82 222 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 22.2 83 83
82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83.3 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 22 22 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 22.2 83 83
82 82 83 82 82 22.2 83 82 82 82 83 82 82 82 83 82
22.2 82 82 82 N2 N2 82 82 82 22.2 83 82 82 82 82 82
82 82 82 82 N2 N2 82 82 82 22.2 82 82 82 82 82 82
22.2 82 82 83 82 22 82 82 222 82 82 82 22.2 82 82 83.
82 82 83 82 33 33 82 82 82 82 82 82 22.2 82 82 82
82 82 82 82 32 32 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 22.2 82 82 N2 N2 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 82 82 82 82 22.2 82 82 22.2 22.2 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 22.2 82 82 22 22 82 82 82 22.2 82 82 82 82 82 82
82 82 82 83 82 82 82 83 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 83
82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 22.2 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83 22.2 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
82 82 83 83 22 22 83 83 82 82 83 83 82 82 83 83
22%23 a 3m 3m 22%; 5 3m 3m Emma? 5 3m 3m 82%;» 5 3m 35
388 2-88 2-88 788

 

 

 

 

 

somuogmflOo Mama 980%. u 30>

 

.8382 22 28,2

 

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:3 mm m .o 23 oo.o ”wavimmemmsa
oo.o oo.o 83 82 oo.o oo.o 83 33 oo.o oo.o 8mm 83 oo.o oo.o 83 82
oo.o oo.o 85. ooo.w oo.o oo.o 8% 89m oo.o oo.o 83 ooo.w oo.o oo.o 83 ooo.w
86 8.0 SE 82 Sm 8m 83 83 8.0 o3 ooo.w 83 oo.o oo.o ooo.w 83
oo.o oo.o 83 83 oo.o oo.o 83 8% 00.0 oo.o 82 82 oo.o oo.o 83 8%
8.0 oo.o 8: 82 oo.o oo.o 8E 83 oo.o 8.0 8% 8mm oo.o cod 8% 8mm
«o.o :5 8mm 83 oo.o oo.o 8.3 83 oo.o 8.0 8% 8mm oo.o oo.o 83 8%
Samoa 5 mzm mzm 82%; 5 mzm gm 5%; E mzm mzm 82%03 5 gm mzm
T88 TBS. TBS 788

 

 

 

 

 

:Oflogmfloo yuan ”~60? I HND>

 

 

.3203 03 23

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

woém moém comm ooo.w 2.3 3.2 comm ooo.w mud mud comm ooo.w oo.o oo.o modw mofiw
mmdm mmdm ooo.w ooas m2: m2: ooo.w ooo.w Sum Sum ooo.w ooam. oo.o oo.o mom .w woo.w
mmém mama ooo.w cows 3.3 3.3 ooo.w comm. oo.o oo.o ooo.w cows oo.o oo.o woo.w woo.w
vm.: 3‘12 cows comm. cod oo.o cows cow.» 8.: 0%: comm. 855 Ed 2d moms Nome
mm. mm mwmm 856 com.» mad m~.m cows ooo.w oo.o oo.o comm. cows oo.o oo.o moms News
c~.- c~.- ooo.w cems 3.6 pm ooo.w cows oo.o oo.o ooo.w cows ocd oo.o 8:. mom:
$6 $6 00mm. oovs om; cm; 805 cows mud mud cow.» cows oo.o oo.o News News
9.2 2.3 cows comm. mum. mum. cows ooms oo.o 8.0 cows 82. oo.o oo.o News News
SAN SAN cons cows mm.: mm.: cams cows mmd mmd ooms cows oo.o oo.o No: moms
mw.m~ mw.mm comm 8:. 2.2 2.2 come oozt mmd mmd comm. 00:. 8.0 oo.o moms moms
omdm omhm com .5 ooo.w CW: own: comm ooo.w cod oo.m 03 H ooo.w oo.o oo.o moms moms
Nmmm mmmm ooo.w ooo.w om.m 0m.m ooo.w ooo.w oo.o oo.o ooo.w ooo.w oo.o oo.o moms woo.w
8.3 3.3 ooad comb ooé cod ooo.w oowd oo.o oo.o ooo.w oowd oo.o oo.o woo.w woo.w
S .cm Eda oowd oowd mus mus oowd oowd oo.o oo.o oowd 02.0 oo.o oo.o woo.w mowd
Nw.mm Nm.m~ oomd ooo.w com com oomd ooo.w omd Omd oomd oowd oo.o oo.o Newé N050 .
owwm o3: ooo.w 8mm oo.o oo.o ooo.w oowd oo.o oo.o ooo.w comb oo.o oo.o ~36 mood
vflmm dem oowd cove vodm vadm 80w oowd om; om; oowd oowd oo.o oo.o woo.w momd
8.3 3.3 oowd come 3.2 3.2 oowd comm oo.o oo.o oowd oomd oo.o oo.o Nomd movd
9:: 9:: come oomd wow wow oomd oomd mud mhd oomd oomd oo.o oo.o movd momd
2.3 m3: oomd oomd oo.m oo.N oomd oomd oo.m oo.m oomd oomd oo.o oo.o momd v86
2.3 2.2 2: .c ooo.w ch omd comb ooo.w oo.o oo.o o2 .o ooo.w oo.o oo.o womb 2.0.0
8.3 3.3 ooo.w ooo.w nah m~.m ooo.w 086 com com ooo.w ooo.w oo.o oo.o ~36 :66
mmdm mmdm ooo.w oowd mum. mus ooo.w oowd ow; om; ooo.w oowd oo.o oo.o ~36 :ww
magma wodm oowd oowd mum Sum oowd oomd OWN om.~ oowd 005m oo.o oo.o Kwd Ska
wmd wmd oomd ooo.w cod $5 856 ooo.w oo.o oo.o oowd oowd oo.o oo.o :56 :06
mm mm mm a
BEwBB 5 gm Ezm 32303 5 gm mEm BEmBB 5 Em mEm BEwBB 5 gm %m
o - Saw V - meow N - Son o - comm
QoflogmfiOU HOME 980.? u .30?
38 $0me

93 Hon: 88: 3% 7: .803 8 a9: a Engages“ 80.35 mun: WE 2&0 one m.o £8 am 3% 8255 :w 2me

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38.8 $3 88.: 888 5 8222. 82833
8.2 8.2 88.8 8; s}. 3:. 88.8 8; 8.: 8.: 88.8 83

8.2 8.: 83 88.8 8.8 88 83 88.8 88 88 83 88.8 8.: 8.: 88.8 8;
8.2 8.2 88.8 83 8.: 8.: 88.8 83 88 88 88.8 83 8.8 88 83 88.8
8.2 8.2 83 83 8+ 8.8 83 83 88 88 83 83 88 88 88.8 83
8.8 8.8 83 83 8.8 8.8 83 83 88 88 83 83 88 88 83 83
8.8 8.8 83 83 8.: 8.: 83 83 8.: 8.: 83 83 8.8 88 83 83
8.8 8.8 83 83 8.: 8.: 83 83 83 8.8 83 83 88 88 83 83
8.2 8.2 83 83 8.8 8.8 83 83 8.: 8.: 83 83 88 8.8 83 83
8.2 8.2 83 83 v3 v3 83 83 8.8 88 83 83 88 88 83 83
8.8 8.8 83 88.8 38: 38: 83 83 8.8 88 83 83 8.: 8.: 83 83
8.8 8.8 83 83 8.2 8.2 83 83 8.8 8.8 83 83 88 88 83 83
88%; 5 gm 82m 82%»; 5 3m mzm ELMO? 5 82m 85 88%03 5 82m 88

8-88 T88 8-88 8-82

 

 

 

 

 

5305838 Baa 88> - 80>

 

8.283 :8 28,8

 

 

Table 5.12 Distress data for each 0.1 mile of the 1—94 JPCP reconstructed in 1997' CS 11017 IN 38094 MDOT PMS distress
Y - Y

    

Weighted
D1

D1 WEE?“ BMP EMP BMP EMP BMP EMP D1

“/631th BMP BMP DI

Weighted Weighted
D1 D1

5.

Weighted Average

74

 

 

MM '1 I

' ' .A
CL‘uL)

[CG

Table 5.13 Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-75 J PCP project reconstructed

in 1998; CS 82194, IN 36005

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Maintenance/
PI'OJCCI Weighted rehabilitation
Data source Year BMP EMP length average I/D since
(miles) DI construction
1999 4.8 6.598 1.798 0.0
MDOT-
pavement 2001 4.8 6.598 1.798 0.5
Perfomlance 2003 4.8 6.598 1.798 0.3
study
2005 4.8 6.598 1.798 0.6
1999 4.799 6.598 1.799 0.039
MDOT-PMS 2001 4.794 6.65 1.856 0.454
dimss data 2003 4.8 6.642 1.842 0.251
2005 4.773 6.668 1.895 2.244
. . Concrete
MDOT ’ .I/D 4.58 6.99 2.41 Quality
pmJect “St Initiative
Concrete
Quality
Financial Initiative -
records $60,832.80 —

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.15% (% of
paving cost)

 

 

75

 

Table 5.14 Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-94 JPCP project reconstructed
in 1997; CS 11017, JN 38094

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Weighted Egggfigzgfif
Data source Year BMP EMP length average I/D since
(miles) DI construction
1999 5.617 6.503 0.886 0.196
MDOT- 2001 5.617 6.503 0.886 0.085
pavement 2003 5.617 6.503 0.886 0.2
performance
study 2005 5.617 6.503 0.886 1.8
2007 5.617 6.503 0.886 7.354
1999 5.617 6.59 0.973 0.14
2001 5.603 6.503 0.9 0.083
MDOT-PMS
distress data 2003 5.605 6.505 0.9 0.174
2005 5.602 6.599 0.997 2.371
2007 5.616 6.516 0.9 10.467
Concrete
MB) (32161.13? 5.875 6.603 0.728 Strength
p J Adjustment
Concrete
Strength
Financial Adjustment -
records $31,128.70 —
2.29% (% of
paving cost)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

 

Table 5.15 Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-69 J PCP project reconstructed

in 2000; CS 12033, IN 45877

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Maintenance/
Pr0ject Welghted rehabilitation
Data source Year BMP EMP length average I/D since
(miles) DI construction
2001 5.8 10.809 5.009 0
MDOT-
pavement 2003 5.8 10.809 5.009 0
Performance 2005 5.8 10.809 5.009 0.1
study
2007 5.8 10.809 5.009 0.283
2001 5.8 10.809 5.009 0
MDOT-PMS 2003 5.806 10.806 5.0 0.02
distress data 2005 5.805 10.805 5.0 0.058
2007 5.8 10.8 5.0 0.283
Concrete
MDOT ‘ .I/D 5.8 11.0 5.2 Quality
pr0ject list Initiative
Concrete
Quality
Financial Initiative -
records $65,132.72 —
2.38% (% of

 

 

 

 

 

 

paving cost)

 

 

77

 

Table 5.16 Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-69 JPCP project reconstructed

in 2000; CS 12033, IN 45535

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Weighted Eggfifizzzz
Data source Year BMP EMP length average I/D since
(rmles) DI construction
2001 0.006 5.8 5.794 0
MDOT-
pavement 2003 0.006 5.8 5.794 0
Performance 2005 0.006 5.8 5.794 0.2
study
2007 0.006 5.8 5.794 0.2
2001 0 5.8 5.8 O
MDOT-PMS 2003 0 5.806 5.806 0.025
distress data 2005 0 5.805 5.805 0.158
2007 0 5.8 5.8 0.241
Concrete
MDOT ' VD 0 5.8 5.8 Quality
prOject “St Initiative
Concrete
Quality
Financial Initiative -
records $65,132.72 —
2.69% (% of

 

 

 

 

 

 

paving cost)

 

 

78

 

Table 5.17 Summary of the weighted average DI for the I-75 JPCP project reconstructed

in 1999; CS 47065, IN 28215

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project Weighted gargfiflzltlifif
Data source Year BMP EMP length average I/D .
(miles) DI 5m“ .
construction
1999 5.671 9.2 3.529 0.063 2005 -
MDOT— Concrete
pavement 2001 5.671 9.2 3.529 1.827 pavement
performance 2003 5.671 9.2 3.529 8.69 repair &
study diamond
1999 5.671 9.202 3.531 0.062
MDOT-PMS 2001 5.6 9.2 3.6 1.836
distress data 2003 5.6 9.2 3.6 8.885
2005 5.6 9.2 3.6 20.361
Concrete
MDQT' VD 4.05 5.46 1.41 Strength
9’01““ “St Initiative
Concrete
Strength
Financial Initiative -
records $71,031.01 —

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.18% (% of
paving cost)

 

 

As indicated in Table 5.5 and in Tables 5.13 to 5.17, each of the six JPCP pavement

reconstruction projects contained I/D specifications and received varying levels of I/D

payment. The I/D pay rates for the six projects ranged from 2.15 to 3.18 percent, which

was computed as a percentage of the total paving material cost. The amount of I/D

payment received by the contractor and the paving material cost for each project were

obtained from the project financial records.

The performances of the six pavement projects were compared based on the weighted

average DI data listed in Table 5.5, and in Tables 5.13 to 5.17 that were obtained from

the MDOT pavement performance study data files. The performances of the six projects

were compared to assess whether or not the I/D pay rate impacts pavement performance.

79

 

Figures 5.2 depicts the average DI values (listed in Table 5.5, and in Tables 5.13 to 5.17)

for the six rigid pavement projects plotted as a function of time since reconstruction. The

data in the figure indicates that:

a)

b)

d)

The I—75 pavement project with the highest I/D pay rate (3.18 percent) has the highest
rate of deterioration. The average DI increased from 0.06 to 20.36 in 6 years after
construction.

The I-75 pavement project with the lowest I/D pay rate (2.15 percent) has a
significantly low rate of deterioration. The average DI increased from 0.0 to 0.6 in 7
years after reconstruction.

From all six projects, the I/D pay rate appears to have no effect on pavement
performance.

For the pavement projects designated 1, 3 and 5 in Table 5.18, there is an
insignificant change in the average DI over time since reconstruction. The average DI
values for each of the three projects range between 0 and 0.6 in 7 years after

reconstruction as can be seen in Figure 5.3.

As in Example 1, in order to estimate the pavement life (PL) of each of the six JPCP

reconstruction projects, two methods were employed:

1.

The best fit curves between the average DI and time (T) in year were obtained using
polynomial functions. The resulting correlation equations are listed in Table 5.18:
Equations 3 through 8 were used to estimate the pavement life of each of the six JPCP

reconstruction projects. This was accomplished by solving for the time “T” in the

80

equations for which the DI equal to fifty distress points (the MDOT DI threshold
value defining PL). Additionally, the remaining service life (RSL) of each pavement
project was calculated by subtracting the number of years between reconstruction and
the last distress survey year (or the pavement surface age) from the estimated PL. It
should be noted that Equations 2 and 6 are the same polynomial function. This is
because the same I-69 pavement project was used in both examples. For the I-75
pavement project with an I/D pay rate of 2.15 percent, the average DI obtained from
the MDOT pavement performance study files for the third year after reconstruction
was considered an outlier (see Figure 5.3) and hence it was ignored. After eliminating
the third year DI data, the best fit polynomial function was obtained and is included

as Equation 3 in Table 5.18.

Table 5.18 Best fit polynomial equations for the six pavement projects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dezirgijtzcfiton Route r132: 10% Equation Eq #
1 1-75 2.15 D1 = 0.0159 (7")2 + 0.0315 (T) — .0526 3
2 L94 2.29 DI = 0.2288(7)2 -1.0292(T) + 0.5515 4
3 L69 2.38 DI = 0.0114(T)2 - 0.044(T) + 0.0318 5
4 L69 2.58 D1 = 0.0909(7‘)2 - 0.1635(T) + 0.1726 6
5 L69 2.69 D1 = 0.0029(7‘)2 — 0.0239(7) + 0.0445 7
6 I-75 3.18 D] = 0.6152(T)2 — 0.3129(T) + 0.0452 8

 

2. For each pavement project, the best fit curve of the data was obtained using the

MDOT revised logistical growth model. The model was then used to estimate the PL

and the RSL of each rigid pavement reconstruction project.

81

 

The estimated values of the PL and RSL for the six I PCP pavement projects, calculated
from Equations 3 through 8 and from the MDOT revised logistical growth model, can be
seen in Table 5.19. It should be noted that, in the Phase II study, only the MDOT revised
logistical growth model will be used to estimate the lives of the pavement projects.
However, this model was not part of the Phase I study. Nevertheless, it is evident from
the PL and RSL values listed in Table 5.19 that the polynomial functions overestimated
these values. Hence, the PL values obtained from the MDOT revised logistical growth
model was plotted against the I/D pay rate, as shown in Figure 5.4. After examination of
the data shown in the figure, it was decided to label the data point with an I/D pay rate of
3.18 as an outlier. The remaining data were then used to generate the best fit exponential
function, which is stated in the figure. It can be seen from the figure that, in general, the
higher the I/D pay rate, the higher is the estimated PL. This observation must be viewed

with extreme caution. The reasons are:

1. The small range of the I/D pay rate of the six projects.

2. The small pool of pavement projects used in the comparison.

The above scenarios indicate that a definitive conclusion regarding the effect of the I/D
pay rate on pavement performance cannot be made. This is similar to the conclusion
reached from Example 1. The analyses of the two examples should be viewed as an
example of the analyses to be conducted on a much larger pool of projects in the Phase II

study.

82

{ 13 1-69 (I/Drate=2.58%) - 1—75(1/D rate=3.18%)3A 1:94 (I/D rate=2.29%)
A 1-69 (I/D rate=2.69°/o) 01-69 (I/D rate=2.38%) 01-75 (I/D rate=2.15%)

Average DI over the length of the

 

 

 

 

 

25 __ I._.______--_.___.-___ —-—-----—~-——~-( .
o . l
-.=. . 1
h 1
° 20 .t 3 3 3 1 3 l L 9 A- g - 9 9
t: o I
H
:0 l ' l
= 1 ‘ l
2 l , 9
o m 15 9 9 - 9 9 '
e 8 l’ ~
'1! l I 1
e l 1 x
¢ a‘ 10 ’ ‘ 8 r * rt I * l, 1
_ .
G
0
M
N
I.
a)
>
<

 

Year, relative to construction year

Figure 5.2 DI comparison of six I PCP pavement projects

 

 

iii-.69 (I/D rate=2.69%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I-69(T/D tate='2§8%)

 

    

 

 

‘ _9.I:75-<I/Drate=2-15%> ._ . 81-75-188.33...
1 - 3 . __
l 1 ' 1 1 .
0.8 y 1.1 - . f . l 99.1
‘ ‘ ' 1 .
1 - 1 .
93 0‘6 i l ““1-75 point 7 " y
E" 1 . 0 ignored in 1 l/ 1
a. 0-4 ‘ ” ‘ "’8 amlyses L, 7 .
02 j 1‘ j l / ‘ LA
' 77W "i"— / ’ ' . -1’
L W . 1 .
0 *I ‘ -- +_- ’
l ‘ 1
--0.2 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Year, relative to construction year

 

Figure 5.3 DI comparison of three JPCP pavement projects

83

Table 5.19 Predicted pavement life and remaining service life of six I PCP reconstruction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I/D pay rate (percent of material cost)

projects
Route 1-75 1-94 I-69 I-69 1-69 1-75
(CSJN) (82194, (11017, (12033, (12033, (12033, (47065,
’ 36005) 38094) 45877) 49921) 45535) 28215)
Project designation 1 2 3 4 5 6
I/D rate (%) 2.15 2.29 2.38 2.58 2.69 3.18
Pavementme 55.12 17.12 68.16 24.33 135.43 9.27
Best fit (years)
polynomial Remaining
equation service life 48.12 9.12 61.16 19.33 128.43 3.27
(years)
MDOT Pavement “f6 14.6 11.9 23.6 22.1 50.2 9.8
rev1sed (years)
logistlcal Remaining
growth service life 7.6 3.9 16.6 17.1 43.2 3.8
model (years)
‘PL = 0.1144e2.1645PR . 1
50 ‘ 1 R2=O.7244 Lia ,_ . . , -91 ‘i 9
99 37. , _, . . ‘
l 1 1
.m. 40 -1 l .1! A
8
3: 1
a 30 9 1 .'
a
E 20 ’ ’’’’’’’’ i
O.) 1
> p .
a“: 10 7 ' 9; i .1 7 l
‘ 1 Z
1 l l 1 1 l
0 . .
2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4

 

Figure 5.4 Pavement life estimated from MDOT revised logistical growth model vs. I/D

pay rate

84

 

5.3 CONCLUSIONS
Based upon the pavement project data collected in the Phase I study and the assessment

of Examples 1 and 2, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. Ideal and comprehensive analyses of the cost and benefits of each specific pay item
within the MDOT I/D program cannot be conducted.

2. Analyses can be conducted on the costs and benefits of the I/D program as a whole.
This includes analyses based on pavement type, fix type, and the I/D pay rate.

3. As listed in Table 3.1, the MDOT project files contain missing data elements

including:

a. QC/QA test results
b. Reference location along project where l/D payments were made
c. I/D pay item (which material property received I/D)

d. Initial ride quality index (RQI) — RQI for which I/D was paid

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of the Phase I study the research team strongly recommends the

following changes be made:

1. Create computerized data files, accessible to all users, in which all data elements of
each pavement project can be imported to. This should allow the users to access all

data and conduct the desired analyses at his/her desk.

85

2. Collect and store within the computerized data files, all the necessary data elements
listed in Table 3.1. Including the following data elements, which are currently

missing from the project files:

a. QA/QC test results
b. Reference location along project where I/D payments were made
c. I/D pay item (which material property received I/D)

d. Initial ride quality index (RQI) — RQI for which I/D was paid

3. Convert the existing location reference system (mileposts and road number) to a
geographical information based system (GIS). This would eliminate the slight
difference in project boundaries (beginning and ending mileposts) from one survey
year to another.

4. Enable the projects within the computer database to be linked by the location
reference system. This would allow for all projects relevant to a pavement section to
be accessible when searched by location reference system (mileposts and road
number).

5. Convert the current I/D pay specifications which only concern the surface paving

materials to I/D specifications which include the entire pavement system.

86

Appendix A

MDOT Pavement Performance Study Data

87

 

Table A1 The

Project
Identification

   
   
   

Table A1 cont’

Project

**For the maintenance costs, all pre—2007 costs were brought into 2007 dollars based on the Producer Price Index for Highway and Street Construction

Control
Section

15

Control

88

data for seven

Job
Number

Job
Number

reconstruction

Location

 

Appendix B

MDOT PMS Distress Index (DI) Data

89

 

Table B1 The MDOT 1993 pavement DI data for control section 11015 along I-94 EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=93-07-09
'8‘ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.001
a. Survey Pav't 860110118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.029 501 1993 7 0.29 0 0 <--- Normalized
2 0.029 0.164 5011993 2 1.35 1 5.0222 <--- Normalized
3 0.164 0.193 5011993 7 0.29 0 0 <--- Normalized
4 0.193 0.293 5011993 2 1 l 7.59 <---
5 0.293 0.393 5011993 2 l 1 0.64 <---
6 0.393 0.493 5011993 2 l 1 3.56 <---
7 0.493 0.593 5011993 2 l l 0.28 <---
8 0.593 0.693 5011993 2 l l 3.13 <---
9 0.693 0.793 5011993 2 1 1 2.96 <---
10 0.793 0.893 5011993 2 1 l 4.51 <---
11 0.893 0.993 5011993 2 1 l 4.54 <---
12 0.993 1.093 5011993 2 1 1 1.92 <---
13 1.093 1.193 5011993 2 1 l 2.58 <---
14 1.193 1.293 5011993 2 l 1 1.64 <---
15 1.293 1.393 5011993 2 1 1 2.32 <---
16 1.393 1.493 5011993 2 l l 1.64 <---
17 1.493 1.667 5011993 2 1.74 1 3.7299 <--- Normalized
18 1.667 1.703 501 1993 7 0.36 0 0 <--- Normalized
19 1.703 1.803 5011993 2 l l 5.81 <---
20 1.803 1.903 5011993 2 l l 2.64 <---
21 1.903 2.003 5011993 2 1 1 1.2 <---
22 2.003 2.103 5011993 2 1 I 0.96 <---
23 2.103 2.203 5011993 2 1 l 0.18 <---
24 2.203 2.303 5011993 2 1 l 0.74 <---
25 2.303 2.403 5011993 2 1 1 6.08 <---
26 2.403 2.503 5011993 2 1 1 2.48 <---
27 2.503 2.603 5011993 2 l 1 2.24 <---
28 2.603 2.703 5011993 2 l 1 2.06 <---
29 2.703 2.803 5011993 2 1 1 1.32 <---
30 2.803 2.903 5011993 2 1 l 1.12 <---
31 2.903 3.003 5011993 2 1 l 0.32 <---
32 3.003 3.103 5011993 2 l 1 0.24 <---
33 3.103 3.203 5011993 2 1 l 0.48 <---
34 3.203 3.303 5011993 2 1 I 0 <---
35 3.303 3.403 5011993 2 1 l 0.32 <---
36 3.403 3.503 5011993 2 l 1 0.48 <---
37 3.503 3.603 5011993 2 1 l 1.32 <---
38 3.603 3.703 5011993 2 1 1 1.72 <---
39 3.703 3.803 5011993 2 l l 3.12 <---
40 3.803 3.903 5011993 2 1 l 2.46 <---
41 3.903 4.003 5011993 2 l l 2.5 <---
42 4.003 4.103 5011993 2 1 1 3.68 <---

 

90

 

Table B1 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE [Dr-93-07-09
'8 Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.001
6. Survey Pav't SCCfiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values

43 4.103 4.203 5011993 2 l 1 0.26 <---

44 4.203 4.303 5011993 2 l l 0.48 <---

45 4.303 4.403 5011993 2 1 1 0.56 <---

46 4.403 4.503 5011993 2 1 1 1.56 <—--

47 4.503 4.603 5011993 2 1 1 0.98 <---

48 4.603 4.703 5011993 2 1 1 0.72 <-—-

49 4.703 4.803 5011993 2 1 1 1.28 <---

50 4.803 4.903 5011993 2 1 1 1.48 <---

51 4.903 5.003 5011993 2 1 1 0.88 <---

52 5.003 5.103 5011993 2 l 1 1.24 <---

53 5.103 5.203 5011993 2 1 1 0.72 <---

54 5.203 5.303 5011993 2 1 1 0 <--—

55 5.303 5.403 5011993 2 l 1 0.18 <---

56 5.403 5.503 5011993 2 l 1 0.1 <---

57 5.503 5.603 5011993 2 l l 0.16 <---

58 5.603 5.703 5011993 2 l 1 0.08 <---

59 5.703 5.803 5011993 2 l l 0 <---

60 5.803 5.903 501 1993 2 l 1 0 <---

61 5.903 6.003 501 1993 2 1 1 0.88 <---

62 6.003 6.103 501 1993 2 l 1 O <---

63 6.103 6.203 5011993 2 1 l 0 <---

64 6.203 6.303 501 1993 2 1 l O <---

65 6.303 6.403 501 1993 2 l l 0 <---

66 6.403 6.503 501 1993 2 l 1 0 <---

67 6.503 6.603 501 1993 2 1 l O <---

68 6.603 6.703 501 1993 2 1 1 0 <---

69 6.703 6.803 5011993 2 l l 0.08 <---

70 6.803 6.903 501 1993 2 1 1 0.44 <---

71 6.903 7.003 5011993 2 l 1 0.56 <---

72 7.003 7.103 5011993 2 1 1 0.08 <---

73 7.103 7.203 5011993 2 1 1 0 <---

74 7.203 7.303 5011993 2 1 l 0.16 <---

75 7.303 7.403 5011993 2 l l 0 <---

76 7.403 7.503 5011993 2 1 1 0.5 <---

77 7.503 7.603 5011993 2 l l 0 <---

78 7.603 7.703 501 1993 2 1 l 0 <---

79 7.703 7.803 501 1993 2 1 1 O <---

80 7.803 7.903 501 1993 2 1 l 0 <---

81 7.903 8.049 501 1993 2 1.46 1 0.8973 <--- Normalized

82 8.049 8.079 501 1993 7 0.3 0 0 <--- Normalized

83 8.079 8.179 5011993 2 1 1 3.05 <---

84 8.179 8.279 5011993 2 l l 0.48 <---

 

