IMPACTS OF DESIGN FACTORS, MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT CONDITION AND DISTRESS USING THE LTPP TEST SECTIONS By Gopikrishna Musunuru A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Civil EngineeringMaster of Science 2016 ABSTRACT IMPACTS OF DESIGN FACTORS, AND MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION TREATMENTS ON PAVEMENT CONDITION AND DISTRESS USING THE LTPP TEST SECTIONS By Gopikrishna Musunuru Pavement sections are typically subjected to a series of several maintenance and rehabilitation treatments over the lifetime of the pavement to restore conditions and prevent deterioration. A knowledge gap exists between treatment strategy selection and the estimation of treatment effectiveness and condition forecasting. Several pavement treatments have been applied to the test sections of the LTPP experiments SPS-1 through SPS-7 and GPS-6, -7 and -9. In this study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the time series pavement condition and distress data of such LTPP test sections and test sections in the States of Washington, Louisiana, and Colorado, where several pavement treatments have been applied were analyzed and the effectiveness of each treatment and each series of treatments were quantified. Treatments effectiveness were studied in terms of several metrics such as immediate change in functional/structural period (CFP/CSP), functional/structural condition reoccurrence period (FCROP/SCROP), and remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP). Based on a synthesis of the results, recommendations were made for pavement managers to better perform LCCA and for future research. iii TO MOM, DAD, & MONAiv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Gilbert Baladi, for his gracious extension of help and guidance through this study. I would also like to thank the Michigan State University department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, and my advisory committee, Dr. Syed Waqar Haider and Dr. Neeraj Buch I would also like to thank the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for sponsoring and funding this study. Thanks also to Dr. Tyler Dawson who is part of the research team. The technical, personal, and financial support of the above mentioned as well as my family has made this all possible. Thank you to everyone who has made this possible. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .........................................................................................................................ix LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... xxiv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Problem Statement ................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Objectives of this study............................................................................................................ 4 1.4 Research Plan ........................................................................................................................... 4 1.5 Thesis Layout ........................................................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................ 8 2.1 Pavement Distress Severity Levels .......................................................................................... 8 2.2 Engineering Thresholds (Criteria) ......................................................................................... 11 2.3 Pavement Distress and Condition Indices.............................................................................. 16 2.4 Descriptive Pavement Conditions (Good, Fair, and Poor) ................................................... 17 2.5 Pavement Performance Modeling and Prediction.................................................................. 20 2.6 Pavement Preservation Benefits ............................................................................................ 24 2.7 Pavement Treatment Types.................................................................................................... 31 2.8 Pavement Treatment Selection............................................................................................... 31 2.9 Pavement Preservation Costs ................................................................................................. 35 2.9.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) ................................................................................ 36 2.9.1.1 The Need for LCCA.............................................................................................. 37 2.9.1.2 Methods of LCCA................................................................................................. 38 2.10 Pavement Preservation Effectiveness .................................................................................. 39 2.10.1 Pavement Preservation CostEffectiveness at the Project Level.................................. 41 2.10.2 Pavement Preservation Effectiveness at the Network Level ...................................... 41 2.11 Treatment Transition Matrix (T2M) .................................................................................... 42 2.12 Preservation Timing Selection ............................................................................................. 42 2.13 The LTPP Program .............................................................................................................. 45 2.14 Objectives and Scope of LTPP Program ............................................................................. 46 2.15 LTPP Test Sections .............................................................................................................. 46 2.15.1 Special Pavement Studies (SPS) ................................................................................. 47 2.15.2 General Pavement Studies (GPS) ............................................................................... 47 2.16 Summary of Previous Findings............................................................................................ 48 2.16.1 Impacts of Pavement Treatment on Pavement Performance ...................................... 50 2.16.2 Impacts of Design Variables on Pavement Performance............................................ 52 2.16.2.1 Climatic Variables ............................................................................................. 53 2.16.2.2 Roadbed Soils..................................................................................................... 54 2.16.2.3 Joint Load Transfer............................................................................................ 55 2.16.2.4 Drainage ............................................................................................................ 57 2.16.2.5 Base Type ........................................................................................................... 57 2.16.2.6 Slab Width .......................................................................................................... 58 vi CHAPTER 3 PAVEMENT CONDITION CLASSIFICATION ................................................. 59 3.1 Foreword ................................................................................................................................ 59 3.2 Pavement Condition Rating System ...................................................................................... 62 3.3 Recommended Threshold Values .......................................................................................... 75 3.4 Flexibility of the Pavement Rating Systems .......................................................................... 81 CHAPTER 4 DATA MINING AND SYNTHESIS .................................................................... 87 4.1 Data Sources .......................................................................................................................... 87 4.2 Automated and Manual Pavement Distress Data................................................................... 88 4.3 Data Extraction ...................................................................................................................... 89 4.3.1 Inventory Data............................................................................................................... 89 4.3.2 Time Series Pavement Condition and Distress Data .................................................... 91 4.3.3 Pavement Rehabilitation, Preservation, and Maintenance Data ................................... 94 4.3.4 Traffic Data ................................................................................................................... 95 4.3.5 Climatic Data ................................................................................................................ 95 4.4 Status of the Condition and Distress Data ............................................................................. 95 4.5 Status of the Maintenance and Rehabilitation Data ............................................................... 97 4.6 Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................................... 97 CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSES Œ FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS ............................................ 110 5.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 110 5.2 Modeling of the Time Series Pavement Condition and Distress Data................................. 110 5.3 Impacts of Climatic Regions, Drainage and AC Thickness on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP SPS-1 Test Sections ........................................................................................ 116 5.3.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) .......................................................................... 126 5.3.2 Rut Depth (RD) ........................................................................................................... 128 5.3.3 Alligator cracking (AC) .............................................................................................. 129 5.3.4 Longitudinal Cracking (LC) ....................................................................................... 131 5.3.5 Transverse Cracking (TC)........................................................................................... 132 5.4 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, SPS-1...................................................... 133 5.5 Impacts of Maintenance Treatments on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP SPS-3 Test Sections .............................................................................................................................. 135 5.5.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) .......................................................................... 139 5.5.2 Rut Depth ................................................................................................................... 142 5.5.3 Alligator cracking ...................................................................................................... 143 5.5.4 Longitudinal cracking ................................................................................................. 146 5.5.5 Transverse cracking .................................................................................................... 147 5.6 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations, SPS-3....................................................... 149 5.7 Impact of Rehabilitation Treatments on Pavement Performance Using LTPP SPS-5 Test Sections ...................................................................................................................................... 154 5.8 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations, SPS-5....................................................... 168 5.9 Impacts of Pavement Treatments on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP GPS-6 Test Sections ...................................................................................................................................... 169 5.9.1 IRI ............................................................................................................................... 171 5.9.2 Rut Depth .................................................................................................................... 175 5.9.3 Alligator Cracking ...................................................................................................... 175 vii 5.9.4 Longitudinal Cracking ................................................................................................ 176 5.9.5 Transverse Cracking ................................................................................................... 176 5.9.6 Impact of the Before Treatment Condition and Distress on the Performance of the Pavement After Treatments (GPS6) .................................................................................... 177 5.10 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations, GPS-6 .................................................... 183 CHAPTER 6 DATA ANALYSES - RIGID PAVEMENTS ..................................................... 185 6.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 185 6.2 Impacts of Climatic Regions, Drainage, Slab Thickness, Concrete Flexural Strength, and Slab Width on Pavement Condition and Distress Using LTPP SPS-2 Test Section ................. 185 6.2.1 Intern Roughness Index (IRI) .................................................................................... 190 6.2.2 Longitudinal Cracking ................................................................................................ 204 6.2.3 Transverse Cracking ................................................................................................... 204 6.3 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations SPS-2........................................................ 205 6.4 Impacts of Maintenance Treatments on Pavement Condition and Distress Using the LTPP SPS-4 Test Sections ......................................................................................................... 206 6.4.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) .......................................................................... 207 6.4.2 Longitudinal Cracking ................................................................................................ 211 6.4.3 Transverse Cracking ................................................................................................... 211 6.5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations.................................................................. 212 6.6 Impacts of Rehabilitation Treatments on Pavement Condition and Distress Using the LTPP SPS-6 Test Sections, SPS-4 ............................................................................................. 213 6.6.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) .......................................................................... 215 6.6.2 Rut Depth .................................................................................................................... 215 6.6.3 Alligator Cracking....................................................................................................... 221 6.6.4 Longitudinal Cracking ................................................................................................ 222 6.6.5 Transverse Cracking ................................................................................................... 222 6.7 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations, SPS-6....................................................... 223 6.8 Impacts of Bonded Concrete Overlays on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP SPS-7 Test Sections .............................................................................................................................. 224 6.8.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) .......................................................................... 226 6.8.2 Longitudinal Cracking ................................................................................................ 227 6.8.3 Transverse Cracking ................................................................................................... 230 6.9 Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations, SPS-7 ....................................................... 231 6.10 Impacts of Pavement Treatments on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP GPS-7 Test Sections .............................................................................................................................. 231 6.10.1International Roughness Index (IRI) ......................................................................... 234 6.10.2 Rut Depth .................................................................................................................. 234 6.10.3 Alligator Cracking..................................................................................................... 234 6.10.4 Longitudinal Cracking .............................................................................................. 236 6.10.5 Transverse Cracking ................................................................................................. 237 CHAPTER 7 STATE DATA ANALYSES ............................................................................... 240 7.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 240 7.2 Analyses Procedure Steps .................................................................................................... 241 7.3 International Roughness Index (IRI) ................................................................................... 245 viii 7.4 Rut Depth ............................................................................................................................. 245 7.5 Alligator Cracking................................................................................................................ 251 7.6 Longitudinal Cracking ......................................................................................................... 254 7.7 Transverse Cracking ............................................................................................................ 254 7.8 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations.................................................................. 260 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMEDATIONS ........................... 263 8.1 Summary .............................................................................................................................. 263 8.2 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................... 266 8.2.1 Pavement Performance Measures ............................................................................... 266 8.2.2 Flexible Pavements ..................................................................................................... 267 8.2.3 Rigid and Composite Pavements ................................................................................ 269 8.2.4 State Data .................................................................................................................... 271 8.3 Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 272 8.3.1 Pavement Performance Measures ............................................................................... 272 8.3.2 Flexible Pavements ..................................................................................................... 273 8.3.3 State Data .................................................................................................................... 273 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 275 Appendix A - Inventory of Automated and Manual Surveys .................................................... 276 Appendix B - Summary of the LTPP Data ............................................................................... 291 Appendix C - Detailed Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-1 Test sections; Impacts of Climatic Regions, AC Thickness, and Drainage on Pavement Performance ........................... 467 Appendix D - Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-3 Test sections; Impacts of the pavement distress before treatment on pavement performance ................................................. 499 Appendix E - Detailed Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-2 Test sections Impacts of Pavement Design Variables and Climatic Regions ................................................ 509 Appendix F - Treatment Transition Matrices of Various Treatments Done on Flexible Pavement Segments in Various States ...................................................................................... 523 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 585 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Engineering criteria and deduct points for alligator cracking (Khattak & Baladi 2007) ............................................................................................................................................ 16 Table 2.2 Estimated and reported pavement treatment service life ............................................. 23 Table 2.3 Typical pavement condition models (ME PDG 2004, Dawson 2012) ........................ 26 Table 2.4 Example of decision matrix (Asphalt Institute 1983) .................................................. 33 Table 2.5 Review of user cost components (Reigle & Zaniewski 2002)..................................... 35 Table 2.6 Historical discount rates............................................................................................... 40 Table 2.7 T2M for single chip seal, state of Colorado ................................................................. 44 Table 2.8 The SPS categories and experiments (after Elkins et al. 2012) ................................... 48 Table 2.9 The GPS experiments (Elkins et al. 2012)................................................................... 49 Table 3.1 Pavement condition rating based on three condition states ......................................... 65 Table 3.2 Pavement condition rating based on five condition states ........................................... 66 Table 3.3 Progressive calculation of RSP of the idealized rut depth ........................................... 69 Table 3.4 The RFP of test section 0102, state of Iowa, based on the IRI data listed below ........ 70 Table 3.5 Threshold values describing the RFP .......................................................................... 76 Table 3.6 Threshold values describing the RSP .......................................................................... 76 Table 4.1 Active SPS test sections, as of January 2014............................................................... 87 Table 4.2 Active GPS test sections, as of January 2014 .............................................................. 87 Table 4.3 Number of manual and semiautomated surveys for test sections in SPS-1 experiment.................................................................................................................................... 90 Table 4.4 Number of cracking data points available before and after pavement treatments, SPS-1 test sections in the state of Montana ................................................................................. 99 Table 4.5 Number of SPS test sections with available treatment data in the database ................ 99 x Table 4.6 Number of GPS test sections with available treatment data in the database ............... 99 Table 4.7 Condition or distress type eligible for data addition for different treatments............ 102 Table 4.8 Summary of cracking data for SPS-1 test sections located in the drynofreeze region ......................................................................................................................................... 103 Table 4.9 Summary of treatments applied to SPS-1 to SPS-7 and GPS-6, -7, and -9 that were analyzed in this study ................................................................................................................. 104 Table 5.1 Mathematical functions used in the analyses of the pavement distress and condition data ............................................................................................................................. 113 Table 5.2 Crack saturation values used in the analyses of the pavement cracking data ............ 114 Table 5.3 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on IRI ..................................................................................... 120 Table 5.4 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP/RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on rut depth ........................................................................ 121 Table 5.5 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on alligator cracking............................................................... 122 Table 5.6 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on longitudinal cracking......................................................... 123 Table 5.7 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on transverse cracking............................................................ 124 Table 5.8 Summary of the results of analyses of the effects of climatic regions on the performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections ........................................................................... 125 Table 5.9 Linked GPS sections that serve as control sections (after Hall et al. 2002) .............. 137 Table 5.10 Number of test sections that have BT and AT pavement condition and distress, and traffic data. .......................................................................................................................... 138 Table 5.11 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI ............................................................................... 140 Table 5.12 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth .............................................................. 145 Table 5.13 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking......................................................... 147 xi Table 5.14 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking................................................... 150 Table 5.15 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking ...................................................... 151 Table 5.16 Summary of the impact of treatment type on pavement performance relative to the control sections..................................................................................................................... 153 Table 5.17 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI for virgin AC mixes ....................................................................... 155 Table 5.18 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI for recycled AC mixes ................................................................... 156 Table 5.19 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth for virgin AC mixes ...................................................... 157 Table 5.20 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth for recycled AC mixes .................................................. 158 Table 5.21 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking for virgin AC mixes................................................. 159 Table 5.22 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking for recycled AC mixes ............................................ 160 Table 5.23 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking for virgin AC mixes........................................... 161 Table 5.24 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking for recycled AC mixes....................................... 162 Table 5.25 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking ............................................................................... 163 Table 5.26 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking for recycled AC mixes .......................................... 164 Table 5.27 Summary of benefits of various rehabilitation treatments ....................................... 165 Table 5.28 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CFP based on IRI ......................................................................................................................................... 172 xii Table 5.29 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CFP/CSP based on rut depth ...................................................................................................................... 172 Table 5.30 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on alligator cracking................................................................................................................... 173 Table 5.31 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on longitudinal cracking............................................................................................................. 173 Table 5.32 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on transverse cracking................................................................................................................ 174 Table 5.33 Functional treatment transition matrix (IRI, number of LTPP test sections) .......... 179 Table 5.34 Functional treatment transition matrix (IRI, number of LTPP test sections) .......... 180 Table 5.35 Structural treatment transition matrix (transverse cracking, number of LTPP test sections) ..................................................................................................................................... 181 Table 5.36 Structural treatment transition matrix (transverse cracking, number of LTPP test sections) ..................................................................................................................................... 182 Table 6.1 Analyssis subgroups and the number of test sections available for analyses in the SPS-2 experiment in each subgroup .......................................................................................... 188 Table 6.2 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa .................................................................................................................... 191 Table 6.3 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa .................................................................................................................... 192 Table 6.4 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa .................................................................................................................... 193 Table 6.5 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa .................................................................................................................... 194 Table 6.6 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa ........................................................................................ 195 xiii Table 6.7 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa ........................................................................................ 196 Table 6.8 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa ....................................................................................... 197 Table 6.9 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa ....................................................................................... 198 Table 6.10 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa ....................................................................................... 199 Table 6.11 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa ....................................................................................... 200 Table 6.12 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa ....................................................................................... 201 Table 6.13 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa ....................................................................................... 202 Table 6.14 Summary of the results of analyses of the effects of climatic regions on the performance of the LTPP SPS-2 test sections ........................................................................... 203 Table 6.15 Number of test sections that have AT pavement condition and distress, and traffic data. ................................................................................................................................. 208 Table 6.16 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI ............................................................................... 209 Table 6.17 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking................................................... 210 Table 6.18 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking ...................................................... 210 Table 6.19 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI ......................................................................................................... 216 xiv Table 6.20 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth........................................................................................ 217 Table 6.21 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking .................................................................................. 218 Table 6.22 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking ............................................................................ 219 Table 6.23 Impacts of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking ............................................................................... 220 Table 6.24 Impacts of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI ............................................................................................................................... 228 Table 6.25 Impacts of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking .................................................................................................. 228 Table 6.26 Impacts of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking...................................................................................................... 229 Table 6.27 Impacts of various treatment types on the RFP of the test sections based on IRI ... 235 Table 6.28 Impacts of various treatment types on the RFP/RSP of the test sections based on rut depth ..................................................................................................................................... 235 Table 6.29 Impacts of various treatment types on the RSP of test sections based on alligator cracking ...................................................................................................................................... 238 Table 6.30 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking............................................................................................................. 238 Table 6.31 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking................................................................................................................ 239 Table 7.1 Number of available 0.1 mile pavement segments and LTPP test sections ............. 244 Table 7.2 Comparisons of the benefits based on IRI of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ...................................... 246 Table 7.3 Comparisons between RFP/RSP based on rut depth of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ................ 249 Table 7.4 Comparisons between RSP based on alligator cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 252 xv Table 7.5 Comparisons between RSP based on longitudinal cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ....... 255 Table 7.6 Comparisons between RSP based on transverse cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ....... 258 Table A.1 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-2 test sections.......................... 278 Table A.2 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-3 test sections.......................... 279 Table A.3 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-4 test sections.......................... 281 Table A.4 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-5 test sections.......................... 282 Table A.5 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-6 test sections.......................... 283 Table A.6 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-7 test sections.......................... 284 Table A.7 Number of manual and automated surveys for GPS-6 test sections ......................... 285 Table A.8 Number of manual and automated surveys for GPS-7 test sections ......................... 289 Table A.9 Number of manual and automated surveys for GPS-9 test sections ......................... 290 Table B.1 Summary of cracking data for SPS-1 test sections ................................................... 293 Table B.2 Summary of cracking data for SPS-2 test sections ................................................... 295 Table B.3 Summary of cracking data for SPS-3 test sections ................................................... 297 Table B.4 Summary of cracking data for SPS 4 test sections.................................................... 305 Table B.5 Summary of cracking data for SPS 5 test sections.................................................... 308 Table B.6 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6 test sections ................................................... 313 Table B.7 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7 test sections ................................................... 325 Table B.8 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6A test sections ................................................ 326 Table B.9 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6B test sections................................................. 331 Table B.10 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6C test sections............................................... 336 Table B.11 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6D test sections .............................................. 337 xvi Table B.12 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6S test sections ............................................... 338 Table B.13 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7A test sections .............................................. 343 Table B.14 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7B test sections............................................... 345 Table B.15 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7C test sections............................................... 348 Table B.16 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7D test sections .............................................. 350 Table B.17 Summary of cracking data for GPS-9 test sections................................................. 351 Table B.18 Summary of IRI data for SPS-1 test sections .......................................................... 352 Table B.19 Summary of IRI data for SPS-2 test sections .......................................................... 355 Table B.20 Summary of IRI data for SPS-3 test sections .......................................................... 357 Table B.21 Summary of IRI data for SPS-4 test sections .......................................................... 365 Table B.22 Summary of IRI data for SPS-5 test sections .......................................................... 368 Table B.23 Summary of IRI data for SPS-6 test sections .......................................................... 373 Table B.24 Summary of IRI data for SPS-7 test sections .......................................................... 385 Table B.25 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6A test sections ...................................................... 386 Table B.26 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6B test sections ...................................................... 390 Table B.27 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6C test sections ...................................................... 395 Table B.28 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6D test sections ...................................................... 396 Table B.29 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6S test sections ....................................................... 397 Table B.30 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7A test sections ...................................................... 402 Table B.31 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7B test sections ...................................................... 404 Table B.32 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7C test sections ...................................................... 407 Table B.33 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7D test sections ...................................................... 409 Table B.34 Summary of IRI data for GPS-9 test sections ......................................................... 410 xvii Table B.35 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-1 test sections ................................................. 411 Table B.36 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-3 test sections ................................................. 414 Table B.37 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-5 test sections ................................................. 422 Table B.38 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-6 test sections ................................................. 427 Table B.39 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6A test sections ............................................. 432 Table B.40 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6B test sections ............................................. 436 Table B.41 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6C test sections ............................................. 441 Table B.42 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6D test sections ............................................. 442 Table B.43 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6S test sections .............................................. 443 Table B.44 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-7A test sections ............................................. 448 Table B.45 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-7B test sections ............................................. 450 Table B.46 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-7C test sections ............................................. 453 Table B.47 Summary of faulting data for SPS-2 test sections................................................... 456 Table B.48 Summary of faulting data for SPS-4 test sections................................................... 458 Table B.49 Summary of faulting data for SPS-6 test sections................................................... 461 Table B.50 Summary of faulting data for GPS-9 test sections .................................................. 466 Table C.1 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic regions on pavement performance in terms of the remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections................... 469 Table C.2 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections......................... 470 Table C.3 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections......................... 471 Table C.4 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections......................... 472 xviii Table C.5 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth ..................................................................................................................................... 473 Table C.6 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth ..................................................................................................................................... 474 Table C.7 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth ..................................................................................................................................... 475 Table C.8 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth ..................................................................................................................................... 476 Table C.9 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking ....... 477 Table C.10 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking ....... 478 Table C.11 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking .......... 479 Table C.12 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking480 Table C.13 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking ...................................................................................................................................... 481 Table C.14 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking . 482 Table C.15 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking .... 483 Table C.16 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking ...................................................................................................................................... 484 Table C.17 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking ...................................................................................................................................... 485 xix Table C.18 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking .... 486 Table C.19 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking ....... 487 Table C.20 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking ...................................................................................................................................... 488 Table E.1 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic regions on pavement performance in terms of the remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections................... 511 Table E.2 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections......................... 512 Table E.3 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections......................... 513 Table E.4 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections ......................................................................... 514 Table E.5 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking ................................................ 515 Table E.6 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking ................................................... 516 Table E.7 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking ................................................... 517 Table E.8 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking ........................................ 518 Table E.9 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking.................................................... 519 Table E.10 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking.................................................... 520 Table E.11 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking....................................................... 521 Table E.12 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking............................................ 522 xx Table F.1 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................................................... 525 Table F.2 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 526 Table F.3 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) .................................................... 527 Table F.4 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 528 Table F.5 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 529 Table F.6 Functional treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................................................... 530 Table F.7 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 531 Table F.8 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) .................................................... 532 Table F.9 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 533 Table F.10 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 534 Table F.11 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ............................................................... 535 Table F.12 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 536 Table F.13 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 537 Table F.14 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 538 Table F.15 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 539 xxi Table F.16 Functional treatment transition matrix for chip seal (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................................................... 540 Table F.17 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) .................................................... 541 Table F.18 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) .................................................... 542 Table F.19 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) ....................................... 543 Table F.20 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) .................................................... 544 Table F.21 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................................................ 545 Table F.22 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 546 Table F.23 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) ......................................................... 547 Table F.24 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 548 Table F.25 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 549 Table F.26 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) ................................................................... 550 Table F.27 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 551 Table F.28 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 552 Table F.29 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 553 Table F.30 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 554 xxii Table F.31 Functional treatment transition matrix for chip seal (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................................................ 555 Table F.32 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) ......................................................... 556 Table F.33 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) ............................................................. 557 Table F.34 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado)............................................ 558 Table F.35 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) ......................................................... 559 Table F.36 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................................................... 560 Table F.37 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 561 Table F.38 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) ........................................................ 562 Table F.39 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 563 Table F.40 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 564 Table F.41 Functional treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................................................... 565 Table F.42 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 566 Table F.43 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 567 Table F.44 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 568 Table F.45 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 569 xxiii Table F.46 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)................................................................... 570 Table F.47 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 571 Table F.48 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 572 Table F.49 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 573 Table F.50 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 574 Table F.51 Functional treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)................................................................... 575 Table F.52 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 576 Table F.53 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 577 Table F.54 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) ........................... 578 Table F.55 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 579 Table F.56 Functional treatment transition matrix for chip seal (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................................................... 580 Table F.57 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) ........................................................ 581 Table F.58 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) ............................................................ 582 Table F.59 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana)........................................... 583 Table F.60 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) ........................................................ 584 xxiv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Time series transverse cracking data for each severity level and the sum of all severity levels, SPS-3 test section A330, state of California ......................................................... 9 Figure 2.2 Cumulative time series transverse cracking data showing individual transverse crack severity level and the sum of all severity levels, SPS-3 test section A330, state of California ....................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 2.3 Time series transverse cracking data for each severity level and the sum of all severity levels, HWY 24, direction 2, BMP 329.9, state of Colorado ......................................... 12 Figure 2.4 Cumulative time series transverse cracking data showing individual transverse crack severity level and the sum of all severity levels, HWY 24, direction 2, BMP 329.9, state of Colorado .......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.5 Rating and descriptive scales and distress points ....................................................... 13 Figure 2.6 Descriptive regions of rating scales or pavement condition (Dawson et al. 2011) .... 14 Figure 2.7 Pavement condition classification system (after Khazanovich et al. 1998) ............... 19 Figure 2.8 Shortcomings of Khazanovich et al. recommended classification system when dealing with real but good data (not the worst case scenario) ..................................................... 19 Figure 2.9 A typical pavement performance curve...................................................................... 21 Figure 2.10 Schematic of the definition of SLE .......................................................................... 28 Figure 2.11 Schematic of the definition of TL ............................................................................ 29 Figure 2.12 Schematic of the definition of negative TL .............................................................. 29 Figure 2.13 Schematic of the definition of total benefit (after Peshkin et al. 2004).................... 30 Figure 2.14 Performance jump and deterioration rate reduction ................................................. 30 Figure 2.15 Example of decision tree for continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) (Hicks et al. 2000) .......................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.1 Typical pavement condition or distress over the pavement life cycle........................ 61 Figure 3.2 IRI versus elapsed time, SPS-1 test sections 0102 and 0103, state of Iowa............... 61 Figure 3.3 An example of idealized rut depth data and function versus elapsed time ................ 68 xxv Figure 3.4 RSP versus the pavement surface age for an idealized power function ..................... 68 Figure 3.5 RFP versus pavement surface age, test section 0102, state of Iowa........................... 69 Figure 3.6 RFP condition states ................................................................................................... 70 Figure 3.7 RSP condition states ................................................................................................... 71 Figure 3.8 Typical RFP over the pavement life cycle ................................................................. 71 Figure 3.9 Typical RSP over the pavement life cycle ................................................................. 72 Figure 3.10 An example pavement condition over time with two thin HMA overlays and one thin mill and fill actions ........................................................................................................ 72 Figure 3.11 Example RSP over time with two thin HMA overlay and one mill and fill actions .......................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 3.12 Envisioned change in the deflection through the progression of alligator cracking ..................................................................................................................................... 74 Figure 3.13 Idealized shaped curve for alligator cracking showing three windows (threshold values) for various treatment actions; W1 = Do nothing or light maintenance, W2 = Potential preservation actions, W3 = Potential heavy rehabilitation or reconstruction ............... 86 Figure 4.1 Transverse cracking versus elapsed time, SPS-3 test section A330, the state of California ..................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 4.2 Transverse cracking versus elapsed time, SPS-5 test section 0502, the state of California ..................................................................................................................................... 93 Figure 4.3 Total longitudinal cracking versus time, SPS-3 test section A310, the state of Maryland .................................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 4.4 Total longitudinal cracking versus time, SPS-3 control section A340, the state of Maryland .................................................................................................................................... 105 Figure 4.5 Total longitudinal cracking versus elapsed time, LTPP GPS-1634 linked section to SPS-3 experiment in the state of Maryland ........................................................................... 106 Figure 4.6 Total longitudinal cracking versus elapsed time, SPS-3 test section A350, and A340 control section in the state of New York.......................................................................... 107 Figure 4.7 IRI versus elapsed time, SPS-1 test section 0119, the state of Texas ...................... 108 xxvi Figure 5.1 Exponential, power, and logistic (sshaped) curves .................................................. 112 Figure 5.2 Flowchart of the MATLAB program ....................................................................... 115 Figure 5.3 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay ............................................................................................................................ 143 Figure 5.4 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal ............................................................................................................................... 