\O
h—i

 

 

Table B1 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE 1D=93-07-09
'§ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=O0.001
a. Survey Pav't sections Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.279 8.435 501 1993 2 1.56 1 1.2372 <--- Normalized
86 8.435 8.462 501 1993 7 0.27 0 0 <--- Normalized
87 8.462 8.562 5011993 2 l l 2.09 <---
88 8.562 8.662 5011993 2 1 I 0.84 <---
89 8.662 8.762 501 1993 2 1 1 0.8 <---
‘ 90 8.762 8.862 5011993 2 l I 0.16 <---
91 8.862 8.962 501 1993 2 l 1 0.94 <---
92 8.962 9.062 5011993 2 1 1 1.52 <---
93 9.062 9.162 5011993 2 1 1 0.48 <---
94 9.162 9.262 5011993 2 1 1 1.12 <---
95 9.262 9.362 5011993 2 l 1 0.96 <---
96 9.362 9.462 5011993 2 1 1 1.2 <—--
97 9.462 9.562 5011993 2 1 l 0.8 <---
98 9.562 9.662 5011993 2 1 1 0.74 <---
99 9.662 9.762 5011993 2 l 1 0.48 <---
100 9.762 9.862 5011993 2 1 1 0.64 <---
101 9.862 9.962 5011993 2 l l 0 <---
102 9.962 10.062 5011993 2 l l 1.06 <---
103 10.062 10.162 5011993 2 1 1 0.24 <---
104 10.162 10.262 5011993 2 1 1 1.76 <---
105 10.262 10.362 5011993 2 1 1 2.16 <---
106 10.362 10.462 5011993 2 1 1 4.54 <---
107 10.462 10.562 5011993 2 1 1 2.8 <---
108 10.562 10.662 5011993 2 1 1 1.58 <---
109 10.662 10.762 5011993 2 1 1 1.36 <---
110 10.762 10.862 5011993 2 l 1 2.04 <---
111 10.862 10.962 5011993 2 1 1 2 <---
112 10.962 11.062 501 1993 2 1 1 1.38 <---
113 11.062 11.162 5011993 2 1 1 0.36 <---
114 11.162 11.262 5011993 2 1 1 1.24 <---
115 11.262 11.362 5011993 2 l 1 0 <---
116 11.362 11.462 5011993 2 1 1 0.3 <---
117 11.462 11.562 5011993 2 1 1 0.82 <---
118 11.562 11.662 5011993 2 1 1 O <---
119 11.662 11.762 5011993 2 1 1 0.56 <---
120 11.762 11.862 5011993 2 1 1 0.76 <---
121 11.862 11.972 5011993 2 1.1 1 2.3 <--- Normalized
122 11.972 12.022 5011993 7 0.5 0 0 <--- Normalized
123 12.022 12.122 5011993 2 1 1 1.21 <---
124 12.122 12.222 5011993 2 1 1 0 <---
125 12.222 12.322 5011993 2 1 1 0 <---
126 12.322 12.422 5011993 2 l 1 0 <---

 

92

 

 

Table Bl (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
E Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE 1D=93-07-09
'9'.“ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.001
D7 Survey Pav't 580110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.422 12.522 5011993 2 1 1 1.76 <---
128 12.522 12.622 5011993 2 l l 2.94 <---
129 12.622 12.722 5011993 2 1 1 3.08 <---
130 12.722 12.822 5011993 2 1 l 2.8 <---
131 12.822 12.932 5011993 2 1.1 1 4.7545 <--- Normalized
132 12.932 12.964 5011993 7 0.32 0 0 <--- Normalized
133 12.964 13.064 5011993 2 1 1 3.85 <---
134 13.064 13.164 5011993 2 1 1 0.96 <---
135 13.164 13.264 5011993 2 1 1 2.08 <---
136 13.264 13.364 5011993 2 1 I 1.92 <---
137 13.364 13.464 5011993 2 1 1 1.56 <---
138 13.464 13.651 5011993 2 1.87 1 3.2995 <--- Normalized
139 13.651 13.657 5011993 7 0.06 0 0 <--- Normalized
140 13.657 13.757 5011993 2 1 1 5.37 <---
141 13.757 13.857 5011993 2 1 1 2.64 <---
142 13.857 13.957 5011993 2 1 1 1.4 <---
143 13.957 14.057 5011993 2 1 1 2.24 <---
144 14.057 14.157 5011993 2 l 1 3.28 <---
145 14.157 14.257 5011993 2 1 l 2.36 <---
146 14.257 14.357 5011993 2 1 1 3.6 <--—
147 14.357 14.457 5011993 2 1 1 3.4 <-—-
148 14.457 14.557 5011993 2 1 1 2.88 <---
149 14.557 14.657 5011993 2 1 1 2.46 <-—-
150 14.657 14.757 5011993 2 1 1 2.26 <---
151 14.757 14.857 5011993 2 1 1 1.68 <---
152 14.857 14.957 5011993 2 1 l 2.16 <---
153 14.957 15.057 5011993 2 l 1 2.48 <---
154 15.057 15.157 5011993 2 1 1 1.6 <---
155 15.157 15.257 5011993 2 1 1 2.32 <---
156 15.257 15.357 5011993 2 l 1 3.22 <---
157 15.357 15.457 5011993 2 1 l 1.76 <---
158 15.457 15.557 5011993 2 l 1 3.08 <---
159 15.557 15.657 5011993 2 1 1 1.72 <---
160 15.657 15.757 5011993 2 1 1 0.32 <..-..
161 15.757 15.857 5011993 2 1 1 0.84 <---
162 15.857 15.957 5011993 2 1 l 1.72 <---
163 15.957 16.057 5011993 2 l l 0.48 <--—
164 16.057 16.157 5011993 2 l l 0.56 <---
165 16.157 16.257 5011993 2 l 1 0 <---
166 16.257 16.357 5011993 2 1 1 0.16 <---
167 16.357 16.457 5011993 2 1 1 0.4 <---
168 16.457 i6.557 5011993 2 1 1 0.24 <---

 

\0
DJ

 

Table B1 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
E Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=93-07-09
'é‘ Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.001
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
169 16.557 16.657 5011993 2 l 1 0.24 <---
170 16.657 16.757 5011993 2 1 1 0.1 <-—-
171 16.757 16.857 5011993 2 1 1 0.56 <---
172 16.857 16.957 5011993 2 l l 1.36 <---
173 16.957 17.057 5011993 2 l l 2.24 <---
174 17.057 17.157 5011993 2 l l 1.44 <---
175 17.157 17.257 5011993 2 l l O <---
176 17.257 17.357 5011993 2 l l 0.16 <—--
177 17.357 17.457 5011993 2 1 l 0.16 <---
178 17.457 17.557 5011993 2 l 1 0.16 <---
179 17.557 17.657 5011993 2 1 1 0.08 <---
180 17.657 17.757 5011993 2 1 1 2.14 <---
181 17.757 17.857 5011993 2 l 1 1.32 <---
182 17.857 17.957 5011993 2 l l 0.48 <---
183 17.957 18.057 5011993 2 l 1 0.82 <---
184 18.057 18.157 5011993 2 1 l 0.24 <..--
185 18.157 18.257 5011993 2 l 1 0.8 <---
186 18.257 18.357 5011993 2 1 l 0.74 <---
187 18.357 18.457 5011993 2 l 1 1.6 <---
188 18.457 18.557 5011993 2 1 1 0.4 <---
189 18.557 18.657 5011993 2 l 1 0 <---
190 18.657 18.757 5011993 2 1 1 0.64 (--.-
191 18.757 18.868 5011993 2 1.11 1 1.234 <--— Normalized
192 18.868 18.897 5011993 7 0.29 0 0 <--- Normalized
193 18.897 18.997 5011993 2 1 l 3.17 <---
194 18.997 19.097 5011993 2 l l 0.86 <---
195 19.097 19.197 5011993 2 1 1 0.1 <---
196 19.197 19.331 5011993 2 1.34 1 1.552 <--- Normalized
197 19.331 19.431 5011993 1 1 1 42.21 <---
198 19.431 19.531 5011993 1 1 1 42.4 <--—
m 199 19.531 19.631 5011993 1 l l 97.13 <---
§ S; 200 19.631 19.772 5011993 1 1.41 1 40.34 <--- Normalized
33 N 201 19.772 19.808 5011993 7 0.36 0 0 <--- Normalized
.2, E 202 19.808 20.001 5011993 1 1.93 1 43.55 <-—- Normalized
:2 {-1.1 203 20.001 20.038 5011993 7 0.37 0 0 <--- Normalized
E 01-; 204 20.038 20.138 5011993 1 1 1 50.02 <---
8 2 205 20.138 20.238 5011993 1 l l 30.99 <-—-
8,“ '7 206 20.238 20.338 5011993 1 1 1 19.07 <—--
3‘. E 207 20.338 20.438 5011993 1 1 1 24.66 <---
a: 208 20.438 20.538 5011993 1 l 1 23.92 <—-~
209 20.538 20.66 5011993 1 1.22 l 32.85 <--- Normalized
210 20.66 20.673 5011993 7 0.13 0 0 <--- Normalized

 

0
A

 

 

Table Bl (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , _ Number
'3 Region Route Direction CS ofO.l TAPE ID=93-O7—09
'§‘ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.001
13.. Survey Pav't SCCtiOHS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
211 20.673 20.773 5011993 1 1 l 53.85 <---
212 20.773 20.873 5011993 1 1 1 22.44 <---
213 20.873 20.973 5011993 1 1 1 29.39 <---
214 20.973 21.073 5011993 1 1 1 45.55 <---
215 21.073 21.173 5011993 1 1 1 35.79 <---
m 216 21.173 21.273 5011993 1 1 1 28.41 <---
a 217 21.273 21.373 5011993 1 1 1 46.47 <---
2' 218 21.373 21.473 5011993 1 1 1 24.37 <---
a; 219 21.473 21.573 5011993 1 1 1 21.54 <—--
E 220 21.573 21.673 5011993 1 1 1 25.49 <---
a 221 21.673 21.773 5011993 1 1 1 39.04 <--—
:3 222 21.773 21.873 5011993 1 1 1 25.44 <---
“.1 223 21.873 21.973 5011993 1 1 1 30.28 <---
E 224 21.973 22.073 5011993 1 l 1 25.98 <—-—
9° 225 22.073 22.173 5011993 1 1 1 31.04 <---
S 226 22.173 22.273 5011993 1 i 1 27.26 <---
a 227 22.273 22.427 5011993 1 1.54 1 24.28 <---Normalized
E 228 22.427 22.428 5011993 3 0.01 1 193 <---Normalized
y; 229 22.428 22.449 5011993 1 0.21 1 71.38 <--- Normalized
S 230 22.449 22.471 5011993 7 0.22 0 0 <-—- Normalized
S 231 22.471 22.571 5011993 1 1 1 39.06 <---
3 232 22.571 22.671 5011993 1 i 1 19.43 <—--
3 233 22.671 22.771 5011993 1 1 1 35.65 <---
234 22.771 22.871 5011993 1 i 1 30.39 <---
235 22.871 22.971 5011993 1 i 1 25.66 <---
236 22.971 23.071 5011993 1 1 1 19.56 <---
237 23.071 23.171 5011993 1 i 1 26.16 <---
238 23.171 23.271 5011993 1 1 1 28.1 <---
239 23.271 23.386 5011993 1 1.15 1 23.06 <---Normalized

 

95

 

Table B2 The MDOT 1995 pavement DI data for control section 11015 along I-94 EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. _ , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=95~12-10
'§ Count 7 194 BB 1 1015 mile TAPE BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Me Lane DI mile DI values
1 0.008 0.049 501 1995 7 0.41 0 0 <--- Normalized
2 0.049 0.184 5011995 2 1.35 1 16.541 <--- Normalized
3 0.184 0.213 5011995 7 0.29 0 0 <--- Normalized
4 0.213 0.313 5011995 2 1 1 70.66 <---
5 0.313 0.413 5011995 2 1 1 27.71 <---
6 0.413 0.513 5011995 2 1 1 23.25 <---
7 0.513 0.613 5011995 2 1 1 8.14 <---
8 0.613 0.713 5011995 2 1 1 15.68 <---
9 0.713 0.813 5011995 2 1 1 38.66 <---
10 0.813 0.913 5011995 2 1 1 56.49 <---
11 0.913 1.013 5011995 2 1 l 56.53 <---
12 1.013 1.113 5011995 2 l 1 26.02 <---
13 1.113 1.213 5011995 2 1 1 29.61 <---
14 1.213 1.313 5011995 2 1 1 49.1 <---
15 1.313 1.413 5011995 2 1 1 48.49 <---
16 1.413 1.513 5011995 2 1 1 21.04 <---
17 1.513 1.689 5011995 2 1.76 1 14.523 <--- Normalized
18 1.689 1.725 5011995 7 0.36 0 0 <--- Normalized
19 1.725 1.825 5011995 2 1 1 63.65 <---
20 1.825 1.925 5011995 2 l 1 27.49 <---
21 1.925 2.025 5011995 2 1 1 15.18 <---
22 2.025 2.125 5011995 2 1 1 5.97 <---
23 2.125 2.225 5011995 2 l 1 3.62 <---
24 2.225 2.325 5011995 2 1 1 18.99 <---
25 2.325 2.425 5011995 2 1 1 37.43 <---
26 2.425 2.525 5011995 2 1 1 18.38 <---
27 2.525 2.625 5011995 2 1 l 4.2 <---
28 2.625 2.725 5011995 2 1 1 4.79 <---
29 2.725 2.825 5011995 2 1 1 6.44 <---
30 2.825 2.925 5011995 2 1 l 7.52 <---
31 2.925 3.025 5011995 2 l 1 6.22 <---
32 3.025 3.125 5011995 2 1 1 3.62 <---
33 3.125 3.225 5011995 2 1 1 2.24 <---
34 3.225 3.325 5011995 2 1 1 6.3 <---
35 3.325 3.425 5011995 2 1 1 7.14 <---
36 3.425 3.525 5011995 2 1 1 5.08 <---
37 3.525 3.625 5011995 2 1 1 1.9 <---
38 3.625 3.725 5011995 2 1 1 3.8 <---
39 3.725 3.825 5011995 2 1 l 3.52 <---
40 3.825 3.925 5011995 2 1 1 1.22 <---
41 3.925 4.025 5011995 2 1 1 1.78 <---
42 4.025 4.125 5011995 2 1 1 0.08 <---

 

 

\{D
O\

 

 

Table BZ (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ _ , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=95-12-10
'é’ Count 7 194 E13 1 1015 mile TAPE BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values

43 4.125 4.225 5011995 2 1 1 0.8 <--—

44 4.225 4.325 5011995 2 1 1 1.12 <---

45 4.325 4.425 5011995 2 l 1 0.08 <..--

46 4.425 4.525 5011995 2 1 1 3.12 <---

47 4.525 4.625 5011995 2 1 1 2.08 <---

48 4.625 4.725 5011995 2 1 1 0.72 <---

49 4.725 4.825 5011995 2 1 1 1.06 <---

50 4.825 4.925 5011995 2 1 1 0.56 <---

51 4.925 5.025 5011995 2 1 1 2.18 <---

52 5.025 5.125 5011995 2 1 1 0.98 <---

53 5.125 5.225 5011995 2 1 1 2.8 <---

54 5.225 5.325 5011995 2 1 1 2.38 (--—

55 5.325 5.425 5011995 2 1 1 1.36 <---

56 5.425 5.525 5011995 2 1 1 0.1 <---

57 5.525 5.625 5011995 2 l l 0.26 <---

58 5.625 5.725 5011995 2 1 1 0.34 <---

59 5.725 5.825 5011995 2 1 1 0.2 <---

60 5.825 5.925 5011995 2 1 l 0.18 <---

61 5.925 6.025 5011995 2 1 1 4.2 <---

62 6.025 6.125 5011995 2 1 l 5.08 <---

63 6.125 6.225 5011995 2 1 1 0.9 <---

64 6.225 6.325 5011995 2 1 1 0.46 <---

65 6.325 6.425 5011995 2 1 l 0.16 <---

66 6.425 6.525 5011995 2 1 1 0.6 <---

67 6.525 6.625 5011995 2 1 1 0 <---

68 6.625 6.725 5011995 2 1 1 0.48 <---

69 6.725 6.825 5011995 2 1 1 1.6 (..-—

70 6.825 6.925 5011995 2 1 l 0.8 <---

71 6.925 7.025 5011995 2 1 1 0.4 <---

72 7.025 7.125 5011995 2 1 1 0.4 <---

73 7.125 7.225 5011995 2 l 1 0.5 <_--

74 7.225 7.325 5011995 2 1 1 1.68 <---

75 7.325 7.425 5011995 2 1 1 0 <---

76 7.425 7.525 5011995 2 1 1 1.32 <..--

77 7.525 7.625 5011995 2 1 l 0 <---

78 7.625 7.725 5011995 2 1 1 0.18 <---

79 7.725 7.825 5011995 2 1 1 0.88 (--—

80 7.825 7.925 5011995 2 l l 5.52 <---

81 7.925 8.082 5011995 2 1.57 1 6.6306 <--— Normalized

82 8.082 8.112 5011995 7 0.3 0 O <--- Normalized

83 8.112 8.212 5011995 2 1 1 2.41 <---

84 8.212 8.312 5011995 2 1 1 0.84 <---

 

\O
\l

 

Table B2 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=95-12-10
8 Count 7 194 EB 1 1015 mile TAPE BMP=00.000
Q3 Survey Pav't 86090118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.312 8.468 5011995 2 1.56 1 2.8782 <--- Normalized
86 8.468 8.495 501 1995 7 0.27 0 O <--- Normalized
87 8.495 8.595 5011995 2 1 1 6.17 <---
88 8.595 8.695 5011995 2 1 l 0.08 <---
89 8.695 8.795 5011995 2 1 1 0.86 <---
90 8.795 8.895 5011995 2 1 1 5.64 <---
91 8.895 8.995 5011995 2 1 1 8.88 <---
92 8.995 9.095 5011995 2 1 1 5.75 <---
93 9.095 9.195 5011995 2 1 1 2.44 <---
94 9.195 9.295 5011995 2 1 1 3.06 <---
95 9.295 9.395 5011995 2 1 1 1.92 <---
96 9.395 9.495 5011995 2 l 1 5.98 <---
97 9.495 9.595 501 1995 2 1 1 6.9 <---
98 9.595 9.695 5011995 2 1 l 12.92 <---
99 9.695 9.795 5011995 2 1 1 2.76 <---
100 9.795 9.895 5011995 2 1 1 2.92 <---
101 9.895 9.995 5011995 2 1 1 2.32 <---
102 9.995 10.095 5011995 2 1 1 4.56 <---
103 10.095 10.195 5011995 2 1 1 2.92 <---
104 10.195 10.295 5011995 2 1 1 1.52 <---
105 10.295 10.395 5011995 2 1 1 1.2 <---
106 10.395 10.495 5011995 2 1 1 1.34 <---
107 10.495 10.595 5011995 2 l l 1.64 <---
108 10.595 10.695 5011995 2 1 1 1.04 <---
109 10.695 10.795 5011995 2 1 1 1.52 <---
110 10.795 10.895 5011995 2 1 1 2.88 <---
111 10.895 10.995 5011995 2 l 1 2.16 <---
112 10.995 11.095 5011995 2 1 1 2.2 <---
113 11.095 11.195 5011995 2 l 1 1.12 <---
114 11.195 11.295 5011995 2 l 1 5.44 <---
115 11.295 11.395 5011995 2 1 1 1.02 <---
116 11.395 11.495 5011995 2 1 l 5.03 <---
117 11.495 11.595 5011995 2 1 1 7.94 <---
118 11.595 11.695 5011995 2 1 l 3.64 <..--
119 11.695 11.795 5011995 2 1 l 0.52 <---
120 11.795 11.895 5011995 2 1 1 0.96 <---
121 11.895 12.011 5011995 2 1.16 1 2.8534 <--- Normalized
122 12.011 12.061 5011995 7 0.5 0 0 <--- Normalized
123 12.061 12.161 5011995 2 1 1 6.05 <---
124 12.161 12.261 5011995 2 1 1 2.46 <---
125 12.261 12.361 5011995 2 l 1 3.36 <---
126 12.361 12.461 5011995 2 1 l 1.5 <---

 

\O
OO

 

Table B2 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ , _ Number
:93 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=95-12-10
8 Com“ 7 194 EB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't 86060115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.461 12.561 5011995 2 1 1 6.94 <---
128 12.561 12.661 5011995 2 1 1 4.14 <---
129 12.661 12.761 5011995 2 1 1 2.12 <---
130 12.761 12.861 5011995 2 1 1 2.94 <---
131 12.861 12.973 501 1995 2 1.12 1 10.973 <-—- Normalized
132 12.973 13.005 5011995 7 0.32 0 0 <--- Normalized
133 13.005 13.105 5011995 2 1 1 8.08 <--—
134 13.105 13.205 5011995 2 1 1 O <---
135 13.205 13.305 5011995 2 1 1 0.16 <---
136 13.305 13.405 5011995 2 1 1 0.5 <---
137 13.405 13.505 5011995 2 1 1 0.16 <---
138 13.505 13.693 5011995 2 1.88 1 2.3883 <--- Normalized
139 13.693 13.699 501 1995 7 0.06 0 0 <--- Normalized
140 13.699 13.799 5011995 2 1 1 2.43 <---
141 13.799 13.899 5011995 2 1 1 2.74 <---
142 13.899 13.999 5011995 2 1 1 0.52 (---
143 13.999 14.099 5011995 2 1 1 0.16 <---
144 14.099 14.199 5011995 2 1 1 0.24 <---
145 14.199 14.299 5011995 2 1 1 0.08 <---
146 14.299 14.399 5011995 2 1 1 0.56 <---
147 14.399 14.499 5011995 2 1 1 0.1 <---
148 14.499 14.599 5011995 2 1 1 0.8 <---
149 14.599 14.699 5011995 2 1 1 2.32 <---
150 14.699 14.799 5011995 2 1 1 3.56 <---
151 14.799 14.899 5011995 2 1 1 1.2 <---
152 14.899 14.999 5011995 2 1 1 1.34 <-....
153 14.999 15.099 5011995 2 1 1 1.08 <---
154 15.099 15.199 5011995 2 1 1 2.96 <---
155 15.199 15.299 5011995 2 1 1 1.44 (---
156 15.299 15.399 5011995 2 1 1 0.74 <---
157 15.399 15.499 5011995 2 1 1 0.26 <-—-
158 15.499 15.599 5011995 2 1 1 0.32 <-—-
159 15.599 15.699 5011995 2 1 1 1.04 <--..
160 15.699 15.799 5011995 2 1 1 0.1 <...
161 15.799 15.899 5011995 2 1 1 0.1 <-——
162 15.899 15.999 5011995 2 1 1 0.88 <---
163 15.999 16.099 5011995 2 1 1 1.98 <——-
164 16.099 16.199 5011995 2 1 1 O <---
165 16.199 16.299 5011995 2 1 1 0.16 <---
166 16.299 16.399 5011995 2 1 1 2.98 <---
167 16.399 16.499 5011995 2 1 1 0.98 <---
168 16.499 16.599 5011995 2 1 1 1.36 <---

 

 

99

 

 

Table B2 gcont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, . _ Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=95-12-10
:5 Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.000

Survey Pav't S€CthflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values

169 16.599 16.699 5011995 2 1 1 1.04 <---

170 16.699 16.799 5011995 2 1 1 1.22 <-—-

171 16.799 16.899 5011995 2 1 1 0.66 <---

172 16.899 16.999 5011995 2 1 1 0 <---

173 16.999 17.099 5011995 2 1 1 0.08 <---

174 17.099 17.199 5011995 2 1 1 1.12 <---

175 17.199 17.299 5011995 2 1 1 0.4 <---

176 17.299 17.399 5011995 2 1 1 0.34 <---

177 17.399 17.499 5011995 2 1 1 0.4 <---

178 17.499 17.599 5011995 2 1 1 1.62 <---

179 17.599 17.699 5011995 2 1 1 0 <---

180 17.699 17.799 5011995 2 1 1 0 <---

181 17.799 17.899 5011995 2 1 1 0.96 <---

182 17.899 17.999 5011995 2 1 1 0.88 <---

183 17.999 18.099 5011995 2 1 i 1.68 <---

184 18.099 18.199 5011995 2 1 1 0.16 <—--

185 18.199 18.299 5011995 2 1 1 0.56 <---

186 18.299 18.399 5011995 2 1 1 0.32 <---

187 18.399 18.499 5011995 2 1 1 0.8 <---

188 18.499 18.599 5011995 2 1 1 0.16 <---

189 18.599 18.699 5011995 2 1 1 0.74 <---

190 18.699 18.799 5011995 2 1 1 0.24 <---
191 18.799 18.92 5011995 2 1.21 1 2.091 <---Normalized
192 18.92 18.949 5011995 7 0.29 0 0 <---Normalized

193 18.949 19.049 5011995 2 1 1 3.65 <---

194 19.049 19.149 5011995 2 1 1 0.48 <---

195 19.149 19.249 5011995 2 1 1 2.03 <---
196 19.249 19.381 5011995 2 1.32 1 2.515 <---Normalized

197 19.381 19.481 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---

198 19.481 19.581 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---

R 199 19.581 19.681 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
g3 200 19.681 19.825 5011995 1 1.44 1 0 <---Normalized
at“: 201 19.825 19.861 5011995 7 0.36 0 0 <---Normalized
5% 202 19.861 20.053 5011995 1 1.92 1 0 <---Normalized
a“ 203 20.053 20.09 5011995 7 0.37 0 0 <--- Normalized

353 204 20.09 20.19 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---

8g 205 20.19 20.29 5011995 1 1 1 2 <---

€72 206 20.29 20.39 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---

EE 207 20.39 20.49 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---

m 208 20.49 20.59 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
209 20.59 20.713 5011995 1 1.23 1 0 <---Normalized
210 20.713 20.726 5011995 7 0.13 0 0 <---Normalized

 

100

 

 

Table B2 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , _ Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.l TAPE ID=95-12-10
"2‘ Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile TAPE BMP=00.000
CL Survey Pav't sections Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
211 20.726 20.826 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
212 20.826 20.926 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
213 20.926 21.026 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
214 21.026 21.126 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
m 215 21.126 21.226 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
3 216 21.226 21.326 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
:3 217 21.326 21.426 5011995 1 1 1 0.94 <---
9': 218 21.426 21.526 5011995 1 1 1 0.75 <---
E 219 21.526 21.626 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
_ 220 21.626 21.726 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
8 221 21.726 21.826 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
E 222 21.826 21.926 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
53 223 21.926 22.026 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
E 224 22.026 22.126 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
3 225 22.126 22.226 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
§ 226 22.226 22.326 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
E 227 22.326 22.504 5011995 1 1.78 1 0 <---Normalized
3 228 22.504 22.526 5011995 7 0.22 0 0 <---Normalized
2 229 22.526 22.626 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
5 230 22.626 22.726 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
3. 231 22.726 22.826 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
3.; 232 22.826 22.926 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
233 22.926 23.026 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
234 23.026 23.126 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
235 23.126 23.226 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
236 23.226 23.326 5011995 1 1 1 0 <---
237 23.326 23.446 5011995 1 1.2 1 0.7833 <---Normalized

 

101

 

 

Table B3 The MDOT 1997 pavement DI data for control section 11015 along 1-94 EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS 01-01 TAPE 10:97-12-12 TAPE
2‘ Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1

BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile Dl values

1 0 0.021 5011997 7 0.21 0 0 <--- Normalized

2 0.021 0.155 5011997 2 1.34 1 6.7463 <--- Normalized

3 0.155 0.186 5011997 7 0.31 0 0 <--- Normalized
4 0.186 0.286 5011997 2 1 1 1.46 <---
5 0.286 0.386 5011997 2 1 l 0.86 <—--
6 0.386 0.486 5011997 2 1 1 0.9 <---
7 0.486 0.586 5011997 2 1 l 0.88 <-—-
8 0.586 0.686 5011997 2 1 l 1 <———
9 0.686 0.786 5011997 2 1 l 1.62 <---
10 0.786 0.886 5011997 2 l 1 2.08 <---
11 0.886 0.986 5011997 2 1 1 2.54 <---
12 0.986 1.086 5011997 2 1 1 1.46 <---
13 1.086 1.186 5011997 2 1 1 1.14 <---
14 1.186 1.286 5011997 2 1 1 0.7 <---
15 1.286 1.386 5011997 2 1 1 0 <---
16 1.386 1.486 5011997 2 1 1 O <..-