143 Figure 5.5 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal................................................................................................................................ 144 Figure 5.6 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat ................................................................................................................. 144 Figure 7.1 Comparisons of RFP based on IRI of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ................................................. 247 Figure 7.2 Comparisons of CFP based on IRI of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ................................................. 247 Figure 7.3 Comparisons of FCROP based on IRI of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ...................................... 248 Figure 7.4 Comparisons of RFP/RSP based on rut depth of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ................ 248 Figure 7.5 Comparisons of CFP/CSP based on rut depth of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 250 Figure 7.6 Comparisons of FCROP/SCROP based on rut depth of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 250 Figure 7.7 Comparisons of RSP based on alligator cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 251 Figure 7.8 Comparisons of CSP based on alligator cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 253 Figure 7.9 Comparisons of SCROP based on alligator cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 253 Figure 7.10 Comparisons of RSP based on longitudinal cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 256 xxvii Figure 7.11 Comparisons of CSP based on longitudinal cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 256 Figure 7.12 Comparisons of SCROP based on longitudinal cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs ....... 257 Figure 7.13 Comparisons of RSP based on transverse cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 257 Figure 7.14 Comparisons of CSP based on transverse cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 259 Figure 7.15 Comparisons of SCROP based on transverse cracking of various treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs................. 259 Figure C.1 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases ........................................................................................ 489 Figure C.2 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases ........................................................................................ 489 Figure C.3 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having un-drainable bases and 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers................................................................................................. 490 Figure C.4 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having drainable bases and 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers................................................................................................. 490 Figure C.5 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................... 491 Figure C.6 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................... 491 Figure C.7 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers with un-drainable bases ................................................................................... 492 Figure C.8 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers with drainable bases ......................................................................................... 492 Figure C.9 Comparison of the average RSP of 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................................................... 493 Figure C.10 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................................................... 493 xxviii Figure C.11 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with un-drainable bases................................................................................................ 494 Figure C.12 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable bases ..................................................................................................... 494 Figure C.13 Comparison of the average RSP of 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................................................... 495 Figure C.14 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................................................... 495 Figure C.15 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with un-drainable bases................................................................................................ 496 Figure C.16 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable bases ..................................................................................................... 496 Figure C.17 Comparison of the average RSP of 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................................................... 497 Figure C.18 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases ............................................................................................................... 497 Figure C.19 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with un-drainable bases................................................................................................ 498 Figure C.20 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable bases ..................................................................................................... 498 Figure D.1 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay .............................................................................................. 501 Figure D.2 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal ................................................................................................. 501 Figure D.3 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal.................................................................................................. 502 Figure D.4 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat ................................................................................... 502 Figure D.5 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay .............................................................................................. 503 xxix Figure D.6 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal ................................................................................................. 503 Figure D.7 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal.................................................................................................. 504 Figure D.8 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat ................................................................................... 504 Figure D.9 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay .............................................................................................. 505 Figure D.10 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal .......................................................................................... 505 Figure D.11 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal ........................................................................................... 506 Figure D.12 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat............................................................................. 506 Figure D.13 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay .............................................................................................. 507 Figure D.14 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal ................................................................................................. 507 Figure D.15 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal.................................................................................................. 508 Figure D.16 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat ................................................................................... 508 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The U.S. highway system is a key part of the economy, market competitiveness, and defense of the nation. The design and construction of the U.S. interstate highway network was launched by Congress in 1956 and was essentially completed in 1992. More than halfway during the construction period, there were key concerns about the deterioration of highways that were already built. It was deemed that a huge reinvestment was required to maintain, rehabilitate, and operate the existing network. Despite the huge expenditures, there were no comprehensive research studies conducted since the AASHO Road Test (a large-scale accelerated field experiment conducted under one set of climate and soil conditions) in 1960. The effects of climatic regions, maintenance practices, long-term loads, material variations, and construction practices on pavement performance were unclear and hence a long-term study of a large number of actual field conditions was required. (Hadley, 1994). The Strategic Transportation Research Study (STRS) conducted in 1983 documented the small percentage of research expenditures in the highway industry and the yearly decline in research spending. The study has identified six areas in which concentrated research efforts could dramatically reduce expenditures for design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway systems. These areas were asphalt, maintenance cost-effectiveness, protection of concrete bridge components, cement concrete in highway structures, control of snow and ice on highways, and long-term pavement performance. (Hadley, 1994). In each area, priorities were established for these problem areas for which major innovations would increase the productivity, effectiveness, and safe operation of the nation's highway system. 2 During 1984-86, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Transportation Research Board (TRB), and the National Research Council (NRC) supported a study to develop research plans for the six strategic problem areas, with particular emphasis on long-term pavement performance. As a result, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was established as an independent unit of the National Research Council and became fully operational in April 1987. The 6 STRS research areas were combined into the following SHRP research programs: -Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) So, the LTPP program was established under the guidance of SHRP in 1987 for the first 5 years. FHWA has undertaken the LTPP program since 1991 managed it since then. The LTPP program monitors and collects various data at more the 2500 asphalt and Portland concrete cement (PCC) pavement sections throughout the United States and Canada. Since 1999, the Strategic Plan for Long-Term Pavement Performance Data AnalysisTRB Expert Task Group on LTPP Data Analysis. This plan has been recommended by the TRB LTPP Committee and adopted by FHWA as the basis for selecting LTPP analysis projects and evaluating progress in LTPP data analysis. The plan sets forth the following strategic objectives: Improve traffic characterization and prediction Improve materials characterization Determination of environmental effects in pavement design and performance prediction 3 Evaluation and use of pavement condition data in pavement management Development of pavement response and performance models applicable to pavement design and performance prediction Maintenance and rehabilitation strategy selection and performance prediction Quantification of the performance impact of specific design features Analyses supporting and enhancing the use of the ME- PDG Comprehensive use of LTPP to improve the management of pavement assets 1.2 Problem Statement Pavement sections are typically subjected to a series of several maintenance and rehabilitation treatments over the lifetime of the pavement to restore conditions and prevent deterioration. Several research studies have been undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of single pavement treatment, while some have developed complex life-cyc1e cost analysis (LCCA) tools. Yet, a knowledge gap exists between treatment strategy selection and the estimation of treatment effectiveness and condition forecasting. Several pavement treatments have been applied to the test sections of the LTPP experiments SPS-1 through SPS-7 and GPS-6, -7 and -9. In this study, the time series pavement condition and distress data of such test sections where several pavement treatments have been applied shall be analyzed and the effectiveness of each treatment and each series of treatments shall be quantified. Treatment effectiveness shall be studied in terms of several metrics such as immediate change in functional/structural period (CFP/CSP), functional/structural condition reoccurrence period (FCROP/SCROP), and remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP). Based on a synthesis of the results, recommendations shall be formulated for pavement managers to better perform LCCA and for future research. 4 1.3 Objectives of this Study The objectives of this study are: Define the pavement performance in a way that supports the selection of cost-effective pavement treatment strategy. Provide better estimates of pavement treatment effectiveness and the role of pavement Develop pavement performance prediction methodologies that are applicable to the pavement condition and distress data collected before and after the application of treatments or series of treatments. Make recommendations for subsequent studies regarding the impacts and/or selection of pavement maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation treatment options and strategies and their impacts on the pavement service life. 1.4 Research Plan To accomplish the objectives, a research plan consisting of four tasks was designed. These tasks are presented below. Task 1 Literature Review In this task, extensive literature review of published performance measures from state highway agencies (SHAs), FHWA, National Cooperative Highway Research Council (NCHRP), and other countries (such as Australia, Canada, and Europe) were conducted. The review was focused on the following topics: 1. Definitions and methodologies used to determine good, fair, and poor pavement conditions. 2. Efficiency of the various pavement maintenance and rehabilitation treatments and their predicted and measured performance. 5 3. Selection of pavement preservation and rehabilitation strategy and their impacts on long life pavements. 4. Advantages and shortcomings of the remaining service life (RSL) and remaining service interval (RSI) of various pavement sections. Task 2- Pavement Condition Classification System Pavement condition classification systems were developed. One system consists of three condition states (CSs) and the other on 5 CSs. Each system classify the pavement based on its functional and structural conditions. The functional classification is based on ride quality (IRI) and safety (rut depth) and is expressed by the remaining functional period (RFP). The structural rating is based on cracking and rut depth or faulting, and is expressed by the remaining structural period (RSP). The RFP and RSP are a dual rating system that can be considered as a pavement rating for the users, and for the agency, respectively. Task 3 Data Extraction/Mining and Synthesis The data required for the analyses were extracted from the standard release 28 of the LTPP database. The data includes inventory, pavement condition, and treatment type and timing of all pavement test sections of the experiments SPS-1 through SPS-7 and GPS-6,-7 and -9. Majority of the test sections in these experiments have been subjected to one or more treatments. The time series pavement condition (IRI) and distress (fatigue cracking, transverse cracking, longitudinal cracking, and rut depth) data were extracted and organized in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet format for analyses. In addition, time series pavement condition and distress data from the states of Colorado, Louisiana, and Washington were used to show that results of the study apply equally to the LTPP and state data. 6 Task 4 Data Analyses & Evaluation Performance Classification For each pavement test section in SPS-1 through SPS-7 and GPS-6,-7, and -9, and for each pavement condition and distress type, the time dependent data were separated to two categories; before treatment (BT) and after treatment (AT). The data were then modeled using the appropriate mathematical functions to estimate the: Pavement rates of deterioration BT and AT. Remaining functional and structural periods BT and AT using pre specified threshold values. The treatment benefits in terms of the change in functional and structural periods. The change in functional and structural periods can be calculated as the differences between the RFP or RSP before and after treatment. The time period for the re-occurrence of the BT pavement conditions and distress. The immediate change in the pavement conditions and distresses. The results represent the instantaneous user benefits and the datum for pavement performance after treatment. Results of the analyses were also grouped per pavement type, treatment type, pavement condition and distress type, and environmental region. The grouped data were then scrutinized to determine were used to determine: The impacts of each treatment type on each pavement performance measure. The average benefits and, perhaps, the benefits of each treatment relative to each pavement condition and distress type. The effectiveness of each treatment were evaluated and referenced based on the BT conditions. The impacts of the environment, design, and site factors on the benefits of each treatment. 7 The findings were summarized and presented in the varfious Chapters of this thesis. 1.5 Thesis Layout This thesis is composed of the eight chapters and seven appendices listed below. Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Literature Review Chapter 3 Pavement Condition Classification System Chapter 4 Data Mining and Synthesis Chapter 5 LTPP Data Analyses of Flexible Pavements Chapter 6 LTPP Data Analyses of Rigid Pavements Chapter 7 State Data Analyses Chapter 8 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations References Appendix A Inventory of Automated and Manual Surveys Appendix B Summary of the LTPP Data Appendix C Data and Treatment Lists Appendix D SPS-1 Analyses Appendix E - SPS-3 Analyses Appendix F SPS-2 Analyses Appendix G State T2M 8 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW An extensive literature review was conducted in support of this research study. The review focused on various topics including: Definitions and methodologies used to determine good, fair, and poor pavement conditions. Effectiveness of the various pavement maintenance and rehabilitation treatments and their predicted and measured performance. Selection of pavement preservation and rehabilitation strategies and their impacts on the pavement service life. Advantages and shortcomings of pavement treatment benefits, including the remaining service life (RSL) concept. LTPP experimental design and the in-place pavement sections (included in Chapter 3). Research findings from previous studies of the LTPP data (included in Chapter 3). 2.1 Pavement Distress Severity Levels The LTPP and the majority of SHA pavement distress data are collected based on three severity levels; low, medium, and high. The distress severity rating can be problematic because it is a function of the judgment of the surveyor who is observing the pavement or, in the case of many SHAs, is reviewing and digitizing the electronic pavement surface images. Such judgment is a function of the degree of training and experience of the surveyors. Further, the same pavement segment may not be reviewed by the same surveyor each year or each data collection cycle. In addition, the crack severity level is a function of the crack opening, which is a function of the pavement temperature at the time of data collection. Thus, a crack may be labeled high severity in one year and medium the next year or vice versa. Figures 2.1 and 2.2 depict an example of 9 Figure 2.1 Time series transverse cracking data for each severity level and the sum of all severity levels, SPS-3 test section A330, state of California Figure 2.2 Cumulative time series transverse cracking data showing individual transverse crack severity level and the sum of all severity levels, SPS-3 test section A330, state of California 10 the time series data for each transverse crack severity level for LTPP test section A330 of the SPS-3 experiment in California. The two figures indicate that: 1. The length of transverse cracks in any given severity level changes from one year to the next without the application of any pavement treatment. To illustrate, the length of low severity transverse crack in Figure 2.1 is about 60 meters in year one, 25 meters in year five, 15 meters in year seven, more than 100 meters in year eleven, and 60 meters in year thirteen. The medium severity crack length is approximately 10 meters in year one, 40 meters in year seven, only about 5 meters in year eleven, and increases to about 25 meters in year thirteen. Finally, the length of the high severity transverse cracks is about 70 meters in year six, 50 meters in year eight, 130 meters in year eleven, and 115 meters in year thirteen. The variability of the crack lengths of the three severity levels could be attributed to two reasons: a) The pavement temperature at the time of data collection. Higher temperature causes the crack width to decrease resulting in an observed change in severity level. This problem cannot be addressed unless the pavement temperature is measured during the survey and an accurate temperature dependent crack width model is developed. Note that the LTPP surveyors do collect pavement temperature data during survey and most SHA only collect temperature data on a limited basis. b) The pavement surveyor judges and labels some cracks as low severity in one year and medium or high severity in other years. This inconsistency could be addressed through computerized crack rating quality control and/or enhanced observer training. 2. The high variability of the individual severity levels does not allow accurate modeling of the crack propagation over time. In fact, the data indicate that the medium and high severity 11 transverse crack lengths are decreasing then increasing over time without any pavement treatment. A previous study sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (Baladi et al. 2009) expressed the pavement cracking data as the sum of the three severity levels. This yielded much less data variability as evidenced by the exponential model of the total transverse crack length shown in Figure 2.1. The crack severity level data could be used to roughly estimate the amount of work to be done. For example, cracks in the medium and high severity levels need to be sealed or patched. Low severity cracks are typically not sealed or patched. For rigid pavements, low severity transverse cracks may be subjected to dowel bar retrofit, while medium and high severity cracks are typically not (Dawson 2012). Similar patterns can be found in the SHAs cracking data as shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4 along a portion of Highway 24 in Colorado. 2.2 Engineering Thresholds (Criteria) Some SHAs express pavement conditions and distresses using one or more of the following methods (see Figure 2.5 and 2.6) (Baladi et al. 1992, Dawson et al. 2011): 1. A descriptive scale, such as very good, good, fair, poor, and very poor. 2. A distress index based on a continuous rating scale (i.e., zero to ten or zero to one hundred). One end of the scale defines fifailedfl pavement and the other fiexcellentfl pavement (such as a new pavement) as shown in Figure 2.5. Some SHAs calculate one distress index for each type of distress (that is individual distress indices) while others use a composite pavement index. 3. Along the rating scale, one or more threshold values are typically established to flag pavement sections for possible treatment actions. Depending on the functionality of the 12 Figure 2.3 Time series transverse cracking data for each severity level and the sum of all severity levels, HWY 24, direction 2, BMP 329.9, state of Colorado Figure 2.4 Cumulative time series transverse cracking data showing individual transverse crack severity and sum of all severity levels, HWY 24, direction 2, BMP 329.9, state of Colorado 13 Deduct distress points rating scale with a threshold value of 60 points (100 = Excellent pavement) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Very poor Poor Fair Good Very good Descriptive scale Engineering criterion = maximum acceptable number of cracks = 50 transverse cracks per 0.1 mile long pavement segment, which is equivalent to 1 crack every 10.5 feet and correspond to 60 points on the rating scale Deduct value method Distress points per transverse crack = DP/TC 8.05060100crackstransverseofnumberacceptableMaximumvaluethresholdvaluescaleratingmaximumDP/TC Distress points = DP = 100 - (0.8)(the number of TC) Cumulative distress points rating scale with a threshold value of 40 points (0.0 = Excellent pavement) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Very good Good Fair Poor Very poor Descriptive scale Cumulative distress points Distress points per transverse crack = DP/TC 0.85040crackstransverseofnumberacceptableMaximumvalueThresholdDP/TC Distress points = DP = (0.8)(the number of TC) Figure 2.5 Rating and descriptive scales and distress points 14 Figure 2.6 Descriptive regions of rating scales or pavement condition (Dawson et al. 2011) threshold value (maintenance, preservation, or rehabilitation), a distress index value below the established threshold value indicates the need to either maintain, preserve, or rehabilitate the pavement section in question. The rehabilitation threshold value typically separates acceptable from non-acceptable pavement conditions. It is important to note that if the threshold value is established based on engineering criteria; the pavement condition rating will be such that the relative condition of the pavement segment is constant for a given condition. The engineering criterion should be selected based on the experience of the highway agency and should address the extent of the condition or distress at which the pavement section in question is deemed in need of repair within the constraints of the agency. An example of engineering criterion for transverse cracking could be 50 transverse cracks (crack spacing of about 10.5 feet along a 0.1 mile long asphalt pavement segment). Based on the engineering criterion, distress points can be assigned to each occurrence of the distress (each transverse crack) and the rating scale threshold value. To illustrate, consider the continuous rating scale of 0.0 to 100.0 (100 indicates no transverse cracks) and its 15 threshold value of 60 points shown in Figure 2.5. An engineering criterion of 50 transverse cracks per 0.1 mile implies that the asphalt pavement score is 60 (it loses 40 distress points) when the pavement segment accumulates 50 transverse cracks. Based on a linear accumulation of distress points, each transverse crack is worth 0.8 distress points (after Baladi et al. 1992). If the agency decided to change the threshold value from 40 to 50 but to maintain the engineering criterion of 50 transverse cracks, then 50 cracks will cause the pavement section to lose 50 distress points and each crack is worth one distress point. Stated differently, the engineering criteria for establishing the threshold values should be based on the extent of the distress rather than a number on the rating scale. Finally, the engineering criteria express the conditions of the pavement and could be based on the user or the agency. Examples of roadway user based criteria are ride quality (International Roughness Index, IRI) and rut depth. Examples of agency based criteria are cracking and faulting. One other note is that the engineering criteria for certain distress or condition types could be global or could be established based on pavement class, traffic volume, regional needs, and so forth. Nevertheless, the methods used to develop the engineering criteria should be well documented and the criteria should be studied and calibrated as more pavement condition and distress data become available. Many SHAs such as the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development (LADOTD), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) have developed engineering criterion for each distress type and severity level. Examples of such criteria for alligator cracking and the associated deduct points are listed in Table 2.1 (Khattak & Baladi 2007). 16 Table 2.1 Engineering criteria and deduct points for alligator cracking (Khattak & Baladi 2007) Alligator cracking deduct points Severity Extent (ft2) 0-51 51-701 701-1301 1301-2401 2401-3168 > 3168 Low 0 1-16 16-21 21-25 25-28 28 Medium 0 1-21 21-29 29-36 36-49 48 High 0 1-29 29-43 43-50 43-61 61 2.3 Pavement Distress and Condition Indices Pavement distress indices are often based on one or more condition or distress types. For example, alligator cracking index (an individual index) is based on the severity levels (low, medium, and high) and extent of the alligator cracks. Whereas, a combined pavement distress index (such as pavement condition index, PCI) consists of two or more condition or distress types. The combined index expresses the sum of the distress points assigned to each distress type and severity level divided by the number of pavement segments (Equation 2.1). Hence, a combined pavement distress index expresses the average pavement condition and not the actual condition based on individual distress types (Baladi et al. 1992, Baladi et al. 1999). 