17 1.486 1.657 5011997 2 1.71 1 0.807 <--- Normalized

18 1.657 1.695 5011997 7 0.38 0 O <--- Normalized
19 1.695 1.795 5011997 2 1 1 4.36 <---
20 1.795 1.895 5011997 2 1 1 3.3 <---
21 1.895 1.995 5011997 2 1 1 2.06 <---
22 1.995 2.095 5011997 2 1 1 5.5 <---
23 2.095 2.195 5011997 2 l 1 0.9 <---
24 2.195 2.295 501 1997 2 1 1 2 <---
25 2.295 2.395 5011997 2 l 1 0.2 <---
26 2.395 2.495 5011997 2 1 1 0.9 <---
27 2.495 2.595 5011997 2 1 1 1 <-..-
28 2.595 2.695 5011997 2 1 1 0.5 <---
29 2.695 2.795 5011997 2 1 l 0.6 <---
30 2.795 2.895 5011997 2 1 1 0.92 <---
31 2.895 2.995 5011997 2 1 1 2.66 <---
32 2.995 3.095 5011997 2 1 1 0.76 <---
33 3.095 3.195 5011997 2 1 1 0.3 <---
34 3.195 3.295 5011997 2 1 l 0.7 <-..-
35 3.295 3.395 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
36 3.395 3.495 5011997 2 1 l 1.1 <---
37 3.495 3.595 5011997 2 1 1 0.3 <---
38 3.595 3.695 5011997 2 1 1 0.5 <---
39 3.695 3.795 5011997 2 1 1 1.3 <-—-
40 3.795 3.895 501 1997 2 1 1 0.6 <—--
41 3.895 3.995 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <--—
42 3.995 4.095 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---

 

 

102

 

Table B3 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE [1).—97-12-12 TAPE
E Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't 560110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
43 4.095 4.195 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
44 4.195 4.295 501 1997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
45 4.295 4.395 5011997 2 l 1 0.1 <—--
46 4.395 4.495 5011997 2 1 l O <---
47 4.495 4.595 5011997 2 l 1 0.1 <---
48 4.595 4.695 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <---
49 4.695 4.795 5011997 2 1 1 5.86 <---
50 4.795 4.895 5011997 2 l 1 4.3 <---
51 4.895 4.995 5011997 2 1 1 0.8 <---
52 4.995 5.095 501 1997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
53 5.095 5.195 5011997 2 1 1 0.6 <---
54 5.195 5.295 5011997 2 1 1 0.5 <---
55 5.295 5.395 5011997 2 1 1 1.95 <---
56 5.395 5.495 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
57 5.495 5.595 5011997 2 1 1 1.3 <---
58 5.595 5.695 5011997 2 l 1 0.96 <---
59 5.695 5.795 5011997 2 1 1 1.7 <---
60 5.795 5.895 5011997 2 l 1 1.2 <---
61 5.895 5.995 5011997 2 1 1 1.5 <---
62 5.995 6.095 501 1997 2 1 1 2 <..--
63 6.095 6.195 5011997 2 1 1 0.9 <---
64 6.195 6.295 5011997 2 1 l 0.1 <---
65 6.295 6.395 501 1997 2 1 1 0 <---
66 6.395 6.495 501 1997 2 1 1 0 <---
67 6.495 6.595 501 1997 2 1 1 0 <---
68 6.595 6.695 501 1997 2 1 l 0 <---
69 6.695 6.795 5011997 2 l 1 0 <---
70 6.795 6.895 501 1997 2 1 1 0 <---
71 6.895 6.995 501 1997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
72 6.995 7.095 5011997 2 1 1 3.76 <---
73 7.095 7.195 5011997 2 l 1 4.2 <---
74 7.195 7.295 5011997 2 1 1 4.28 <---
75 7.295 7.395 5011997 2 l l 3.38 <---
76 7.395 7.495 501 1997 2 1 l 0 <---
77 7.495 7.595 5011997 2 1 1 1.76 <---
78 7.595 7.695 5011997 2 1 1 3.6 <---
79 7.695 7.795 5011997 2 1 l 1.82 <---
80 7.795 7.895 501 1997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
81 7.895 8.039 501 1997 2 1.44 1 0.2083 <--- Normalized
82 8.039 8.071 5011997 7 0.32 0 0 <--- Normalized
83 8.071 8.171 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
84 8.171 8.271 5011997 2 1 1 0.7 <---

 

103

 

 

Table B3 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
£5 Region Route Direction CS of0.l TAPE 10:97-12-12 TAPE
8 Com“ 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
Q- Survey Pav't 580110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.271 8.425 5011997 2 1.54 1 l <--- Normalized
86 8.425 8.454 5011997 7 0.29 0 0 <--- Normalized
87 8.454 8.554 5011997 2 1 1 O <---
88 8.554 8.654 5011997 2 1 1 O <---
89 8.654 8.754 5011997 2 1 1 1.88 <---
90 8.754 8.854 5011997 2 l 1 1.08 <---
91 8.854 8.954 5011997 2 1 1 2.2 <---
92 8.954 9.054 5011997 2 1 1 0.3 <---
93 9.054 9.154 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <—--
94 9.154 9.254 5011997 2 1 1 0.8 <---
95 9.254 9.354 5011997 2 1 1 2.4 <---
96 9.354 9.454 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
97 9.454 9.554 5011997 2 1 l 1.34 <---
98 9.554 9.654 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
99 9.654 9.754 5011997 2 1 1 1.2 <---
100 9.754 9.854 5011997 2 1 1 4.5 <---
101 9.854 9.954 5011997 2 1 1 3.24 <--_
102 9.954 10.054 5011997 2 1 1 1.2 <---
103 10.054 10.154 5011997 2 1 1 5.08 <---
104 10.154 10.254 5011997 2 1 1 2.9 <---
105 10.254 10.354 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <---
106 10.354 10.454 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
107 10.454 10.554 5011997 2 1 1 2.84 <---
108 10.554 10.654 5011997 2 1 1 0.84 <---
109 10.654 10.754 5011997 2 1 1 1.84 <---
110 10.754 10.854 5011997 2 1 1 1.86 <---
111 10.854 10.954 5011997 2 1 1 3.1 <---
112 10.954 11.054 5011997 2 1 1 1 <---
113 11.054 11.154 5011997 2 1 1 3.84 <---
114 11.154 11.254 5011997 2 1 1 0.7 <---
115 11.254 11.354 5011997 2 1 1 0.3 <---
116 11.354 11.454 5011997 2 1 1 3.74 <---
117 11.454 11.554 5011997 2 1 1 0.5 <---
118 11.554 11.654 5011997 2 1 l 0.9 <---
119 11.654 11.754 5011997 2 1 1 2.24 <---
120 11.754 11.854 5011997 2 1 1 0.36 <---
121 11.854 11.962 5011997 2 1.08 1 .1852 <--- Normalized
122 11.962 12.014 5011997 7 0.52 0 0 <--- Normalized
123 12.014 12.114 5011997 2 l 1 2.1 <---
124 12.114 12.214 5011997 2 1 1 3.86 <---
125 12.214 12.314 5011997 2 l 1 3.16 <---
126 12.314 12.414 5011997 2 1 1 2.48 <---

 

 

104

 

Table B3 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , _ Number
:3 Regon Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=97-12-12 TAPE
'53 Count 7 194 EB 11015 , mile BMP=00.000
:1. Survey Pav't 86060115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.414 12.514 5011997 2 1 1 4.28 <-—-
128 12.514 12.614 5011997 2 1 1 0.5 <--—
129 12.614 12.714 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
130 12.714 12.814 5011997 2 1 1 2.28 <---
131 12.814 12.923 5011997 2 1.09 1 1.3394 <--- Normalized
132 12.923 12.955 5011997 7 0.32 0 0 <--- Normalized
133 12.955 13.055 5011997 2 1 1 3.6 <---
134 13.055 13.155 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
135 13.155 13.255 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <---
136 13.255 13.355 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <--—
137 13.355 13.455 5011997 2 1 1 1.32 <---
138 13.455 13.641 5011997 2 1.86 1 1.0108 <--- Normalized
139 13.641 13.648 5011997 7 0.07 0 0 <--- Normalized
140 13.648 13.748 5011997 2 1 1 0.7 <---
141 13.748 13.848 5011997 2 1 1 4.18 <---
142 13.848 13.948 5011997 2 1 1 2.96 <---
143 13.948 14.048 5011997 2 1 l 5.02 <—--
144 14.048 14.148 5011997 2 1 1 2.92 <---
145 14.148 14.248 5011997 2 1 1 6.1 <---
146 14.248 14.348 5011997 2 1 1 3.98 <---
147 14.348 14.448 5011997 2 1 1 0.6 <_--
148 14.448 14.548 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
149 14.548 14.648 5011997 2 1 1 0.7 <---
150 14.648 14.748 5011997 2 1 1 0.6 <---
151 14.748 14.848 5011997 2 1 1 0.9 <---
152 14.848 14.948 501 1997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
153 14.948 15.048 5011997 2 1 1 1.2 <---
154 15.048 15.148 5011997 2 1 1 1 <---
155 15.148 15.248 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <---
156 15.248 15.348 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <---
157 15.348 15.448 5011997 2 1 l 0.4 <—--
158 15.448 15.548 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
159 15.548 15.648 5011997 2 1 1 0.18 <---
160 15.648 15.748 5011997 2 1 1 0.7 <—--
161 15.748 15.848 5011997 2 1 1 1.5 <---
162 15.848 15.948 5011997 2 1 1 1.04 <---
163 15.948 16.048 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
164 16.048 16.148 5011997 2 l 1 O <---
165 16.148 16.248 5011997 2 1 1 0 <---
166 16.248 16.348 5011997 2 1 1 0.6 <---
167 16.348 16.448 5011997 2 1 1 1.74 <---
'1 68 16.448 16.548 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---

 

105

 

Table B3 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=97-12-12 TAPE
2.? Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't 56090115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
169 16.548 16.648 5011997 2 1 1 1.96 <---
170 16.648 16.748 5011997 2 1 1 2.18 <---
171 16.748 16.848 5011997 2 1 1 0.82 <---
172 16.848 16.948 5011997 2 1 1 0 <---
173 16.948 17.048 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
174 17.048 17.148 5011997 2 1 1 0 <---
175 17.148 17.248 5011997 2 1 1 0.3 <---
176 17.248 17.348 5011997 2 1 1 0.74 <---
177 17.348 17.448 5011997 2 1 1 0.8 <---
178 17.448 17.548 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
179 17.548 17.648 5011997 2 1 1 0 <---
180 17.648 17.748 5011997 2 1 1 0.08 <---
181 17.748 17.848 5011997 2 1 1 0 <---
182 17.848 17.948 5011997 2 1 1 0 <---
183 17.948 18.048 5011997 2 1 1 0.1 <---
184 18.048 18.148 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <---
185 18.148 18.248 5011997 2 1 1 0.26 <---
186 18.248 18.348 5011997 2 1 1 1.52 <---
187 18.348 18.448 5011997 2 1 1 2.12 <---
188 18.448 18.548 5011997 2 1 1 0.28 <---
189 18.548 18.648 5011997 2 1 l 3.9 <---
190 18.648 18.748 5011997 2 1 1 0.4 <---
191 18.748 18.86 5011997 2 1.12 1 0.75 <---Normalized
192 18.86 18.891 5011997 7 0.31 0 0 <---Normalized
193 18.891 18.991 5011997 2 1 1 0.2 <---
194 18.991 19.091 5011997 2 1 1 0.64 <---
195 19.091 19.191 5011997 2 1 1 4.04 <---
196 19.191 19.322 5011997 2 1.31 1 1.069 <---Normalized
197 19.322 19.422 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
198 19.422 19.522 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
m 199 19.522 19.622 5011997 1 i 1 1.25 <---
$3 200 19.622 19.764 5011997 1 1.42 1 0.528 <---Normalized
at“, 201 19.764 19.801 5011997 7 0.37 0 0 <---Normalized
1.2,; 202 19.801 19.992 5011997 1 1.91 1 0.524 <---Normalized
a“ 203 19.992 20.03 5011997 7 0.38 0 0 <--- Normalized
E; 204 20.03 20.13 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
ag 205 20.13 20.23 5011997 1 1 1 0.5 <---
.;'.'1 206 20.23 20.33 5011997 1 1 l 0 <---
SE 207 20.33 20.43 5011997 1 1 1 0 <--_
m 208 20.43 20.53 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
209 20.53 20.65 5011997 1 1.2 1 0 <—--Normalized
210 20.65 20.666 5011997 7 0.16 0 0 <---Normalized

 

106

 

 

Table B3 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=97-12-12 TAPE
'9? Com“ 7 194 BB 1 1015 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOUS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
211 20.666 20.766 5011997 1 1 1 1.25 <---
212 20.766 20.866 5011997 1 1 1 o <---
213 20.866 20.966 5011997 1 l 1 0 <---
214 20.966 21.066 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
m 215 21.066 21.166 5011997 1 1 i 0 <---
Sf 216 21.166 21.266 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
:3 217 21.266 21.366 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
d: 218 21.366 21.466 5011997 1 1 1 1.5 <---
E 219 21.466 21.566 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
_ 220 21.566 21.666 5011997 1 1 1 0.5 <---
8 221 21.666 21.766 5011997 1 1 i 0.75 <---
3‘ 222 21.766 21.866 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
d; 223 21.866 21.966 5011997 1 1 1 0.94 <---
:2: 224 21.966 22.066 5011997 1 1 1 0.5 <---
3 225 22.066 22.166 5011997 1 i 1 0.5 <---
g 226 22.166 22.266 5011997 1 1 1 l <---
Z: 227 22.266 22.439 5011997 1 1.73 i 0 <--- Normalized
1‘ 228 22.439 22.462 5011997 7 0.23 0 0 <--- Normalized
:2 229 22.462 22.562 5011997 1 1 1 0.5 <---
{,3 230 22.562 22.662 5011997 1 1 i 0.5 <---
D. 231 22.662 22.762 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
E 232 22.762 22.862 5011997 1 1 1 1.5 <—-—
233 22.862 22.962 5011997 1 1 i 0 <---
234 22.962 23.062 5011997 1 1 1 0 <---
235 23.062 23.162 5011997 1 1 i 0 <---
236 23.162 23.262 5011997 1 1 1 1.05 <---
237 23.262 23.383 5011997 1 1.21 1 0 <---Normalized

 

107

 

Table B4 The MDOT 1999 pavement DI data for control section 11015 along 1-94 EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , _ Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=99~06-19 TAPE
'é‘ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.001
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date lype Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.014 5011999 7 0.14 0 0 <--- Normalized
2 0.014 0.124 5011999 2 1.1 2 3.2818 <--- Normalized
3 0.124 0.143 5011999 2 0.19 1 5.1579 <--- Normalized
4 0.143 0.151 5011999 1 0.08 1 0 <--- Normalized
5 0.151 0.18 501 1999 7 0.29 0 0 <--- Normalized
6 0.18 0.187 5011999 1 0.07 1 0 <--- Normalized
7 0.187 0.287 5011999 2 1 1 4.4 <—--
8 0287 0.387 5011999 2 1 1 3.66 <---
9 0.387 0.487 5011999 2 1 1 3.76 <---
10 0.487 0.587 5011999 2 l l 3.76 <---
11 0.587 0.687 5011999 2 1 1 2.12 <---
12 0.687 0.787 5011999 2 1 1 1.2 <---
13 0.787 0.887 5011999 2 1 l 2.28 <---
14 0.887 0.987 5011999 2 1 1 3.44 <---
15 0.987 1.087 5011999 2 l 1 4 <-——
16 1.087 1.187 5011999 2 1 1 2.14 <---
17 1.187 1.287 5011999 2 l 1 3.88 <---
18 1.287 1.387 5011999 2 1 l 1.04 <---
19 1.387 1.487 5011999 2 1 l 4.08 <---
20 1.487 1.656 5011999 2 1.69 1 4.6686 <--- Normalized
21 1.656 1.691 5011999 7 0.35 0 0 <--- Normalized
22 1.691 1.791 5011999 2 1 1 5 <---
23 1.791 1.891 5011999 2 l 1 1.52 <---
24 1.891 1.991 5011999 2 1 1 1.7 <---
25 1.991 2.091 5011999 2 1 1 2.07 <-—-
26 2.091 2.191 5011999 2 1 1 0.2 <---
27 2.191 2.291 5011999 2 1 1 0.88 <---
28 2.291 2.391 5011999 2 1 1 1.14 <---
29 2.391 2.49] 5011999 2 1 1 1.66 <---
30 2.491 2.591 5011999 2 1 1 1.9 <---
31 2.591 2.691 5011999 2 l 1 0.6 <---
32 2.691 2.791 5011999 2 1 1 2.28 <---
33 2.791 2.891 5011999 2 l l 2.76 <---
34 2.891 2.991 5011999 2 1 1 4.44 <---
35 2.991 3.091 5011999 2 1 1 3.94 <---
36 3.091 3.191 5011999 2 l 1 0.46 <---
37 3.191 3.291 5011999 2 1 1 2.28 <---
38 3.291 3.391 5011999 2 1 1 0.52 <---
39 3.391 3.491 5011999 2 1 l 0.4 <---
40 3.491 3.591 5011999 2 1 l 1.6 <---
41 3.591 3.691 5011999 2 1 1 0.7 <---
42 3.691 3.791 5011999 2 1 1 1.04 <---

 

108

 

Table B4 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=99-O6-19 TAPE
2‘ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.001
Survey Pav't 36600115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 3.791 3.891 5011999 2 l 1 0.18 <---
44 3.891 3.991 5011999 2 1 1 0.48 <---
45 3.991 4.091 5011999 .2 1 1 2.16 <—--
46 4.091 4.191 5011999 2 1 l 0.64 <---
47 4.191 4.291 5011999 2 1 1 2 <---
48 4.291 4.391 5011999 2 1 1 2.24 <---
49 4.391 4.491 5011999 2 l 1 1.44 <-....
50 4.491 4.591 5011999 2 1 1 0.64 <---
51 4.591 4.691 5011999 2 l 1 2.88 <---
52 4.691 4.791 5011999 2 1 1 1.6 <---
53 4.791 4.891 5011999 2 1 l 1.72 <---
54 4.891 4.991 5011999 2 1 1 2.5 <---
55 4.991 5.091 5011999 2 1 1 3.08 <---
56 5.091 5.191 5011999 2 l 1 2.76 <---
57 5.191 5.291 5011999 2 1 1 1.8 <---
58 5.291 5.391 5011999 2 1 1 0.84 <---
59 5.391 5.491 5011999 2 1 1 1.28 <---
60 5.491 5.591 5011999 2 l l 0.16 <-..-
61 5.591 5.691 5011999 2 1 1 0.84 <---
62 5.691 5.791 5011999 2 1 1 1.28 <---
63 5.791 5.891 5011999 2 1 l 1.28 <---
64 5.891 5.991 5011999 2 1 1 2.88 <---
65 5.991 6.091 5011999 2 1 1 2 <---
66 6.091 6.191 5011999 2 l l 1.04 <---
67 6.191 6.291 5011999 2 l l 1.6 <---
68 6.291 6.391 5011999 2 1 l 0 <-—-
69 6.391 6.491 501 1999 2 1 l 0.96 <-—-
70 6.491 6.591 5011999 2 1 1 1.68 <-—-
71 6.591 6.691 5011999 2 l l 2.88 <--—
72 6.691 6.791 5011999 2 l 1 1.76 <---
73 6.791 6.891 5011999 2 l 1 0.4 <---
74 6.891 6.991 5011999 2 l 1 1.6 <---
75 6.991 7.091 5011999 2 l 1 3.7 <---
76 7.091 7.191 5011999 2 l 1 3.08 <---
77 7.l91 7.291 5011999 2 1 l 4.86 <---
78 7.291 7.391 5011999 2 1 l 2.6 <---
79 7.391 7.491 5011999 2 1 1 3.56 <--—
80 7.491 7.591 5011999 2 l 1 2.96 <---
81 7.591 7.691 5011999 2 1 l 0.04 <-_-
82 7.691 7.791 5011999 2 l l 0.56 <---
83 7.791 7.891 5011999 2 l l 0.26 <---
84 7.891 8.045 5011999 2 1.54 1 1.5195 <--- Nomialized

 

109

 

Table B4 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , , Number
33’ Region Route Direction CS 01.0.1 TAPE ID=99-06-19 TAPE
2‘ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.001
Survey Pav't 860110118 Survey Normalized to 0.1

BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.045 8.075 5011999 7 0.3 0 0 <--- Normalized
86 8.075 8.175 5011999 2 l l 2.48 <---
87 8.175 8.275 5011999 2 1 1 1.52 <---
88 8.275 8.431 5011999 2 1.56 1 3.9936 <--- Normalized
89 8.431 8.458 501 1999 7 0.27 0 0 <--- Normalized
90 8.458 8.558 5011999 2 1 l 1.45 <---
91 8.558 8.658 5011999 2 1 l 0.56 <---
92 8.658 8.758 5011999 2 1 l 2.72 <---
93 8.758 8.858 5011999 2 l l 2.96 <---
94 8.858 8.958 5011999 2 l 1 2.28 <—--
95 8.958 9.058 5011999 2 1 l 3.12 <---
96 9.058 9.158 5011999 2 l 1 2.08 <---
97 9.158 9.258 5011999 2 1 l 3.04 <---
98 9.258 9.358 5011999 2 1 1 1.92 <---
99 9.358 9.458 5011999 2 l 1 1.88 <---
100 9.458 9.558 5011999 2 1 l 0.76 <---
101 9.558 9.658 5011999 2 1 1 1.6 <..-
102 9.658 9.758 5011999 2 1 1 0.24 <---
103 9.758 9.858 5011999 2 1 1 0.16 <---
104 9.858 9.958 5011999 2 1 1 1.76 <---
105 9.958 10.058 5011999 2 1 1 0.56 <---
106 10.058 10.158 5011999 2 1 1 3.76 <---
107 10.158 10.258 5011999 2 1 l 1.92 <---
108 10.258 10.358 5011999 2 1 1 2.4 <---
109 10.358 10.458 5011999 2 1 l 2.24 <---
110 10.458 10.558 5011999 2 l 1 3.48 <---
111 10.558 10.658 5011999 2 1 l 3.16 <---
112 10.658 10.758 5011999 2 1 1 0.8 <---
113 10.758 10.858 5011999 2 1 l 1.48 <---
114 10.858 10.958 5011999 2 1 1 0.6 <---
115 10.958 11.058 5011999 2 1 l 0.4 <---
116 11.058 11.158 5011999 2 1 l 0.4 <---
117 11.158 11.258 5011999 2 1 1 1.6 <---
118 11.258 11.358 5011999 2 1 1 3.84 <---
119 11.358 11.458 5011999 2 1 1 2.72 <---
120 11.458 11.558 5011999 2 l 1 3.44 <---
121 11.558 11.658 5011999 2 l 1 1.92 <---
122 11.658 11.758 5011999 2 1 l 1.52 <---
123 11.758 11.858 5011999 2 1 l 1.04 <—--
124 11.858 11.973 5011999 2 1.15 1 2.2261 <--- Normalized
125 1 1.973 12.022 5011999 7 0.49 0 0 <--- Normalized
126 12.022 12.122 5011999 2 1 1 4.54 <---

 

110

 

 

Table B4 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=99-O6~l9 TAPE
'é‘ Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.001
0‘ Survey Pav't SBCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.122 12.222 5011999 2 1 1 1.7 <---
128 12.222 12.322 5011999 2 1 1 0.36 <---
129 12.322 12.422 5011999 2 1 1 2.08 <---
130 12.422 12.522 5011999 2 l l 5.72 <---
131 12.522 12.622 5011999 2 1 1 3.36 <---
132 12.622 12.722 5011999 2 1 1 4 <---
133 12.722 12.822 5011999 2 1 l 3.04 <---
134 12.822 12.929 5011999 2 1.07 1 0.4486 <--- Normalized
135 12.929 12.934 5011999 1 0.05 1 0 <--- Normalized
136 12.934 12.966 5011999 7 0.32 0 O <--- Normalized
137 12.966 12.97 5011999 1 0.04 1 0 <--- Normalized
138 12.97 13.07 5011999 2 1 l 1.12 <---
139 13.07 13.17 5011999 2 1 1 2.64 <---
140 13.17 13.27 5011999 2 1 l 4.16 <---
141 13.27 13.37 5011999 2 l 1 2.08 <---
142 13.37 13.47 5011999 2 1 1 3.16 <---
143 13.47 13.654 5011999 2 1.84 1 4.4946 <-—- Normalized
144 13.654 13.659 5011999 7 0.05 0 0 <--- Normalized
145 13.659 13.759 5011999 2 1 l 6.81 <---
146 13.759 13.859 5011999 2 1 1 4.16 <---
147 13.859 13.959 5011999 2 l 1 4.56 <---
148 13.959 14.059 5011999 2 1 1 5.76 <---
149 14.059 14.159 5011999 2 1 1 5.64 <---
150 14.159 14.259 5011999 2 1 1 4.76 <---
151 14.259 14.359 5011999 2 1 l 6 <-..-
152 14.359 14.459 5011999 2 1 1 4.16 <---
153 14.459 14.559 5011999 2 1 1 4.68 <---
154 14.559 14.659 5011999 2 1 1 3.2 <---
155 14.659 14.759 5011999 2 1 l 3.56 <---
156 14.759 14.859 5011999 2 1 1 2.88 <---
157 14.859 14.959 5011999 2 1 1 3.16 <---
158 14.959 15.059 5011999 2 1 1 5.2 <---
159 15.059 15.159 5011999 2 l 1 4.4 <---
160 15.159 15.259 5011999 2 1 1 3.64 <---
161 15.259 15.359 5011999 2 1 1 3.88 <---
1. 62 15.359 15.459 5011999 2 l 1 3 <---
163 15.459 15.559 5011999 2 1 l 4.12 <---
164 15.559 15.659 5011999 2 1 1 2.92 <-—-
165 15.659 15.759 5011999 2 1 l 4.84 <---
166 15.759 15.859 5011999 2 l 1 3.24 <---
167 15.859 15.959 5011999 2 1 1 6.04 <---
168 15.959 16.059 5011999 2 1 1 3.8 <---

 

h-fi
p—A
p—fi

 

 