0.1DPDIDPNL Equation 2.1 Where, DI is a distress index; DP is the sum of the distress points along the project; N is the number of 0.1-mile long segments along the project (N = L/0.1); and L is the project length in miles. Finally, the distress points or the pavement condition indices do not express the true nature of the pavement conditions. For example, immediately after construction, the cumulative 17 distress points of a pavement project subjected to a 2-inch asphalt overlay are exactly the same as the cumulative distress points for another project subjected to a 6-inch asphalt overlay. The pavement surface conditions of both projects are free of distresses. Stated differently, neither the distress points nor the condition indices express the design life of the overlay or the impact of the type of pavement preservation or rehabilitation on the pavement service life. Further, the differences between the distress points and the pavement distress index before and after treatment cannot and should not be used to express the benefits of the applied pavement maintenance or rehabilitation treatments. Consider three pavement sections having the same distress points and distress index that were subjected to 2, 4, and 6-inch asphalt overlays, respectively. The differences in the distress points and distress index before and after treatment are exactly the same although the costs of the overlays are substantially different and so are their design lives and future pavement performance. The design life of the treatment and the pavement rate of deterioration must be accounted for in the calculation of the true benefits of the treatments (Baladi et al. 2009). 2.4 Descriptive Pavement Conditions (Good, Fair, and Poor) Descriptive terms (such as good, fair, and poor) are also used to express the various categories of the pavement conditions. Although the terms hide important details, they are universal and easily communicated to legislators and the general public. The three terms are typically based on the pavement appearance and/or ride quality at the time of rating. Descriptive classification of good, normal or fair, and poorly performing asphalt concrete (AC) and Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements were previously addressed in four FHWA reports published in 1998, 1999, 2011, and 2012 (Khazanovich et al. 1998, Rauhut et al. 1999, Guerre et al. 2011, Guerre et al. 2012). The shortcomings of the first two reports are that the descriptive term is based on 18 the last collected pavement condition data as shown in Figure 2.7. Figure 2.8 depicts the actual time dependent IRI data for three in-service pavement sections located in the state of Washington. Over the 10-year period, the sections were not subjected to any pavement treatment. Figure 2.8 clearly shows that: 1. Data along a 2.4-mile segment of Road 2 indicate that the descriptive term changes from good to fair to poor in only three years. Thus, the descriptive terms do not accurately reflect the true pavement performance. 2. Data along a 3.6-mile segment of Road 3 change performance descriptions over time from poor to fair (labeled normal in the reports) and then to good. 3. Data along a 4.8-mile segment of Road 1 show that the pavement description fluctuates between good and fair and then between fair and poor. Once again, Khazanovich™s descriptive terms do not reflect the true in-service pavement performance over time. 4. After construction, Roads 1 and 2 are considered good, and then at the pavement age of 4 years, the description of Road 1 is fair while Road 2 is poor. The pavement rate of deterioration is not reflected in the characterization. The three descriptive terms could be improved to better express the pavement conditions if they are based on the pavement™s rates of deterioration. 19 Figure 2.7 Pavement condition classification system (after Khazanovich et al. 1998) Figure 2.8 Shortcomings of Khazanovich et al. recommended classification system when dealing with real but good data (not the worst case scenario) Threshold 20 On the other hand, Guerre et al. 2012 describes the terms good, fair, and poor pavements and their potentially associated treatment categories as follows: Good Œ Pavement infrastructure that is free of significant defects and has a condition that does not adversely affect its performance. This level of condition typically only requires preventive maintenance activities. Fair Œ Pavement infrastructure that has isolated surface defects or functional deficiencies. This level of condition typically could be addressed through minor rehabilitation, such as overlays and patching of pavements that do not require full depth structural improvements. Poor Œ Pavement infrastructure that is exhibiting advanced deterioration and conditions that impact structural capacity. This level of condition typically requires structural repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement. Once again, the significant issue with these types of definitions is that they do not consider the changes in conditions and distresses over time. The terms do convey the current conditions of a pavement well, but fipavement healthfl is not best demonstrated by a snap-shot in time. The pavement conditions and distresses generally deteriorate with time and the fipavement healthfl depends on the current conditions and the rates of deterioration over time. The specific terms could still serve their purpose but the criteria used to assign the rating should be modified to account for the effects of time. Consideration of condition and rates of deterioration facilitates planning and pavement management, while condition alone is limited in use as a tool for managing pavement. 2.5 Pavement Performance Modeling and Prediction The performance of a pavement segment is often illustrated by the progression of pavement condition or distress over time as shown in Figure 2.9. The level of performance at any given 21 time is equivalent to the level of pavement condition or distress at that time relative to the threshold value. Therefore, the performance of a pavement segment over its service life is defined by the level of service over time or by the accumulation of damage over time (Chatti et al. 2005). Most SHAs collect pavement condition and distress data. Some use the data to observe the condition of the pavement, while others use the time series pavement condition and distress data to predict future pavement conditions. The combination of both practices allows for the development of current and future strategies for management of the pavement network. Figure 2.9 A typical pavement performance curve Many SHAs have studied the effectiveness of various pavement treatments using historical pavement performance data. Based on the various studies, the minimum and maximum treatment service lives listed in Table 2.2 were published in the various sources listed for each treatment type. These estimated averages are adequate to be used in the analysis at the network level. For project level analysis, more accurate estimates are required. Such estimates could be 22 based on predictions of past and future pavement conditions through the modeling of pavement condition and distress data before and after treatment to create pavement performance curves. Several predictive pavement performance models have been developed to estimate the pavement performance curve based on parameters such as traffic, weather, and pavement type. The various methods include straight-line extrapolation, regression, polynomial constrained least squares, application of S-shaped curves, use of probability distributions, and Markov chain models (Ahmed et al. 2006). One such example, for thin hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlays, is presented in Equation 2.2indicators (IRI, Pavement Condition Rating (PCR), and rut depth) as well as different road types (Interstate, non-Interstate highway, and non-highway) (Irfan et al. 2009). 123**CAATTCAFDXPIe Equation 2.2 Where, PI is the value of the performance indicator (IRI, PCR, RUT) for a pavement segment in a given year; CAATT is the cumulative average annual daily truck traffic (in millions) predicted for the pavement segment from the time of treatment to the given year; CAFDX is the cumulative annual freeze index (in thousands of degree-day) predicted from the time of treatment to the given year; and 1, 2, and 3 are statistical parameters. The most common method for modeling pavement condition and distress data as a function of time is by ordinary least squares regression. It should be noted that a minimum of three time series data points are required to model the nonlinear data. The method is used to determine the parameters of the selected mathematical function, such as those listed in Table 2.3 (M-E PDG 2004, Dawson 2012), by minimizing the sum of squared errors. This method works when the particular pavement segment is deteriorating following the selected model. If the 23 method does not capture the true progression of the condition or distress over time, other models may be required (Luo 2005). Table 2.2 Estimated and reported pavement treatment service life Treatment type References Estimated treatment service life expectancy (year) Minimum Average Maximum Thin (< 2.5 inch) HMA overlay Geoffroy 1996, Hicks et al. 2000, Johnson 2000, ODOT 2001, Wade et al. 2001, MDOT 2001, Peshkin et al. 2004 2 8 12 HMA overlay FHWA 2010 6 10 17 Single chip seal Geoffroy 1996, Hicks et al. 2000, Johnson 2000, Bolander 2005, Gransberg & James 2005 1 6 12 Double chip seal Hicks et al. 2000, Johnson 2000, MDOT 2001, Bolander 2005, Maher et al. 2005 4 9 15 Thin (< 2.5 inch) mill & fill MDOT 2001, FHWA 2010 4 8 20 mill & fill FHWA 2010 6 10 17 Cold-in-place HMA recycling Hicks et al. 2000, Morian et al. 2004, Maher et al. 2005 5 10 20 Crack sealing Geoffroy 1996, Johnson 2000 2 3 10 Micro-surfacing Geoffroy 1996, Smith & Beatty 1999, Johnson 2000, Wade et al. 2001, Peshkin et al. 2004, Labi et al. 2006 4 6 10 Another method of modeling pavement condition and distress data is the cluster wise regression procedure, which was introduced by Spath 1979, 1981, 1982, and was modified by Meier 1987, DeSarbo et al. 1989, Lau et al. 1999, and Luo 2005. Cluster wise regression involves splitting the data into sub-groups based on their characteristics and fitting separate models to each sub-group. The resulting pavement performance models could be more accurate 24 as they model small subsets of data with similar trends. However, the resulting models are discrete (each model represents a certain time period). 2.6 Pavement Preservation Benefits Most existing procedures for estimating pavement preservation benefits are based on the prediction of future pavement performance, comparison of the pavement performance before and after treatment, and immediate changes in the pavement conditions due to treatment. Various definitions of pavement condition and performance measures are presented below. 1. Remaining Service Life (RSL) Œ RSL is the estimated number of years, from any given year (usually from the last condition survey year), to the date when the conditions of the pavement section reach a pre-specified threshold value. For each pavement section, the required steps for calculating the RSL are: Download from the database the pavement surface age, and three or more consecutive pavement condition data points collected over a time period where no treatment was applied. Use the condition data points and the corresponding data collection times to obtain the equation of the best fit curve using the proper mathematical function. Input to the best fit equation the threshold value of the condition or distress index in question and calculate the time in years between construction and the time when the pavement condition will reach the pre-established threshold value. The RSL is the difference between the calculated time and the pavement surface age. In the case of a new pavement structure or a newly rehabilitated pavement, the estimated RSL value must be positive and restricted to be less than or equal to the design life of the pavement or the treatment as stated in Equation 2.3 (Baladi et al. 1992). The reason is that for a 25 few years after treatment, the pavement may or may not show any distress and hence the estimated RSL is very large and meaningless. The restriction could be dropped when a significant number of data points indicating pavement deterioration are available. 0 RSLtPCThSADSLSA Equation 2.3 Where, t (PC = Th) is the time (the number of years) at which the pavement condition reaches the threshold value (Th); SA is the pavement surface age in years; and DSL is the pavement design service life in years. It should be noted that the accuracy of RSL is a function of the accuracy and variability of the pavement condition data. In addition, the accuracy of the estimated RSL decreases as the value of RSL increases (predicting much farther in time). The RSL of a given pavement network can be calculated as the weighted average RSL of the finfl pavement segments within the network using Equation 2.4. It should be noted that any pavement segment that falls below the threshold value has a zero RSL. In general, no negative RSL should be assigned to any pavement regardless of its condition. For a newly designed and constructed or rehabilitated pavement segment, its RSL is equal to the design life (Baladi et al. 1992). 11niiinetworkniiRSLSLRSLSL Equation 2.4 Where, i is the ith pavement segment; n is the total number of pavement segments or sections in the network; RSL is the remaining service life; and SL is the segment length. 26 Table 2.3 Typical pavement condition models (M-E PDG 2004, Dawson 2012) Pavement condition/ distress type International Roughness Index (IRI) (inch/mile or m/km) Rut depth (RD) (inch or mm) Cracking (length, area, or percent) Model form Exponential Power Logistic (S-shaped) Generic equation exp IRI tRD -t-exp1kCrack Time when a threshold value is reached ThresholdlntIRI RDThresholdlnexpt *1CrackThresholdklog-t Derivative (rate of deterioration) exp dtIRI d 1dtRD d 2expexptexp**kdtCrack d Integral (area) 2t1texpIRIA 2t1t11 tRDA 2t1t1texplogkCrackA area or percent, t is the elapsed time in years, and Threshold is the pre-specified condition or distress level indicating zero serviceability for any given pavement condition or distress type. 27 2. Remaining Service Interval (RSI) Œ RSI is similar to RSL with some changes. RSI is a new pavement performance measure that is being analyzed on a current research study sponsored by the FHWA. The final algorithm of the RSI was not used in this study because it did not become available during the study with sufficient time for review. 3. Service Life Extension (SLE) Œ SLE is the gain in service life resulting from a pavement treatment, as shown in Figure 2.10 (Dawson et al. 2011). The accuracy of SLE is a function of the accuracy of the two estimated RSL values, before and after treatment. SLE is a useful tool for determining the time benefit due to a pavement treatment. 4. Treatment Life (TL) Œ TL is the time between the treatment date and the date when the pavement conditions or distresses reach the lesser of the threshold value or the before treatment pavement condition or distress, as shown in Figure 2.11. TL involves the same limitations as the predicted RSL value after treatment (note that, the TL does not require any RSL prediction before treatment), except with a shorter prediction in time. TL is a good tool to determine the time until the before treatment conditions return. In the case of worse pavement condition or distress AT, the TL is taken as the negative of the time for the BT conditions or distresses to reach the AT conditions, as shown in Figure 2.12 (Dawson et al. 2011). 5. Total Benefits (TB) Œ TB is the ratio of the benefit area to the do nothing area, as depicted in Figure 2.13 (Peshkin et al. 2004). TB accounts for the improved condition over a given time, the area bound by the performance curve and a threshold value; however it has some significant flaws. TB can be misunderstood because two pavement sections can have the same area ratio but completely different performance. Stated differently, any ratio can be obtained by the division of an infinite set of two numbers such as 1 and 3, 2 and 6, 6 and 18 28 and so forth. The different perspective of the TB is that the benefit area is normalized relative to the do nothing area. The do nothing area, on the other hand, is a function of the pavement conditions and rate of deterioration before treatment. 6. Performance Jump (PJ) Œ PJ is the immediate improvement in the pavement condition due to treatment (Labi & Sinha 2003). The PJ indicates the temporary improvement resulting from treatment but has no way to predict the future conditions or how long the improvement will last. Example of PJ is depicted in Figure 2.14. 7. Deterioration Rate Reduction (DRR) Œ DRR (see Figure 2.14) is the change in deterioration rate from immediately before to immediately after treatment (Labi & Sinha 2003). The measure is short-term and therefore is not a true measure of performance. Figure 2.10 Schematic of the definition of SLE 29 Figure 2.11 Schematic of the definition of TL Figure 2.12 Schematic of the definition of negative TL 30 Figure 2.13 Schematic of the definition of total benefit (after Peshkin et al. 2004) Figure 2.14 Performance jump and deterioration rate reduction 31 2.7 Pavement Treatment Types The number of available pavement treatment types is large and ever growing as new techniques and materials are developed. Each SHA tends to have a select group of treatments which they choose to apply based on their experience and the results they have achieved over time. The selection of a particular pavement treatment from the pool of treatment options is also often SHA specific. Discussion of the pavement treatment selection process follows. 2.8 Pavement Treatment Selection Many SHAs have developed plans and methodologies for selecting pavement treatments. The most common are decision trees and matrices. These are often developed from past experience and tend to focus on one or two options. The trees/matrices are rarely updated and often neglect new technology. Examples of a decision tree and a decision matrix are shown in Figure 2.15 and Table 2.4. Nonetheless, they are typically based on the following (Hicks et al. 2000): Pavement surface type and/or construction history. An indication of the functional classification and/or traffic level. At least one type of condition index, including distress and/or roughness. More specific information about the type of deterioration present, either in terms of an amount of load-related deterioration or the presence of a particular condition or distress type. Geometric data indicating whether or not pavement widening or shoulder repair are required. Environmental conditions in which the treatment is to be used. The pavement treatment type should be selected based on the pavement conditions and distresses and their causes (Baladi et al. 1999). Note that a pavement treatment that addresses the conditions but not their causes may not be fithe optimum optionfl. However, at the network level, it could be the only available option given the budgetary constraints. 32 PSR = Present serviceability rating; SR = Surface rating; PQI = Pavement quality index Figure 2.15 Example of decision tree for continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) (Hicks et al. 2000) Functional classifications Trigger values PSR SR PQI Rural principal interstate 3.0 2.7 3.0 Rural principal arterial 3.0 2.7 2.9 Rural minor arterial 2.8 2.5 2.8 Rural major collector 2.8 2.5 2.6 Rural minor collector 2.8 2.5 26 Rural local 2.7 2.4 2.6 Urban interstate 3.1 2.7 3.0 Urban principal arterial freeway 3.1 2.7 2.9 Urban principal arterial 2.8 2.5 2.9 Urban minor arterial 2.7 2.4 2.8 Urban collector 2.6 2.4 2.6 Urban local 2.5 2.4 2.6 Bad Ride Bad SR (No) Full pavement restoration Unbonded overlay Thick overlay (Yes) Bad Ride Good SR Good Ride (Yes) (No) (Yes) Good Ride Good SR Do nothing Thick overlay Start Thick overlay Unbonded overlay PSR > Trigger SR > Trigger SR > Trigger Good Ride Bad SR (No) 33 Table 2.4 Example of decision matrix (Asphalt Institute 1983) Problem Possible cause Maintenance Rehabilitation Structural failure Mix composition Temperature or moisture changes Construction Patching & routine maintenance Fog seal Surface treatment Slurry seal Surface recycling Thin overlay Open-graded surface Structural overlay Structural recycling Reconstruction Alligator cracking X X X X X X X Edge joint cracks X X X X Reflection cracks X X X X X X Shrinkage cracking X X X X X X X X Slippage cracks X X Rut depth X X X X X X X X Corrugation X X X X X X X X Depressions X X X X X Upheaval X X X X Potholes X X X X X Raveling X X X X X X X Flushing asphalt X X X X X Polished aggregate X X X X X X Loss of cover X X X 34 The cost-effectiveness of the treatment can be determined by evaluating the conditions of the pavement over time. Pavement treatment selection should consider the timing of the treatment along the service life of the pavement. The pavement treatment effectiveness is typically dependent on the conditions at the time of treatment. Study of the relationships between the conditions and time, and the deterioration rate, can lead to the selection of pavement treatments at the most cost-effective time. Analysis of the pavement condition and distress data in time series can be based in parts on the BT and AT RSL. The BT and AT RSL values could be grouped into brackets and referred to herein as fiCondition States (CS)fl or fiRSL bracketsfl. Dawson et al. (2012) suggested the five RSL brackets or CSs: CS 1 or RSL bracket 1 with RSL range from 0 to 2 years and average of 1 year. CS 2 or RSL bracket 2 with RSL range from 3 to 5 years and average of 4 years. CS 3 or RSL bracket 3 with RSL range from 6 to 10 years and average of 8 years. CS 4 or RSL bracket 4 with RSL range from 11 to 15 years and average of 13 years. CS 5 or RSL bracket 5 with RSL range from 16 to 25 years and average of 20.5 years. Note that higher CS or RSL bracket has wider RSL range; this is due to the increasing uncertainty associated with longer prediction of RSL into the future. One objective of performing a treatment on a pavement section is to improve the conditions of the pavement. Another objective is to retard the pavement rate of deterioration. This could be achieved if the selected treatment reduces or eliminates the causes of the conditions or distresses. Pavement treatments that do not address the causes of conditions or distresses will not prevent the previous conditions from returning (Baladi et al. 1999). Several pavement treatment types could be applied to a pavement section to address one or several pavement conditions and distresses. Similarly, several pavement treatment types could 35 be applied to address one or several causes of those conditions and distresses. For example, localized patching could be applied to address areas of fatigue cracking, while an HMA overlay will cover all existing cracks and material defects and will fill the rut channels. However, neither treatment may address the causes of the distresses, which could require improvements to the lower layers and/or drainage considerations. If costs were not considered then the preferred treatment could be reconstruction in some scenarios, since it eliminates all distresses and their causes. However, this is likely not the most economical option. Therefore, the treatment(s) which address the most issues and provide the most benefits per dollar spent are preferred at the project level. 2.9 Pavement Preservation Costs The costs of any pavement treatment can be divided into two categories; agency costs and user costs. The agency cost is the physical cost of the pavement project; including design and construction less the residual value of the pavement section at the end of its life. This is often referred to as direct costs (Morgado & Neves 2008). User costs are much more difficult to estimate than agency costs as they are not based on specific monetary value, but on vehicle operating costs (VOC), delay costs, and accident costs. The three types of user costs and how they relate to normal and work zone conditions are listed in Table 2.5 and discussed in the next few subsections (Morgado & Neves 2008). Table 2.5 Review of user cost components (Reigle & Zaniewski 2002) Component Normal operation Work zone conditions Vehicle operating cost (VOC) Based on total delay hours caused by accidents Based on total delay hours caused by work zone and accidents in the work zone Delay Total delay hours (due to accidents) Total delay hours (due to work zone and accidents in work zone) Accidents Number and severity of accidents Number and severity of work zone accidents 36 One problem that arises when estimating user costs is the transformation of delay, accidents, etc. to a monetary value (Khurshid et al. 2009). Some believe that user costs should be defined as fiuser benefitfl and expressed qualitatively as improvements in performance or safety (Mouaket & Sinha 1991, Lamptey et al. 2004). The user benefits of one treatment relative to another or to the do nothing alternative could be used to select between treatments with similar agency costs. In other words, if two treatment options satisfy the pavement needs and have similar agency costs, then the deciding factor would be the user costs. This would greatly simplify the process which is often considered to be complicated and deficient, especially when applicable data are not available for the various detailed user cost models (Fazil & Paredes 2001). However, life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) should be completed to evaluate both the agency and user costs over the pavement life cycle and to select the most cost-effective treatment strategy. For completion, these costs and LCCA are discussed in the next few subsections. 2.9.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) Recently, SHAs are faced with many constraints such as public demand for quality pavement and budget short-fall. Hence, their issues become (Baladi et al. 2011): What pavement preservation alternatives should be used, and hence, how often should a given pavement section be preserved? How many miles of each pavement class should be preserved annually? What is the optimum time or the optimum pavement conditions and distresses at which pavement preservation actions should be taken? What are the associated agency and user costs and benefits of each pavement treatment? What are the optimum and most cost-effective short and long-term pavement preservation strategies that can be applied to keep the pavement network healthy in a cost-effective manner? 37 The above questions cannot be properly and accurately answered unless LCCA is conducted. Such analysis should address the agency and the user costs and must be based on accurate and up-to-date data so that the costs and benefits of various pavement preservation alternatives can be compared. 2.9.1.1 The Need for LCCA In general, highway pavements are designed and constructed to provide services for a limited time called the service life. Over time, the combined effects of traffic loads and environmental factors accelerate the pavement deterioration and reduce its level of serviceability. Maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation treatments are designed and applied to pavement sections to slow their rates of deterioration and to extend their service lives. The application of most pavement treatments requires traffic control (lane closures and/or detours), which significantly impacts traffic flow, increases travel time, and increases VOCs. The costs and benefits of pavement treatments are comprised of many elements including: 1. Agency costs of the pavement treatment, which consist of many attributes including: Material and contractual costs. The cost of traffic control in the work zone, which is defined as an area along the highway systems where maintenance and construction operations adversely affect the number of lanes opened to traffic or affect the operational characteristics of traffic flow through the work zone (Chien et al. 2002). Quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) costs. The costs of future treatments. 2. Agency benefits, which could be measured by the life of the treatment or the service life extension (SLE) of the treated pavement sections. 38 3. User costs, which are also comprised of many attributes including (Lewis 1999, Daniels et al. 2000): Time delay user costs or work zone user costs, which are defined as the associated costs of time delays due to lane closures because of roadway construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance activities (Berthelot 1996). Costs incurred by those highway users who cannot use the facility because of either agency or self-imposed detour requirements (Walls & Smith 1998). VOCs in terms of fuel, wear and tear, and depreciation over the delay periods. Accident costs. Environmental costs due to air pollution caused by excessive uses of gasoline or diesel fuel due to lower speed and time delay, including noise pollution. 4. User benefits which are comprised of improved serviceability and ride quality that would lower the VOCs and improve traffic flow. 2.9.1.2 Methods of LCCA Since LCCA considers all planned pavement treatments of a given analysis period, the service life and the value of money over time should be considered. One hundred dollars in 2014 will likely buy much more than one hundred dollars will in 2024. Hence, two common methods incorporated in LCCA to account for this are summarized below: A. Net Present Worth The net present worth (NPW) or net present value is a common economic indicator. NPW is the monetary value of an action accounting for the transformation of the value of money over time using the discount rate (see Equation 2.5). The use of NPW allows for fair comparison of actions taken at different times by converting to a common unit of measure (Walls & Smith 1998). 