Table B4 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , , Number
E) Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=99-06-l9 TAPE
'§’ Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.001
a. Survey Pav't 560110118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
169 16.059 16.159 5011999 2 1 1 4 <---
170 16.159 16.259 5011999 2 1 1 6.24 <---
171 16.259 16.359 5011999 2 1 1 2.8 <---
172 16.359 16.459 5011999 2 1 1 2.56 <---
173 16.459 16.559 5011999 2 1 1 3.32 <---
174 16.559 16.659 5011999 2 1 1 1.96 <---
175 16.659 16.759 5011999 2 1 1 3.88 <---
176 16.759 16.859 5011999 2 1 1 3.36 <---
177 16.859 16.959 5011999 2 1 1 5.08 <---
178 16.959 17.059 5011999 2 1 1 4.6 <---
179 17.059 17.159 5011999 2 1 l 4.96 <—--
180 17.159 17.259 5011999 2 1 l 5.12 <---
181 17.259 17.359 5011999 2 1 1 3.36 <---
182 17.359 17.459 5011999 2 1 l 3.08 <---
183 17.459 17.559 5011999 2 l l 2.88 <---
184 17.559 17.659 5011999 2 l 1 3.32 <---
185 17.659 17.759 5011999 2 1 1 3.76 <---
186 17.759 17.859 5011999 2 1 l 3.36 <---
187 17.859 17.959 5011999 2 l 1 3.04 <---
188 17.959 18.059 5011999 2 l 1 3.44 <---
189 18.059 18.159 5011999 2 1 l 3.76 <---
190 18.159 18.259 5011999 2 1 l 4.8 <---
191 18.259 18.359 5011999 2 1 1 4 <---
192 18.359 18.459 5011999 2 1 1 3.28 <---
193 18.459 18.559 5011999 2 1 1 3.92 <---
194 18.559 18.659 5011999 2 1 1 4.72 <---
195 18.659 18.759 5011999 2 1 1 4 <---
196 18.759 18.878 5011999 2 1.19 1 4.22 <--- Normalized
197 18.878 18.906 5011999 7 0.28 0 O <--- Normalized
198 18.906 19.006 5011999 2 1 1 6.83 <---
199 19.006 19.106 5011999 2 l l 5.36 <---
200 19.106 19.206 5011999 2 l 1 3.52 <---
201 19.206 19.34 501 1999 2 1.34 1 7.42 <--- Normalized
a 202 19.34 19.44 5011999 1 1 l 0 <---
a 203 19.44 19.54 5011999 1 1 l 0.75 <---
2 5 «.3 204 19.54 19.64 5011999 1 1 1 1.98 <---
2 2 2 205 19.64 19.783 5011999 1 1.43 1 3.27 <--- Normalized
§ —: N 206 19.783 19.818 5011999 7 0.35 0 0 <--- Normalized
; E E 207 19.818 20.012 5011999 1 1.94 i 4.09 <--- Normalized
Ci m m 208 20.012 20.047 5011999 7 0.35 O 0 <--— Normalized
a. 209 20.047 20.147 5011999 1 1 1 0.94 <---
'— 210 20.147 20.247 5011999 1 1 1 7.3 <---

 

112

 

 

Table B4 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=99-06-19 TAPE
”.53" Count 7 194 BB 1 1015 mile BMP=00.001
13. Survey Pav't SCCtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
211 20.247 20.347 5011999 1 1 1 2.75 <---
212 20.347 20.447 501 1999 1 1 1 1.5 <---
213 20.447 20.547 501 1999 1 1 1 1.75 <---
214 20.547 20.67 5011999 1 1.23 1 1.423 <--- Normalized
215 20.67 20.683 5011999 7 0.13 0 0 <--- Normalized
216 20.683 20.783 5011999 1 1 1 4.02 <---
217 20.783 20.883 5011999 1 1 1 3.38 <---
m 218 20.883 20.983 5011999 1 1 1 0.5 <---
2 219 20.983 21.083 5011999 1 l 1 0 (---
2 220 21.083 21.183 5011999 1 1 1 6.9 <---
E 221 21.183 21.283 5011999 1 l 1 1.98 <-—-
1.1.: 222 21.283 21.383 5011999 1 1 l 3.93 <---
5‘ 223 21.383 21.483 5011999 1 1 1 3.16 <---
2 224 21.483 21.583 5011999 1 1 1 1.44 <---
E 225 21.583 21.683 5011999 1 1 1 0.98 <---
E 226 21.683 21.783 5011999 1 l 1 3.93 <---
i 227 21.783 21.883 5011999 1 1 1 4.52 <---
§ 228 21.883 21.983 5011999 1 1 1 2.25 <---
N 229 21.983 22.083 5011999 1 1 1 6.16 <---
E: 230 22.083 22.183 5011999 1 1 1 2.63 <---
a 231 22.183 22.283 5011999 1 1 1 10.6 <---
Z 232 22.283 22.46 5011999 1 1.77 1 2.78 <--- Normalized
8 233 22.46 22.481 5011999 7 0.21 0 0 <--- Normalized
g: 234 22.481 22.581 5011999 1 1 1 2.75 <---
-" 235 22.581 22.681 5011999 1 1 1 0.94 <---
236 22.681 22.781 5011999 I 1 1 1 <---
237 22.781 22.881 5011999 1 1 1 0.94 <---
238 22.881 22.981 5011999 1 l 1 2.48 <---
239 22.981 23.081 5011999 1 1 1 0.5 <---
240 23.081 23.181 5011999 1 1 1 2.16 <---
241 23.181 23.281 5011999 1 1 1 1.05 <--—
242 23.281 23.4 5011999 1 1.19 1 1.3782 <--- Normalized

 

113

 

Table BS The MDOT 2003 pavement DI data for control section 11015 along I-94 EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=S107-Y2003 TAPE
E Com“ 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
13.. Survey Pav't SCCtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
1 0 0.007 4132003 2 0.07 1 16.143 <--- Normalized
2 0.007 0.059 4132003 1 0.52 1 12.02 <--- Normalized
3 0.059 0.182 4132003 2 1.23 1 5.236 <--- Normalized
4 0.182 0.226 4132003 1 0.44 1 8 <--- Normalized
5 0.226 0.326 4132003 2 1 1 17.31 <---
6 0.326 0.426 4132003 2 1 1 2.9 <---
7 0.426 0.526 4132003 2 1 1 4.93 <---
8 0.526 0.626 4132003 2 1 1 3.61 <---
9 0.626 0.726 4132003 2 1 1 3.95 <---
10 0.726 0.826 4132003 2 1 1 2.62 <---
11 0.826 0.926 4132003 2 1 1 0.2 <---
12 0.926 1.026 4132003 2 1 l 0.08 <---
13 1.026 1.126 4132003 2 1 1 0.5 <---
14 1.126 1.226 4132003 2 1 1 0.61 <---
15 1.226 1.326 4132003 2 1 1 1.17 <---
16 1.326 1.426 4132003 2 1 1 5.06 <---
17 1.426 1.526 4132003 2 1 1 1.39 <---
18 1.526 1.692 4132003 2 1.66 1 10.482 <-- Normalized
19 1.692 1.729 4132003 1 0.37 1 170.98 <--- Normalized
20 1.729 1.829 4132003 2 1 l 9.93 <---
21 1.829 1.929 4132003 2 1 1 2.88 <---
22 1.929 2.029 4132003 2 1 l 1.54 <---
23 2.029 2.129 4132003 2 1 1 9.54 <---
24 2.129 2.229 4132003 2 1 1 6.93 <---
25 2.229 2.329 4132003 2 1 l 13.12 <---
26 2.329 2.429 4132003 2 1 1 11.32 <---
27 2.429 2.529 4132003 2 1 1 10.2 <---
28 2.529 2.629 4132003 2 1 1 13.54 <---
29 2.629 2.729 4132003 2 1 1 6.1 <---
30 2.729 2.829 4132003 2 1 1 3.51 <---
31 2.829 2.929 4132003 2 1 1 9.82 <---
32 2.929 3.029 4132003 2 1 1 9.46 <---
33 3.029 3.129 4132003 2 1 1 9.06 <---
34 3.129 3.229 4132003 2 1 1 6.9 <---
35 3.229 3.329 4132003 2 1 1 10.65 <---
36 3.329 3.429 4132003 2 1 1 11.6 <---
37 3.429 3.529 4132003 2 1 1 7.8 <---
38 3.529 3.629 4132003 2 1 1 11.36 <---
39 3.629 3.729 4132003 2 1 1 11.22 <---
40 3.729 3.829 4132003 2 1 1 9.98 <---
41 3.829 3.929 4132003 2 1 l 7.28 <---
42 3 .929 4.029 4132003 2 1 1 1.4 <---

 

114

 

 

Table BS (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
‘3 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=SlO7-Y2003 TAPE
'9? Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
a" .
Survey Pav't SCCthIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.029 4.129 4132003 2 1 1 1.68 <---
44 4.129 4.229 4132003 2 1 1 1.92 <---
45 4.229 4.329 4132003 2 1 1 2.44 <---
46 4.329 4.429 4132003 2 1 1 2.98 <---
47 4.429 4.529 4132003 2 1 1 2.94 <---
48 4.529 4.629 4132003 2 1 1 2.93 <---
49 4.629 4.729 4132003 2 1 1 1.56 <---
50 4.729 4.829 4132003 2 1 1 3.88 <---
51 4.829 4.929 4132003 2 1 1 2.44 <---
52 4.929 5.029 4132003 2 1 1 3.48 <---
53 5.029 5.129 4132003 2 1 1 5.23 <---
54 5.129 5.229 4132003 2 1 1 0.6 <---
55 5.229 5.329 4132003 2 1 1 0.96 <---
56 5.329 5.429 4132003 2 1 1 1 <---
57 5.429 5.529 4132003 2 l 1 0.48 <---
58 5.529 5.629 4132003 2 1 1 1.32 <---
59 5.629 5.729 4132003 2 1 1 0.46 <---
60 5.729 5.829 4132003 2 1 1 0.36 <---
61 5.829 5.929 4132003 2 1 1 0.72 <---
62 5.929 6.029 4132003 2 1 1 0.8 <---
63 6.029 6.129 4132003 2 1 1 0.68 <---
64 6.129 6.229 4132003 2 1 1 1.76 <---
65 6.229 6.329 4132003 2 1 1 0 <---
66 6.329 6.429 4132003 2 1 1 0.6 <---
67 6.429 6.529 4132003 2 1 1 0.2 <---
68 6.529 6.629 4132003 2 1 1 0 <---
69 6629 6.729 4132003 2 1 1 2.44 <---
70 6.729 6.829 4132003 2 1 1 1.04 <---
71 6.829 6.929 4132003 2 1 1 1.13 <---
72 6.929 7.029 4132003 2 1 1 1.66 <---
73 7.029 7.129 4132003 2 1 1 1.14 <---
74 7.129 7.229 4132003 2 1 1 1.54 <---
75 7.229 7.403 4132003 2 1.74 1 1.345 <--- Normalized
76 7.403 7.503 4132003 2 1 2 1.56 <---
77 7.503 7.603 4132003 2 l 2 0.16 <---
78 7.603 7.703 4132003 2 1 2 3.48 <---
79 7.703 7.803 4132003 2 1 2 3.68 <---
80 7.803 8.002 4132003 2 1.99 2 2.915 <--- Normalized
81 8.002 8.158 4132003 2 1.56 3 3.577 <--- Normalized
82 8.158 8.304 4132003 2 1.46 2 0.247 <--- Normalized
83 8.304 8.458 4132003 2 1.54 1 4.052 <-—- Normalized
84 8.458 8.486 4132003 1 0.28 1 238.036 <--- Normalized

 

115

 

 

Table B5 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=SlO7-Y2003 TAPE
"é” Com“ 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
13. Survey Pav't 560110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.486 8.586 4132003 2 l 1 4 <---
86 8.586 8.686 4132003 2 1 1 3.2 <---
87 8.686 8.786 4132003 2 1 1 1.36 <--..
88 8.786 8.886 4132003 2 1 1 1.6 <---
89 8.886 8.986 4132003 2 1 1 9.92 <—-—
90 8.986 9.086 4132003 2 1 1 10.64 <---
91 9.086 9.186 4132003 2 1 1 5.66 <---
92 9.186 9.286 4132003 2 1 1 8.84 <---
93 9.286 9.386 4132003 2 1 1 12.51 <---
94 9.386 9.486 4132003 2 1 1 5.96 <--_
95 9.486 9.586 4132003 2 1 l 8 <---
96 9.586 9.686 4132003 2 1 1 10.19 <---
97 9.686 9.786 4132003 2 1 1 10.5 <---
98 9.786 9.886 4132003 2 1 l 8.25 <---
99 9.886 9.986 4132003 2 l 1 8.82 <---
100 9.986 10.086 4132003 2 1 1 8 <---
101 10.086 10.186 4132003 2 l l 8.7 <---
102 10.186 10.286 4132003 2 1 1 10.32 <---
103 10.286 10.386 4132003 2 1 1 32.5 <---
104 10.386 10.486 4132003 2 1 1 12.22 <—--
105 10.486 10.586 4132003 2 1 1 13.79 <---
106 10.586 10.686 4132003 2 1 1 10.38 <---
107 10.686 10.786 4132003 2 1 1 10.58 <---
108 10.786 10.886 4132003 2 1 1 8 <---
109 10.886 10.986 4132003 2 1 1 8.56 <---
110 10.986 11.086 4132003 2 1 1 10.19 <---
111 11.086 11.186 4132003 2 1 1 8.8 <---
112 11.186 11.286 4132003 2 1 1 10.36 <---
113 11.286 11.386 4132003 2 1 1 9.75 <---
114 11.386 11.486 4132003 2 1 1 10 <---
115 11.486 11.586 4132003 2 1 1 9.05 <---
116 11.586 11.686 4132003 2 1 1 8.25 (--—
117 11.686 11.786 4132003 2 1 1 8.5 <---
118 11.786 11.886 4132003 2 1 1 7.8 <---
119 11.886 11.999 4132003 2 1.13 1 2.5575 <--— Normalized
120 1 1.999 12.049 4132003 1 0.5 1 84.94 <--- Normalized
121 12.049 12.149 4132003 2 1 1 6.07 <---
122 12.149 12.249 4132003 2 1 1 8.92 <---
123 12.249 12.349 4132003 2 1 1 9.6 <---
124 12.349 12.449 4132003 2 1 1 13.36 <---
125 12.449 12.549 4132003 2 1 1 8.8 <---
126 12.549 12.649 4132003 2 1 1 0.88 <---

 

116

 

Table BS (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , Number
‘3 Region Route Direction CS of0.l TAPE 1D=3107-Y2003 TAPE
'52” Count 7 194 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
A Survey Pav't 560110118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.649 12.749 4132003 2 1 i 1 8.38 <---
128 12.749 12.849 4132003 2 1 1 7.28 <---
129 12.849 12.955 4132003 2 1.06 1 4.7075 <--- Normalized
130 12.955 12.996 4132003 1 0.41 1 1.2195 <--- Normalized
131 12.996 13.096 4132003 2 1 1 4.92 <—--
132 13.096 13.196 4132003 2 1 1 2.64 <---
133 13.196 13.296 4132003 2 l 1 3.36 <---
134 13.296 13.396 4132003 2 1 1 2.44 <---
135 13.396 13.496 4132003 2 1 1 2.6 <---
136 13.496 13.596 4132003 2 1 l 0 <---
137 13.596 13.696 4132003 2 l 1 10.42 <---
138 13.696 13.796 4132003 2 l 1 3.8 <---
139 13.796 13.896 4132003 2 1 1 4 <-..
140 13.896 13.996 4132003 2 1 1 3.28 <---
141 13.996 14.096 4132003 2 1 1 4.52 <---
142 14.096 14.196 4132003 2 1 1 3.84 <---
143 14.196 14.296 4132003 2 1 1 4.04 <---
144 14.296 14.396 4132003 2 1 1 3.54 <---
145 14.396 14.496 4132003 2 l 1 2.14 <---
146 14.496 14.596 4132003 2 1 1 2.08 <---
147 14.596 14.696 4132003 2 1 l 3.82 <---
148 14.696 14.796 4132003 2 1 1 2.92 <---
149 14.796 14.896 4132003 2 1 1 3 <---
150 14.896 14.996 4132003 2 1 1 1.96 <-..
151 14.996 15.096 4132003 2 1 l 2.76 <---
152 15.096 15.196 4132003 2 1 1 3.72 <---
153 15.196 15.296 4132003 2 1 1 5.32 <---
154 15.296 15.396 4132003 2 1 1 4.56 <---
155 15.396 15.496 4132003 2 1 1 3.1 <---
156 15.496 15.596 4132003 2 1 1 2.76 <---
157 15.596 15.696 4132003 2 1 1 3.56 <---
158 15.696 15.796 4132003 2 l 1 3.84 <---
159 15.796 15.896 4132003 2 1 1 3.88 <---
160 15.896 15.996 4132003 2 1 1 3.85 <---
161 15.996 16.096 4132003 2 1 1 3.02 <---
162 16.096 16.196 4132003 2 1 1 3.99 <---
163 16.196 16.296 4132003 2 l 1 2.59 <--—
164 16.296 16.396 4132003 2 1 1 4.57 <---
165 16.396 16.496 4132003 2 1 1 2.26 <---
166 16.496 16.596 4132003 2 1 1 4.29 <--—
167 16.596 16.696 4132003 2 1 l 7.17 <---
168 16.696 16.796 4132003 2 1 1 8 <---

 

117

 

Table B5 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. _ , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=SlO7-Y2003 TAPE
E Count 7 I94 EB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
7‘ Survey Pav't SCCtiOIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
169 16.796 16.896 4132003 2 1 1 11.44 <---
170 16.896 16.996 4132003 2 1 1 11.84 <---
171 16.996 17.096 4132003 2 1 1 11.94 <---
172 17.096 17.196 4132003 2 1 1 11.64 <---
173 17.196 17.296 4132003 2 1 1 11.8 <---
174 17.296 17.396 4132003 2 1 1 11.94 <---
175 17.396 17.496 4132003 2 1 1 12.92 <---
176 17.496 17.596 4132003 2 1 1 11.84 <---
177 17.596 17.696 4132003 2 1 1 11.85 <---
178 17.696 17.796 4132003 2 1 1 3.76 <---
179 17.796 17.896 4132003 2 1 1 2.76 <---
180 17.896 17.996 4132003 2 1 1 1.12 <---
181 17.996 18.096 4132003 2 1 1 8.36 <---
182 18.096 18.196 4132003 2 1 1 4.96 <---
183 18.196 18.296 4132003 2 1 l 5.32 <---
184 18.296 18.396 4132003 2 1 1 0 <---
185 18.396 18.496 4132003 2 1 1 0.08 <---
186 18.496 18.596 4132003 2 1 1 2.08 <---
187 18.596 18.696 4132003 2 1 1 0 <-—-
188 18.696 18.896 4132003 2 2 1 2.36 <--- Normalized
189 18.896 18.925 4132003 1 0.29 1 46.241 <--- Normalized
190 18.925 19.025 4132003 2 1 1 16.12 <---
191 19.025 19.125 4132003 2 1 1 9.36 <---
192 19.125 19.225 4132003 2 1 8.75 (---
193 19.225 19.357 4132003 2 1.32 1 8.106 <--- Normalized
194 19.357 19.457 4132003 1 1 1 14.04 <---
195 19.457 19.557 4132003 1 1 1 15.38 <---
196 19.557 19.657 4132003 1 1 1 19.84 <---
m 197 19.657 19.757 4132003 1 1 1 18.29 <---
a g 198 19.757 19.857 4132003 1 1 1 12.41 <---
3 :3 199 19.857 19.957 4132003 1 1 1 15.14 <---
2 5.: 200 19.957 20.057 4132003 1 1 1 30.52 <---
2 E 201 20.057 20.157 4132003 1 1 1 21.38 <---
E _ 202 20.157 20.257 4132003 1 1 1 21.82 <---
(2 .92, 203 20.257 20.357 4132003 1 1 1 14.48 <---
O. 3.1 204 20.357 20.457 4132003 1 1 1 11.85 <---
a: B; 205 20.457 20.557 4132003 1 1 1 12.04 <---
"' E 206 20.557 20.657 4132003 1 1 1 17.47 <---
207 20.657 20.757 4132003 1 1 1 21.07 <---
208 20.757 20.857 4132003 1 1 1 16.18 <---
209 20.857 20.957 4132003 1 1 1 13.98 <---
210 20.957 21.057 4132003 1 1 1 5.99 <---

 

118

 

 

Table B5 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . _ Number
3' Region Route Direction CS 01-0.] TAPE ID=5107-Y2003 TAPE
5' Count 7 194 EB 1 1015 mile BMP=00.000
7‘ Survey Pav't sections Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
211 21.057 21.157 4132003 1 1 1 13.56 <---—
212 21.157 21.257 4132003 1 1 1 10.92 <—--
213 21.257 21.357 4132003 1 1 1 11.23 <-~-
a 214 21.357 21.457 4132003 1 1 1 8.38 <---
:1; 215 21.457 21.557 4132003 1 1 1 12.38 <--—
E 216 21.557 21.657 4132003 1 1 l 18.32 <---
E 217 21.657 21.757 4132003 1 1 1 20.21 <---
H 218 21.757 21.857 4132003 1 1 1 21.39 <---
33 219 21.857 21.957 4132003 1 l 1 20.41 <---
:2 220 21.957 22.057 4132003 1 1 1 17.51 <---
E 221 22.057 22.157 4132003 1 1 1 12.21 <---
E 222 22.157 22.257 4132003 1 1 1 17.26 <---
: 223 22.257 22.357 4132003 1 1 l 21.06 <---
E 224 22.357 22.457 4132003 1 1 1 13.79 <---
N 225 22.457 22.557 4132003 1 1 1 9.7 <---
E 226 22.557 22.657 4132003 1 l 1 9.39 <---
E 227 22.657 22.757 4132003 1 1 1 12.47 <---
3: 228 22.757 22.857 4132003 1 1 1 11.97 <---
8 229 22.857 22.957 4132003 1 1 1 15.6 <---
31': 230 22.957 23.057 4132003 1 1 1 9.14 <---
-" 231 23.057 23.157 4132003 1 1 1 15.15 <---
232 23.157 23.257 4132003 1 1 1 8.39 <-—-
233 23.257 23.377 ‘ 4132003 1 1.2 1 6.4833 <--- Normalized
234 23.377 23.415 4132003 1 0.38 2 12.974 <--- Normalized

 

119

 

Table B6 TheMDOT 2005 pavement DI data for control section 11015 along I-94 EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
8 £51011 Route Dlrectlon C8 of Q] TAPE ID=Sl 1 1-Y2005 TAPE
'8‘ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
1 0 0.033 4162005 1 0.33 1 3.0303 <--- Normalized
2 0.033 0.155 4162005 2 1.22 1 6.959 <--- Normalized
3 0.155 0.199 4162005 1 0.44 1 0.7273 <--- Normalized
4 0.199 0.299 4162005 2 1 l 0 <---
5 0.299 0.399 4162005 2 1 1 0 <--—
6 0.399 0.499 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
7 0.499 0.599 4162005 2 1 1 O <--—
8 0.599 0.699 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
9 0.699 0.799 4162005 2 1 l 0 <---
10 0.799 0.899 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
1 1 0.899 0.999 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
12 0.999 1.099 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
13 1.099 1.199 4162005 2 l 1 0.48 <---
14 1.199 1.299 4162005 2 1 1 3.18 <---
15 1.299 1.399 4162005 2 1 1 3.62 <---
16 1.399 1.499 4162005 2 1 1 4.06 <---
17 1.499 1.665 4162005 2 1.66 1 7.4277 <--- Normalized
18 1.665 1.701 4162005 1 0.36 1 57.972 <--- Normalized
19 1.701 1.801 4162005 2 1 1 4.16 <---
20 1.801 1.901 4162005 2 1 1 3.6 <---
21 1.901 2.001 4162005 2 1 1 3.7 <---
22 2.001 2.101 4162005 2 1 1 5.52 <---
23 2.101 2.201 4162005 2 1 1 4.12 <---
24 2.201 2.301 4162005 2 1 1 4 <---
25 2.301 2.401 4162005 2 1 1 3.08 <---
26 2.401 2.501 4162005 2 1 1 3.34 <---
27 2.501 2.601 4162005 2 1 1 3.72 <---
28 2.601 2.70] 4162005 2 1 1 3.06 <---
29 2.701 2.801 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
30 2.801 2.901 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
31 2.901 3.001 4162005 2 1 1 0.52 <---
32 3.001 3.101 4162005 2 l 1 4.72 <---
33 3.101 3.201 4162005 2 1 1 0.96 <---
34 3.201 3.301 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
35 3.301 3.401 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
36 3.401 3.501 4162005 2 l 1 0 <---
37 3.501 3.601 4162005 2 1 l 0 <---
38 3.601 3.701 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
39 3.701 3.801 4162005 2 1 1 6 <-..-
40 3.801 3.901 4162005 2 1 1 1.84 <---
41 3.901 4.001 4162005 2 1 1 5.88 <---
42 4.001 4.101 4162005 2 1 1 4.16 <---

 

 

120

 

 

Table B6 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE 19:31]]-Y2005 TAPE
'5? Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't sections Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.101 4.201 4162005 2 1 1 4.56 <..--
44 4.201 4.301 4162005 2 1 1 6.96 <---
45 4.301 4.401 4162005 2 1 1 7.04 <---
46 4.401 4.501 4162005 2 1 1 1.84 <---
47 4.501 4.601 4162005 2 1 1 5.08 <---
48 4.601 4.701 4162005 2 1 1 2.96 <---
49 4.701 4.801 4162005 2 1 1 3.04 <---
50 4.801 4.901 4162005 2 l 1 5.71 <---
51 4.901 5.001 4162005 2 1 1 4.47 (---
52 5.001 5.101 4162005 2 l 1 7.68 <---
53 5.101 5.201 4162005 2 1 1 2.08 <---
54 5.201 5.301 4162005 2 1 1 3.1 <---
55 5.301 5.401 4162005 2 1 1 1.88 <---
56 5.401 5.501 4162005 2 1 1 2.73 <---
57 5.501 5.601 4162005 2 1 1 2.11 <---
58 5.601 5.701 4162005 2 1 1 4.98 <---
59 5.701 5.801 4162005 2 1 1 6.78 <---
60 5.801 5.901 4162005 2 1 1 1.08 <---
61 5.901 6.001 4162005 2 1 1 1.56 <---
62 6.001 6.101 4162005 2 1 1 3.68 <---
63 6.101 6.201 4162005 2 1 1 1.76 <-..-
64 6.201 6.301 4162005 2 1 1 3.8 <---
65 6.301 6.401 4162005 2 1 1 3.17 <---
66 6.401 6.501 4162005 2 1 l 0.56 <--..
67 6.501 6.601 4162005 2 1 1 2.52 <---
68 6.601 6.701 4162005 2 1 l 6.8 <---
69 6.701 6.801 4162005 2 1 1 5.44 <---
70 6.801 6.901 4162005 2 1 1 3.08 <..--
71 6.901 7.001 4162005 2 1 1 3.14 <---
72 7.001 7.101 4162005 2 1 1 2.56 <---
73 7.101 7.201 4162005 2 1 1 1.42 <---
74 7.201 7.301 4162005 2 1 1 2.22 <---
75 7.301 7.401 4162005 2 1 1 0.92 <---
76 7.401 7.501 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
77 7.501 7.601 4162005 2 1 1 0.68 <---
78 7.601 7.701 4162005 2 1 1 2.71 <---
79 7.701 7.801 4162005 2 1 1 2 <---
80 7.801 7.901 4162005 2 1 l 2.24 <---
81 7.901 8.04 4162005 2 1.39 1 0.4604 <--- Normalized
82 8.04 8.074 4162005 1 0.34 1 0.4706 <--- Normalized
83 8.074 8.174 4162005 2 1 1 1 <---
84 8.174 8.274 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---

 

121

 

 

Table B6 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE [13:31 11-Y2005 TAPE
‘9? Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't 860110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.274 8.374 4162005 2 1 1 0 <—--
86 8.374 8.474 4162005 2 1 1 4.36 <---
87 8.474 8.574 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
88 8.574 8.674 4162005 2 1 l 0 <—-—
89 8.674 8.774 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
90 8.774 8.874 4162005 2 1 1 3.84 <—--
91 8.874 8.974 4162005 2 1 1 1.6 <---
92 8.974 9.074 4162005 2 1 1 4.56 <---
93 9.074 9.174 4162005 2 1 1 4.88 <---
94 9.174 9.274 4162005 2 1 1 8.52 <---
95 9.274 9.374 4162005 2 1 1 6.5 <---
96 9.374 9.474 4162005 2 1 1 9.8 <---
97 9.474 9.574 4162005 2 1 1 7.52 <---
98 9.574 9.674 4162005 2 1 1 10.8 <---
99 9.674 9.774 4162005 2 1 1 7.76 <---
100 9.774 9.874 4162005 2 1 1 2.28 <---
101 9.874 9.974 4162005 2 1 1 5.64 <......
102 9.974 10.074 4162005 2 1 1 5.72 <---
103 10.074 10.174 4162005 2 1 1 4.32 <---
104 10.174 10.274 4162005 2 1 1 5.56 (---
105 10.274 10.374 4162005 2 1 1 6.84 <---
106 10.374 10.474 4162005 2 1 1 12.25 <---
107 10.474 10.574 4162005 2 1 1 13 <———
108 10.574 10.674 4162005 2 1 1 6.12 <---
109 10.674 10.774 4162005 2 1 1 10.36 <---
110 10.774 10.874 4162005 2 l 1 6.18 <---
111 10.874 10.974 4162005 2 1 1 6.26 <---
112 10.974 11.074 4162005 2 1 1 7.76 <—--
113 11.074 11.174 4162005 2 1 1 8.44 <-—-
114 11.174 11.274 4162005 2 1 1 7.88 <---
115 11.274 11.374 4162005 2 1 1 5.72 <---
116 11.374 11.474 4162005 2 1 1 3.6 <---
117 11.474 11.574 4162005 2 1 1 6.08 <-—-
118 11.574 11.674 4162005 2 1 1 6.08 <—--
119 11.674 11.774 4162005 2 1 1 3.58 <---
120 11.774 11.952 4162005 2 1.78 1 1.2191 <--- Normalized
121 11.952 12.024 4162005 1 0.72 1 1.3889 <--- Normalized
122 12.024 12.124 4162005 2 1 1 23.16 <---
123 12.124 12.224 4162005 2 1 1 18 <—-—
124 12.224 12.324 4162005 2 1 1 5.56 <---
125 12.324 12.424 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
126 12.424 12.524 4162005 2 1 1 O <---

 

122

 

 

Table B6 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
‘3 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE 1D=S111-Y2005 TAPE
'§ Count 7 194 BB 1 1015 mile BMP=00.000
7‘ Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.524 12.624 4162005 2 1 1 O <--—
128 12.624 12.724 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
129 12.724 12.919 4162005 2 1.95 1 0 <--- Normalized
130 12.919 12.958 4162005 1 0.39 1 0 <--- Normalized
131 12.958 13.058 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
132 13.058 13.158 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
133 13.158 13.258 4162005 2 1 1 1.44 <---
134 13.258 13.358 4162005 2 1 1 3.8 <---
135 13.358 13.458 4162005 2 1 1 0.84 <---
136 13.458 13.641 4162005 2 1.83 1 1.0546 <--- Normalized
137 13.641 13.647 4162005 1 0.06 1 33.333 <--- Normalized
138 13.647 13.747 4162005 2 1 1 1.05 <---
139 13.747 13.847 4162005 2 1 1 0 <-..
140 13.847 13.947 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
141 13.947 14.047 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
142 14.047 14.147 4162005 2 1 1 1.44 <---
143 14.147 14.247 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
144 14.247 14.347 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
145 14.347 14.447 4162005 2 1 1 0 <--.
146 14.447 14.547 4162005 2 1 1 1.28 <---
147 14.547 14.647 4162005 2 1 1 3.4 <---
148 14.647 14.747 4162005 2 1 1 4.08 <---
149 14.747 14.847 4162005 2 1 1 1.16 <---
150 14.847 14.947 4162005 2 1 1 0.48 <-..-
151 14.947 15 .047 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
152 15.047 15.147 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
153 15.147 15.247 4162005 2 1 1 2.72 <---
154 15.247 15.347 4162005 2 1 1 0.08 <---
155 15.347 15.447 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
156 15.447 15.547 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
157 15.547 15.647 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
158 15.647 15.747 4162005 2 1 1 1.48 <---
159 15.747 15.847 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
160 15.847 15.947 4162005 2 1 1 1.32 <-..-
161 15.947 16.047 4162005 2 1 1 O <---
162 16.047 16.147 4162005 2 1 1 l <---
163 16.147 16.247 4162005 2 1 1 0 <---
164 16.247 16.347 4162005 2 1 1 5.78 <---
165 16.347 16.447 4162005 2 1 1 8.37 <---
166 16.447 16.547 4162005 2 l 1 1 1.06 <---
167 16.547 16.647 4162005 2 1 1 13.62 <---
168 16.647 16.747 4162005 2 1 1 14 <---

 

123

 

 

Table B6 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE [13:31 11-Y2005 TAPE
”2‘ Count 7 194 BB 11015 mile BMP=00.000
77 Survey Pav't 360110118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
169 16.747 16.847 4162005 2 1 1 7.6 <---
170 16.847 16.947 4162005 2 1 1 5.64 <---
171 16.947 17.047 4162005 2 1 1 9.96 <---
172 17.047 17.147 4162005 2 1 1 8.88 <---
173 17.147 17.247 4162005 2 1 1 9.72 <---
174 17.247 17.347 4162005 2 1 1 9.36 <---
175 17.347 17.447 4162005 2 1 1 4.48 <---
176 17.447 17.547 4162005 2 1 1 9.24 <---
177 17.547 17.647 4162005 2 1 l 6.24 <---
178 17.647 17.747 4162005 2 1 1 3.92 <---
179 17.747 17.847 4162005 2 1 1 5.28 <--—
180 17.847 17.947 4162005 2 1 1 2.8 <---
181 17.947 18.047 4162005 2 l 1 2.92 <---
182 18.047 18.147 4162005 2 1 l 3.2 <---
183 18.147 18.247 4162005 2 1 1 6.16 <---
184 18.247 18.347 4162005 2 l 1 5.2 <---
185 18.347 18.447 4162005 2 1 l 9.04 <---
186 18.447 18.547 4162005 2 1 1 4.8 <---
187 18.547 18.647 4162005 2 l 1 4.12 <---
188 18.647 18.843 4162005 2 1.96 1 6.429 <--- Normalized
189 18.843 18.873 4162005 1 0.3 1 18.467 <--- Normalized
190 18.873 18.973 4162005 2 1 1 10.27 <---
191 18.973 19.073 4162005 2 1 1 4.28 <---
192 19.073 19.173 4162005 2 1 1 7.9 <---
193 19.173 19.302 4162005 2 1.29 1 9.016 <--- Normalized
194 19.302 19.402 4162005 1 1 1 1.25 <---
195 19.402 19.502 4162005 1 1 1 0.77 <---
196 19.502 19.602 4162005 1 l 1 0 <--—
m 197 19.602 19.702 4162005 1 1 1 0.25 <---
a g 198 19.702 19.802 4162005 1 1 1 2.25 <--—
a ('3 199 19.802 19.902 4162005 1 1 1 4.45 <---
2 d; 200 19.902 20.002 4162005 1 1 1 13.96 <---
2 E 201 20.002 20.102 4162005 1 l 1 6.2 <---
S _ 202 20.102 20.202 4162005 1 1 1 3.63 <---
i 3 203 20.202 20.302 4162005 1 1 1 0.25 <---
L: SE: 204 20.302 20.402 4162005 1 1 i 1.44 <---
35 E 205 20.402 20.502 4162005 1 l 1 2.96 <---
'— m 206 20.502 20.602 4162005 1 1 1 0.75 <---
207 20.602 20.702 4162005 1 1 1 12.47 <---
208 20.702 20.802 4162005 1 1 1 2.85 <---
209 20.802 20.902 4162005 1 1 1 3.17 <---
210 20.902 21.002 4162005 1 1 1 1.75 <---

 

124

 

 

 

Table B6 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- . . Number
:93 Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=Slll-Y2005 TAPE
E Count 7 194 BB 1 1015 mile BMP=00.000
Q" .
Survey Pav't SCCUORS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
211 21.002 21.102 4162005 1 1 1 3.94 <---
212 21.102 21.202 4162005 1 1 l 3.98 <---
m 213 21.202 21.302 4162005 1 1 1 2.67 <—--
3 214 21.302 21.402 4162005 1 1 1 2.64 <---
a 215 21.402 21.502 4162005 1 1 1 0.66 <---
a? 216 21.502 21.602 4162005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
E 217 21.602 21.702 4162005 1 1 1 0.25 <---
_ 218 21.702 21.802 4162005 1 1 1 l <---
3% 219 21.802 21.902 4162005 1 i 1 2.49 <---
‘32 220 21.902 22.002 4162005 1 1 1 4.23 <-——
:5; 221 22.002 22.102 4162005 1 1 1 3.65 <---
:2: 222 22.102 22.202 4162005 1 i 1 2 <---
3 223 22.202 22.302 4162005 1 1 1 6.17 <---
5 224 22.302 22.402 4162005 1 1 1 3.05 <--—
E 225 22.402 22.502 4162005 1 1 1 4.77 <..--
2 226 22.502 22.602 4162005 1 1 1 3.19 <---
2 227 22.602 22.702 4162005 1 1 1 3.75 <---
5 228 22.702 22.802 4162005 1 1 1 3.69 <---
D. 229 22.802 22.902 4162005 1 1 1 1.25 <---
{=5 230 22.902 23.002 4162005 1 1 1 2.5 <---
231 23.002 23.102 4162005 1 1 i 1.5 <---
232 23.102 23.202 4162005 1 1 1 0.75 <---
233 23.202 23.353 4162005 1 1.51 1 2.649 <---Normalized

 

125

 

 

Table B7 The MDOT 1999 pavement DI data for control section 82194 along I-75 NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=99-38-05 TAPE
'8‘ Count 9 175 NB 82 i 94 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't 560110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date TyBe Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.1 5011999 3 1 1 5.94 <---
2 0.1 0.2 5011999 3 1 1 15.47 <---
3 0.2 0.3 5011999 3 1 1 15.32 <--—
4 0.3 0.4 5011999 3 1 1 18.14 <---
5 0.4 0.5 5011999 3 1 1 14.21 <---
6 0.5 0.6 501 1999 3 1 1 11 <---
7 0.6 0.7 5011999 3 1 1 8 <---
8 0.7 0.8 5011999 3 1 l 9.93 <---
9 0.8 0.9 5011999 3 1 1 13 <..-
10 0.9 1.034 501 1999 3 1.34 1 26.388 <-—- Normalized
11 1.034 1.089 501 1999 7 0.55 0 0 <--- Normalized
12 1.089 1.189 5011999 3 l 1 13.24 (--.-
13 1.189 1.289 5011999 3 1 1 5.98 <———
14 1.289 1.389 5011999 3 1 1 2.42 <---
15 1.389 1.489 5011999 3 1 1 1.18 (---
16 1.489 1.589 5011999 3 1 1 4.76 <---
17 1.589 1.689 5011999 3 1 1 1.05 (--—
18 1.689 1.789 5011999 3 1 1 4.55 <---
19 1.789 1.889 5011999 3 1 1 0.42 <---
20 1.889 1.989 5011999 3 1 1 2.6 <-—-
21 1.989 2.089 5011999 3 1 1 5.53 <---
22 2.089 2.204 5011999 3 1.15 1 6.1478 <--- Normalized
23 2.204 2.243 5011999 7 0.39 0 0 <--- Normalized
24 2.243 2.341 5011999 3 0.98 1 3.1735 <--- Normalized
25 2.341 2.396 5011999 7 0.55 0 0 <--- Normalized
26 2.396 2.496 501 1999 3 l 1 9.43 <---
27 2.496 2.6 501 1999 3 1.04 1 3.2596 <--- Normalized
28 2.6 2.689 5011999 3 0.89 2 5.5056 <--- Normalized
29 2.689 4.326 5011999 7 16.37 0 0 <--- Normalized
30 4.326 4.327 5011999 2 0.01 2 105 <--- Normalized
31 4.327 4.444 501 1999 3 1.17 1 0.8974 <--- Normalized

 

126

 

Table B7 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number

g Region Route Direction CS ofO.1 TAPE ID=99-38-05 TAPE

'52“ Count 9 175 NB 82194 mile BMP=00.000

a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1

BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values

32 4.444 4.599 5011999 7 1.55 0 0 <--- Normalized
33 4.599 4.699 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
34 4.699 4.799 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

w 35 4.799 4.899 5011999 1 i 1 o <---

33 36 4.899 4.999 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

E 37 4.999 5.099 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

z 38 5.099 5.199 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

:1 39 5.199 5.299 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---

4' 40 5.299 5.399 5011999 1 1 1 0.5 <---

d: 41 5.399 5.499 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

E 42 5.499 5.599 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

3 43 5.599 5.699 5011999 1 i i 0 <---

§ 44 5.699 5.799 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

z 45 5.799 5.899 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---

3 46 5.899 5.999 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

,1; 47 5.999 6.099 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

3 48 6.099 6.199 5011999 1 1 1 0 <--_

D, 49 6.199 6.299 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

:3 50 6.299 6.399 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

_ 51 6.399 6.598 5011999 1 1.99 1 0 <---Normalized
52 6.598 6.764 5011999 2 1.66 1 1.205 <---Normalized
53 6.764 6.864 5011999 2 1 2 o <---
54 6.864 6.964 5011999 2 1 2 1.6 <---
55 6.964 7.064 5011999 2 i 2 1.1 <---
56 7.064 7.164 5011999 2 1 2 8.76 <---
57 7.164 7.286 5011999 2 1.22 2 15.672 <---Normalized
58 7.286 7.386 5011999 2 1 1 10.57 <---
59 7.386 7.486 5011999 2 1 1 13.03 <---
60 7.486 7.586 5011999 2 i 1 7.65 <---
61 7.586 7.74 5011999 2 1.54 1 4.416 <---Normalized
62 7.74 8.477 5011999 8 7.37 0 0 <--- Normalized

 

127

 

 

Table B8 The MDOT 2001 pavement DI data for control section 82194 along I-75 NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. _ Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=S270-Y2001 TAPE
8 Count 9 175 NB 82194 mile BMP=00.000
7‘ Survey Pav't SCCtiOUS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile D1 values
1 0 0.1 6212001 3 1 1 8.48 <---
2 0.1 0.2 6212001 3 1 1 12.82 <---
3 0.2 0.3 6212001 3 1 1 11.53 <..--
4 0.3 0.4 6212001 3 1 1 4.68 <---
5 0.4 0.5 6212001 3 1 1 2.5 <---
6 0.5 0.6 6212001 3 1 1 O <---
7 0.6 0.7 6212001 3 1 1 1.04 <---
8 0.7 0.8 6212001 3 1 1 0 <---
9 0.8 0.9 6212001 3 1 1 1.98 <---
10 0.9 1.092 6212001 3 1.92 1 10.948 <--- Normalized
11 1.092 1.145 6212001 1 0.53 1 0 <--- Normalized
12 1.145 1.245 6212001 3 1 1 15.03 <---
13 1.245 1.345 6212001 3 1 1 8.98 <---
14 1.345 1.445 6212001 3 1 1 7.9 <---
15 1.445 1.545 6212001 3 1 1 11.02 <---
16 1.545 1.645 6212001 3 1 l 11.23 <---
17 1.645 1.745 6212001 3 1 1 6.67 <---
18 1.745 1.845 6212001 3 1 1 14.24 <---
19 1.845 1.945 6212001 3 l 1 4.83 <---
20 1.945 2.045 6212001 3 1 1 13.1 <---
21 2.045 2.145 6212001 3 l 1 8.72 <---
22 2.145 2.258 6212001 3 1.13 1 7.3982 <--- Normalized
23 2.258 2.298 6212001 1 0.4 1 11.875 <--- Normalized
24 2.298 2.396 6212001 3 0.98 1 14.194 <--- Normalized
25 2.396 2.452 6212001 1 0.56 1 18.643 <--- Normalized
26 2.452 2.552 6212001 3 1 l 9.98 <---
27 2.552 2.743 6212001 3 1.91 1 9.932 <--- Normalized
28 2.743 2.843 6212001 1 1 1 O <---
29 2.843 2.943 6212001 1 1 1 O <---
30 2.943 3.043 6212001 1 1 1 0.5 <---
31 3043 3.143 6212001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
32 3.143 3.243 6212001 1 1 1 1.55 <---
33 3.243 3.343 6212001 1 1 1 0.5 <---
34 3.343 3.443 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
35 3.443 3.543 6212001 1 1 1 O <---
36 3.543 3.643 6212001 1 1 1 0.5 <---
37 3.643 3.743 6212001 1 1 1 2 <---
38 3.743 3.843 6212001 1 1 1 O <---
39 3.843 3.943 6212001 1 1 1 0.98 <---
40 3.943 4.043 6212001 1 1 1 0.98 <---
41 4.043 4.143 6212001 1 1 1 O <---
g 42 4.143 4.243 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---

 

 

 

128

 

Table B8 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS 0““ TAPE ID=SZ70-Y2001 TAPE
'é‘ Count 9 175 NB 82194 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.243 4.377 6212001 1 1.34 1 0.7836 <--- Normalized
44 4.377 4.494 6212001 3 1.17 1 0.641 <--- Normalized
45 4.494 4.594 6212001 1 1 1 44 <---
46 4.594 4.694 6212001 1 1 1 35.55 <---
47 4.694 4.794 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
48 4.794 4.894 6212001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
§ 49 4.894 4.994 6212001 1 1 1 0.58 <---
~o‘ 50 4.994 5.094 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
E 51 5.094 5.194 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
6.1 52 5.194 5.294 6212001 1 1 1 1.8 <---
0° 53 5.294 5.394 6212001 1 1 1 o <---
‘f 54 5.394 5.494 6212001 1 1 1 o <---
E 55 5.494 5.594 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
m 56 5.594 5.694 6212001 1 1 1 1.05 <---
g 57 5.694 5.794 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
m 58 5.794 5.894 6212001 1 1 1 1.75 <---
g 59 5.894 5.994 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
3: 60 5.994 6.094 6212001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
5, 61 6.094 6.194 6212001 1 1 1 o <---
8 62 6.194 6.294 6212001 1 1 1 0 <---
m» 63 6.294 6.394 6212001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
E. 64 6.394 6.494 6212001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
65 6.494 6.65 6212001 1 1.56 1 0 <--- Normalized
66 6.65 6.75 6212001 3 1 l 3.49 <---
67 6.75 6.85 6212001 3 1 1 5.75 <---
68 6.85 6.95 6212001 3 1 1 0.75 <---
69 6.95 7.05 6212001 3 1 1 6.08 <---
70 7.05 7.15 6212001 3 1 1 6.2 <---
71 7.15 7.25 6212001 3 1 1 14.43 <---
72 7.25 7.35 6212001 3 1 1 11.67 <---
73 7.35 7.45 6212001 3 1 l 4.92 <---
74 7.45 7.55 6212001 3 1 1 4.35 <---
75 7.55 7.65 6212001 3 1 1 6.32 <---
76 7.65 7.75 6212001 3 1 1 1.3 <-..-
77 7.75 7.85 6212001 3 1 1 0 <---
78 7.85 7.95 6212001 3 1 1 0.1 <---
79 7.95 8.05 6212001 3 1 1 0 <---
80 8.05 8.15 6212001 3 1 1 1.5 <---
81 8.15 8.307 6212001 3 1.57 1 0 <---Normalized
82 8.307 8.489 6212001 1 1.82 1 0 <--- Normalized

 

129

 

Table B9 The MDOT 2003 pavement D1 data for control section 82194 along I-75 NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=Sl39-Y2003 TAPE
B Com“ 9 175 NB 82194 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't 530110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.1 5142003 1 1 1 O <---
2 0.1 0.2 5142003 1 1 1 2.52 <---
3 0.2 0.3 5142003 1 l 1 O <---
4 0.3 0.4 5142003 1 l l 0 <---
5 0.4 0.5 5142003 1 1 1 O <---
6 0.5 0.6 5142003 1 1 l O <---
7 0.6 0.7 5142003 1 l 1 O <--—
8 0.7 0.8 5142003 1 1 1 O <---
9 0.8 0.9 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
10 0.9 1 5142003 1 1 1 O <---
1 1 1 1.1 5142003 1 1 1 O <---
12 1.1 1.2 5142003 1 1 1 1 <---
13 1.2 1.3 5142003 1 l 1 O <---
14 1.3 1.4 5142003 1 l 1 0 <---
15 1.4 1.5 5142003 1 1 1 O <---
16 1.5 1.6 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
17 1.6 1.7 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
18 1.7 1.8 5142003 1 l l 0 <---
19 1.8 1.9 5142003 1 l 1 l <---
20 1.9 2 5142003 1 1 1 0.5 <---
21 2 2.1 5142003 1 1 1 O <---
22 2.1 2.2 5142003 1 1 l 3.43 <---
23 2.2 2.3 5142003 1 l l 7.48 <---
24 2.3 2.4 5142003 1 1 1 2 <---
25 2.4 2.5 5142003 1 1 l 0.5 <---
26 2.5 2.6 5142003 1 1 1 2.98 <---
27 2.6 2.7 5142003 1 1 1 1.52 <---
28 2.7 2.8 5142003 1 1 1 5.93 <---
29 2.8 2.9 5142003 1 1 1 4.28 <---
30 2.9 3 5142003 1 l 1 4.28 <---
31 3 3.1 5142003 1 1 1 2.71 <---
32 3.1 3.2 5142003 1 1 l 7 <---
33 3.2 3.3 5142003 1 l 1 0.5 <---
34 3.3 3.4 5142003 1 1 l 1.25 <---
35 3.4 3.5 5142003 1 1 l 7.52 <---
36 3.5 3.6 5142003 1 1 1 16.91 <---
37 3.6 3.7 5142003 1 1 1 14.095 <---
38 3.7 3.8 5142003 1 l l 8.93 <---
39 3.8 3.9 5142003 1 l 1 0.75 <---
40 3.9 4 5142003 1 l 1 4.68 <---
41 4 4.1 5142003 1 1 l 7.47 <---
42 4.1 4.2 5142003 1 l '1 1.92 <---

 

130

 

Table B9 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=Sl39-Y2003 TAPE
'§ Count 9 175 NB 82194 mile BMP=00.000
o. Survey Pav't SCCtiOHS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.2 4.3 5142003 1 1 1 2.75 <---
44 4.3 4.4 5142003 1 1 1 10.29 <---
45 4.4 4.5 5142003 1 1 1 2.81 <---
46 4.5 4.6 5142003 1 1 1 20.17 <---
47 4.6 4.7 5142003 1 1 1 19.17 <---
48 4.7 4.8 5142003 1 1 1 6.24 <---
49 4.8 4.9 5142003 1 1 1 0.75 <—--
3 50 4.9 5 5142003 1 1 1 0.5 <---
3 51 5 5.1 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
d; 52 5.1 5.2 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 53 5.2 5.3 5142003 1 1 1 2.21 <---
9°. 54 5.3 5.4 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 55 5.4 5.5 5142003 1 1 l 0 <---
2 56 5.5 5.6 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
i 57 5.6 5.7 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
3 58 5.7 5.8 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
3 59 5.8 5.9 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 60 5.9 6 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
53 61 6 6.1 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
53 62 6.1 6.2 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
8 63 6.2 6.3 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
:5 64 6.3 6.4 5142003 1 1 1 0 <---
-'~ 65 6.4 6.5 5142003 1 1 i 1.05 <---
66 6.5 6.642 5142003 1 1.42 1 0 <--- Normalized
67 6.642 6.743 5142003 2 1.01 1 19.891 <--- Normalized
68 6.743 6.843 5142003 2 1 2 30.74 <---
69 6.843 6.943 5142003 2 1 2 10.56 <---
70 6.943 7.043 5142003 2 1 2 7.46 <---
71 7.043 7.15 5142003 2 1.07 2 8.869 <--— Normalized
72 7.15 7.25 5142003 2 1 1 23.82 <---
73 7.25 7.35 5142003 2 1 1 15.18 <---
74 7.35 7.45 5142003 2 1 1 10.7 <---
75 7.45 7.55 5142003 2 1 1 16.68 <---
76 7.55 7.65 5142003 2 1 1 12.12 <---
77 7.65 7.75 5142003 2 1 1 7.43 <---
78 7.75 7.929 5142003 2 1.79 1 3.453 <--- Normalized
79 7.929 8.113 5142003 2 1.84 2 2.266 <--- Normalized
80 8.113 8.301 5142003 2 1.88 1 6.681 <---Normalized
81 8.301 8.473 5142003 1 1.72 1 0.291 <---Normalized

 

131

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B10 The MDOT 2005 avement DI data for control section 82194 along 1-75 NB
. _ , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.l TAPE ID=8185-Y2005 TAPE
'3‘ Count 9 175 NB 82194 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't 360110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1

BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.1 7072005 1 l 1 0.94 <-—-
2 O.l 0.2 7072005 1 1 l 0.5 <---
3 0.2 0.3 7072005 1 l l 0 <---
4 0.3 0.4 7072005 1 l l 1.5 <---
5 0.4 0.5 7072005 1 l 1 0.5 <---
6 0.5 0.6 7072005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
7 0.6 0.7 7072005 1 1 l 1 <---
8 0.7 0.8 7072005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
9 0.8 0.9 7072005 1 l l 0.16 <---
10 0.9 1 7072005 1 l l 0.5 <---
11 1 1.1 7072005 1 l l l <---
12 1.1 1.2 7072005 1 1 1 1 <---
13 1.2 1.3 7072005 1 1 1 1.5 <---
14 1.3 1.4 7072005 1 l 1 0.5 <---
15 1.4 1.5 7072005 1 l 1 0.5 <---
16 1.5 1.6 7072005 1 l 1 0 <---
17 1.6 1.7 7072005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
18 1.7 1.8 7072005 1 1 l 0 <---
19 1.8 1.9 7072005 1 1 1 1 <---
20 1.9 2 7072005 1 1 1 0 <---
21 2 2.1 7072005 1 1 1 0.94 <---
22 2.1 2.2 7072005 1 1 l 0.5 <---
23 2.2 2.3 7072005 1 1 l 0.5 <---
24 2.3 2.4 7072005 1 1 1 3.62 <---
25 2.4 2.5 7072005 1 l l 2.44 <---

26 2.5 2.631 7072005 1 1.31 1 0 <--- Normalized
27 2.631 2.731 7072005 1 1 2 0.5 <---
28 2.731 2.831 7072005 1 1 2 2.12 <---
29 2.831 2.931 7072005 1 1 2 3.84 <---
30 2.931 3.031 7072005 1 1 2 2 <---
31 3 .031 3.131 7072005 1 1 2 0 <---
32 3.131 3.231 7072005 1 1 2 9.44 <---
33 3.231 3.331 7072005 1 l 2 2.74 <---
34 3 .331 3 .431 7072005 1 1 2 4 <---
35 3.431 3.531 7072005 1 l 2 5.25 <---
36 3.531 3.631 7072005 1 1 2 4.93 <---

37 3.631 3.773 7072005 1 1.42 2 11.12 <--- Normalized
38 3.773 3.873 7072005 1 1 l 5.64 <---
39 3.873 3.973 7072005 1 1 1 1.66 <---
40 3.973 4.073 7072005 1 1 l 2.29 <---
41 4.073 4.173 7072005 1 l l 1.11 <---
42 4.173 4.273 7072005 1 l l 1.54 <---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

 

Table 810 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Number
‘3 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=Sl85-Y2005 TAPE
'8“ Count 9 175 NB 82194 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
43 4.273 4.373 7072005 1 1 1 3 <---
44 4.373 4.473 7072005 1 1 1 3.54 <---
45 4.473 4.573 7072005 1 1 1 3.91 <---
46 4.573 4.673 7072005 1 1 1 17.44 <---
47 4.673 4.773 7072005 1 1 1 14.23 <---
48 4.773 4.873 7072005 1 1 1 15.06 <---
w 49 4.873 4.973 7072005 1 1 1 6.69 <---
% 50 4.973 5.073 7072005 1 1 i 1.44 <---
E 51 5.073 5.173 7072005 1 1 1 0 <---
2 52 5.173 5.273 7072005 1 1 1 3.1 <---
:1 53 5.273 5.373 7072005 1 1 1 0.88 <---
4' 54 5.373 5.473 7072005 1 1 1 o <---
=13 55 5.473 5.573 7072005 1 1 1 o <---
626 56 5.573 5.673 7072005 1 1 1 0 <---
m 57 5.673 5.773 7072005 1 1 1 0 <---
g 58 5.773 5.873 7072005 1 1 1 0.94 <---
z 59 5.873 5.973 7072005 1 1 1 0 <---
i 60 5.973 6.073 7072005 1 1 1 2.33 <---
z; 61 6.073 6.173 7072005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
3 62 6.173 6.273 7072005 1 1 1 0.48 <---
9, 63 6.273 6.373 7072005 1 1 1 0 <---
8. 64 6.373 6.475 7072005 1 1.02 1 0.4902 <--- Normalized
" 65 6.475 6.507 7072005 3 0.32 1 3.4375 <--- Normalized
66 6.507 6.668 7072005 1 1.61 1 0 <-—- Normalized
67 6.668 6.768 7072005 3 1 1 13.34 <---
68 6.768 6.868 7072005 3 1 1 17.84 <---
69 6.868 6.968 7072005 3 1 1 9.63 <---
70 6.968 7.068 7072005 3 1 1 6.06 <---
71 7.068 7.168 7072005 3 1 1 7.09 <---
72 7.168 7.268 7072005 3 1 1 9.64 <---
73 7.268 7.368 7072005 3 1 1 8.34 <---
74 7.368 7.468 7072005 3 1 1 8 <---
75 7.468 7.568 7072005 3 1 1 12.72 <---
76 7.568 7.668 7072005 3 1 1 5.12 <---
77 7.668 7.768 7072005 3 1 1 5.82 <---
78 7.768 7.868 7072005 3 1 1 4.84 <---
79 7.868 7.968 7072005 3 i 1 1.74 <---
80 7.968 8.068 7072005 3 1 1 6.36 <---
81 8.068 8.168 7072005 3 1 1 7.74 <---
82 8.168 8.327 7072005 3 1.59 1 3.4277 <--- Normalized
83 8.327 8.499 7072005 1 1.72 1 0 <--- Normalized