39 11 1kNknkNPWinitialcostPreservationCosti Equation 2.5 Where, NPW is the net present worth; N is the total number of preservation treatments; i is the discount rate; n is the number of years into the future; and k is the kth action. The discount rate reflects the rate of inflation adjusted to the opportunity cost to the public. The opportunity cost is often indicated by the conservative US Treasury Bill. The historical inflation rate trend from 1999 to 2014 indicates a range of -0.35 to 3.58 with an average of 2.39. Table 2.6 lists common discount rates used by SHAs in the 1990s. The discount rate should reflect historical trends in the nation or region where the analysis is conducted (Walls & Smith 1998). Alternatively, the discount rate could be determined from the consumer price index (CPI). The average CPI discount rate from 2001 to 2010 was about 2.54% (Baladi et al. 2011, BLS 2011). B. Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost The Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) method is also widely used as a common economic indicator in LCCA and is typically derived from NPW as stated in Equation 2.6. The use of either value allows for fair comparison of actions taken at different times by converting to a common unit of measure (Walls & Smith 1998). 111nniEUACNPWi Equation 2.6 Where, EUAC is the equivalent uniform annual cost; NPW is the net present worth; i is the discount rate; and n is the number of years into the future. 2.10 Pavement Preservation Effectiveness In the past, some SHAs allowed their pavement assets to deteriorate to levels requiring major rehabilitation or reconstruction. For many years, their treatment policies were based on fiworst- 40 firstfl policy while the rest of the pavement network is deteriorating. Recently, many SHAs have initiated and implemented pavement preservation programs at the network level. Table 2.6 Historical discount rates Year Analysis period (year) 3 5 7 10 30 1992 2.7 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 1993 3.1 3.6 4.0 4.3 4.5 1994 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 1995 4.2 4.5 4.6 4.8 4.9 1996 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 3.0 1997 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 1998 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.8 Average 3.1 3.3 3.4 3.6 3.8 Effects of discount rates on $100 from 2014 to 2024 using the average CPI of 2.54% $100 in 2014 has the same purchasing power as $128 in 2024 The programs are based on cost-effective treatment of sections of the pavement network in relatively good condition to restore their conditions, decrease their rates of deterioration, and enhance the safety of the motorists. Over time, the preservation program becomes a part of the annual pavement treatment strategy of the SHA (Geiger 2005). The pavement preservation program typically consists of light pavement treatments such as crack sealing, non-structural overlay, light rehabilitation actions, mill and fill, and so forth. The alternative to pavement preservation is the old practice of letting the pavement network deteriorate until expensive rehabilitation or reconstruction actions are necessary. Several studies have been conducted on the effectiveness of pavement preservation and are summarized in the following subsections. The effectiveness of pavement treatments can be measured in the short-term and/or the long-term. Short-term benefits are defined by the immediate improvement to the pavement conditions and rates of deterioration, while long-term benefits are defined over the service life of 41 the pavement section by the performance and extension in service life. The costs can also be short-term (individual treatment) or long-term (LCCA). 2.10.1 Pavement Preservation Cost-Effectiveness at the Project Level Pavement preservation can be applied through a series of pavement treatments over the pavement life cycle (a treatment strategy). The alternative to pavement preservation is allowing the pavement to deteriorate until reconstruction is required, the fiworst-firstfl or do nothing scenario. The cost-effectiveness of pavement preservation at the project level can be quantified using LCCA. The analysis could be conducted on the various alternative pavement preservation treatments which could be applied to a pavement section over time and on the do nothing scenario followed by reconstruction. Comparison of the results from the various strategy-analyses indicate the cost savings or extra expenditures of performing preservation over the life of the pavement segment. The cost-effectiveness of pavement preservation, at the project level, has been well documented. Most literature agree that pavement preservation can be conducted at minimal cost and create large savings over the life of the pavement. One study found that the cost savings of pavement preservation was as high as five dollars saved for every dollar spent on preservation (Construction and Maintenance Fact Sheets 2000). Another reports savings of 4 to 10 dollars for every dollar spent on preservation (Baladi et al. 2002). Other benefits include improving ride quality and creating a pavement network with consistent needs from year to year (Adams & Kang 2006). 2.10.2 Pavement Preservation Effectiveness at the Network Level The effectiveness of pavement preservation at the network level is more difficult to quantify than at the project level. Funds designated to preservation reduce the amount of funds available for 42 rehabilitation and reconstruction. In other words, pavement preservation is thought to decrease the life cycle cost of a given pavement project, but the effect on the network is often unknown. Additionally, the public and the legislators may not understand why pavements in seemingly good conditions are being treated while others in poor conditions are not. The SHAs should document and communicate the effects of preservation maintenance on the health of the pavement network and on the life cycle cost in a clear and consistent manner. Educating the public and the legislature is necessary to establish and maintain a successful pavement preservation program (Adams & Kang 2006). The short and long-term benefits and effectiveness of pavement preservation at the project and network levels should be quantified. Short term benefits include improving ride quality and addressing safety issues, while long-term benefits (cost savings) are not realized until years or decades into the future. Therefore, pavement preservation strategies must be optimized through projection of needs and funds into the future. In this way the effects of performing or deferring various pavement projects can be evaluated (DelDOT 2001, Adams & Kang 2006). 2.11 Treatment Transition Matrix (T2M) Pavement treatment effectiveness is often described with a single value or a range of values, such as 5 to 10 years gained or an average of 7-year service life. The probabilities of the various results are not typically reported. The probabilistic effectiveness of treatments can be quantified and communicated through the use of an innovative matrix format called Treatment Transition Matrix (T2M) (Dawson 2012). The information listed in the T2M show: The distribution of the pavement condition states (CSs) before and after treatment. The transitions of the pavement CSs from BT to AT due to the treatment. A list of the treatment benefits. 43 A fisnap-shot in timefl of the long-term results of the pavement treatment. Table 2.7 shows an example of T2M listing the results of single chip seal applications in Colorado. The cells display the above information in a convenient way as detailed below: Columns A through D of Table 2.7 list the following BT information: the pavement CSs (the RSL bracket numbers), the RSL ranges, the number and the percentages of 0.1 mile long pavement segments in each BT CS. Columns E through I of Table 2.7 list the following AT information: the CSs (the RSL bracket numbers), the RSL ranges, and the number or the percent of 0.1 mile long pavement segments transitioned from the given BT CS to each AT CS and the total number or percent of 0.1 mile long pavement segments transitioned to each AT CS. Columns J through L of Table 2.7 list the following pavement treatment benefits: the average TL, SLE, and AT RSL of all 0.1 mile long pavement segments transitioned from a given BT CS to all AT CSs, and the overall average TL, SLE, and AT RSL. 2.12 Preservation Timing Selection The effectiveness of pavement treatments are often determined simply based on the benefits gained, as mentioned above. The benefits, however, do not indicate effectiveness relative to cost, which is the main constraint in all SHAs. Most literature agree that treatments applied to pavements in better conditions will precipitate more benefits (Al-Mansour & Sinha 1994, Labi & Sinha 2003 and 2004); however, the cost of the treatment is a function of the conditions as more or less repairs are required before treatment. Further, the time-value relationship of money affects the cost of the treatment and the cost-effectiveness. Therefore, benefits must be compared relative to the costs to determine the cost-effectiveness of the treatment and to select the treatment timing (Khurshid et al. 2009). Performing pavement treatments at the optimum time 44 Table 2.7 T2M for single chip seal, state of Colorado A B C D E F G H I J K L Condition/distress type: condition/distress causing the minimum RSL before and after treatment Before treatment (BT) data After treatment (AT) data CS or RSL bracket number and range in years, the SE per CS or RSL bracket, and the number of the 0.1 mile long pavement segments transitioned from each CS or BT RSL bracket to the indicated CS or RSL brackets Treatment benefits in terms of treatment life (TL), service life extension (SLE), and RSL of the treatment (year) CS or RSL bracket number RSL bracket range (year) 0.1 mile long pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 TL SLE RSL 0 to 2 3 to 5 6 to 10 11 to 15 16 to 25 Number Percent SE (cannot be calculated for the minimum RSL) 1 0 to 2 2329 58 125 453 1230 267 254 4 8 9 2 3 to 5 746 18 3 88 379 121 155 3 7 11 3 6 to 10 365 9 1 52 157 55 100 2 4 12 4 11 to 15 141 3 0 8 52 27 54 2 1 14 5 16 to 25 452 11 1 24 128 55 244 1 -5 15 Total/average 4033/ 100/ 130/ 625/ 1946/ 525/ 807/ /3 /6 /10 45 will provide the greatest benefit-to-cost ratio. The idea of optimum timing is not new, in fact, the concept was built into the AASHTO 1993 design guide. Few methodologies for the determination of optimum treatment timing for preventive maintenance and rehabilitation actions were developed, such as that developed by Peshkin et al. (2004). The methodology is designed to optimize treatment timing based on the treatment benefit (calculated by the area under the performance curve). However, the most cost-effective treatments should consider the pavement longevity and should be based on the ratio of dollars to years of service (Dawson 2012). To improve life cycle costs, the roadway agency should base their preservation strategy on maximizing the longevity of the pavement network rather than maximizing the condition of the network. 2.13 The LTPP Program The LTPP program was established under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) in 1987. Since 1991, the FHWA has managed and funded the LTPP program. The program houses two fundamental groups of experiments; the Special Pavement Studies (SPS) and the General Pavement Studies (GPS). The LTPP analysis program has addressed a myriad array of studies of pavement related issues ranging from validation of pavement design procedures, traffic and material variability, and pavement maintenance, preservation, and rehabilitation actions. The conclusions from these studies are documented in countless publications in the forms of Research Reports, Product Briefs, and TechBriefs which have substantially contributed to the development of advanced pavement technology and highlighted the importance of the LTPP program and its associated database. 46 2.14 Objectives and Scope of LTPP Program The overall objective of the LTPP program is to collect, store, and make available to researchers, scientists, and the general public various data elements relating to pavement performance. These include the pavement structures and conditions, traffic volume and load, and environmental conditions for various pavement sections located along the existing North American Highway Systems. Over more than a 20 year period, the data have been used by researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders to assess the long-term performance of pavements under various loading and environmental conditions and with different structural and material compositions. The specific established objectives of the LTPP program include (Elkins et al. 2012): Evaluate the existing pavement design methodologies. Develop improved design methodologies and strategies for the rehabilitation of existing pavements. Develop improved design equations for new and reconstructed pavements. 2.15 LTPP Test Sections The LTPP program consists of about 2,500 152.4-meter (500-foot) long, mostly in-service test sections located in 50 States in the USA, Puerto Rico, and 10 Canadian Provinces. The test sections are divided among the two main studies entitled SPS and GPS. Some of the SPS test sections were reconstructed to investigate certain pavement engineering factors, while others were specially preserved to study the impacts of some preservation treatments. In contrast, the GPS consist of sections of existing roads that were subjected to various typical maintenance and preservation treatments. Thus, eight types of existing in-service pavements make up the GPS and are being monitored throughout North America. More details on the SPS and GPS test sections can be found throughout the rest of this report. 47 2.15.1 Special Pavement Studies (SPS) The SPS are a long-term program designed to study specially constructed, maintained, or rehabilitated pavement sections incorporating controlled sets of experimental design and construction features. The main objective of the SPS experiment is to provide more detailed and complete sets of data to extend and refine the results obtained from the GPS. The SPS consist of nine studies grouped by the five categories listed in Table 2.8 (Elkins et al. 2012). The SPS involve monitoring the newly constructed pavement sections and the existing pavement sections that were subjected to maintenance or rehabilitation treatments after assignment to the SPS. The SPS is divided into various SPS experiments numbered SPS-1 through SPS-9. Each experiment includes multiple test sites and each test site contains between two and twelve depending on the experiment. Following the original assignment of test sections in 1992, numerous supplemental test sections were constructed by different SHAs to study aspects of particular interest to them (Elkins et al. 2012). The FHWA is initiating new sites for the study of warm mix asphalt (SPS-10) and is currently considering new pavement preservation experiments in addition to the existing SPS. 2.15.2 General Pavement Studies (GPS) The GPS are also a long-term program designed to study a series of experiments on selected in-service pavement structures with the objective of establishing a national pavement performance database. Pavement sections believed to be built with proper materials and good engineering design were selected as part of the GPS program (Elkins et al. 2012). The pavement structures included in the GPS were constructed or reconstructed up to 15 years prior to the start of the LTPP program. Unfortunately, detailed data were often not available for the period between the original construction time and the time when they were selected for the LTPP program. 48 However, it was believed that some beneficial insights may be drawn without this data. Finally, some SPS test sections have been reclassified into GPS sections upon the application of rehabilitation treatments. Table 2.9 provides a list of the titles of each of the GPS experiments (Elkins et al. 2012). Table 2.8 The SPS categories and experiments (after Elkins et al. 2012) Category Experiment Title Pavement structural factors SPS-1 Strategic study of structural factors for flexible pavements SPS-2 Strategic study of structural factors for rigid pavements Pavement maintenance SPS-3 Preventive maintenance effectiveness of flexible pavements SPS-4 Preventive maintenance effectiveness of rigid pavements Pavement rehabilitation SPS-5 Rehabilitation of asphalt concrete (AC) pavements SPS-6 Rehabilitation of jointed Portland cement concrete (JPCC) pavements SPS-7 Bonded Portland cement concrete (PCC) overlays of concrete pavements Environmental effects SPS-8 Study of environmental effects in the absence of heavy loads Asphalt aggregate mixture specifications SPS-9P Validation and refinements of SUPERPAVE asphalt specifications and mix design process SPS-9A SUPERPAVE asphalt binder study SPS-10 Warm mix asphalt (WMA) Œ In design stage 2.16 Summary of Previous Findings In this study, previous published reports regarding the LTPP program and data analyses were scrutinized. The topics of these reports include the effects of design factors on pavement performance measures and the selection of appropriate and cost-effective treatment type. However, the findings of these reports did not adequately address the relationships between the maintenance and rehabilitation actions and the performance of the various pavement sections or 49 the optimal timing for treatment application. Nevertheless, some of the relevant reported findings are enumerated and summarized in the following subsections. Table 2.9 The GPS experiments (Elkins et al. 2012) Experiment Title GPS-1 Asphalt concrete (AC) pavement on granular base GPS-2 AC pavement on bound base GPS-3 Jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) GPS-4 Jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) GPS-5 Continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) GPS-6A Existing AC overlay of AC pavement (existing at the start of the program) GPS-6B AC Overlay using conventional asphalt of AC pavementŒNo milling GPS-6C AC overlay using modified asphalt of AC pavementŒNo milling GPS-6D AC overlay on previously overlaid AC pavement using conventional asphalt GPS-6S AC overlay of milled AC pavement using conventional or modified asphalt GPS-7A Existing AC overlay on Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement GPS-7B AC overlay using conventional asphalt on PCC pavement GPS-7C AC overlay using modified asphalt on PCC pavement GPS-7D AC overlay on previously overlaid PCC pavement using conventional asphalt GPS-7F AC overlay using conventional or modified asphalt on fractured PCC pavement GPS-7R Concrete pavement restoration treatments with no overlay GPS-7S Second AC overlay, which includes milling or geotextile application, on PCC pavement with previous AC overlay GPS-9 Unbonded PCC overlay on PCC pavement 50 2.16.1 Impacts of Pavement Treatment on Pavement Performance The reported findings related to the impacts of pavement treatments on the collected pavement condition and distress data of various LTPP experiments are summarized below: 1. For the SPS-3 experiment, it was reported that: 1.1 Thin asphalt overlay was found to be the most effective maintenance treatment followed by chip seal and slurry seal treatments in terms of roughness, rut depth, and fatigue cracking (Hall et al. 2002). 1.2 Crack sealing had no significant effect on long-term roughness, rut depth, or fatigue cracking (Hall et al. 2002). 1.3 Crack sealing had only marginal impact on longitudinal and transverse cracking. This is mainly due to the fact that sealed cracks are counted as separate distresses in the LTPP distress survey procedures (Morian et al. 1997). 2. For the SPS-4 experiment, the findings were inconsistent. Some researchers reported that: 2.1 Sealed joints performed better than unsealed joints (Morian et al. 1997, Morian et al. 1998), while others reported that there were no significant differences between sealed and unsealed joints (Carvalho et al. 2011). 2.2 Silicone joint sealant materials performed better than compression seals and hot pours in terms of the overall failure (adhesion loss and joint spalling) (Smith et al. 1999). 2.3 The lack of significant quantity of data is a drawback in the analyses. Survey measurements of sealed joint/crack were collected for 34 test sites while undersealed section data are available for only 10 sites (Carvalho et al. 2011). 3. For the SPS-5 experiment, it was reported that: 51 3.1 Thick overlays performed better than thin overlays with respect to transverse and fatigue cracking (Carvalho et al. 2011). 3.2 Inconsistent results were reported for longitudinal cracking, rut depth, and IRI. Some researchers (Rauhut et al. 2000, Von Quintos et al. 2006) reported that there was no apparent effect of thick and thin overlays on rut depth or IRI, while others (Carvalho et al. 2011) reported that thicker overlays provided better IRI. 3.3 Virgin and recycled HMA used in overlays were found to have no significant impact on transverse, longitudinal, or fatigue cracking, rut depth, or IRI (Rauhut et al. 2000, Hall et al. 2002). On the other hand, Carvalho et al. (2011) reported that recycled HMA performed better than virgin HMA with respect to fatigue and transverse cracking in dry climates and/or low traffic roadways. They added that virgin HMA performed better than recycled HMA with respect to rut depth (Carvalho et al. 2011). 3.4 The type of pavement surface preparation performed before overlay had no significant effect on rut depth or IRI (Rauhut et al. 2000, Hall et al. 2002). 3.5 Inconsistent results were reported relative to the effects of pavement surface preparation prior to overlay on long-term cracking performance. Hall et.al (2002) reported that intense and minimal pavement surface preparations have no significant difference relative to long-term cracking performance. Whereas, Carvalho et al. (2011) stated that intensely prepared pavement sections performed better than minimally prepared sections with respect to fatigue and longitudinal cracking. 4. For the SPS-6 experiment, it was reported that: 4.1 The 8-inch AC overlay is the most effective rehabilitation option, followed by the 4-inch AC overlay, and by concrete pavement restoration with and without diamond grinding 52 (Hall et al. 2002). On the contrary, Carvalho et al. (2011) reported that rehabilitation strategies without AC overlays were best to mitigate the crack initiation and propagation. 4.2 Pavement rut depth on composite pavement is independent of overlay thickness, pre-overlay repairs, and mixture type (Hall et al. 2002). 4.3 No significant difference in long-term cracking performance was detected between (Hall et al. 2002): (a) Test sections subjected to minimal versus intensive pre-overlay preparation. (b) Test sections with and without sawed and sealed joints. (c) Test sections with 4-inch overlays, with sawed-and sealed joints, and cracked and seated sections. (d) Test sections with 4-inch and 8-inch overlays. 4.4 Fractured PCC sections with an AC overlay performed better in roughness than those non-fractured PCC sections subjected to the same AC overlay. Further, the non-fractured sections that were subjected to AC overlay performed better than non-fractured PCC sections that were subjected to diamond grinding and patching without AC overlay (Ambroz et al. 2005). 4.5 Pavement roughness is independent of whether or not the pavement sections were subjected to sawing and sealing prior to the AC overlay (Hall et al. 2002). 2.16.2 Impacts of Design Variables on Pavement Performance The findings of various studies relative to the impacts of various design factors on pavement performance are summarized in the next six subsections. 53 2.16.2.1 Climatic Variables A study by Khazanovich et al. (1998) suggested that dowel bars should be used in Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JPCP) to reduce joint faulting in wet-freeze climates. In dryer climates, the joint spacing should be reduced to decrease transverse cracking potential due to high thermal gradients. This is because the precipitation has two effects on the pavement material temperatures; 1. Precipitation will cool or heat the pavement surface relative to the subsurface temperature, thereby reducing the difference in temperature with depth. 2. Water generally requires much more energy to change temperature than air, binder, and aggregate materials. Therefore, a higher water content or more frequent saturation will reduce the magnitude and rate of heating and cooling of the pavement layers. Additionally, IRI was found to be higher for similar pavements located in colder and wetter climates than those in other climates. Further, higher initial roughness led to higher rates of deterioration. They stated that the results should be reviewed with caution because the PCC durability was not included in the analysis, which may have affected the results. A study by Selezneva et al. (2000) indicates that faulting in un-doweled JPCP test sections in dry-freeze regions is similar to those sections in dry-no-freeze regions. The mean faulting values were 3.2, 2.0, 1.6, and 1.0 mm in wet-freeze, wet-no-freeze, dry-freeze, and dry-no-freeze regions, respectively. On the other hand, the doweled JPCP sections showed no significant differences in joint faulting between the wet-freeze and the wet-no-freeze regions. Doweled joint faulting occurred mostly in the dry-freeze regions, followed by the dry-no-freeze and the wet-freeze regions. Sections in the wet-no-freeze regions showed the lowest faulting values. 54 On the other hand, an initial evaluation of SPS-2 test sections, by Jiang et al. (2001), indicated that for doweled joints in rigid pavements, faulting was most prevalent in the dry-freeze region, followed by the dry-no-freeze, and the wet-freeze regions. Additionally, the total longitudinal crack length was found to be higher in the dry-no-freeze region, followed by the dry-freeze and the wet-freeze regions. Perera et al. (2001) reported a strong relationship between IRI and climatic conditions for flexible pavements. Higher roughness was measured in pavement sections located in areas with higher precipitation, higher freezing index, and/or higher number of freeze thaw cycles. They also stated that adequate frost protection was an important factor for good pavement performance. In hot climates, roughness values were strongly related to the number of days having temperatures above 32 °C (90 °F). Additionally, the roughness was lower for pavement sections in hot regions with higher precipitation than for those with less precipitation. They related this phenomenon finding to the cooling effect that precipitation may have on asphalt pavements, thereby reducing deformations resulting from high temperatures. On the other hand, rigid, jointed pavements were found to have higher roughness in climates with higher precipitation. 2.16.2.2 Roadbed Soils A study by Simpson et al. (1994) indicated that better subgrade support (higher backcalculated modulus of subgrade reaction, k-value) resulted in fewer transverse cracks with deteriorated edges and in lower roughness (IRI) for JPCP, JRCP, and CRCP. A study by Khazanovich et al. (1998) concluded that PCC pavements constructed over fine-grained roadbed soils have higher joint faulting than those constructed on coarse-grained roadbed soils. This is likely due to increased potential for soil erosion and reduced water 55 permeability. Likewise, JPCP sections constructed on coarse-grained roadbed soils have lower IRI than those constructed on fine-grained roadbed soils. They recommended that a thick layer of granular material be placed and compacted beneath the aggregate base course to improve drainage and reduce faulting, especially for non-doweled pavements. The study also concluded that PCC slabs supported on strong foundations, such as stabilized bases or granular roadbed soils, often have a lower initial roughness. In a study conducted by Mladenovic et al. (2002) using SPS-8 experiment data, it was found that the most prevalent early pavement distress is longitudinal cracking outside the wheel path. Further, this distress was most commonly observed in sections located in the wet-freeze region and on an active roadbed soil (frost-susceptible or swelling soils due to freeze-thaw cycles). It was also observed that flexible and rigid pavements constructed on active roadbed soils have the highest mean initial roughness values and the highest rates of deterioration relative to pavements constructed on fine- and coarse-grained roadbed soils. The findings of this study were in agreement with the findings of Simpson et al. (1994) and Khazanovich et al. (1998) that a good working platform (stabilized base and granular subgrade) contributed to a smoother pavement after construction. 