 

 

133

 

 

Table Bll The MDOT 1999

avement DI data for control section 11017 along [-94 NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS 01-0.] TAPE 10:99-07-02 TAPE
'§ Count 5 194 BB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
13. Survey Pav't 560110118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 O 0.1 501 1999 3 1 1 24.42 <---
2 0.1 0.2 5011999 3 1 1 31.75 <---
3 0.2 0.3 5011999 3 l 1 13.86 <---
4 0.3 0.4 5011999 3 l 1 17.46 <---
5 0.4 0.5 5011999 3 1 l 19.25 <---
6 0.5 0.6 5011999 3 1 1 14.82 <---
7 0.6 0.7 5011999 3 1 1 15.13 <---
8 0.7 0.897 5011999 3 1.97 1 14.284 <--- Normalized
9 0.897 0.997 5011999 1 l 1 10.12 <---
10 0.997 1.097 5011999 1 1 1 11.13 <---
11 1.097 1.197 5011999 1 1 l 6.74 <---
12 1.l97 1.297 5011999 1 l 1 7.93 <---
13 1.297 1.397 5011999 1 1 1 9.31 <---
14 1.397 1.497 5011999 1 1 1 15.42 <---
15 1.497 1.597 5011999 1 1 1 10.5 <---
16 1.597 1.697 5011999 1 1 l 5.92 <---
17 1.697 1.797 5011999 1 1 1 6.2 <---
18 1.797 1.897 5011999 1 1 1 5.19 <---
19 1.897 1.997 5011999 1 1 1 17.2 <---
20 1.997 2.097 501-1999 1 1 l 19.61 <---
21 2.097 2.197 5011999 1 1 1 9.26 <---
22 2.197 2.297 5011999 1 1 1 14.23 <---
23 2.297 2.397 5011999 1 1 1 9.56 <---
24 2.397 2.497 5011999 1 1 1 5.21 <---
25 2.497 2.597 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
26 2.597 2.697 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
27 2.697 2.797 5011999 1 1 1 3.04 <---
28 2.797 2.897 5011999 1 l 1 2.05 <---
29 2.897 2.997 5011999 1 1 1 2.55 <---
30 2.997 3.097 5011999 1 1 1 6.97 <---
31 3.097 3.197 5011999 1 l 1 6.89 <---
32 3.197 3.297 5011999 1 1 1 3.4 <---
33 3.297 3.397 5011999 1 1 1 4.3 <---
34 3.397 3.497 501 1999 1 l 1 2.64 <---
35 3.497 3.597 5011999 1 1 1 1.69 <---
36 3.597 3.697 5011999 1 1 1 0.75 <---
37 3.697 3.797 5011999 1 1 l 1.98 <---
38 3.797 3.897 5011999 1 1 1 6.3 <---
39 3.897 3.997 5011999 1 1 l 24.07 <---
40 3.997 4.097 501 1999 1 1 1 8.2 <---
41 4.097 4.197 5011999 1 1 1 6.97 <---
42 4.197 4.297 5011999 1 1 1 4.08 <---

 

134

 

Table B11 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Number
:3 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=99-07-02 TAPE
E Count 5 194 BB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.297 4.397 5011999 1 1 1 9.6 <---
44 4.397 4.497 5011999 1 1 1 9.04 <---
45 4.497 4.597 5011999 1 1 1 17.3] <—--
46 4.597 4.697 5011999 1 l l 8.41 <---
47 4.697 4.797 501 1999 1 1 l 6.47 <---
48 4.797 4.897 5011999 1 1 1 0.94 <---
49 4.897 4.997 501 1999 1 l l 5.42 <---
50 4.997 5.097 5011999 1 1 1 15.19 <---
51 5.097 5.197 5011999 1 1 1 26.17 <---
52 5.197 5.297 5011999 1 1 l 23.86 <---
53 5.297 5.397 5011999 1 1 1 20.73 <--..
54 5.397 5.59 5011999 1 1.93 1 20.902 <--- Normalized
55 5.59 5.617 5011999 7 0.27 0 0 <--- Normalized
a g 56 5.617 5.717 5011999 1 1 1 0.32 <---
3 2 57 5.717 5.817 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
2 5; 58 5.817 5.917 5011999 1 l l 0.16 <---
:2 E 59 5.917 6.017 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
§ 5 60 6.017 6.117 5011999 1 l l 0 <---
SE 61 6.117 6.217 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
Li 5.: 62 6.217 6.317 5011999 1 l 1 O <---
3’: 2 63 6.317 6.417 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
— m 64 6.417 6.59 5011999 1 1.73 1 1.069 <--- Normalized
65 6.59 6.609 5011999 7 0.19 0 0 <--- Normalized

 

 

135

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B12 The MDOT 2001 Davement DI data for control section 11017 along I-94 NB
. . Number
‘3 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=S336-Y2001 TAPE
B COM" 5 194 EB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
7‘ Survey Pav't SCCtiOHS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.1 8032001 3 1 1 38.93 <---
2 0.1 0.2 8032001 3 1 1 36.67 <---
3 0.2 0.3 8032001 3 1 1 10.555 <---
4 0.3 0.4 8032001 3 1 1 14.37 <-..-
5 0.4 0.5 8032001 3 1 1 15.56 <---
6 0.5 0.6 8032001 3 1 1 15.63 <---
7 0.6 0.7 8032001 3 1 1 11.065 <---
8 0.7 0.8 8032001 3 1 1 17.815 <---
9 0.8 0.903 8032001 3 1.03 1 11.422 <--- Normalized
10 0.903 1.003 8032001 1 1 l 33.66 <-~-
11 1.003 1.103 8032001 1 1 1 32.56 <---
12 1.103 1.203 8032001 1 1 1 31.17 <---
13 1.203 1.303 8032001 1 1 1 34.09 <---
14 1.303 1.403 8032001 1 1 1 33.26 <---
15 1.403 1.503 8032001 1 1 1 35.71 <---
16 1.503 1.603 8032001 1 1 1 30.56 <---
17 1.603 1.703 8032001 1 1 l 26.87 <---
18 1.703 1.803 8032001 1 1 1 26.99 <---
19 1.803 1.903 8032001 1 1 1 29.51 <---
20 1.903 2.003 8032001 1 1 1 34.53 <---
21 2.003 2.103 8032001 1 1 1 27.09 <-....
22 2.103 2.203 8032001 1 1 1 23.91 <---
23 2.203 2.303 8032001 1 1 1 25.24 <---
24 2.303 2.403 8032001 1 1 1 21.27 <---
25 2.403 2.503 8032001 1 1 1 7.54 <---
26 2.503 2.603 8032001 1 1 1 4.96 <---
27 2.603 2.703 8032001 1 1 1 10.43 <---
28 2.703 2.803 8032001 1 1 1 5.57 <---
29 2.803 2.903 8032001 1 1 l 4.52 <---
30 2.903 3.003 8032001 1 1 1 8.99 <---
31 3.003 3.103 8032001 1 1 1 19.73 <---
32 3.103 3.203 8032001 1 1 1 16.06 <--..
33 3.203 3.303 8032001 1 1 1 18.82 <---
34 3 .303 3.403 8032001 1 1 1 21.43 <---
35 3.403 3.503 8032001 1 l 1 11.21 <---
36 3.503 3.603 8032001 1 1 1 8.21 <---
37 3.603 3.703 8032001 1 1 l 4.55 <---
38 3.703 3.803 8032001 1 1 1 15.62 <---
39 3.803 3.903 8032001 1 1 1 14.8 <---
40 3.903 4.003 8032001 1 1 1 30.2 <---
41 4.003 4.103 8032001 1 1 1 26.27 <---
42 4.103 4.203 8032001 1 1 l 25.27 <---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

136

 

Table B12 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=8336-Y2001 TAPE
E“ Count 5 194 EB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiOIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
43 4.203 4.303 8032001 1 1 1 18.05 <---
44 4.303 4.403 8032001 1 1 1 28.57 <---
45 4.403 4.503 8032001 1 1 1 26.6 <---
46 4.503 4.603 8032001 1 1 1 32.85 <---
47 4.603 4.703 8032001 1 1 1 28.46 <---
48 4.703 4.803 8032001 1 1 1 21.64 <---
49 4.803 4.903 8032001 1 1 1 13.63 <---
50 4.903 5.003 8032001 1 1 1 19.39 <---
51 5.003 5.103 8032001 1 1 1 32.42 <---
52 5.103 5.203 8032001 1 1 1 33.65 <---
53 5.203 5.303 8032001 1 1 1 34.41 <---
54 5.303 5.403 8032001 1 1 1 28.36 <---
55 5.403 5.503 8032001 1 1 1 30.3 <---
56 5.503 5.603 8032001 1 1 1 16.3 <---
a 8 57 5.603 5.703 8032001 1 1 1 0 <---
33 58 5.703 5.803 8032001 1 1 1 0 <---
g5; 59 5.803 5.903 8032001 1 1 1 0 <---
35 60 5.903 6.003 8032001 1 1 1 0 <..--
{:35 61 6.003 6.103 8032001 1 1 1 0 <---
53 62 6.103 6.203 8032001 1 1 1 0 <---
Dad; 63 6.203 6.303 8032001 1 1 1 0 <---
a; z 64 6.303 6.403 8032001 1 1 1 0 <---
"‘ m 65 6.403 6.503 8032001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
66 6.503 6.611 8032001 1 1.08 1 10.602 <---Norrnalized

 

137

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B13 The MDOT 2003 avement DI data for control section 11017 along I-94 NB
_ Number
3' Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=SlO6-Y2003 TAPE
'é‘ Com“ 5 194 BB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
7‘ Survey Pav't SCCtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.1 4132003 2 1 l 0 <---
2 0.1 0.2 4132003 2 1 1 16.205 <---
3 0.2 0.3 4132003 2 l l 14.22 <---
4 0.3 0.4 4132003 2 1 1 15.36 <---
5 0.4 0.5 4132003 2 l 1 20.68 <---
6 0.5 0.6 4132003 2 1 1 18.69 <---
7 0.6 0.7 4132003 2 1 1 24.22 <---
8 0.7 0.8 4132003 2 1 1 22.27 <---
9 0.8 0.905 4132003 2 1.05 1 15.033 <--- Normalized
10 0.905 1.005 4132003 1 1 1 29.09 <---
11 1.005 1.105 4132003 1 1 l 25.93 <---
12 1.105 1.205 4132003 1 1 1 24.49 <---
13 1.205 1.305 4132003 1 1 1 30.75 <---
14 1.305 1.405 4132003 1 1 1 26.33 <---
15 1.405 1.505 4132003 1 1 1 30.41 <---
16 l.505 1.605 4132003 1 1 1 23.34 <---
17 1.605 1.705 4132003 1 1 1 23.86 <---
18 1.705 1.805 4132003 1 1 1 21.26 <---
19 1.805 1.905 4132003 1 1 1 24.25 <---
20 1.905 2.005 4132003 1 1 1 29.07 <---
21 2.005 2.105 4132003 1 1 1 22.5 <--..
22 2.105 2.205 4132003 1 1 1 20.22 <---
23 2.205 2.305 4132003 1 1 1 20.45 <---
24 2.305 2.405 4132003 1 1 1 15.3 <---
25 2.405 2.505 4132003 1 1 1 6.44 <---
26 2.505 2.605 4132003 1 1 1 3.42 <---
27 2.605 2.705 4132003 1 1 1 8.04 <—--
28 2.705 2.805 4132003 1 l 1 8.97 <---
29 2.805 2.905 4132003 1 1 1 9.17 <---
30 2.905 3.005 4132003 1 1 1 8.72 <---
31 3.005 3.105 4132003 1 1 1 16.16 <---
32 3.105 3.205 4132003 1 1 1 16.08 <---
33 3.205 3.305 4132003 1 1 1 13.98 <---
34 3.305 3.405 4132003 1 1 1 15.48 <---
35 3.405 3.505 4132003 1 1 1 11.31 <---
36 3.505 3.605 4132003 1 1 1 6.41 <---
37 3.605 3.705 4132003 1 l 1 5.99 <---
38 3.705 3.805 4132003 1 1 1 10.1 <-_-
39 3.805 3.905 4132003 1 1 1 13.52 <---
40 3.905 4.005 4132003 1 l 1 24.8 <---
41 4.005 4.105 4132003 1 1 1 23.24 <---
42 4.105 4.205 4132003 1 1 1 24.19 <---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.138

Table B 1 3 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. _ , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.l TAPE ID=SlO6~Y2003 TAPE
E Com“ 5 194 BB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
43 4.205 4.305 4132003 1 1 1 22.34 <---
44 4.305 4.405 4132003 1 1 1 22.58 <--—
45 4.405 4.505 4132003 1 1 1 26.58 <---
46 4.505 4.605 4132003 1 1 1 25.63 <---
47 4.605 4.705 4132003 1 1 1 27.33 <---
48 4.705 4.805 4132003 1 1 1 23.35 <---
49 4.805 4.905 4132003 1 1 1 15.99 <---
50 4.905 5.005 4132003 1 1 1 18.46 <---
51 5.005 5.105 4132003 1 1 1 24.73 <---
52 5.105 5.205 4132003 1 i 1 22.47 <---
53 5.205 5.305 4132003 1 1 1 23.28 <---
54 5.305 5.405 4132003 1 1 1 24.43 <---
55 5.405 5.505 4132003 1 1 1 18.32 <---
56 5.505 5.605 4132003 1 1 1 15.83 <---
88 57 5.605 5.705 4132003 1 1 1 0.66 <---
ggzg 58 5.705 5.805 4132003 1 1 1 0 <---
“£5; 59 5.805 5.905 4132003 1 1 1 0 <---
:5 60 5.905 6.005 4132003 1 1 1 0 <---
§,\ 61 6.005 6.105 4132003 1 1 1 o <---
5% 62 6.105 6.205 4132003 1 1 1 0.16 <---
0.6.: 63 6.205 6.305 4132003 1 1 1 0 <---
3:: z 64 6.305 6.405 4132003 1 1 l 0 <---
“m 65 6.405 6.505 4132003 1 1 1 0.75 <---
66 6.505 6.612 4132003 1 1.07 1 1.5514 <---Normalized

 

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B14 The MDOT 2005 avement DI data for control section 11017 along 1-94 NB
. _ . Number
g Region Route Direction CS (”-0.1 TAPE ID=Slll—Y2005 TAPE
8 Count 5 194 EB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't 560110118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.01 4162005 3 0.1 1 0 <--- Normalized
2 0.01 0.438 4162005 8 4.28 0 0 <--- Normalized
3 0.438 0.538 4162005 3 1 1 18.88 <---
4 0.538 0.638 4162005 3 1 1 21.915 <---
5 0.638 0.738 4162005 3 1 1 23.21 <---
6 0.738 0.902 4162005 3 1.64 1 25.366 <--- Normalized
7 0.902 1.002 4162005 1 1 1 19.3 <---
8 1.002 1.102 4162005 1 1 1 28.8 <---
9 1.102 1.202 4162005 1 l 1 31.3 <---
10 1.202 1.302 4162005 1 1 1 37.98 <---
11 1.302 1.402 4162005 1 1 1 33.48 <---
12 1.402 1.502 4162005 1 l 1 31.87 <---
13 1.502 1.602 4162005 1 1 1 27.6] <---
14 1.602 1.702 4162005 1 1 1 23.6 <---
15 1.702 1.802 4162005 1 1 1 29.39 <---
16 1.802 1.902 4162005 1 1 1 31.1 <---
17 1.902 2.002 4162005 1 1 1 33.76 <---
18 2.002 2.102 4162005 1 1 l 29.76 <---
19 2.102 2.202 4162005 1 1 1 25.1 <---
20 2.202 2.302 4162005 1 1 1 23 <-..-
21 2.302 2.402 4162005 1 1 1 26.12 <-—-
22 2.402 2.502 4162005 1 1 1 9.96 <---
23 2.502 2.602 4162005 1 l l 7.35 <---
24 2.602 2.702 4162005 1 l 1 1 1.09 <---
25 2.702 2.802 4162005 1 1 1 10.22 <---
26 2.802 2.902 4162005 1 1 1 14.27 <---
27 2.902 3.002 4162005 1 1 1 15.06 <---
28 3.002 3.102 4162005 1 1 1 18.93 <---
29 3.102 3.202 4162005 1 1 l 17.88 <---
30 3.202 3.302 4162005 1 1 1 18.85 <---
31 3.302 3.402 4162005 1 1 1 21.5 <---
32 3.402 3.502 4162005 1 1 1 14.02 <---
33 3.502 3.602 4162005 1 1 1 11.01 <---
34 3.602 3.702 4162005 1 1 1 9.04 <---
35 3.702 3.802 4162005 1 l 1 14.76 <---
36 3.802 3.902 4162005 1 1 1 15.85 <---
37 3.902 4.002 4162005 1 1 1 24.42 <---
38 4.002 4.102 4162005 1 1 1 22.72 <-~-
39 4.102 4.202 4162005 1 1 1 26.77 <---
40 4.202 4.302 4162005 1 1 1 27.37 <---
41 4.302 4.402 4162005 1 1 l 29.27 <---
42 4.402 4.502 4162005 1 1 1 32.55 <—--

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

140

 

Table B14 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=Slll-Y2005 TAPE
E Count 5 194 BB 11017 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
43 4.502 4.602 4162005 1 1 1 29.43 <---
44 4.602 4.702 4162005 1 i 1 34.46 <---
45 4.702 4.802 4162005 1 1 1 29.11 <---
46 4.802 4.902 4162005 1 1 1 19.55 <---
47 4.902 5.002 4162005 1 1 1 24.89 <---
48 5.002 5.102 4162005 1 1 1 27.01 <---
49 5.102 5.202 4162005 1 1 1 22.82 <---
50 5.202 5.302 4162005 1 1 1 28.84 <---
51 5.302 5.402 4162005 1 1 1 27.06 <---
52 5.402 5.502 4162005 1 1 1 24.02 <---
53 5.502 5.602 4162005 1 1 1 15.1 <---
a g 54 5.602 5.702 4162005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
33 55 5.702 5.802 4162005 1 1 1 o <---
2 a; 56 5.802 5.902 4162005 1 1 1 1.69 <—-—
.‘35 57 5.902 6.002 4162005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
§.\ 58 6.002 6.102 4162005 1 1 1 0 <---
:33 59 6.102 6.202 4162005 1 1 1 2.28 <---
U: 60 6.202 6.302 4162005 1 1 1 5.64 <---
33: 61 6.302 6.402 4162005 1 1 1 4.36 <---
"‘1 62 6.402 6.599 4162005 1 1.97 1 12.553 <---Normalized

 

141

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table BIS The MDOT 2007 avement DI data for control section 11017 along 1-94 NB
_ , _ Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1
E Count 5 194 BB 11017 mile
Survey Pav't 580110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile D1 values
1 0 0.1 5/10/2007 3 1 1 16.03 -
2 0.1 0.2 5/10/2007 3 1 1 17.47 -
3 0.2 0.3 5/10/2007 3 1 1 22.26 -
4 0.3 0.4 5/10/2007 3 1 1 32.64 -
5 0.4 0.5 5/10/2007 3 1 1 24.95 -
6 0.5 0.6 5/10/2007 3 1 1 21.04 -
7 0.6 0.7 5/10/2007 3 1 1 16.06 -
8 0.7 0.898 5/10/2007 3 1.98 1 18.96 Normalized
9 0.898 0.998 5/10/2007 1 1 1 7.24 -
10 0.998 1.098 5/10/2007 1 1 1 3.91 -
11 1.098 1.198 5/10/2007 1 1 1 20.84 -
12 1.198 1.298 5/10/2007 1 1 1 6.73 -
13 1.298 1.398 5/10/2007 1 1 1 0.98 -
14 1.398 1.498 5/10/2007 1 1 1 1.05 -
15 1.498 1.598 5/10/2007 1 l 1 1.8 -
16 1.598 1.698 5/10/2007 1 l 1 1.05 -
17 1.698 1.798 5/10/2007 1 1 1 6.71 -
18 1.798 1.898 5/10/2007 1 1 1 3.54 -
19 1.898 1.998 5/10/2007 1 1 l 4.82 -
20 1.998 2.098 5/10/2007 1 1 1 2.48 -
21 2.098 2.198 5/10/2007 1 1 1 3.21 -
22 2.198 2.298 5/10/2007 1 1 1 0.98 -
23 2.298 2.398 5/10/2007 1 1 l 6.93 -
24 2.398 2.498 5/10/2007 1 1 1 13.32 -
25 2.498 2.598 5/10/2007 1 1 1 21.37 -
26 2.598 2.698 5/10/2007 1 1 1 30.82 -
27 2.698 2.798 5/10/2007 1 1 1 16.2 -
28 2.798 2.898 5/10/2007 1 1 1 3.13 -
29 2.898 2.998 5/10/2007 1 1 1 17.91 -
30 2.998 3.098 5/10/2007 1 1 1 9.08 -
31 3.098 3.198 5/10/2007 1 1 1 8.4 -
32 3.198 3.298 5/10/2007 1 1 1 21.23 -
33 3.298 3.398 5/10/2007 1 1 1 5.6 -
34 3.398 3.498 5/10/2007 1 1 1 1.73 -
35 3.498 3.598 5/10/2007 1 1 1 3.61 -
36 3.598 3.698 5/10/2007 1 1 1 9.32 -
37 3.698 3.798 5/10/2007 1 l 1 12.25 -
38 3.798 3.898 5/10/2007 1 1 1 4.88 -
39 3.898 3.998 5/10/2007 1 1 1 14.09 -
40 3.998 4.098 5/10/2007 1 1 1 9.26 -
41 4.098 4.198 5/10/2007 1 1 1 4.19 -
42 4.198 4.298 5/10/2007 1 1 1 14.28 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

142

 

Table B15 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. . . . Number
g Count Region Route Direction CS of0.l
E 5 I94 EB 11017 mile
Survey Pav't SCCthflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.298 4.398 5/10/2007 1 1 1 14.74 -
44 4.398 4.498 5/10/2007 1 l l 3.46 -
45 4.498 4.598 5/10/2007 1 1 1 4 -
46 4.598 4.698 5/10/2007 1 1 1 1.25 -
47 4.698 4.798 5/10/2007 1 1 1 4.47 -
48 4.798 4.898 5/10/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
49 4.898 4.998 5/10/2007 1 1 1 7.44 -
50 4.998 5.098 5/10/2007 1 1 1 10.69 -
51 5.098 5.198 5/10/2007 1 1 1 14.7 -
52 5.198 5.298 5/10/2007 1 1 1 11.3 -
53 5.298 5.398 5/10/2007 1 1 1 8.88 -
54 5.398 5.498 5/10/2007 1 1 1 6.12 -
55 5.498 5.598 5/10/2007 1 1 1 5.02 -
3". Q 56 5.598 5.698 5/10/2007 1 1 1 13.7 -
g 3 57 5.698 5.798 5/10/2007 1 1 1 18.44 -
2 a; 58 5.798 5.898 5/10/2007 1 1 1 24.96 - -
3 5 59 5.898 5.998 5/10/2007 1 1 1 4 -
§ 5 60 5.998 6.098 5/10/2007 1 1 1 1.75 -
a E 61 6.098 6.198 5/10/2007 1 l 1 1.94 -
Li .. 62 6.198 6.298 5/10/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
a; E 63 6.298 6.398 5/10/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
'7 a: 64 6.398 6.514 5/10/2007 1 1.16 1 1.08 Normalized
65 6.514 6.616 5/10/2007 1 1.02 2 98.23 Normalized

 

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B16 The MDOT 2001 avement DI data for control section 12033 along I-69 NB
. . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.l TAPE ID=S339~Y2001 TAPE
E Com“ 5 I69 NB 12033 mile BMP=00.000
‘3‘ Survey Pav't SECtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values
1 0 0.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
2 0.1 0.2 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
3 0.2 0.3 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
4 0.3 0.4 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
5 0.4 0.5 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
6 0.5 0.6 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
7 0.6 0.7 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
8 0.7 0.8 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
9 0.8 0.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
10 0.9 1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
11 1 1.1 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
12 1.1 1.2 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
13 1.2 1.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
3 14 1.3 1.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
d; 15 1.4 1.5 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
E 16 1.5 1.6 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
.9 17 1.6 1.7 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
3 18 1.7 1.8 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
Z 19 1.8 1.9 8042001 1 i 1 0 <---
2 20 1.9 2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
i 21 2 2.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
m 22 2.1 2.2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
3 23 2.2 2.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
E 24 2.3 2.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
g 25 2.4 2.5 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
5: 26 2.5 2.6 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
8 27 2.6 2.7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
9.5 28 2.7 2.8 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
-'- 29 2.8 2.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
30 2.9 3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
31 3 3.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
32 3.1 3.2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
33 3.2 3.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
34 3.3 3.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
35 3.4 3.5 8042001 _1 1 1 0 <---
36 3.5 3.6 804200] 1 1 1 0 <---
37 3.6 3.7 8042001 1. i 1 0 <---
38 3.7 3.8 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
39 3.8 3.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
40 3.9 4 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
41 4 4.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
42 4.1 4.2 8042001 1 l 1 0 <---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

 

 

Table B16 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , Number
E Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=S339-Y2001 TAPE
E Count 5 I69 NB 12033 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.2 4.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
44 4.3 4.4 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
45 4.4 4.5 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
46 4.5 4.6 8042001 1 1 l 0 <---
am, 47 4.6 4.7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
22 48 4.7 4.8 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
E z 49 4.8 4.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
a: 50 4.9 5 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
§ 3 51 5 5.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
8:- 52 5.1 5.2 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
5: 53 5.2 5.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
3°“ 54 5.3 5.4 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
55 5.4 5.5 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
56 5.5 5.6 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
57 5.6 5.7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
58 5.7 5.8 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
59 5.8 5.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
60 5.9 6 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
61 6 6.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
62 6.1 6.2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
63 6.2 6.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
a 64 6.3 6.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
2' 65 6.4 6.5 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
a; 66 6.5 6.6 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
E 67 6.6 6.7 8042001 1 l 1 0 <---
09 68 6.7 6.8 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
:3 69 6.8 6.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
z 70 6.9 7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
f 71 7 7.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
a, 72 7.1 7.2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
5‘ 73 7.2 7.3 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
‘35 74 7.3 7.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
3 75 7.4 7.5 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
2 76 7.5 7.6 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
8 77 7.6 7.7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
9.5 78 7.7 7.8 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
-'- 79 7.8 7.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
80 7.9 8 8042001 1 1 1. 0 <---
81 8 8.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
82 8.1 8.2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
83 8.2 8.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
84 8.3 8.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---

 

145

 

 