2.16.2.3 Joint Load Transfer A common finding from the studies by Simpson et al. (1994), Khazanovich et al. (1998), and Selezneva et al. (2000) is that the presence of dowel bars had a significant impact on reducing joint faulting. In fact, after 10 years in service, JPCP sections with dowel bars showed 50 percent less joint faulting than those without dowel bars. In wet and/or freeze climates, the use of dowel bars appeared to negate the effects of cold temperatures and increased moisture that can often lead to erosion and pumping of fines. Selezneva et al. (2000) also found that the usage of 56 doweled joints can have more impact on pavement performance than design features such as sub-drainage, tied-concrete shoulders, and joint spacing. Further, Hall et al. (1997) found that properly sized dowel bars can eliminate corner breaks and transverse cracking near the joints as well as minimize joint faulting. In an FHWA report authored by Stubstad et al. (2002) the impacts of various parameters on the variability of the load transfer, as quantified by the load transfer efficiency (LTE), measured over time were documented. They stated that: For un-doweled JPCP joints, the variability of LTE along a pavement section is inversely correlated to the average LTE. As the average LTE of a pavement section increases, the variability decreases. The LTE variability is not affected by joint spacing, base type, or shoulder type (PCC or AC). The LTE variability is higher in pavements with subsurface drainage systems than in pavements without subsurface drainage systems. The variability of the average LTE for pavements with granular roadbed soils is higher than that of pavements with silty clay roadbed soils. The variability of the average LTE is not affected by the amount of annual precipitation, the number of annual freeze-thaw cycles, or the average mean annual temperature. The variability of the average LTE decreases as the annual freezing index increases. No direct relationship was found between pavement age and the variability of the average LTE measurements over time. The variability of the average LTE is higher in pavements with tied concrete shoulders than in pavements with an asphalt shoulder. 57 2.16.2.4 Drainage In a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Research Results Digest, Harrigan (2002) stated that, for properly designed doweled joints in JPCP, joint faulting is fairly low and permeable bases have relatively small effect on reducing joint faulting. Edge drains were found not to have a significant effect on joint faulting when dense-graded bases were used. For non-doweled JPCP, joint faulting in general was higher and permeable bases have a significant effect in reducing joint faulting. However, the permeable bases should be designed and maintained to reduce or eliminate the migration of fines from the lower materials. Similarly, slab cracking was found to be reduced in pavements constructed on asphalt treated permeable base. D-cracking was also found to be less prevalent in pavement sections constructed on permeable bases; likely due to reduced base saturation and introduction of water and various compounds into the concrete slab. Note that all of these findings are based on limited data. 2.16.2.4 Base Type In separate studies sponsored by FHWA and conducted by Khazanovich et al. (1998) and Titus-Glover et al. (1998), it was reported that JPCP constructed over a stabilized base had less faulting and smoother surface than those constructed with an untreated aggregate base, especially in un-doweled JPCP. JPCP with an asphalt-stabilized base or lean concrete base had significantly lower initial roughness when compared to other base materials. In addition, JPCP sections constructed with granular and asphalt-stabilized bases had significantly lower percentages of cracked sections than JPCP with cement-treated or lean concrete bases. The cracking was not associated with an increased roughness. In a LTPP sponsored study conducted by Jiang et al. (2005) using the SPS-2 experiment data, it was found that pavement sections with permeable asphalt-treated base developed the 58 fewest transverse and longitudinal cracks. On the other hand, pavement sections with lean concrete base developed the most transverse and longitudinal cracks during the first 10 years of pavement service life. This confirms the finding reported by Khazanovich et al. (1998) and Titus-Glover et al. (1998). 2.16.2.5 Slab Width Khazanovich et al. (1998) and Selezneva et al. (2000) concluded that increasing slab width by 0.6 meters (2 feet) reduces faulting of concrete pavements by reducing the critical deflections at the corner of the slab from heavy truck axles. The mean faulting data for un-doweled sections (10 years old or less) indicate about 50 percent less faulting with a widened slab. It was stated that this outcome agrees with previous non-LTPP field performance data. No difference was found between the faulting of doweled widened slab sections and doweled conventional-width JPCP. However, JPCP sections with widened lanes did not show any transverse cracking. Additionally, the initial evaluation done by Jiang et al. (2005) on SPS-2 data revealed that widened slabs have less initial roughness. 59 CHAPTER 3 PAVEMENT CONDITION CLASSIFICATION 3.1 Foreword In order to address the objectives of this study, as described in Chapter 1, a dual pavement rating system was developed which considers both the pavement condition and its rates of deterioration. The rationale for the development of the system is expressed in Chapter 2 and further detailed in this section. An accurate pavement condition rating system represents pavement behavior best when based on the current and future pavement conditions. The main benefit of including the estimation of future conditions is the ability of pavement managers to plan, budget, and create long-term treatment strategies to preserve the pavement network. Pavement condition ratings based on the current conditions alone only allow for decisions to be made for the given data collection cycle. The MAP-21 (Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century) Act of 2012 sets forth the following directive for asset management: maintaining, and improving physical assets, with a focus on engineering and economic analysis based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle of the assets at (85) The two key statements in the act are: 1. Asset management is a strategic and systematic process of operating. A strategic and systematic process implies the ability to model and estimate future conditions and times for corresponding actions on a regular basis. 60 2. Identify a structured sequence of maintenance, preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and sustain a desired state of good repair over the lifecycle of the assets. The sequence of maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation implies current and future actions. Hence, accurate prediction of future conditions and timing of future actions are essential to the implementation of MAP-21. The measured pavement distresses and conditions generally increase over time as the pavement deteriorates due to traffic loads and environmental conditions. Periodically over the pavement life cycle, preservation and rehabilitation treatments are applied to reduce the pavement distresses and improve its conditions, as illustrated in Figure 3.1. The costs of these treatments generally increases as the pavement deteriorates and the distresses or conditions worsen. Pavement condition rating based on current distresses and conditions are most commonly found to be problematic because it does not include the pavement rates of deterioration. The current condition alone does not support LCCA. Two pavement sections in equally good condition this year may or may not be in similar good or fair condition two or three years later. Consequently, an accurate pavement rating system should include the current distresses and conditions as well as the pavement rates of deterioration. Figure 3.2 illustrates the progression of roughness, as described by the IRI, of LTPP SPS-1 test sections 0102 and 0103 in the state of Iowa. The figure also provides an example rating system based on the current condition (IRI value). The data in this figure indicates that: 61 Figure 3.1 Typical pavement condition or distress over the pavement life cycle Figure 3.2 IRI versus elapsed time, SPS-1 test sections 0102 and 0103, state of Iowa 1. The initial IRI values for sections 0102 and 0103 are respectively about 0.9 and 0.7 m/km (55 and 45 inch/mile (good condition)). 2. The IRI values in the third year are about 1.3 and 1.0 m/km (63 and 85 inch/mile) for test sections 0102 and 0103 indicating good and fair condition, respectively. 62 3. Approximately two years later, the IRI of test section 0102 is more than 2 m/km (more than 120 inch/mile (poor condition)) whereas the IRI for test section 0103 is only about 1 m/km (65 inch/mile (good condition)). The above observations indicate that test section 0102 moved from good to fair condition in about one year and from fair to poor in about four years. Whereas, eight years after construction, test section 0103 is in the middle of the fair condition. This example indicates that the latest measured IRI data of any test section should not be used alone to predict future condition and consequently to plan possible treatment actions. The time series data must be used. The reason is that almost all pavement sections deteriorate over time and their rates of deterioration vary substantially from one pavement section to the next. Hence, in order to effectively and comprehensively plan pavement preservation actions for a pavement network, the rate of deterioration with respect to each condition and distress type of each pavement section must be known. Therefore, an accurate pavement rating system should be based on each measured pavement condition and distress type and the corresponding rates of deterioration. 3.2 Pavement Condition Rating System A balanced and comprehensive pavement condition rating system should be based on the two types of pavement conditions; functional and structural. In this study, the functional rating is based on ride quality (IRI) and safety (skid resistance and rut depth) and is expressed by the remaining functional period (RFP), (see definition below). For a given pavement section and when supported by the available data, three RFP values should be calculated; one based on IRI, one on rut depth, and one on skid resistance. The shortest of the RFP values will be assigned to the pavement section in question to flag the section for potential treatment actions. 63 The structural rating is based on cracking and rut depth or faulting, and is expressed by the remaining structural period (RSP), (see definition below). For any given pavement section, six RSP values should be calculated; one value for each of transverse, longitudinal, alligator, edge, and block cracking, and one for either rut depth for flexible pavements or faulting for rigid pavements. The smallest of the six values will be assigned to the pavement section in question to flag it for potential treatment actions. Based on the above, the RFP is defined as the shortest time period in years from the time of the last data collection to the time when a functional condition or distress reaches its corresponding pre-specified threshold value. Although, in this study, two RFP measures (IRI and rut depth) were used to define RFP, the pool of functional measures could be expanded by SHAs to include, as an example, skid resistance. Nevertheless, in this study, after calculating two RFP values (one for rut depth and one for IRI), the smallest value was assigned to the pavement section in question to flag the section. The other RFP value was retained in the database. The RSP, on the other hand, is defined as the shortest time period in years from the time of the last data collection to the time when a structural distress reaches its corresponding pre-specified threshold value. In this study, for each test section, six RSP values were calculated, and the smallest value was assigned to the pavement section in question to flag it for potential action. Once again, the pool of structural measures used in this study for calculating the RSP values could be expanded by the SHAs. It is important to note that once a pavement section is flagged for potential action, all available functional and structural data should be downloaded and examined before a treatment strategy is selected. Finally, the recommended threshold values for each pavement condition and distress are presented in a later section in this chapter. 64 The above definitions indicate that the RFP and RSP are not combined condition indices. Each condition and distress type is analyzed separately and the results are retained for further analyses. It is the minimum of the RFP or RSP values assigned to the pavement section that will flag the section for potential actions. Additionally, the RFP and RSP do not indicate the treatment to be applied to a pavement section. Rather, they are flagging mechanisms for identifying pavement sections that are in need for further attention. Once again, the stakeholder should review all available data for the flagged pavement sections and examine the distress and condition and other related data. After such examination, the stakeholder can select treatment alternatives that will address all or most defects and their causes. Ideally, each treatment alternative should then be subjected to LCCA and its impact on the entire pavement network should be determined before the treatment is selected. The RFP and RSP concept differs from the condition indicators evaluated in Chapter 2. The RFP and RSP account for the pavement rates of deterioration. The RFP and RSP are calculated based on non-linear mathematical functions which model the progression of the condition or distress over time. These equations are flexible and can be selected by the users or they can be replaced by the equations of their choosing. The RFP and RSP are a dual rating system; the RFP can be considered as a pavement rating for the users, whereas the RSP is an agency rating. The rating scale of the dual rating systems and the corresponding descriptive terms are listed in Table 3.1. The scale is divided into three condition states (CSs) numbered 1, 2, and 3 that correspond to poor (red), fair (yellow), and good (green) conditions, respectively, and to the three RFP and RSP ranges listed in Table 3.1. Finally, the main reason for using the same ranges in years for RFP and RSP is for ease of communication. 65 Table 3.1 Pavement condition rating based on three condition states Condition State RFP Range (Year) RSP Range (Year) Code Color Descriptive 1 Poor < 4 < 4 2 Fair 4 to < 8 4 to < 8 3 Good > 8 > 8 The dual rating systems could be used to select treatment categories at the network level. For example, preservation treatments should generally be applied to pavement sections in fair or better condition states. Heavy preservation treatment, or more likely rehabilitation, should generally be applied to pavement sections having poor RSP condition states. The treatment selection should be verified at the project level. The dual rating system listed in Table 3.1 was expanded to the five CSs dual rating system listed in Table 3.2. The main advantage of the five rating system is that the condition of the pavement sections in one CS or within a given RFP or RSP range are more uniform. It is recommended that the three rating system be used for communication while the five rating system be used for analyses and management. Note that this is possible because the poor and good ratings of the three CS system encompass the two additional CSs from the five CSs system, while the fair CSs are equivalent. The main advantage of the RFP and RSP is that the value of each should decrease one year for every calendar year. That is the RFP and RSP are linear functions of time although they are modeled as non-linear functions of the pavement distress and conditions. To illustrate this point, consider the power function (see Equation 3.1) that is typically used to model the rut depth data as a function of time. Equation 3.1 The time at which the rut depth equal to the pre-specified threshold value (Th) can then be calculated using Equation 3.2. 66 Equation 3.2 Table 3.2 Pavement condition rating based on five condition states Condition State RFP Range (Year) RSP Range (Year) Code Color Descriptor 1a Very poor < 2 < 2 1b Poor 2 to < 4 2 to < 4 2 Fair 4 to < 8 4 to < 8 3a Good 8 to < 13 8 to < 13 3b Very good > 13 > 13 Equation 3.2 is constant and is equal to the time in years between the end of construction of the last treatment action and the time when the RD threshold value is reached. the pavement section in question as stated in Equation 3.3. Equation 3.3 Where, RD = rut depth; andof the non-linear function of Equation 3.1; Th = threshold value for rut depth (typical value is 0. 5 inch (12.5 mm)); SA= surface age (year); DSL = design service life of the last treatment (year); ln = natural logarithm; and e = exponential function. 67 Finally, the value of the RSP should be positive and is limited to the design service life minus the surface age of the pavement section in question. Such limitation is required until at least three time-dependent rut depth data are measured and are available in the database. Equation 3.3 is constant, the RSP decreases by one year as the surface age of the pavement section increases by one year. To illustrate, consider the idealized rut depth power function of Equation 3.1 and the corresponding idealized data shown in Figure 3.3. The solid circles and curve in the figure simulate the idealized measured data whereas the dotted curve simulates the predicted rut depth data. At time zero (end of construction), no rut depth data are available and the RSP of the pavement section is equal to the design service life (DSL) of 15 years minus the pavement surface age (SA) of zero. Similarly, one and two years after construction the RSP is equal to the DSL minus the pavement SA. When the third measured rut depth data point becomes available, the data could be modeled using a power function and the time at which the rut depth reaches the pre-specified threshold value of 0.5-inch can be estimated using Equation 3.2. The RSP at that time is equal to the calculated time to threshold minus the pavement surface age. This procedure is repeated when a new data point becomes available and a new RSP value is calculated as displayed in Table 3.3. The RSP and SA values listed in Table 3.3 are plotted in Figure 3.4. It can be seen that the RSP decreases by one year as the SA increases by one year. Similarly, the IRI data measured as a function of time along LTPP test section 0102 in Iowa and depicted in Figure 3.5 (repeated herein for convenience), were modeled with an exponential function and six RFP values were calculated based on sets of three, four, five, six, seven, and eight time series data points. The results are listed in Table 3.4 and depicted in Figure 3.6. Once again, the actual measured IRI data when modeled using an exponential function yielded RSP values that decrease by one year as the pavement SA increases 68 by one year. Once again, similar results were obtained from the analyses of other LTPP test sections using various cracking data. They are included in Chapters 5 and 6. Figure 3.3 An example of idealized rut depth data and function versus elapsed time. Figure 3.4 RSP versus the pavement surface age for an idealized power function. 69 Table 3.3 Progressive calculation of RSP of the idealized rut depth Number of Available Data Points Surface Age (Years) Equation RSP (Years) Calculation Equation 1 0.01 N/A N/A 14.99 Assuming DSL = 15 years 2 1 N/A N/A 14 3 2 N/A N/A 13 3 2 0.2217 0.3 13 4 3 0.2217 0.3 12 5 4 0.2217 0.3 11 6 5 0.2217 0.3 10 7 6 0.2217 0.3 9 8 7 0.2217 0.3 8 9 8 0.2217 0.3 7 10 9 0.2217 0.3 6 Figure 3.5 IRI versus elapsed time, SPS-1 test sections 0102 and 0103, state of Iowa. 70 Table 3.4 The RFP of test section 0102, state of Iowa, based on the IRI data listed below Number of Data Points Pavement Surface Age (Year) IRI (Inch/Mile) IRI RFP (Year) 3 2.88 85.75 52.771 0.1721 3.99 4 4.32 103.62 53.864 0.1559 3.13 5 5.37 122.53 54.067 0.1535 2.17 6 6.13 136.45 54.251 0.1518 1.47 7 6.98 146.89 54.933 0.1464 0.82 8 8 180.64 54.721 0.1478 -0.25 Figure 3.6 RFP versus pavement surface age, test section 0102, state of Iowa. Nevertheless, the three and five CSs systems in terms of RFP and RSP are depicted for an idealized and un-treated pavement section shown in Figures 3.7 and 3.8. The threshold values in the figures are 2.73 m/km (172 inch/mile) and 180 m2 of alligator cracking per 0.1 km (3,168 ft2 of alligator cracking per 0.1-mile long pavement section), respectively. In addition, the RFP and/or the RSP can be used to express the rating of a pavement section or a pavement network during its entire life cycle, as depicted in Figures 3.9 and 3.10. The two figures show that the RFP and RSP increase slightly with the application of each preservation treatment and they increase significantly with rehabilitation. The initial values of the RFP and RSP after treatment, 71 Figure 3.7 RFP condition states Figure 3.8 RSP condition states and before condition survey is conducted, is the average expected performance period of that treatment. Hence, the RFP and RSP can be used as input for analyses of the life cycle costs, for the selection of an optimum and cost effective pavement preservation strategy, and for communications with engineers, managers, legislators, and the general public. 72 Figure 3.9 Typical RFP over the pavement life cycle Figure 3.10 Typical RSP over the pavement life cycle The RSP concept and the benefits of preservation treatments can be demonstrated by considering a flexible pavement section that was designed and constructed to last 15 years (DSL = 15 years). After construction, the section was in very good condition (the RSP was estimated at 15 years). Over time, the section deteriorated (starts showing some cracks) and the pavement conditions dropped from very good to good in 6 years and to fair in 10 years as shown in Figures 73 3.11 and 3.12. When the pavement condition reached fair status (RSP = 5 years), a thin (less than 2.5-inch) HMA overlay was applied and the pavement surface condition was restored to very good. Over the next seven-year period, the pavement surface condition deteriorated again from very good to good and to fair. At 17 years after the original construction, another thin overlay was applied and the surface condition was restored to very good status. Five years after the second overlay, the pavement surface condition dropped from very good to good, at that time (22 years after construction), the section was subjected to thin mill and fill treatment and the pavement surface condition was restored once again to very good condition. To summarize, the first HMA overlay was applied 10 years after the original construction (when the condition of the pavement surface reached the fair condition state). A second overlay was applied when the surface of the first overlay reached the fair condition state. Finally, a thin mill and fill treatment was applied when the second overlay treatment was still in good condition. As illustrated in the figures, the HMA overlays provided a better surface condition initially and decreased the rate of deterioration of the lower (the original HMA layers). Indeed, the original asphalt layer is still in fair condition 22 years after construction. It should be noted that, the timing for the first and second overlay or any other treatment type should be selected after LCC analyses is conducted. Any pavement section can be treated at any time during its service life. Some sections may be treated when the RSP is 15 years while others when their RSP is 8, still others when the RSP is at 3 years. Once again, the time and the type of the treatment should be selected based on the results of the LCC analyses. In this regard, the required data for the LCC analyses are: 1. For each applicable treatment type, the costs of the treatment when the pavement section is in each of the five condition states. 74 2. The expected treatment life (the time in years until the pavement condition after treatment reaches the same status as that before treatment). The preferred treatment type(s) and time of treatment are those that yield the minimum cost and maximum benefits. Figure 3.11 An example of pavement condition over time with two thin HMA overlays and one thin mill and fill action. Figure 3.12 Example RSP over time with two thin HMA overlays and one mill and fill action. 75 3.3 Recommended Threshold Values Threshold values are defined herein by the magnitude of a measurable pavement condition or distress which constitutes the minimum level of pavement functionality acceptable to the agency and users or the minimum acceptable level of structural integrity. All threshold values should be established based on certain engineering criteria of some pavement performance measures. For example, functionality thresholds should be established relative to ride quality and safety (such as IRI, skid resistance, and rut depth). Whereas, structural thresholds should be established relative to each cracking type, rutting or faulting. The units of measurement for the threshold values should be the same as those used in measuring the corresponding pavement condition and distresses. The engineering criteria for the threshold should include the impacts of their values on pavement condition and distress, the life cycle cost, and the optimum timing for pavement preservation. The recommended threshold values for the calculation of RFP and RSP are listed in Tables 3.5 and 3.6. The reasons behind the selection of the recommended values are presented in each table. Please note that the recommended threshold values are flexible and can be adjusted based on the agency and user needs and constraints and on the posted speed limit or road class. The threshold values listed in Table 3.5 are representative of the average minimum level of serviceability which the SHAs strive to provide their users. Therefore, these values are somewhat subjective; where one SHA may strive to provide pavement with no more than 150 in/mi IRI, and another may set the maximum acceptable pavement roughness at 225 in/mi IRI for their pavements. Neither value is wrong, right, or otherwise, the value should be determined by and expectations as well as the practicality and the life cycle costs associated with maintaining their pavement network given the agency constraints. Safety related threshold values such as rut depth and skid resistance, should also be determined by the SHA based on an assessment of the typical driving conditions, speeds, and vehicle 76 Table 3.5 Threshold values describing the RFP. Pavement Condition Type Threshold Values Used in the Analyses AASHTO MEPDG Manual of Practice (86) Threshold Value Explanation IRI 1.7 m/km (172 in/mi) Minimum acceptable ride quality at 90 km/hr (55 mi/hr); driver speed and comfort may be reduced above this value Interstate: 160 in/mi Primary: 200 in/mi Secondary: 200 in/mi Skid resistance To be determined by the agency Depends on the method of measurement and pavement type Not included Rut depth 12.7 mm (0.5in) Maximum allowable depth to control hydroplaning potential in wet conditions at 90 km/hr (55 mph) Interstate: 0.40-inches Primary: 0.50-inches Others (<45 mph), 0.65-inches Table 3.6 Threshold values describing the RSP. Pavement Condition or Distress Type Threshold Values Used in the Analyses AASHTO MEPDG Manual of Practice Threshold Value Explanation Alligator cracking 73 m2/0.1 km (1,267 ft2/0.1 mile) 20 percent of the lane area cracked (assuming 3.66-meter lane width) Interstate: 10% lane area Primary: 20% lane area Secondary: 35% lane area Longitudinal cracking 200 m/0.1 km (1,056 ft/0.1 mile) Two cracks along the entire section length Not included Transverse cracking (JPCP)) 50 m/0.1 km (264 ft/0.1 mile) Two thirds of the slabs are cracked (assuming 4.88-meter long slab) Interstate: 10% Primary: 15% Secondary: 20% Transverse cracking (HMA) 67 m/0.1 km (350 ft/0.1 mile) Lane is divided into 3.7-meter squares (12-foot squares), assuming 3.7-meter (12-foot) lane width and even crack spacing of 3.7 meter (12-foot) Interstate: 500-ft./mi. Primary: 700-ft./mi. Secondary: 700-ft./mi. Faulting 6.35 mm, average over 100 m (0.25 inch, average over 0.1 mile) Dowel bars have likely sheared or concrete around dowels has deteriorated and may be spalled Interstate: 0.15-inches Primary: 0.20-inches Secondary: 0.25-inches 77 characteristics and their role in a risk assessment analysis. For example, the potential for hydroplaning increases in wet climates, on roads with minimal cross-slope for surface drainage, and in areas with higher speed limits. The maximum allowable rut depth should be determined to provide reasonably safe travel for most roadway travelers in an economically feasible manner. Further, the threshold values do not imply that the SHA must or should wait to take action until the pavement sections reach the threshold values, nor do they imply that a roadway must be closed to traffic if the threshold is surpassed. The threshold value is a management tool which helps planners and managers to evaluate, assess, and make reasonable and potentially cost-effective decisions regarding the conditions and serviceability of the pavement network. On the other hand, the engineering criteria for most of the structural threshold values listed in Table 3.6 are much more difficult to establish for various reasons including: 1. The lack of sufficient long-term pavement performance databases that can be used to analyze the impact of the threshold levels on the life cycle cost and the health of the pavement network. The most critical information that is insufficient to support the analyses is cost data. 2. The engineering criteria or the threshold values affect the total yearly cost of preserving the pavement network. 