Table 815 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=S339-Y2001 TAPE
5 Count 5 169 NB 12033 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.4 8.5 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
86 8.5 8.6 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
87 8.6 8.7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
88 8.7 8.8 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
3.: 89 8.8 8.9 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
9: 90 8.9 9 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
o‘.‘ 91 9 9.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
E 92 9.1 9.2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
0:3 93 9.2 9.3 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
1‘ 94 9.3 9.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
2 95 9.4 9.5 8042001 1 i 1 o <---
f 96 9.5 9.6 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
5.; 97 9.6 9.7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
3 98 9.7 9.8 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
5 99 9.8 9.9 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
g 100 9.9 10 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
2 101 10 10.1 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
‘3 102 10.1 10.2 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
35 103 10.2 10.3 804200] -1 1 1 0 <---
—'- 104 10.3 10.4 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
105 10.4 10.5 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
106 10.5 10.6 8042001 1 1 1 o <---
107 10.6 10.7 8042001 1 1 1 0 <---
108 10.7 10.809 8042001 1 1.09 1 0 <--- Normalized
109 10.809 10.872 8042001 3 0.63 1 6.222 <---Normalized
110 10.872 10.972 8042001 1 1 1 104.09 <-..-
111 10.972 11.072 8042001 1 1 1 29.58 <---
112 11.072 11.172 8042001 1 1 1 35.15 <---
113 11.172 11.272 8042001 1 1 1 37.21 <---
114 11.272 11.372 8042001 1 1 1 33.84 <---
g: 115 11.372 11.472 8042001 1 1 1 53.85 <---
v: 116 11.472 11.572 8042001 1 1 1 40.23 <---
55 117 11.572 11.672 8042001 1 1 1 35.26 <---
:9,“ 118 11.672 11.772 8042001 1 1 1 31.66 <---
§9a°, 119 11.772 11.872 8042001 1 1 1 27.68 <---
82 120 11.872 11.972 8042001 1 1 1 20.78 <---
d; 121 11.972 12.072 8042001 1 1 1 29.705 <-——
in: 122 12.072 12.172 8042001 1 1 1 25.02 <---
123 12.172 12.272 8042001 1 l 1 56.93 <---
124 12.272 12.413 8042001 1 1.41 1 42.851 <---Normalized
125 12.413 12.455 8042001 3 0.42 1 8.3214 <---Normalized
126 12.455 12.616 8042001 1 1.61 1 29.435 <---Normalized

 

146

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 816 The MDOT 2003 avement DI data for control section 12033 along [-69 NB
, . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=S101-Y2003 TAPE
E Count 5 I69 NB 12033 we BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCthDS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.006 4102003 2 0.06 1 24.167 <--- Normalized
2 0.006 0.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
3 0.106 0.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
4 0.206 0.306 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
5 0.306 0.406 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
6 0.406 0.506 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
7 0.506 0.606 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
8 0.606 0.706 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
9 0.706 0.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
10 0.806 0.906 4102003 1 1 l 0 <---
11 0.906 1.006 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
12 1.006 1.106 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
13 1.106 1.206 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
0° 14 1.206 1.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
'{3 15 1.306 1.406 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 16 1.406 1.506 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
m 17 1.506 1.606 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
§ 18 1.606 1.706 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
c: 19 1.706 1.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
=3 20 1.806 1.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 21 1.906 2.006 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
3 22 2.006 2.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
g 23 2.106 2.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
z 24 2.206 2.306 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
1;. 25 2.306 2.406 4102003 1 1 1 0.94 <---
a 26 2.406 2.506 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
“V," 27 2.506 2.606 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
0, 28 2.606 2.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
$ 29 2.706 2.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
' 30 2.806 2.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
31 2.906 3.006 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
32 3.006 3.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
33 3.106 3.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
34 3.206 3.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
35 3.306 3.406 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
36 3.406 3.506 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
37 3.506 3.606 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
38 3.606 3.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
39 3.706 3.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
40 3.806 3.906 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
41 3.906 4.006 4102003 1 l 1 0 <---
42 4.006 4.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147

 

 

Table B16 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
‘53 Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPEID=S101-Y2003 TAPE
'§ Com“ 5 I69 NB 12033 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile D1 values
a 43 4.106 4.206 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
33 44 4.206 4.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 45 4.306 4.406 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
m 46 4.406 4.506 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
g 47 4.506 4.606 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 48 4.606 4.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
4': 49 4.706 4.806 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
E 50 4.806 4.906 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
3 51 4.906 5.006 4102003 1 1 1 0 <-..-
Q 52 5.006 5.106 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
z 53 5.106 5.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 54 5.206 5.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 55 5.306 5.406 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
J, 56 5.406 5.506 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
0, 57 5.506 5.606 4102003 1 1 1 0.5 <---
9‘5: 58 5.606 5.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
" 59 5.706 5.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
60 5.806 5.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
61 5.906 6.006 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
62 6.006 6.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
63 6.106 6.206 4102003 1 i 1 0 <---
_ 64 6.206 6.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
:3 65 6.306 6.406 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
Z. 66 6.406 6.506 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
z 67 6.506 6.606 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
: 68 6.606 6.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
vs 69 6.706 6.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
9'3 70 6.806 6.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <-.._
E 71 6.906 7.006 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
I; 72 7.006 7.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
g 73 7.106 7.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
z 74 7.206 7.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 75 7.306 7.406 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 76 7.406 7.506 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
2,", 77 7.506 7.606 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
:1 78 7.606 7.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a: 79 7.706 7.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
' 80 7.806 7.906 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
81 7.906 8.006 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
82 8.006 8.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
83 8.106 8.206 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
84 8.206 8.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---

 

 

148

 

Table B16 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. Region Route Direction CS Number TAPE ID=SlOl-Y2003 TAPE
.3 5 169 NB 12033 Of0.1 BMP=00.000
73* Count ,
E Survey Pav't “11,16 Survey Nomialized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type sections Lane DI mile Dl values
85 8.306 8.406 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
86 8.406 8.506 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
87 8.506 8.606 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
88 8.606 8.706 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
_ 89 8.706 8.806 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
3 90 8.806 8.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 91 8.906 9.006 4102003 1 1 l 0 <---
2 92 9.006 9.106 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
2 93 9.106 9.206 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
u; 94 9.206 9.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
d: 95 9.306 9.406 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
E 96 9.406 9.506 4102003 1 1 1 1 <---
1: 97 9.506 9.606 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
g 98 9.606 9.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
z 99 9.706 9.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 100 9.806 9.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
s. 101 9.906 10.006 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
5", 102 10.006 10.106 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
D, 103 10.106 10.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
3; 104 10.206 10.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
"" 105 10.306 10.406 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
106 10.406 10.506 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
107 10.506 10.606 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
108 10.606 10.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
109 10.706 10.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
110 10.806 10.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
6,. 111 10.906 11.006 4102003 1 1 1 0.5 <---
2' 112 11.006 11.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
d: 113 11.106 11.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 114 11.206 11.306 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
g 115 11.306 11.406 4102003 1 1 1 o <---
a 116 11.406 11.506 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a; 117 11.506 11.606 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 118 11.606 11.706 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
:1 119 11.706 11.806 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 120 11.806 11.906 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
E 121 11.906 12.006 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
2 122 12.006 12.106 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
g 123 12.106 12.206 4102003 1 1 1 0 <---
a 124 12.206 12.306 4102003 1 1 1 0 <--—
9 125 12.306 12.406 4102003 1 1 1 1.25 <-——
9‘? 126 12.406 12.506 4102003 1 1 1 0.5 <---
"' 127 12.506 12.649 4102003 1 1.43 1 0 <--- Normalized

 

 

149

 

Table 817 The MDOT 2005 Davement DI data for control section 12033 along I-69 NB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=S106-Y2005 TAPE
'1? Count 5 I69 NB 12033 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't 56000115 Survey Nomialized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.005 4122005 3 0.05 1 45 <--— Normalized
2 0.005 0.105 4122005 1 1 i o <---
3 0.105 0.205 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
4 0.205 0.305 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
5 0.305 0.405 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
6 0.405 0.505 4122005 1 1 i o <---
7 0.505 0.605 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
8 0.605 0.705 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
9 0.705 0.805 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
10 0.805 0.905 4122005 1 i 1 0.12 <---
11 0.905 1.005 4122005 1 1 1 0.16 <---
12 1.005 1.105 4122005 1 1 1 0.76 <---
13 1.105 1.205 4122005 1 1 1 0.12 <---
00 14 1.205 1.305 4122005 1 1 l 0.24 <---
{'3 15 1.305 1.405 4122005 1 1 1 0.32 <---
E 16 1.405 1.505 4122005 1 1 1 0.72 <---
m 17 1.505 1.605 4122005 1 1 1 0.24 <---
§ 18 1.605 1.705 4122005 1 1 1 0.56 <---
c: 19 1.705 1.805 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
51 20 1.805 1.905 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
E 21 1.905 2.005 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
a 22 2.005 2.105 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
g 23 2.105 2.205 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
z 24 2.205 2.305 4122005 1 1 1 0.12 <---
a 25 2.305 2.405 4122005 1 1 1 0.84 <---
a 26 2.405 2.505 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
{,3 27 2.505 2.605 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
0, 28 2.605 2.705 4122005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
99‘ 29 2.705 2.805 4122005 1 i 1 0 <---
T 30 2.805 2.905 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
31 2.905 3.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
32 3.005 3.105 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
33 3.105 3.205 4122005 1 1 1 0.16 <---
34 3.205 3.305 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
35 3.305 3.405 4122005 1 1 1 0.32 <---
36 3.405 3.505 4122005 1 1 1 0.44 <---
37 3.505 3.605 4122005 1 1 1 0.64 <---
38 3.605 3.705 4122005 1 1 1 0.16 <---
39 3.705 3.805 4122005 1 1 1 0.32 <---
40 3.805 3.905 4122005 1 1 1 0.12 <---
41 3.905 4.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
42 4.005 4.105 4122005 1 1 1 0.16 <---

 

150

 

Table B17 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , _ Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=SlO6-Y2005 TAPE
E Com“ 5 [69 NB 12033 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't sections Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
00 43 4.105 4.205 4122005 1 1 i 0 <---
{4 44 4.205 4.305 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
E 45 4.305 4.405 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
m 46 4.405 4.505 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
§ 47 4.505 4.605 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
c; 48 4.605 4.705 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
4': 49 4.705 4.805 4122005 1 i 1 o <---
E 50 4.805 4.905 4122005 1 1 1 0.16 <---
3 51 4.905 5.005 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
Q 52 5.005 5.105 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
z 53 5.105 5.205 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
a 54 5.205 5.305 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
a 55 5.305 5.405 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
5; 56 5.405 5.505 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
U. 57 5.505 5.605 4122005 1 1 1 2 <---
3‘? 58 5.605 5.705 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
"' 59 5.705 5.805 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
60 5.805 5.905 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
61 5.905 6.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
62 6.005 6.105 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
63 6.105 6.205 4122005 1 1 1 0.24 <---
__ 64 6.205 6.305 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
2 65 6.305 6.405 4122005 1 1 1 0.2 <---
E 66 6.405 6.505 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
z 67 6.505 6.605 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
:1 68 6.605 6.705 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
it; 69 6.705 6.805 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
i’ 70 6.805 6.905 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
E 71 6.905 7.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
I; 72 7.005 7.105 4122005 1 1 i 0.5 <---
g 73 7.105 7.205 4122005 1 1 1 0.4 <---
E 74 7.205 7.305 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
2 75 7.305 7.405 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
a 76 7.405 7.505 4122005 1 1 i 0 <---
3, 77 7.505 7.605 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
0, 78 7.605 7.705 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
3. 79 7.705 7.805 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
T 80 7.805 7.905 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
81 7.905 8.005 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
82 8.005 8.105 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
83 8.105 8.205 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
84 8.205 8.305 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---

 

 

151

 

 

Table B17 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... Region Route Direction CS Number TAPE ID=SIO6-Y2005 TAPE
2:, Count 5 169 NB 12033 of0.1 BMP=00.000
E Survey Pav't "11.16 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type seam“ Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.305 8.405 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
86 8.405 8.505 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
87 8.505 8.605 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
88 8.605 8.705 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
__ 89 8.705 8.805 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
3 90 8.805 8.905 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
E. 91 8.905 9.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
2 92 9.005 9.105 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
a“: 93 9.105 9.205 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
V5 94 9.205 9.305 4122005 1 1 1 o <---
=2 95 9.305 9.405 4122005 1 i 1 0 <---
E 96 9.405 9.505 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
1,: 97 9.505 9.605 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
g 98 9.605 9.705 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
z 99 9.705 9.805 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
a 100 9.805 9.905 4122005 1 1 1 0.24 <---
a 101 9.905 10.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
5; 102 10.005 10.105 4122005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
9. 103 10.105 10.205 4122005 1 1 1 0.12 <---
3; 104 10.205 10.305 4122005 1 1 1 0.32 <---
" 105 10.305 10.405 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
106 10.405 10.505 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
107 10.505 10.605 4122005 1 l 1 0 <---
108 10.605 10.705 4122005 1 1 1 0.4 <---
109 10.705 10.805 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
110 10.805 10.905 4122005 1 1 1 0.16 <---
111 10.905 11.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
112 11.005 11.105 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
113 11.105 11.205 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
114 11.205 11.305 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
§§ 115 11.305 11.405 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
42': 116 11.405 11.505 4122005 1 i 1 0 <---
E; 117 11.505 11.605 4122005 1 i 1 0 <---
a“ 118 11.605 11.705 4122005 1 1 1 0.36 <---
«3%? 119 11.705 11.805 4122005 1 1 1 0.12 <---
83 120 11.805 11.905 4122005 1 1 1 1.4 <---
or; 121 11.905 12.005 4122005 1 1 1 0 <--_
in: 122 12.005 12.105 4122005 1 1 1 0 <---
123 12.105 12.205 4122005 1 1 1 1.32 <---
124 12.205 12.305 4122005 1 1 1 0.24 <---
125 12.305 12.405 4122005 1 1 1 1.5 <---
126 12.405 12.603 4122005 1 1.98 1 1.3434 <--- Normalized
127 12.603 12.611 4122005 3 0.08 1 0.5 <--- Normalized

 

152

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table B18 The MDOT 2007 avement DI data for control section 12033 along I-69 NB
... Region Route Direction CS Number
g Count 5 I69 NB 12033 of 9.1
5 Survey Pav't “11.16 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type sections Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
2 0.1 0.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
3 0.2 0.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
4 0.3 0.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
5 0.4 0.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
6 0.5 0.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
7 0.6 0.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
8 0.7 0.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 —
9 0.8 0.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
10 0.9 1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
1 1 1 1.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
12 1.1 1.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
13 1.2 1.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
3 14 1.3 1.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
a; 15 1.4 1.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
E 16 1.5 1.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
.0 17 1.6 1.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.52 -
8, 18 1.7 1.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
Z 19 1.8 1.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
z 20 1.9 2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
a 21 2 2.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
a 22 2.1 2.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
3 23 2.2 2.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
E 24 2.3 2.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.04 -
g 25 2.4 2.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
2 26 2.5 2.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
8 27 2.6 2.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
3' 28 2.7 2.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
-'- 29 2.8 2.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
30 2.9 3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
31 3 3.1 5/7/2007 1 1 i 0 -
32 3.1 3.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
33 3.2 3.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 —
34 3.3 3.4 5/7/2007 1 i 1 0 -
35 3.4 3.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
36 3.5 3.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 —
37 3.6 3.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
38 3.7 3.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
39 3.8 3.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
40 3.9 4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
41 4 4.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
42 4.1 4.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

153

 

Table B18 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H Region Route Direction CS Number
.2; Count 5 169 NB 12033 of 9.1
5 Survey Pav't “11.16 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type seams Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.2 4.3 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0 -
44 4.3 4.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
45 4.4 4.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
46 4.5 4.6 5/7/2007 1 1 l o -
a 3 47 4.6 4.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
8 d: 48 4.7 4.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 —
E E 49 4.8 4.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 2 -
g g 50 4.9 5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
E Sf 51 5 5.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
8 z 52 5.1 5.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.94 -
a; 2 53 5.2 5.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.04 -
‘2 “a 54 5.3 5.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
55 5.4 5.5 5/7/2007 1 i 1 0 -
56 5.5 5.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 6.965 -
57 5.6 5.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
58 5.7 5.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
59 5.8 5.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
60 5.9 6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
61 6 6.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
62 6.1 6.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
63 6.2 6.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
:5 64 6.3 6.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
‘2 65 6.4 6.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 1.88 -
a; 66 6.5 6.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 1.67 -
E 67 6.6 6.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
a; 68 6.7 6.8 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0 -
2. 69 6.8 6.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
z 70 6.9 7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
f 71 7 7.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
5|; 72 7.1 7.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.94 -
v’ 73 7.2 7.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
E 74 7.3 7.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.08 -
g 75 7.4 7.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.12 -
£3 76 7.5 7.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
8 77 7.6 7.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
3; 78 7.7 7.8 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0 -
-'- 79 7.8 7.9 5/7/2007 1 i 1 0 -
80 7.9 8 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0.5 -
81 8 8.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
82 8.1 8.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
83 8.2 8.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
84 8.3 8.4 5/7/2007 1 1 i 0.5 -

 

154

 

 

 

 

Table B18 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... Region Route Direction CS Number
5;; Count 5 I69 NB 12033 of 9.1
5: Survey Pav't “11.16 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type muons Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.4 8.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
86 8.5 8.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
87 8.6 8.7 5/7/2007 1 l l 1.44 -
88 8.7 8.8 5/7/2007 1 l 1 3.5 -
_ 89 8.8 8.9 5/7/2007 1 l l 0 -
g 90 8.9 9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
E 91 9 9.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.24 -
g 92 9.1 9.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
:3 93 9.2 9.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
us 94 9.3 9.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
a; 95 9.4 9.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
E 96 9.5 9.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
1.: 97 9.6 9.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
g 98 9.7 9.8 5/7/2007 1 l l 0.5 -
z 99 9.8 9.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
a 100 9.9 10 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.12 -
s; 101 10 10.1 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0 -
g 102 10.1 10.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.16 -
U, 103 10.2 10.3 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0 -
$ 104 10.3 10.4 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0 -
"' 105 10.4 10.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
106 10.5 10.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
107 10.6 10.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
108 10.7 10.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
109 10.8 10.9 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
1 10 10.9 11 5/7/2007 1 1 1 3.79 -
111 11 11.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
112 11.1 11.2 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
113 11.2 11.3 5/7/2007 1 l l 0.5 -
1 14 l 1.3 11.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
g f; 115 11.4 11.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.5 -
V 1': 116 11.5 11.6 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
E E 117 11.6 11.7 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
a m 118 11.7 11.8 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.54 -
§ § 119 11.8 11.9 5/7/2007 1 l 1 0.5 -
{'3 1: 120 11.9 12 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
5% 121 12 12.1 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0.16 -
f. a: 122 12.1 12.2 5/7/2007 1 1 l 0 -
123 12.2 12.3 5/7/2007 1 1 1 0 -
124 12.3 12.4 5/7/2007 1 1 1 7.89 -
125 12.4 12.5 5/7/2007 1 1 1 8.81 -
126 12.5 12.607 5/7/2007 1 1.07 1 6.297 Normalized

 

155

 

Table 819 The MDOT 1999

avement DI data for control section 47065 along I-96 EB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, , Number
g flion Route Direction CS 01-0-1 TAPE 10:99-32-03 TAPE
E Count 8 I96 EB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
1 0 0.1 501 1999 l 1 1 1.07 <---
2 0.1 0.2 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
3 0.2 0.3 5011999 1 1 1 0.5 <---
4 0.3 0.4 5011999 1 l 1 1.14 <———
5 0.4 0.5 5011999 1 1 1 0.72 <---
6 0.5 0.6 5011999 1 1 1 0.98 <---
7 0.6 0.7 501 1999 l 1 1 O <—--
8 0.7 0.8 5011999 1 1 1 0.75 <---
9 0.8 0.926 5011999 1 1.26 1 0 <--- Normalized
10 0.926 1.026 501 1999 l l 2 0 <-—-
11 1.026 1.13 501 1999 1 1.04 2 0 <--- Normalized
12 1.13 1.23 5011999 1 1 3 0 <-—-
13 1.23 1.33 5011999 1 l 3 0 <---
14 1.33 1.475 5011999 1 1.45 3 0 <--- Normalized
15 1.475 1.482 5011999 7 0.07 0 O <--- Normalized
16 1.482 1.582 5011999 1 l 3 O <---
17 1.582 1.682 5011999 1 1 3 0.75 <---
18 1.682 1.782 5011999 1 1 3 0 <---
19 1.782 1.882 5011999 1 1 3 0 <—--
20 1.882 1.982 5011999 1 1 3 0 <---
21 1.982 2.082 5011999 1 1 3 0 <---
22 2.082 2.182 5011999 1 1 3 0.16 <---
23 2.182 2.282 5011999 1 1 3 0 <---
24 2.282 2.382 5011999 1 1 3 0 <---
25 2.382 2.482 5011999 1 1 3 0 <---
26 2.482 2.582 5011999 1 1 3 0.48 <---
27 2.582 2.712 5011999 1 1.3 3 0.1231 <--- Normalized
28 2.712 2.759 5011999 1 0.47 2 0 <--- Normalized
29 2.759 2.859 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
30 2.859 2.959 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
31 2.959 3.059 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
32 3.059 3.159 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
33 3.159 3.259 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
34 3.259 3.359 5011999 1 1 1 0.64 <---
35 3.359 3.459 5011999 1 1 1 2.5 <---
36 3.459 3.559 5011999 1 1 1 0 <—--
37 3.559 3.659 5011999 1 1 1 0 <--—
38 3.659 3.759 5011999 1 1 l O <---
39 3.759 3.859 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
40 3.859 3.959 5011999 1 1 1 O <——-
41 3.959 4.059 5011999 1 l 1 1.21 <---
42 4.059 4.159 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

 

156

 

Table B 1 9 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . Number
g Region Route Directlon CS of0.l TAPE ID=99-32-08 TAPE
'§ Count 8 I96 EB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
Q. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.159 4.259 5011999 1 l l 0 <---
44 4.259 4.359 5011999 1 1 l 0 <---
45 4.359 4.459 5011999 1 l l 0.75 <---
46 4.459 4.559 5011999 1 1 1 0.75 <--—
47 4.559 4.659 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
48 4.659 4.845 5011999 1 1.86 1 1.4677 <--- Normalized
49 4.845 4.871 5011999 7 0.26 0 0 <---Normalized
50 4.871 4.971 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
51 4.971 5.071 5011999 1 1 1 1 <---
52 5.071 5.171 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
53 5.171 5.271 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
54 5.271 5.371 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
55 5.371 5.471 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
56 5.471 5.571 5011999 1 1 1 0.75 <---
57 5.571 5.671 5011999 1 1 1 0.75 <---
58 5.671 5.771 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
59 5.771 5.871 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
60 5.871 5.971 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
61 5.971 6.071 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
62 6.071 6.264 5011999 1 1.93 l 0 <--- Normalized
N 63 6.264 6.302 5011999 7 0.38 0 0 <---Normalized
oi 64 6.302 6.402 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
52*] 65 6.402 6.502 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
m 66 6.502 6.602 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
;: 67 6.602 6.702 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
fi 68 6.702 6.802 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
a; 69 6.802 6.902 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
E 70 6.902 7.002 5011999 1 1 l 0 <---
'2 71 7.002 7.102 5011999 1 1 l 0 <---
8; 72 7.102 7.202 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
E 73 7.202 7.302 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
m 74 7.302 7.402 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
g 75 7.402 7.502 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
m 76 7.502 7.602 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
a. 77 7.602 7.702 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
3 78 7.702 7.802 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
79 7.802 7.902 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
80 7.902 8.002 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
81 8.002 8.102 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
82 8.102 8.202 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
83 8.202 8.302 5011999 1 1 l 0 <---
84 8.302 8.402 5011999 1 1 l 1 <---

 

157

 

Table B19 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
:23 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=99-32-08 TAPE
'é‘ Count 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
CL Survey Pav't SCCtiOHS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.402 8.502 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
55 86 8.502 8.602 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
£95”. 87 8.602 8.702 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
3%?) 88 8.702 8.802 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
81:; 89 8.802 8.902 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
.52“ 90 8.902 9.002 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
3: 91 9.002 9.102 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
92 9.102 9.202 5011999 1 1 1 1 <---
93 9.202 9.302 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
94 9.302 9.402 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
95 9.402 9.502 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
96 9.502 9.602 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
97 9.602 9.702 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
98 9.702 9.802 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
99 9.802 9.902 5011999 1 1 1 1.07 <---
100 9.902 10.002 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
101 10.002 10.102 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
102 10.102 10.202 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
103 10.202 10.302 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
104 10.302 10.402 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
105 10.402 10.502 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
106 10.502 10.602 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
107 10.602 10.702 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
108 10.702 10.802 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
109 10.802 10.902 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
110 10.902 11.002 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
111 11.002 11.102 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
112 11.102 11.202 5011999 1 1 i 0 <---
113 11.202 11.302 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
114 11.302 11.402 5011999 1 l 1 1.21 <---
115 11.402 11.502 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
116 11.502 11.602 5011999 1 1 1 1.8 <---
117 11.602 11.702 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
118 11.702 11.837 5011999 1 1.35 1 1.548 <---Normalized
119 11.837 11.869 5011999 7 0.32 0 0 <---Normalized
120 11.869 11.969 5011999 1 1 1 0.75 <---
121 11.969 12.069 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
122 12.069 12.169 5011999 1 1 1 0.32 <---
123 12.169 12.269 5011999 1 1 1 0.48 <---
124 12.269 12.369 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
125 12.369 12.469 5011999 1 l 1 0 <---
126 12.469 12.569 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---

 

 

158

 

Table B19 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . _ Number
g Region Route Direction CS 0““ TAPE ID=99-32-08 TAPE
'§ Com“ 8 196 EB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
O- Survey Pav't 56060115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.569 12.669 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
128 12.669 12.769 5011999 1 1 l O <-—-
129 12.769 12.869 5011999 1 1 1 0.32 <---
130 12.869 12.969 5011999 1 1 1 O <---
131 12.969 13.069 5011999 1 1 1 0.16 <---
132 13.069 13.169 5011999 1 1 1 O <---
133 13.169 13.269 5011999 1 1 1 O <---
134 13.269 13.369 5011999 1 1 1 O <---
135 13.369 13.469 5011999 1 l 1 O <---
136 13.469 13.569 5011999 1 1 1 0.94 <---
137 13.569 13.669 5011999 1 1 1 0 <---
138 13.669 13.769 5011999 1 1 l 0.32 <---
139 13.769 13.869 5011999 1 1 l 28.42 <---
140 13.869 13.969 5011999 1 1 1 37.94 <---
141 13.969 14.098 5011999 1 1.29 1 17.721 <--- Normalized
142 14.098 14.116 5011999 3 0.18 1 0.889 <--- Nomialized
143 14.116 14.144 5011999 7 0.28 0 0 <--- Normalized
144 14.144 14.16 5011999 3 0.16 1 4.125 <--- Normalized
145 14.16 14.277 5011999 1 1.17 1 20.137 <--- Normalized
146 14.277 14.291 5011999 3 0.14 1 37.429 <--- Normalized
147 14.291 14.294 5011999 7 0.03 0 0 <--— Normalized

 

159

 

Table B20 The 2001 D1 data for control section 47065 I-96 EB

       

Number
of0_1 TAPE ID=S325-Y2001 TAPE

mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
T
<--_
<---
<_-_
<--_

160

Table B20 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, . , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=S325—Y2001 TAPE
'§ Count 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
9. Survey Pav't sections Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.2 4.3 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
44 4.3 4.4 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
45 4.4 4.5 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
46 4.5 4.6 7262001 1 1 i 0 <---
47 4.6 4.7 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
48 4.7 4.8 7262001 1 1 1 1.99 <---
49 4.8 4.9 7262001 1 l l 0 <---
50 4.9 5 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---
51 5 5.1 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
52 5.1 5.2 7262001 1 1 1 1.5 <---
53 5.2 5.3 7262001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
54 5.3 5.4 7262001 1 1 1 0.08 <---
55 5.4 5.5 7262001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
56 5.5 5.6 7262001 1 1 1 2.25 <---
57 5.6 5.7 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
58 5.7 5.8 7262001 1 1 1 2.5 <---
59 5.8 5.9 7262001 1 1 1 1.5 <---
60 5.9 6 7262001 1 1 1 1 <---
61 6 6.1 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
N 62 6.1 6.2 7262001 1 1 1 3 <---
04 63 6.2 6.3 7262001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
d: 64 6.3 6.4 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
E 65 6.4 6.5 726200] 1 1 1 1.5 <---
1': 66 6.5 6.6 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
3 67 6.6 6.7 7262001 1 1 1 0.5 <---
a; 68 6.7 6.8 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
E 69 6.8 6.9 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
70 6.9 7 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
E 71 7 7.1 7262001 1 1 l 3 <---
:3; 72 7.1 7.2 7262001 1 1 1 2.25 <---
5 73 7.2 7.3 7262001 1 1 1 0.25 <---
m 74 7.3 7.4 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
g 75 7.4 7.5 7262001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
m 76 7.5 7.6 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
a. 77 7.6 7.7 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---
3 78 7.7 7.8 7262001 1 l 1 11.5 <---
79 7.8 7.9 7262001 1 1 1 6 <---
80 7.9 8 7262001 1 1 1 2.75 <---
81 8 8.1 7262001 1 1 1 9.75 <---
82 8.1 8.2 726200] 1 1 1 8 <---
83 8.2 8.3 7262001 1 l l 3.75 <---
84 8.3 8.4 7262001 1 1 l 0 <---