3. The constraints of the road authorities regarding budget level, political pressure, increased demand, and increasing cost over time. 4. The relationship between the engineering criteria (the threshold values) and the road class. A typical highway authority manages several classes of roads that have various traffic demands. If different threshold values are established for different road classes, communicating the values becomes problematic. Nevertheless, it is generally agreed upon by the pavement community that pavement preservation and maintenance actions applied over time are more cost-effective than allowing 78 pavements to deteriorate until reas pavements can be preserved indefinitely. The question lies in where the tipping-points occur between the economics of preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Typical pavement structures are subjected to reconstruction after numerous cycles of pavement preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation. The number of these cycles and the corresponding life cycle costs are functions of the employed pavement preservation strategy and on the timing of the various pavement preservation cycles. The establishment of the RSP threshold values should be based on the assumption that the RSP value would flag the pavement sections for preservation actions at the proper time. For example, consider a flexible pavement section which has begun to develop block cracking (top-down type cracks) due to surface aging. Several surface treatments, such as mill and fill or HMA overlay, could reduce or eliminate the block cracking and its rate of propagation. If the threshold value for block cracking is set very high or if the RSP value is allowed to decrease to zero and beyond the threshold value, the block cracks will extend in depths and the cost-effectiveness of these treatments generally decreases until the conditions (the tipping point) for reconstruction is reached. This tipping-point could be when the cracks pass the mid-depth of the asphalt layer or when they penetrate the entire asphalt layer. The specific condition(s) where reconstruction becomes most cost-effective is dependent on many factors including: User Costs User costs can be summarized into the travel costs associated with driver delay and the vehicle operating costs (fuel and vehicle wear). The magnitude of the user costs for a given pavement project has many factors including the type and length of traffic control and detouring, the conditions of the roadway, and the traffic volume. Availability of Funds SHA funds are limited and some pavement projects have higher priority than others for various reasons. Hence, pavement treatments may be applied sooner 79 -effectiveness of the treatment may be affected. For example, a given pavement section may have reached the tipping-point, without budget constraints, the proper fix can be applied. With budget constraint (short funding) a less-- Ancillary Work Required Federal and State regulation and policy often require standardization of ancillary transportation items when a pavement project is undertaken. The requirements can be contingent on the type of work being performed. For example, a roadway reconstruction will require update of vertical and horizontal curves, bridge clearance, guard rails etc., while an HMA overlay may not require any ancillary updates. Pavement Location (urban or rural) The location of the pavement segment affects the costs of equipment mobilization and worker travel. Likewise, the amount of traffic and the number of access points also affects the costs. Highly trafficked roadways may necessitate detour routes that require improvements to handle the increased traffic, while the cost of traffic control can also be affected by traffic volumes and the number of driveways and entrance/exit ramps present. Pavement Treatment Benefits The benefit of a given treatment is dependent on many factors, such as the BT conditions and rates of deterioration, construction and material quality, and the anticipated traffic and environmental loading. The inherent variability in the materials and construction quality often yield differing treatment benefits within the boundaries of a given pavement project. The idea of structural integrity thresholds is even further convoluted by the false thought that pavements which have reached the threshold value must be reconstructed. Some pavement sections will reach the threshold for structural integrity yet may provide acceptable level of service. For example, a concrete pavement which has 100% of slabs with two or more transverse 80 cracks would likely be more cost-effective to reconstruct than to perform full-depth patching at each transverse crack. However, if the cracks are not faulted, the roadway may still have an acceptable IRI value. In this scenario, the pavement will have an RFP value of greater than zero while its RSP value is zero. The preferred alternative in this scenario would be to schedule pavement reconstruction for when the RFP reaches zero. In other words, zero RFP implies that action is needed but zero RSP does not necessarily imply that reconstruction is needed immediately. However, the latter is a function of the threshold value and the type of distress. For example, a typical pavement rut depth can be removed using certain treatments. However, if the rut is due to shear failure in the lower pavement layers, reconstruction may be required to eliminate the causes of rutting. Likewise, if the threshold value is set too high (for example, 100 percent alligator cracking) reconstruction may be required. The concept of long-life pavement can also add an extra nuance to the RSP concept. The idea behind long-life pavement is to construct a significant pavement structure that will resist structural deterioration, due to traffic and environmental loading, throughout the pavement cross-section. Pavement deterioration in long-life pavement would be limited to near the pavement surface (upper couple of inches), which treatment). In this scenario, the RSP is virtually constant as any structural deterioration is periodically repaired. One last important note on the RFP and RSP values is the concept of negative RFP or RSP. A zero value implies that either the pavement is providing less than standard level of service or the pavement structure has deteriorated to the point (depending on the threshold value) where reconstruction may be the most cost-effective treatment option. Therefore, a negative value of RFP or RSP indicates the length of time that has passed since the above implication. This information is not of particular use to pavement managers, since a pavement section with 81 zero or -5 years RFP or RSP yield the same conclusion, reconstruction or heavy rehabilitation may be needed. For this reason, the RFP or RSP value could be limited to zero. Note that there is no technical upper limit on the RFP or RSP values. However, the maximum value should be reasonably set based on the average design service life of the pavement structure. Finally, the above discussions are primarily based on the use of data observed or measured to characterize the pavement surface. Unfortunately, the damage has already occurred by the time the distresses appear on the pavement surface. An early indicator of impending surface distress would support early actions and the selection of cost-effective pavement treatments. Such early indication could come from the pavement deflection data measured using a falling weight deflectometer (FWD). The measured deflection and the rates of change over time could indicate the beginning of pavement deterioration prior to surface manifestation. 3.4 Flexibility of the Pavement Rating Systems The dual pavement condition rating systems are designed to be adaptable to the needs and constraints of the users. The dual systems are based on three types of information 1) time series pavement condition and distress data, 2) threshold values, and 3) applications of the results, which can be molded by any SHA to work for almost any data set and for many different tasks. The three information types are addressed below: 1. Data The data of the dual condition rating systems are the pavement condition and distress types included in the development of the rating. Recall that the dual rating is based on both functionality and structural integrity. The user may decide how to describe the pavement function and structural integrity. For example, this report utilizes the IRI values to describe ride quality, as is used by the LTPP and most SHA. However, an agency may choose to use another measurement or index, such as the ride quality index (RQI) in place of IRI. The rating process would be essentially the same with different data. 82 Likewise, the pavement conditions and distresses used to comprise the functional and structural integrity rating could have a wide range from user to user. For example, this report utilizes IRI and rut depth to rate the pavement function and utilizes alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking, and either rut depth or faulting to describe structural integrity. However, an agency may choose to use only traffic load or wheel path related distresses such as alligator cracking and transverse cracking (rigid pavement). Finally, an agency may choose to include additional data which were not included in the ratings in this report (such as edge cracking and block cracking). The data elements collected by the SHAs are not consistent and some may have more or less available data for use in the dual rating systems. For example, pavement surface friction data are not often available at the network level. However, a SHA with significant friction data may choose to include the data in their functional rating or in a safety rating system. The addition or subtraction of the rating systems data does not affect the process of the rating systems. The rating is based on the minimum RFP and RSP values respectively, regardless of the number of elements. 2. Thresholds The dual pavement condition rating systems utilize pavement condition and distress threshold values and CSs. Both of these are flexible in nature and can be molded to fit the needs of any highway authority. a) The pavement condition and distress types and thresholds presented in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 are not set in stone. They are based on those values available in various literature, the state-of-the-practice of SHAs, and the experience and opinion of the research team. They can be modified and calibrated to the needs of the interested highway authorities. For example, the recommended IRI threshold value of 172 inch/mile listed in Table 3.5 is based on providing comfortable ride on roads with speed limits of 55 mile per hour or higher. An agency may choose a higher or lower value such as 150 or 200 inch/mile 83 legislators. Similarly, the interested agency may choose to use different threshold values for the structural integrity. The recommended values, listed in Table 3.6reconstruction are no longer cost-effective. These threshold values are highly variable and depend on numerous factors. Hence, the values are anticipated to be modified by the interested agencies based on their specific scenarios. b) The ranges in years of the RFP and RSP listed in Table 3.1 and expanded in Table 3.2 are designed to describe both the pavement conditions and rates of deterioration and to provide sufficient time for planners and managers to scope pavement sections for the application of cost effective pavement preservation treatments. Again, the interested agency may choose to modify these ranges to fit their needs. For example, the RSP range in years for the poor rating of zero to less than four years is based on the required time to select, program, finance and bid a major rehabilitation or reconstruction project. That is, if a project has an RSP value of less than four years and it was selected for major rehabilitation, the time required to finish the paper work to approve, design, plan, finance, establish specifications, and bid the project varies from 2 to 5 years depending on the SHA. Hence, 4 years is recommended so that by the time of construction, the RSP is near zero. The above scenario implies that any interested SHA could modify the ranges of the rating scale to fit their needs and based on their own practice. However changes or modifications are made, the process of the rating systems would be essentially the same with different ranges of RFP and/or RSP. 84 3. Applications The applications of the dual rating systems are open and unlimited. Since the terms good, fair, and poor and the corresponding colors green, yellow, and red are easy to interpret and can be understood by the majority of stakeholders. The public could be informed of the CSs of the entire network or specific routes or sections. Legislators could use the ratings to determine future funding levels and directives. Planners and upper managers could use the ratings to allocate funds or to select regions or routes for treatment. Pavement future needs of the pavement network. The specific uses of the dual rating systems are numerous and can be established by the interested agency. One word of caution is that the dual rating systems cannot be used alone for the selection of treatment categories unless the boundaries of these categories are established. Figure 3.13 depicts the classic S-shaped curve for alligator cracking (expressed in the figure as percent of the total area). The figure also shows the boundaries for three treatment categories as follows: 1. Window 1 (W1) for do nothing or light maintenance where the extent of alligator cracking varies from 0.0 to 2 percent. This extent corresponds to RSP CS 3 (more than 8 years). 2. Window 2 (W2) for potential preservation actions where the extent of alligator cracking varies from 2 to about 18 percent. This extent corresponds to RSP CS 2 from 4 to 8 years. 3. Window 3 (W3) for potential heavy rehabilitation or reconstruction actions where the extent of alligator cracking exceeds 18 percent. This extent corresponds to RSP CS 1 from 0 to 4 years. 85 The final selection of the treatment category and treatment type within a given category should be accomplished after the actual pavement condition and distress data and results of the forensic investigation of the causes of distresses are carefully examined. The above discussion implies that the RSP and RFP spectrum could be divided to various ranges to aid in the selection of pavement preservation type and estimation of cost. For example, an RSP value larger than 8 implies light maintenance, whereas RSP values between 4 and 8 implies preservation treatments (that is no preservation treatment should be applied to pavement section having an RSP value of less than 4 years). Finally, an RSP value of less than 4 years implies rehabilitation and/or reconstruction. The interested SHA could assign an average cost to each of these RSP ranges based on their cost data. When such cost estimates can be accomplished base on the ranges of RSP, the data will indicate that early preservation (at high RSP value) yields the least LCC. 86 Figure 3.13 Idealized S-shaped curve for alligator cracking showing three windows (threshold values) for various treatment actions; W1 = Do nothing or light maintenance, W2 = Potential preservation actions, W3 = Potential heavy rehabilitation or reconstruction. W1 = Do nothing or light maintenance W2 = Potential preservation actions W3 = Potential heavy rehabilitation or reconstruction 87 CHAPTER 4 DATA MINING AND SYNTHESIS 4.1 Data Sources The data used in this study were obtained from the LTPP database standard release 28.0. The database contains six volumes consisting of the primary data set, data compilation views, FWD measurements, profile data, traffic data, and LTAS tables. Each of the six volumes contains various data elements for the more than 2,500 pavement test sections included in the LTPP program. While about 1,700 test sections have been de-assigned or de-commissioned from the LTPP program over time, nearly 800 remain active under the various experiments. Current planning and scheduling is taking place under the direction of the FHWA to establish additional experiments and test sections to study different/new topics. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 list the number of active test sections under each of the SPS and GPS experiments, respectively. The data from both active and de-assigned test sections were extracted from the database and arranged in special format for analyses. The detailed data extraction is presented in Sections 4.2 through 4.5 below. Results of the analyses are presented and discussed in Chapters 5, and 6. Table 4.1 Active SPS test sections, as of January 2014 Number of active test sections in each SPS experiment SPS- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total SPS Number of test sections 53 186 0 0 53 18 0 59 43 412 Table 4.2 Active GPS test sections, as of January 2014 Number of active test sections in each GPS experiment GPS- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total GPS Number of test sections 13 8 67 16 30 174 51 0 13 372 88 Further, the pavement management databases from three SHAs; Colorado, Washington, and Louisiana were requested and received. From each database, several pavement projects were identified and their data were downloaded from the respective databases and formatted for analyses. Each of the selected projects was subjected to certain treatments in the past. The data for each project include the location reference systems, the time series pavement conditions and distresses, the time and types of treatments that were performed in the past, and in some cases, the cost of the treatments. The data were analyzed and the results of the analyses are presented in Chapter 7. 4.2 Automated and Manual Pavement Distress Data The monitoring module within the primary data set of the LTPP database contains time series pavement distress data (rut depth, cracking, etc.) collected using manual (visual) and semi-automated (videotape) survey procedures. Table 4.3 provides a list of the number of manual and semi-automated surveys conducted for each test section in the SPS-1 experiment. The data for all other test sections in the SPS and all test sections in the GPS experiments are included in Appendix A. After detailed examination of the manual and the semi-automated pavement distress and condition data, the manual data were selected for data modeling and analyses. The semi-automated data were not used for the following reasons: 1. The number of available manual data points is much higher than that of the semi-automated data. The manual data have been collected over the entire duration of the LTPP program, while the semi-automated data were only collected between 1989 and 2004. Hence, less semi-automated data were collected. 89 2. The two sets of data are not compatible enough to be combined and analyzed as a function of time. The few semi-automated data points generally do not align with the trends indicated by the manual data over time. 3. The variability of the time series semi-automated pavement distress and condition data is much higher than that of the manual data. It is important to note that similar findings were also reported by Rada et al. 1999. 4.3 Data Extraction In order to facilitate the analyses of this study, specific data items were extracted from the LTPP database and formatted for time series analyses. For each test section of the SPS and GPS experiments, the following data items were extracted from the LTPP database. Inventory The time series pavement condition and distress The time and type of pavement rehabilitation, preservation, and maintenance actions Traffic Climatic regions 4.3.1 Inventory Data All inventory data including construction history of the test sections, their opening dates to traffic, lane widths, number of lanes, pavement layer types and thicknesses and subgrade information etc. were obtained from the inventory module. Some of the tables specifically used for this purpose were INV_AGE, INV_GENERAL, INV_ID, INV_LAYER, INV_SUBGRADE and so forth. 90 Table 4.3 Number of manual and semi-automated surveys for test sections in SPS-1 experiment State (code) Number of manual (M) and semi- automated (SA) surveys for test sections in SPS-1 0101 0102 0103 0104 0105 0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA M SA AL (1) 14 5 14 6 9 5 9 5 9 6 9 5 4 8 9 6 9 6 9 5 9 5 9 6 DE (10) 9 4 13 4 9 4 9 4 10 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 FL (12) 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 10 2 IA (19) 7 7 6 7 5 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 7 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 KS (20) 3 2 3 2 8 7 7 7 8 7 8 7 3 2 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 8 7 NV (32) 26 6 8 6 8 6 11 6 8 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 NM (35) 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 OH (39) 1 1 2 1 4 3 11 6 3 1 8 6 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 6 11 6 Number of M and SA surveys for test sections in SPS-1 0113 0114 0115 0116 0117 0118 0119 0120 0121 0122 0123 0124 AZ (4) 24 6 23 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 AR (5) 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 8 4 8 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 8 5 8 5 8 5 MI (26) - - - - 13 3 13 3 13 3 6 2 - - 6 2 6 2 - - 13 3 13 3 MT (30) 13 2 20 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 13 2 NE (31) 2 2 13 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 OK (40) 1 5 2 5 4 5 11 5 3 5 8 5 2 5 4 5 4 5 4 5 11 5 11 5 TX (48) 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 13 3 VA (51) 12 1 19 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 9 4 11 4 8 4 8 4 8 4 WI (55) 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 91 4.3.2 Time Series Pavement Condition and Distress Data The time series pavement condition and distress data utilized in the analyses include transverse (TC), longitudinal (LC), and alligator cracking (AC), rut depth, IRI, and faulting. These data were extracted from their respective files and reorganized in a spreadsheet format for analyses. The pavement condition and distress data were obtained from the following LTPP tables under the monitoring module of the LTPP database: 1. Cracking - MON_DIS_AC_REV, MON_DIS_CRCP_REV, and MON_DIS_JPCC_REV - The cracking data are classified and stored in the database utilizing three severity levels; low, medium, and high, as described by the LTPP Distress Identification Manual (Miller & Bellinger 2003). The difficulty with such data is that the crack severity rating is a function of several variables including: The pavement temperature at the time of the distress survey. The crack width, which is part of the severity level assignment, is a function of the pavement temperature. In general, the crack width increases as the temperature decreases. The subjective judgment of the surveyor who is reviewing and observing the cracks. Such subjective judgment is a function of the degree of training and experience of the surveyors. Further, the same pavement segment is likely to be surveyed by different surveyors over time. Thus, a crack may be labeled high severity in one year and medium the next year or vice versa. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 depict, respectively, the time series low, medium, and high severity transverse cracking data of SPS-3 test section A330 and SPS-5 test section 0502 in the state of California. Examination of the figures indicates that the sum of the time series low, medium, and high severity cracking data is more consistent over time than the individual severity levels of cracking and therefore more suitable for 92 modelling. Further, various attempts were made to analyze the data per severity level, in each attempt, the data for a significant number of test sections were eliminated from the analyses because of their high variability over time. In addition, the transverse cracking data are classified and stored in the LTPP database as either unsealed or sealed cracking at each severity level. While the longitudinal cracking data are classified and stored at each severity level as sealed and unsealed cracks in the wheel path or non-wheel path. The sealed and unsealed cracks have the same effect on the pavement structural integrity, the only difference is that sealed cracks retard water infiltration which may slow the rate of deterioration. Further, the wheel path and non-wheel path longitudinal cracks differ in their potential causes. Wheel-path longitudinal cracks in flexible pavement are likely to be either the start of top-down cracking due to pavement-tire interaction or the first appearance of alligator cracks on the pavement surface. In fact, for some test sections, the extent of longitudinal cracking, from one survey cycle to the next, decreases substantially as alligator cracking is recorded for the first time, indicating that the longitudinal cracks were re-classified as alligator cracks. Therefore, for flexible pavements, longitudinal cracking in the wheel path were combined with alligator cracking to facilitate the analyses of the data. Note that the selection of treatment type is based on the severity and location of the cracks, but the condition rating of the pavement is not affected by such information. 2. Roughness Œ MON_PROFILE_MASTER Œ The time series pavement roughness data are computed into IRI values and are stored in the database as left wheel path IRI and right 93 Figure 4.1 Transverse cracking versus elapsed time, SPS-3 test section A330, the state of California Figure 4.2 Transverse cracking versus elapsed time, SPS-5 test section 0502, the state of California wheel path IRI. The average of the two values is considered equivalent to the effect of roughness on the traveling vehicle. Hence, the average value of the IRI was considered in the analyses. 94 3. Faulting Œ MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT Œ For transverse joints, pavement faulting data are stored as edge faulting and wheel path faulting. The wheel path faulting data was used in the analyses since faulting at the edges could be influenced more by warping and/or curling. 4. Additionally, the average faulting among all joints within a given test section was calculated and used in the analyses. 5. Rut Depth Œ MON_T_PROF_INDEX_SECTION - In the initial stages of the LTPP program, rut depth measurements were made using a 1.2-m (4-ft) straightedge reference under the assumption that wheel path depressions are not wider than 1.2-m (4-ft). These rut depth measurements can be found in the MON_RUT_DEPTH_ POINT table. However, in many instances the wheel path depressions are wider than 1.2-m (4-ft). Hence, transverse profile measurements have been chosen by the LTPP program over straight edge measurements to account for this (Elkins et al. 2012). The transverse profile data was used by the LTPP program to calculate the mean and the maximum rut depth in each wheel path. The average of the two means and the average of the two maximum rut depth data were calculated and the former was used in the analyses in this study. 4.3.3 Pavement Rehabilitation, Preservation, and Maintenance Data Pavement rehabilitation, preservation, and maintenance data were extracted from the MAINT_REHAB Module of the LTPP database. The treatments performed on the LTPP test sections were classified and stored under different tables namely MNT_IMP and RHB_IMP. After downloading the data, they were organized such that the treatment information of each LTPP test section can be easily retrieved and analyzed. For all LTPP test sections that received one or more treatments and for each treatment type, the pavement condition and distress data were organized in two different groups; before treatment and after treatment. Such grouping is 95 crucial to accurately model the pavement performance before and after treatment and to estimate the treatment benefits. 4.3.4 Traffic Data The traffic data for each test section were extracted from the traffic module of the LTPP database. The ESAL data in the table TRF_ESAL_COMPUTED were used to group the various test sections. The grouping were used to assess the impact of various variables on pavement performance, the longevity of the pavement sections, and the effectiveness of the pavement treatments. 4.3.5 Climatic Data North America has been divided into four climatic regions; dry-freeze, dry-no-freeze, wet-freeze, and wet-no-freeze. The climatic regions were obtained from TRF_ESALS_INPUTS_SUMMARY table of the traffic module. The criterion established by the LTPP to identify wet and dry climates is based on annual precipitation. Regions having annual precipitation of less than 20 inches per year are considered dry. The classification of freeze or no freeze is based on the Freezing Index. Test sites located in regions where the annual Freezing Index is greater than 150 degree-days are considered to be in a freezing climatic region. 4.4 Status of the Condition and Distress Data As stated in Section 4.3.2, for each LTPP test section in the SPS and GPS experiments, and for each pavement treatment type, all available BT and AT condition and distress data were downloaded and organized in spreadsheet format for analyses. Table 4.4 provides a summary of the alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking data of all SPS-1 test sections located in the State of Montana (state code 30). Each row in the table represents one pavement test section. The columns indicate the treatment types and the number 96 of pavement condition and distress surveys (number of time series data points) that have been conducted before and after each treatment. For example, test section 0113 was subjected to crack sealing, aggregate seal coat, and two additional crack sealing treatments since its assignment into the LTPP. The number 5 under the first BT column indicates that five time series data points (surveys) are available in the LTPP database before the first crack sealing treatment was applied. The number 2 under the AT/BT column indicates that there are two data points available in the database after the first crack sealing treatment and before the aggregate sealing treatment. The numbers under the other AT/BT columns indicate the number of data points available in the LTPP database after the previous treatment and before the next treatment. Finally, there are four time-series data points available in the LTPP database after the last crack sealing treatment. Note that the number of BT data points for the first crack sealing application and the number of AT data points after the last crack sealing treatment are greater than 3 and hence, the data can be modeled as a function of time. A similar summary for each SPS and GPS experiment in each State can be found elsewhere. The information listed in Table 4.4 and others were used to identify the test sections and the treatments for which three- or more time-series condition or distress data points are available before and/or after a particular treatment. 