 

161

 

Table B20 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, Number
E2 Region Route Directlon CS of0.1 TAPE ID=S325-Y2001 TAPE
'9‘.’ Com" 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000

D7 Survey Pav't 56090118 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane D1 mile DI values

85 8.4 8.5 7262001 1 1 1 1 <---

5,5 86 8.5 8.6 7262001 1 1 1 3.5 <---

£1fo 87 8.6 8.7 7262001 1 l l 1 <---

57%: 88 8.7 8.8 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

8992 89 8.8 8.9 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

.52“ 90 8.9 9 7262001 1 1 l 0 <---

3% 91 9 9.1 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

92 9.1 9.2 7262001 1 1 1 1.75 <---

93 9.2 9.3 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---

94 9.3 9.4 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

95 9.4 9.5 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

96 9.5 9.6 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

97 9.6 9.7 7262001 1 1 l 0 <---

98 9.7 9.8 7262001 1 1 1 0.75 <---

99 9.8 9.9 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

100 9.9 10 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

101 10 10.1 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

102 10.1 10.2 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

103 10.2 10.3 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---

104 10.3 10.4 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

105 10.4 10.5 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---

106 10.5 10.6 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

107 10.6 10.7 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

108 10.7 10.8 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

109 10.8 10.9 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

110 10.9 11 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

111 11 11.1 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---

112 11.1 11.2 7262001 1 l l 0 <---

113 11.2 11.3 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

114 11.3 11.4 7262001 1 1 1 0.58 <---

115 11.4 11.5 7262001 1 1 l 3 <---

116 11.5 11.6 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

117 11.6 11.7 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---

118 11.7 11.8 7262001 1 1 1 6.09 <---

119 11.8 11.9 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---

120 11.9 12 7262001 1 l l 0 <---

121 12 12.1 7262001 1 l 1 0.5 <---

122 12.1 12.2 7262001 1 1 1 0 (---

123 12.2 12.3 7262001 1 l 1 0.5 <---

124 12.3 12.4 7262001 1 l 1 0 <---

125 12.4 12.5 7262001 1 1 1 1 <---

126 12.5 12.6 7262001 1 1 l 0.5 <---

 

162

 

 

Table B20 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ Number
‘55 Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=S325-Y2001 TAPE
'§' Count 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
a... Survey Pav't 560110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.6 12.7 7262001 1 1 1 0.5 <---
128 12.7 12.8 7262001 1 1 l 2 <---
129 12.8 12.9 7262001 1 1 l 2 <---
130 12.9 13 7262001 1 1 1 2.5 <---
131 13 13.1 7262001 1 1 1 0.5 <---
132 13.1 13.2 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
133 13.2 13.3 7262001 1 1 1 0.75 <---
134 13.3 13.4 7262001 1 1 1 0 <---
135 13.4 13.5 7262001 1 l 1 O <---
136 13.5 13.66 7262001 1 1.6 1 0.3125 <--- Normalized
137 13.66 13.668 7262001 3 0.08 1 0 <--- Normalized
138 13.668 13.768 7262001 1 1 1 38.17 <---
139 13.768 13.868 7262001 1 1 1 44.86 <---
140 13.868 13.991 7262001 1 1.23 1 18.049 <--- Normalized
141 13.991 14.055 7262001 3 0.64 1 18.484 <--- Normalized
142 14.055 14.168 7262001 1 1.13 1 23.867 <--- Normalized
143 14.168 14.182 7262001 3 0.14 1 33.357 <--- Normalized
144 14.182 14.211 7262001 1 0.29 1 37.862 <--- Normalized
145 14.211 14.224 7262001 3 0.13 1 53.923 <--- Normalized
146 14.224 14.293 7262001 1 0.69 1 26.493 <--- Normalized

 

163

 

Table B21 The MDOT 2003 D1 data for control section 47065 I-96 EB

Number
of Q1 TAPE ID=Sl70—Y2003 TAPE

mile BMP=00.000

Survey Pav‘t sections Survey Nomialized to 0.1

 

164

 

Table B21 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , Number
8 Region Route Direction CS 0ng TAPE ID=Sl70—Y2003 TAPE
'8’ Cour“ 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.2 4.3 6012003 1 1 1 0.5 <---
44 4.3 4.4 6012003 1 1 1 2.06 <---
45 4.4 4.5 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---
46 4.5 4.6 6012003 1 l i 0 <---
47 4.6 4.7 6012003 1 1 1 0.5 <---
48 4.7 4.8 6012003 1 1 l 0.5 <---
49 4.8 4.9 6012003 1 1 1 23.37 <---
50 4.9 5 6012003 1 i 1 0.82 <---
51 5 5.1 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---
52 5.1 5.2 6012003 1 l i 0 <---
53 5.2 5.3 6012003 1 1 1 1.25 <---
54 5.3 5.4 6012003 1 1 i 1.25 <---
55 5.4 5.5 6012003 1 1 l 2.08 <---
56 5.5 5.6 6012003 1 1 1 3.75 <---
57 5.6 5.7 6012003 1 1 1 3.69 <---
58 5.7 5.8 6012003 1 1 1 8.75 <---
59 5.8 5.9 6012003 1 1 1 7.75 <---
60 5.9 6 6012003 1 1 1 5.25 <---
61 6 6.1 6012003 1 1 i 6.5 <---
N 62 6.1 6.2 6012003 1 1 1 2 <---
e< 63 6.2 6.3 6012003 1 l 1 8.66 <---
:5: 64 6.3 6.4 6012003 1 i 1 12.75 (m
E 65 6.4 6.5 6012003 1 1 1 12.94 <---
,1 66 6.5 6.6 6012003 1 1 i 6 <---
3 67 6.6 6.7 6012003 1 1 1 8 <---
a; 68 6.7 6.8 6012003 1 1 1 7.75 <---
E 69 6.8 6.9 6012003 1 1 1 4 <---
70 6.9 7 6012003 1 1 1 2.5 <---
E 71 7 7.1 6012003 1 1 1 11.5 <---
a 72 7.1 7.2 6012003 1 1 1 15.13 <---
a 73 7.2 7.3 6012003 1 1 1 11.88 <---
3 74 7.3 7.4 6012003 1 1 1 7.75 <---
E 75 7.4 7.5 6012003 1 1 l 1.5 <---
8 76 7.5 7.6 6012003 1 1 i 6.75 <---
w. 77 7.6 7.7 6012003 1 1 l 3.25 <---
S; 78 7.7 7.8 6012003 1 i 1 6 <---
79 7.8 7.9 6012003 1 1 1 21.68 <---
80 7.9 8 6012003 1 1 1 10.75 <---
81 8 8.1 6012003 1 1 1 18.1 <---
82 8.1 8.2 6012003 1 1 1 15.94 <---
83 8.2 8.3 6012003 1 1 1 19.44 <---
84 8.3 8.4 6012003 1 i 1 8.94 <---

 

165

 

 

Table 821 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=Sl70-Y2003 TAPE
‘8‘ Com“ 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000

CL Survey Pav‘t SCCtiOflS Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values

85 8.4 8.5 6012003 1 i 1 2.5 <---

55 86 8.5 8.6 6012003 1 1 1 11.94 <---

gifim 87 8.6 8.7 6012003 1 1 1 11 <---

5;: 88 8.7 8.8 6012003 1 1 1 9.69 <---

8992 89 8.8 8.9 6012003 1 1 1 4 <---

.52“ 90 8.9 9 6012003 1 l 1 11 <---

32% 91 9 9.1 6012003 1 1 1 5.69 <---

92 9.1 9.2 6012003 1 1 1 4.44 <---

93 9.2 9.3 6012003 1 1 1 5.5 <---

94 9.3 9.4 6012003 1 1 l 0 <---

95 9.4 9.5 6012003 1 l 1 1 <---

96 9.5 9.6 6012003 1 l 1 0 <---

97 9.6 9.7 6012003 1 1 i 0 <---

98 9.7 9.8 6012003 1 l 1 0 <---

99 9.8 9.9 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

100 9.9 10 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

101 10 10.1 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

102 10.1 10.2 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

103 10.2 10.3 6012003 1 1 i 0 <---

104 10.3 10.4 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

105 10.4 10.5 6012003 1 1 l 0 <---

106 10.5 10.6 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

107 10.6 10.7 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

108 10.7 10.8 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

109 10.8 10.9 6012003 1 l 1 0 <---

110 10.9 11 6012003 1 i 1 0 <---

111 11 11.1 6012003 1 i 1 0 <---

112 11.1 11.2 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

113 11.2 11.3 6012003 1 1 1 0.5 <---

114 11.3 11.4 6012003 1 1 1 2.25 <--—

115 11.4 11.5 6012003 1 1 l 2.5 <---

116 11.5 11.6 6012003 1 l 1 4.93 <--..

117 11.6 11.7 6012003 1 1 i 0 <---

118 11.7 11.8 6012003 1 1 1 0.5 <---

119 11.8 11.9 6012003 1 1 i 5.94 <---

120 11.9 12 6012003 1 l i 0 <---

121 12 12.1 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

122 12.1 12.2 6012003 1 l 1 1 <---

123 12.2 12.3 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---

124 12.3 12.4 6012003 1 1 1 0.5 <---

125 12.4 12.5 6012003 1 1 i 0 <---

126 12.5 12.6 6012003 1 1 1 l <---

 

166

 

Table 821 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , _ Number
‘53 Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=Sl70-Y2003 TAPE
E Count 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiODS Survey Normalized to 0.1

BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
127 12.6 12.7 6012003 1 1 1 1.5 <---
128 12.7 12.8 6012003 1 1 1 1 <---
129 12.8 12.9 6012003 1 1 1 2.5 <---
130 12.9 13 6012003 1 1 1 3.5 <---
131 13 13.1 6012003 1 1 1 2.5 <---
132 13.1 13.2 6012003 1 l 1 1.5 <---
133 13.2 13.3 6012003 1 1 1 0 <---
134 13 .3 13.4 6012003 1 1 1 1.44 <---
135 13.4 13.5 6012003 1 1 1 O <---
136 13.5 13.6 6012003 1 1 1 l <---
137 13.6 13.755 6012003 1 1.55 1 0.645 <--- Normalized
138 13.755 13.763 6012003 2 0.08 1 4 <--- Normalized
139 13.763 13.863 6012003 1 1 1 45.29 <---
140 13.863 13.963 6012003 1 1 1 54.04 <---
141 13.963 14.085 6012003 1 1.22 1 18.566 <--- Normalized
142 14.085 14.148 6012003 2 0.63 1 23.651 <--- Normalized
143 14.148 14.265 6012003 1 1.17 1 22.214 <--- Normalized
144 14.265 14.272 6012003 2 0.07 1 26.429 <-«- Normalized

 

167

 

Table B22 The MDOT 2005 D1 data for control section 47065 I-96 EB

 

   

Number
of 0_1 TAPE ID=S102—Y2005 TAPE

mile BMP=00.000
Survey Pav't SCCtiOIlS Survey Normalized to 0.1

168

 

Table B22 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=S 1 02-Y200 5 TAPE
'é’ Count 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
n. Survey Pav't sections Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
43 4.2 4.3 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
44 4.3 4.4 4112005 1 1 1 1.18 <---
45 4.4 4.5 4112005 1 1 1 0.94 <---
46 4.5 4.6 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
47 4.6 4.7 4112005 1 i i 1.16 <---
48 4.7 4.8 4112005 1 1 1 0.75 <---
49 4.8 4.9 4112005 1 1 1 16.64 <---
50 4.9 5 4112005 1 1 1 0.16 <---
51 5 5.1 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
52 5.1 5.2 4112005 1 i 1 0.75 <---
53 5.2 5.3 4112005 1 1 1 2.49 <---
54 5.3 5.4 4112005 1 1 1 1.44 <---
55 5.4 5.5 4112005 1 1 i 0 <---
56 5.5 5.6 4112005 1 1 1 4.36 <---
57 5.6 5.7 4112005 1 1 1 9.38 <---
58 5.7 5.8 4112005 1 1 1 23.68 <---
59 5.8 5.9 4112005 1 1 1 20.32 <---
60 5.9 6 4112005 1 1 1 16.63 <---
61 6 6.1 4112005 1 1 1 10.11 <---
62 6.1 6.2 4112005 1 1 1 14.13 <---
5:; 63 6.2 6.3 4112005 1 1 1 19.8 <---
a; 64 6.3 6.4 4112005 1 i l 30.93 <---
E 65 6.4 6.5 4112005 1 l 1 25.54 <---
: 66 6.5 6.6 4112005 1 1 1 18.8 <---
3 67 6.6 6.7 4112005 1 1 1 25.82 <---
d.- 68 6.7 6.8 4112005 1 1 1 26.17 <---
E 69 6.8 6.9 4112005 1 1 1 23.5 <---
m 70 6.9 7 4.112005 1 l 1 21.32 <---
a 71 7 7.1 4112005 1 1 1 25.96 <---
3 72 7.1 7.2 4112005 1 1 1 25.83 <---
E 73 7.2 7.3 4112005 1 1 1 21.67 <---
g 74 7.3 7.4 4112005 1 l 1 16.33 <---
I; 75 7.4 7.5 4112005 1 1 1 4.69 <---
8 76 7.5 7.6 4112005 1 1 1 22.26 <---
:3 77 7.6 7.7 4112005 1 1 1 21.83 <---
.1 78 7.7 7.8 4112005 1 l 1 17.24 <---
79 7.8 7.9 4112005 1 1 1 26.23 <---
80 7.9 8 4112005 1 l 1 22.95 <---
81 8 8.1 4112005 1 1 1 24.05 <---
82 8.1 8.2 4112005 1 1 1 21 <---
83 8.2 8.3 4112005 1 1 1 23.55 <---
84 8.3 8.4 4112005 1 1 1 19.78 <——-

 

 

169

 

Table B22 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- . . . Number
g Region Route Direction CS of0.1 TAPE ID=8102-Y2005 TAPE
8‘ Count 8 196 BB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
a. Survey Pav't 560110115 Survey Nomialized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values
85 8.4 8.5 4112005 1 1 1 15.4 <---
55;: 86 8.5 8.6 4112005 1 1 1 23.22 <---
grim 87 8.6 8.7 4112005 1 1 l 22.67 <---
5%: 88 8.7 8.8 4112005 1 1 1 20.21 <---
8992 89 8.8 8.9 4112005 1 1 1 18.25 <---
.512“ 90 8.9 9 4112005 1 1 l 19.71 <---
3020 91 9 9.1 4112005 1 1 1 13.69 <---
92 9.1 9.2 4112005 1 1 1 15.05 <---
93 9.2 9.3 4112005 1 1 l 2.75 <---
94 9.3 9.4 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
95 9.4 9.5 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
96 9.5 9.6 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
97 9.6 9.7 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
98 9.7 9.8 4112005 1 1 l 0 <---
99 9.8 9.9 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
100 9.9 10 4112005 1 l 1 0 <---
101 10 10.1 4112005 1 l 1 0 <---
102 10.1 10.2 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
103 10.2 10.3 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
104 10.3 10.4 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
105 10.4 10.5 4112005 1 i 1 0 <---
106 10.5 10.6 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
107 10.6 10.7 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
108 10.7 10.8 4112005 1 l 1 0 <---
109 10.8 10.9 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
110 10.9 11 4112005 1 i 1 0 <---
111 11 11.1 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
112 11.1 11.2 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
113 11.2 11.3 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
114 11.3 11.4 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
115 11.4 11.5 4112005 1 1 1 2.94 <---
116 11.5 11.6 4112005 1 1 1 3 <---
117 11.6 11.7 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
118 11.7 11.8 4112005 1 1 1 1.48 <---
119 11.8 11.9 4112005 1 1 1 3.52 <---
120 11.9 12 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
121 12 12.1 4112005 1 i 1 0 <---
122 12.1 12.2 4112005 1 1 i 1 <---
123 12.2 12.3 4112005 1 1 1 0 <---
124 12.3 12.4 4112005 1 l 1 0.5 <---
125 12.4 12.5 4112005 1 1 1 0.5 <---
126 12.5 12.6 4112005 1 1 l 0 <---

 

170

 

Table B22 (cont’d)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. , , Number
g Region Route Direction CS of 0.1 TAPE ID=S102-Y2005 TAPE
'8“ Com“ 8 I96 EB 47065 mile BMP=00.000
9" .
Survey Pav't 360110115 Survey Normalized to 0.1
BMP EMP Date Type Lane DI mile DI values

127 12.6 12.7 4112005 1 1 l 0 <---

128 12.7 12.8 4112005 1 1 1 0.5 <---

129 12.8 12.9 4112005 1 1 1 3.5 <---

130 12.9 13 4112005 1 l 1 4.5 <---

131 13 13.1 4112005 1 1 1 2 <--—

132 13.1 13.2 4112005 1 1 l 0 <——-

133 13.2 13.3 4112005 1 1 1 0.94 <---

134 13.3 13.4 4112005 1 1 1 1.94 <---

135 13.4 13.5 4112005 1 1 1 0 <-—-

136 13.5 13.6 4112005 1 1 l O <---

137 13.6 13.719 4112005 1 1.19 1 0.420 <--- Normalized

138 13.719 13.819 4112005 3 l 1 13.25 <---

139 13.819 13.919 4112005 3 1 1 11.78 <---

140 13.919 14.019 4112005 3 l l 13.99 <---

141 14.019 14.119 4112005 3 1 1 17.04 <---

142 14.119 14.255 4112005 3 1.36 1 12.471 <--- Normalized

 

171

 

10.

REFERENCES

. AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Construction, “Major Types of Transportation

Construction Specifications: A Guideline to Understanding Their Evolution and
Application,” August 2003, Viewed November 3, 2008,
<http://cms.transportation.org/sites/construction/docs/Maj or%20Types%200f%20Co
nstr%20Specs,%20August%202003,%20Final.pdf>

Benson, P.E. “Performance Review of a Quality Control/Quality Assurance
Specification for Asphalt Concrete,” Transportation Research Record 1654, 1999, pp.
88-94.

. Butlar, W.G.; Harrell, M. “Development of End—Result and Performance-Related

Specifications for Asphalt Pavement Construction in Illinois,” 1998 Transportation
Conference Proceedings, Iowa State University, Arnes, IA, pp. 195-202.

Cyna, Michele, “Lane Rental: Creating Incentives for Early Completion of Road
Work,” October 1992, Transportation, Water and Urban Development Department:
The World Bank, viewed November 3, 2008,
<http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTRANSPORT/Resources/336291-
1119275973157/td-rd12.pdf>

Elliot, R.P.; Qiu, Y. “Analysis of Contractor Pay Adjustment Schedule Using
Simulation,” Transportation Research Record 1544, 1996, pp. 109-115.

Federal. Highway Administration, FHWA November 2003, “Asphalt Pavement
Warranties Technology and Practice in Europe,” Viewed November 3, 2008,
<http://international.fl1wa.dot. gov/apw/apwscan.pdf>

Hein, D.; Olidis, C.; Darter, M.; Von Quintus, H.; “Impact of Recent Technology
Advancements on Pavement Life,” 2003, Long Life Pavements Session of Annual
Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada: St. John’s, Newfoundland
and Labrador

. Kopac, Peter A. “Making Roads Better and Better,” J uly/August 2002, Federal

Highway Administration, Viewed November 5, 2008,
<http ://www.tfl1rc . gov/pubrds/02j u1/06.htm>

Michigan Department of Transportation, “1996 Standard Specifications for
Construction,” Lansing, MI, May 1, 1996

Michigan Department of Transportation, “2003 Standard Specifications for
Construction,” Lansing, MI, February 27, 2003

172

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Mn/DOT Innovative Contracting
Summary,” Office of Construction and Innovative Contracting, 2000-2005, Viewed
November 3, 2008,
<http://www.dot.state.mn.us/const/tools/documents/Lanerentalonly.pdf>

Molenaar, K.R.; Yakowenko, G. “Alternative Project Delivery, Procurement, and
Contracting Methods for Highways,” Construction Institute, ASCE Publications,
2006

Moore, R.M.; Mahoney, J .P.; Hicks, R.G.; and Wilson, J .E. “Overview of Pay-
Adjustment Factors for Asphalt Concrete Mixtures,” Transportation Research Record
821, 1981, pp. 49-56.

NCHRP Synthesis 212, “Performance Related Specifications for Highway
Construction and Rehabilitation,” Transportation Research Board, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 1995

NCHRP Synthesis 293, “Reducing and Mitigating Impacts of Lane Occupancy
During Construction and Maintenance,” Transportation Research Board, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, DC, 2000

NCHRP Synthesis 346, “State Construction Quality Assurance Programs,”
Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
Washington, DC, 2005

Neuman, T.R.; Antonucci, N.D.; “Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO
Strategic Highway Safety Plan: A Guide for Reducing Work Zone Collisions,”
NCHRP Report 500, Volume 17, Transportation Research Board, 2005.

Newman, R.B.; Hejl, F.D. “Contracting Practices and Payment Procedures,”
Transportation Research Record 986, 1984, pp. 50-59.

Patel, A.; Thompson, M. “Consideration and Characterization of Pavement
Construction Variability,” Transportation Research Record 1632, 1998, pp. 40-50.

Patel, A.; Thompson, M.; Harm, E.; and Shefiick, W. “Developing QC/QA
Specifications for Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete in Illinois,” Transportation Research
Record 1575, 1997, pp. 66-74.

Pena, Robert, Incentive Disincentive Database Historical Development, MDOT File,
C:\data\ IncentiveDisincentiveDatabaseHistorical Development.doc l:\BobPena

\IncentiveDisincentive\IncentiveDisincentiveDatabaseHistoricalDevelopment.doc

Riley, Orrin, “An Overview of Incentives and Disincentives,” Transportation
Research Circular, Innovative Contracting Practices 386, 1991, pp. 57-64.

173

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

Schmitt, R.L.; Russel, J.S.; Hanna, A.A.; Bahia, H.U.; Jung, G.A. “Summary of
Current Quality Control/Quality Assurance Practices for Hot-Mix Asphalt
Construction,” Transportation Research Record 1632, 1998, pp. 22-31.

Smith, K.L.; Smith, K.D.; Evans, L.D.; Hoemer, T.E.; Darter, M.I. “Smoothness
Specifications for Pavements,” March 1997, NCHRP Transportation Research Board
National Research Council, Viewed November 3, 2008,

<http ://books. nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=63 3 7&page=R1>

Sorenson, J .; Terry, E.; Mathis, D. “Maintaining the Customer-Driven Highway,”
November/December 1998, Federal Highway Administration, Viewed November 5,
2008, < http://www.tihrc.gov/pubrds/novdec98/customer.htm>

Transtec Group Inc., 2006-2008, Smoothness Specifications Online, The Transtec
Group Inc., Austin, Texas, viewed November 3, 2008,
http://www.smoothpavements.com/content.aspx?id=l

United States Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration,
“Performance Contracting: A New Way of Doing Business,” Focus, Issue September
2008, McLean, VA

Utah Department of Transportation, “Lane Rental Guidelines,” March 28, 2005,
Viewed November 3, 2008,
<www.dot.state.ut.us/main/uconowner. gf?n=2005 0405073 8331>

Washington State Department of Transportation, “WSDOT Pavement Guide,” 2008,
Viewed November 3, 2008, <http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/>

Weed, R.M.; Burati, J.L.; Hughes, C.S.; Hill, H.S. “Optimal Procedures for Quality
Assurance Specifications,” Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-RD-02-095,
Viewed November 3, 2008,
<http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/pccp/pubs/OZ095/02095.pdf>

Weed, R.M. “A Rational Method for Relating As-Built Quality to Pavement
Performance and Value,” Transportation Research Record 1632, 1998, pp. 32—39.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation, “Construction and Materials Manual,”
April 2006, Viewed November 10, 2008,
<https://trust.dot.state.wi.us/static/standards/cmm/index.htm>

Zaghloul, S.; Saeed, N.A.; Jassim, A.A.; Rafi, A.M.; “End-Result Specifications for
Warranted Asphalt Pavements,” Transportation Research Record 1632, 1998, pp. 1 -
12.

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 43021-32402, Item Number 9310 025” October
13, 1993, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

174

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 41132-33805, Item Number 9407 020” July 8,
1994, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 75022-34057, Item Number 9501 017” January
11, 1995, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 11017-32516, Item Number 9505 040” May 12,
1995, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 41031-34695, Item Number 9609 045” September
6, 1996, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 44011-39584, Item Number 9610 025” October 4,
1996, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 09032-34075, Item Number 9612 011” December
6, 1996, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

. “Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 41062-38175-2, Item Number 9612 014”

December 6, 1996, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 18031-38620, Item Number 9703 001” March 7,
1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 18042-32325, Item Number 9703 031” March 7,
1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 82061-26748, Item Number 9703 013” March 7,
1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 06073-32357, Item Number 9704 015” April 4,
1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 28052-35018, Item Number 9705 022” May 2,
1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 59051-32346, Item Number 9705 025” May 2,
1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 11111-44788, Item Number 9708 610” August 21,
1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 83033-43613, Item Number 9709 040” September
5, 1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

175

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62

63.

64.

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 39102-32377, Item Number 9711 001” November
7, 1997, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 13031-34497, Item Number 9801 014” January
14, 1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 11057-34507, Item Number 9802 604” February
20, 1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 82291-44574, Item Number 9802 602” February
20, 1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 83052-37903, Item Number 9803 003” March 6,
1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 82144-38108, Item Number 9804 021” April 3,
1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 55022-45116, Item Number 9804 607” April 7,
1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 83033-33006, Item Number 9807 009” July 10,
1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 08032-45621, Item Number 9810 602” October
23, 1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 12022-47583, Item Number 9811 026” November
6, 1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 25402-46500, Item Number 9811 019” November
6, 1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 70023-38181, Item Number 9811 033” November
6, 1998, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

. “Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 11112-38605, Item Number 9903 039” March 3,

1999, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 83033-33007, Item Number 9903 042” March 3,
1999, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 63043-30157, Item Number 9904 009” April 2,
1999, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

176

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 13074-49029, Item Number 9906 040” June 11,
1999, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 41031-34693, Item Number 0004 030” April 5,
2000, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 13032-39654, Item Number 0009 024”
September 8, 2000, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 74031-45847, Item Number 0012 019” December
1, 2000, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 41064-33337, Item Number 0002 029” February
4, 2000, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 79031-45850, Item Number 0010 004” October 4,
2000, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 83031-48538, Item Number 0101 034” January
10, 2001, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 13011-38086, Item Number 0103 031” March 2,
2001, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 41131-44778, Item Number 0108 046” August 3,
2001, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 13021-38091, Item Number 0112 006” December
7, 2001, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 11015-60510, Item Number 0212 051” February
6, 2002, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 70024-60265, Item Number 0212 052” February
6, 2002, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 70024-60495, Item Number 0209 038” September
6, 2002, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 70081-60279, Item Number 0210 030” October 4,
2002, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

“Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 79032-48599, Item Number 0211 022” November
1, 2002, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

177

80. “Project Proposal for Contract I.D. 13073-50776, Item Number 0311 001” November
7, 2003, State of Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, MI

178

   

mollllllllllllll11111111111lllllllllllfis
3 1293 03062 5762