97 4.5 Status of the Maintenance and Rehabilitation Data As stated earlier, the maintenance and rehabilitation actions and their time of application were compiled for analysis. A summary of the number of test sections in the SPS and GPS experiments with and without treatments is listed in Tables 4.5 and 4.6. Test sections in the SPS-1 through SPS-7 and GPS-6, GPS-7, and GPS-9 were included in the analyses to assess the impacts of design variables and treatment benefits. The available data for the untreated test sections were used as control sections or to estimate the service period of the test section. 4.6 Analyses Procedures Most of the proposed analyses for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the various pavement treatments are based on the determination and evaluation of the relationships between the before and after treatment pavement performance. Such pavement performance is a function of the available time dependent pavement condition and distresses data and the corresponding rates of pavement deterioration. In order to model, with some degree of certainty, the condition and distress data over time using non-linear mathematical functions, a minimum of three time series data points are required before and/or after treatment. Two or fewer data points do not define the parameters of the non-linear mathematical functions representing the data. Examination of the available data points in the LTPP database indicates that, for a significant number of test sections, only two data points are available before and/or after treatment. In order to enhance the number of available data and to increase the number of test sections that can be analyzed, several methods were implemented in the analyses. These methods are presented below. 98 1. The addition of one data point immediately after certain treatments Œ Often times the pavement conditions and distresses were not measured immediately after construction or after treatment application. Depending on the treatment type, the condition and distress values after the construction of some treatment actions can be logically and reasonably assumed. Therefore, for all newly constructed SPS-1 and SPS-2 test sections and for all other test sections where AC overlay or mill and fill treatments were applied, one can reasonably assume that at 0.01-year (3 days) after construction, the initial value of the rut depth, faulting, and the total length of each crack type is negligible. Since 0.0 data point is not allowed in the mathematical functions used in modeling the data, the initial pavement distress and condition at the elapsed time of 0.01 year after construction were assigned the following values: a. Rut depth Œ 0.01 mm (0.01 inch for the state data) b. Transverse cracks Œ 0.01 m (0.01 ft for the state data) c. Longitudinal cracks Œ 0.01 m (0.01 ft for the state data) d. Alligator cracks Œ 0.01 m2 (0.01 ft2 for the state data) This assumption supports the addition of one extra data point that can be used in the analyses of pavement performance. Unfortunately, no initial value of IRI can be reasonably assumed. To illustrate, in the state of Oklahoma, skin patching has been applied to 12 SPS-1 test sections. The database contains more than three time series pavement condition and distress data points that were collected after the skin patching was performed but only two data points are available before the treatment. Since all SPS-1 test sections were newly constructed, one data point can be assumed indicating that at 0.01-year after construction, the magnitude of rut depth, crack length, and faulting are the same as those listed above. 99 Table 4.4 Number of cracking data points available before and after pavement treatments, SPS-1 test sections in the state of Montana State (code) SHRP ID BT Treatment type AT/BT Treatment type AT/BT Treatment type AT/BT Treatment type AT MT (30) 113 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 114 10 CS 3 ASC 2 CS 1 CS 4 115 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 116 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 117 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 118 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 119 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 120 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 121 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 122 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 123 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 124 5 CS 2 ASC 1 CS 1 CS 4 CS = crack sealing, ASC = aggregate seal coat, BT = before treatment, AT = after treatment, AT/BT = AT for the previous treatment and BT for the next treatment Table 4.5 Number of SPS test sections with available treatment data in the database Treatment status Number of sections for each SPS experiment number designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total With treatments 163 106 408 192 202 169 38 13 102 1,393 Without treatments 82 101 37 28 2 1 1 40 35 327 Total 245 207 445 220 204 170 39 53 137 1,720 Table 4.6 Number of GPS test sections with available treatment data in the database Treatment status Number of sections for each GPS experiment number designation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 Total With treatments 197 121 96 56 50 50 27 12 609 Without treatments 36 23 37 13 35 15 8 13 180 Total 233 144 133 69 85 65 35 25 789 100 The addition of such data point makes the analyses of the BT pavement performance possible. Once again, such an assumption is reasonable and logical because for flexible pavements, the smooth-drum rollers that are typically used in the compaction of the original HMA or overlays or mill and fill treatments produce smooth and flat pavement surface with no rutting or cracking. The LTPP treatments which were considered for this action are listed in Table 4.7. This addition of a data point immediately AT was only applied to pavement segments where only two BT and/or AT data points are available. If less than two data points are available, the procedure will not yield three data points and hence it was not used. The addition of such data point significantly enhanced the number of available pavement segments for analyses. Note that no data points were added to any pavement segment that was subjected to any other treatments not listed in Table 4.7. Table 4.8 provides a summary of the status of the cracking data of all SPS-1 test sections located in dry-no-freeze region. The data in each of the designated columns are explained below. Similar tables for all pavement condition and distress data types and other LTPP experiments and climatic regions are included in Appendix B of this report. Column A Œ The climatic region. Column B Œ The state and state code. Column C Œ The treatment type. Column D Œ The number of SPS-1 test sections. Column E Œ The number of times treatments were applied. When the number in column E is higher than the number in column D, it implies that at least one test section received the treatment more than one time. 101 Column F Œ The number of treatment applications where three or more time series data points are available before and after treatment. Column G Œ The number of treatment applications where three or more time series data points are available before treatment only. Column H Œ The number of treatment applications where three or more time series data points are available after treatment only. Column I Œ The number of treatment applications where one data point can be logically assumed immediately after treatment (see item 1 above) that yields three time series data points before and after treatment. Column J Œ The number of treatment applications where one data point can be logically assumed immediately after treatment (see item 1 above), which make three time series data points before treatment only. Column K Œ The number of treatment applications where one data point can be logically assumed immediately after treatment (see item 1), which make three time series data points after treatment only. Column L Œ The number of test sections that can be analyzed before and after treatment. Column M Œ The number of test sections that can be analyzed before treatment only. Column N Œ The number of test sections that can be analyzed after treatment only. There are 1,555 LTPP test sections (supplemental sections are not included) in the SPS-1 through SPS-7 and in GPS-6, GPS-7, and GPS-9 experiments. The majority of these sections (1,301) were treated at least one time during their assignment period. The total number of treatment applications is 2,674 (some test sections received more than 1 treatment). For new construction (SPS-1 and SPS-2 test sections) and for overlay and mill 102 and fill treatments, one rut depth, cracking length, and faulting data point was added at 0.01-year after construction. After the addition of this data point, the number of test sections that can be analyzed before and after treatment, the number of sections that can be analyzed before treatment only, Table 4.7 Condition or distress type eligible for data addition for different treatments Pavement treatment type LTPP treatment code Pavement condition or distress type eligible for data addition IRI Rut depth Longitudinal cracking Transverse cracking Alligator cracking Faulting Grinding surface 12 - - - - - Reconstruction (removal and replacement) 18 - Asphalt concrete overlay 19 - Portland cement concrete overlay 20 - NA NA Surface treatment, single layer 28 - - - Surface treatment, double layer 29 - - - Surface treatment, three or more layers 30 - - Aggregate seal coat 31 - - Hot-mix recycled asphalt concrete 43 - Cold-mix recycled asphalt concrete 44 - Heater scarification, surface recycled asphalt concrete 45 - Recycled Portland cement concrete 48 - NA NA Mill off AC and overlay with AC 51 - Mill off AC and overlay with PCC 52 - NA NA Mill existing pavement and overlay with hot-mix recycled AC 55 - Mill existing pavement and overlay with cold-mix recycled AC 56 - NA = Not applicable, and - = Not eligible for data point addition 103 Table 4.8 Summary of cracking data for SPS-1 test sections located in the dry-no-freeze region A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Climatic region State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Number of treatment applications that can be analyzed before and after treatment Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry- no-freeze AZ (4) CS 6 8 2 4 2 0 0 0 2 4 2 FDP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PHP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 6 6 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 NM (35) GS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 OK (40) MPSP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SP 12 12 0 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 12 12 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ASC 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 11 GS 3 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 MOAC 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 MPSP 11 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 ACOL - Asphalt concrete overlay; ASC - Aggregate seal coat; CS - Crack sealing; FDP - Full depth patching; GS - Grinding surface; MOAC - Mill and overlay with AC; MPSP - Machine premix spot patching; PHP Œ Pot holes patching; SP - Skin patching; SS - Slurry seal; BT - Before treatment; AT- After treatment 104 and the number of sections that can be analyzed after treatment only are listed in Table 4.9. Table 4.9 Summary of treatments applied to SPS-1 to SPS-7 and GPS-6, 7, and 9 that were analyzed in this study Number of test sections Number of treated sections Number of treatment applications Pavement distress/ condition Number of treatment applications analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only 1,555 1,301 2,674 Cracking 278 463 925 IRI 468 558 911 Rut depth 394 453 747 Faulting 42 70 108 Total 1,182 1,544 2,691 2. Using the Control Section Data for BT Conditions Œ Several of the LTPP experiments, including SPS-3 through SPS-6, were designed with a control section (untreated) adjacent to the test sections (which were subjected to various treatment types). The control section was subjected to almost the same traffic and environmental loading and has almost identical structure and subgrade support characteristics. For this reason, the performance data of each control section can be used to represent the before treatment performance data of the adjacent test sections when only two or fewer BT data points are available in the database for the given test section. For example, SPS-3 test section A310 (see Figure 4.3) in the state of Maryland has only one cracking data point (not shown in the figure) collected before an overlay treatment was performed. There are six cracking data points available after the overlay was performed. To analyze the BT conditions of test section A310, the performance data of the control section A340 (see Figure 4.4), which was not subjected to treatment, was used to represent the A310 BT performance. In some cases, where no control sections are assigned, the linked GPS test sections associated with the SPS sections were used as control sections (Hall et al. 2001). Linked GPS 105 test sections are under the GPS experiment and are located adjacent to the SPS test sections. They have traffic loading and structure similar to the SPS test sections to which they are linked. Some of the linked GPS sections were also treated. However, the before treatment data (see Figure 4.5) can still be used as the before treatment data for the SPS-3 test section. Figure 4.3 Total longitudinal cracking versus time, SPS-3 test section A310, the state of Maryland Figure 4.4 Total longitudinal cracking versus time, SPS-3 control section A340, the state of Maryland 106 Figure 4.5 Total longitudinal cracking versus elapsed time, LTPP GPS-1634 linked section to SPS-3 experiment in the state of Maryland Cracking data collected prior to the overlay can also be used as BT data for test section A310. Comparisons of the pavement condition and distress data between the control and the linked section as related to the conditions of the test section were made to verify whether or not the data of the control and/or linked sections are indeed similar to the available BT data points of the test section. Finally, if the data of the control section represents the BT data of the test section, the performance of the two sections were compared to determine the benefits of the treatment applied to the test section. For some test sections, such as SPS-3 test section A350 in the state of New York, the reported BT longitudinal cracking is about 300 meters, as shown in Figure 4.6. The longitudinal cracking data of the associated control section A340 indicate 60 to 100 meters of cracking, as shown by the open symbols in Figure 4.6. It should be noted that the control section was not subjected to any treatment. Nevertheless, in this and similar cases, the data from the control sections were not used because they were not representative of the BT pavement performance of the test section in question. Please note that, the use of the control 107 section data in place of the BT data significantly increased the number of available test sections for analysis. Figure 4.6 Total longitudinal cracking versus elapsed time, SPS-3 test section A350, and A340 control section in the state of New York Although a treated pavement section may have 3 data points BT and/or AT, it may or may not be accepted for analysis. The BT and/or the AT time series data of some of these test sections indicate that the pavement condition and/or distress is improving over time without the application of any treatment, as shown in Figure 4.7. In the absence of a pavement treatment, most pavement sections deteriorate over time. When the pavement condition and/or distress data indicate improvement over time, without the application of treatment, the data will precipitate negative parameters of the pavement performance model; that is, improved condition and/or distress without treatment. Such pavement condition and distress trends could occur for various reasons including: Human error and/or inaccuracy while collecting the data. The subjectivity of assigning distress severity levels and estimating the extent of the distress could generate 108 inaccuracies in the time series data. Properly calibrated sensor measured data do not exhibit this problem as no human subjectivity is involved. Data inaccuracy due to the employed equipment, such as calibration, malfunction, or changing equipment type between surveys over time. Figure 4.7 IRI versus elapsed time, SPS-1 test section 0119, the state of Texas Environmental conditions from one data collection cycle to the next. For example, the crack opening is wider on cold days than on warmer days due to thermal expansion and contraction. This may change the assigned crack severity level and/or the observance of the length of the cracks. Likewise, temperature differential may cause curling on certain days, which influences the measured pavement roughness in terms of IRI. When the pavement condition and/or distress show improvement over time without any treatment application, the data will yield infinite RFP and/or RSP values and the pavement performance cannot be assessed. For example, the data and the exponential equation in Figure 4.7 indicate improvement of the IRI over time and negative exponential power component. That is, according to the given data and the equation, the IRI will never 109 reach the threshold value and therefore the RFP is infinite, which is not practical. Consequently, any time series condition or distress data showing improvement over time without the application of treatments, is not included in the analyses of the pavement performance. 3. Severity level - Finally, the analyses of cracking data in this study was based on the sum of the data for low, medium, and high severity levels. 110 CHAPTER 5 DATA ANALYSES Œ FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS 5.1 Background For all LTPP test sections in SPS-1 through SPS-7, GPS-6, GPS-7, and GPS-9, the time series pavement conditions, and distresses data were downloaded and organized in spreadsheet format for analyses. The data from these LTPP test sections and few pavement sections from the three SHAs were modeled using the proper mathematical functions and were subjected to analyses. The procedures and the results of the analyses of the LTPP flexible pavement condition and distress data are presented in this chapter, while the procedure and results for rigid pavement condition and distress data are presented in Chapter 6. Results of the analyses of the three SHAs data are presented and discussed in Chapter 7. 5.2 Modeling of the Time Series Pavement Condition and Distress Data The time series pavement condition and distress data of all test sections in the SPS-1 through SPS-7 and GPSŒ6, GPS-7, and GPS-9 experiments were downloaded, organized, and modeled using the proper mathematical functions based on the type of pavement condition or distress. The selected mathematical functions are based on known trends and mechanism of pavement deterioration, as listed in Table 5.1 and shown in Figure 5.1 (Meyer et al. 1999, M-E PDG 2004, Dawson 2012). For example, rutting typically occurs early in the asphalt pavement™s life and its accumulation rate decreases over time as the pavement materials densify under traffic loads. Therefore, a power function is typically used to model the time series rut depth data. On the other hand, pavement roughness and typically increase exponentially as the pavement ages, deteriorates, and becomes uneven causing increases in the dynamic effects of traffic loads. Hence, an exponential function is typically used to model the pavement roughness (IRI). Finally, 111 the propagation of pavement cracks typically follows three stages. In the first stage, few cracks appear in the early pavement life; their number and length increase exponentially. In the second stage, the number and length of cracks increase almost linearly over time. In this stage, few new cracks are initiated and most existing cracks approach their maximum possible lengths (lane width or the pavement section length). In the third stage, the number of cracks and their length reach equilibrium as shown by the logistic curve in Figure 5.1. Given the above scenario, the modeling of crack propagation over time could be achieved using two different functions depending on the availability of the data. If the cracking data are available over a short period of time after construction (stage one data only), an exponential function could be used to model the data. On the other hand, if the cracking data are available when the pavement is old (stage three only), a power function could be used. The modeling of the crack propagation using the logistic function cannot be confidently achieved unless at least four data points are available spanning the three crack propagation stages. To alleviate the problem and to increase the number of test sections to be included in the analyses, one crack saturation point was assumed for each type of cracking. The assumed crack saturation points used throughout this study are listed in Table 5.2. The assumption of the crack saturation points is based on engineering logic. For example, the saturation point for alligator cracking is the entire surface area of the pavement section, whereas, the saturation point for longitudinal cracking is three cracks along the entire pavement section. Note that the square, circle, and triangle symbols in Figure 5.1 represent measured data. The solid portion of the curves are fit to the measured data while the dashed portions are forecasted based on the fit data. After selecting the proper mathematical function, least squares regression technique was used to determine the statistical parameters of the selected 112 mathematical functions. The least squares regression technique is based on minimizing the sum of the squared differences (error) between the calculated and the measured data (Dawson 2012). Figure 5.1 Exponential, power, and logistic (s-shaped) curves To expedite the analyses, a MATLAB based computer program was written to complete the following functions for each pavement condition and distress data set of each LTPP test section and for each pavement treatment type (see the program flowchart in Figure 5.2): 1. Read all available time series data from an Excel spreadsheet. 2. Separate the data to two parts; before and after treatment. 3. Check the available number of time series data points before and after treatment. 4. If three or more data points are available before and/or after the treatment, use the proper mathematical function to fit the data and obtain the statistical parameters of the function. 5. Organize the results (section identification, treatment date and type, climatic regions, traffic, the last collected BT data point, the first collected AT data point, the number of BT and AT data points, and the statistical parameters) in an Excel spreadsheet format 113 Table 5.1 Mathematical functions used in the analyses of the pavement distress and condition data Equation description The mathematical functions used in modeling pavement condition or distress as functions of time International Roughness Index (IRI) (inch/mile or m/km) Rut depth (RD) (inch or mm) Cracking (length, area, or percent) Function form Exponential Power Logistic (S-shaped) Generic equation = = Crack= 1+() Time when a threshold value is reached =ln =ln =ln11 Remaining Functional Period = RFP = () Remaining Structural Period = RSP = () is the elapsed time in years from after construction or rehabilitation to the time when the threshold value is reached, and Threshold is the pre-specified condition or distress level indicating zero RFP or RSP for a given pavement condition or distress type. SA = surface age since the last action (year); DL = design life or period or the estimated treatment action life (year) 114 Table 5.2 Crack saturation values used in the analyses of the pavement cracking data Cracking type Saturation value Reason Per 152.4 m (500 ft) LTPP section Per 0.1 km Per 0.1 mile Alligator cracking 549 m2 (5,906 ft2) 360 m2 6,336 ft2 100 percent section cracked (3.66 m (12 ft) lane width) Longitudinal cracking 457.2 m (1,500 ft) 300 m 1,584 ft 3 cracks along entire section length Transverse cracking (length), flexible pavements 152.4 m (500 ft) 100 m 528 ft 1 crack every 3.65 m (12 ft) Number of transverse cracks, flexible pavements 42 28 44 1 crack each 3.65 m (12 ft) Transverse cracking (length), rigid pavements 114 m (375 ft) 75 m 396 ft 1 crack per slab (4.87 m (16 ft) joint spacing) Number of transverse cracks, rigid pavements 31 21 33 1 crack per slab (4.87 m (16 ft) joint spacing) Note: The data in the shaded area are included for convenience. The analyses were conducted using the measured crack lengths and alligator cracked areas. 115 Figure 5.2 Flowchart of the MATLAB program Start Read inventory data for each section to be analyzed analyzed Read treatment, condition, and distress data Organize the time series data for analysis For each test section, check whether or not pavement condition and distress data are available Check if there are three data points before and/or after each treatment Fit the appropriate mathematical function and calculate the statistical parameters The parameters and other estimates are set to null The model parameters and other estimates are set to null No Yes Yes Export the results and the inventory data to an Excel spreadsheet Stop fiTreatment type and date and inventory data inputsfl fiCracking, IRI, rut depth, and fault data inputsfl No 116 The MATLAB output data were then subjected to further analyses to estimate, for each test section and for each treatment type, the following parameters: 1. The BT RFP, RSP, and CS. 2. The AT RFP, RSP, and CS. 3. Any changes in the RFP or RSP resulting from the pavement treatment. The change in the RFP or RSP is defined as the differences between the BT RFP or RSP values and the AT RFP or RSP values. 4. The time period for the re-occurrence of the previous pavement conditions (the last collected data point before the application of the preservation treatment). 5. Instantaneous change in the pavement conditions and distresses due to treatment (also called performance jump). 5.3 Impacts of Climatic Regions, Drainage, and AC Thickness on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP SPS-1 Test Sections Please recall that the main objective of the SPS-1 experiment is to study the effects of the climatic regions and the following structural factors on pavement performance (Von Quintus et al. 2003). 1. Presence or absence of a drainage layer 2. AC thickness (4 in or 7 in) 3. Base type (dense-graded aggregate base, asphalt treated base, permeable asphalt treated base, or a combination thereof) 4. Base thickness (8 in, 12 in, or 16 in) The analyses of the impacts of the various variables were accomplished in the following steps: 117 Step 1 - For each pavement test section in the SPS-1 experiment, each of the time dependent pavement condition (IRI) and distress (rut depth, and alligator, transverse, and longitudinal cracking) data were used to calculate the RFP and RSP of that section from the time of construction to the time when the pavement condition or distress reach the appropriate threshold values. The reason for calculating the RFP and RSP from the construction data (surface age is zero) is that the dates of construction and last data collection for different test sections are not the same. This implies that the reference time for all SPS-1 test sections is taken as the date of construction. Step 2 - For each pavement condition and distress type, the resulting RFP and RSP values and other inventory data (such as SHRP ID, State, AC thickness, drainage, base type and thickness, and so forth) were then organized into an Excel spreadsheet format. Step 3 Œ For each SHRP ID and for each pavement condition and distress type, the minimum and maximum RFP and RSP values and their averages were calculated and listed in the Excel spreadsheet. Step 4 - The data were then divided into the various climatic regions, groups, and subgroups listed below. The main objective of the division is to separate the design variables impacting pavement performance. 1 - Climatic Regions Œ The results were divided into four climatic regions; wet-freeze (WF), wet-no-freeze (WNF), dry-freeze (DF), and dry-no-freeze (DNF). 2 - AC Thickness Groups Œ The results in each climatic region were then divided into two groups based on the thickness of the AC (4 and 7 in). 3 - Drainage Subgroup Œ The results in each AC thickness group were then divided into two drainage subgroups (presence and absence of drainage). 118 It should be noted that various attempts were made to divide the results in each drainage subgroup into base thickness and base type subgroups and into three traffic levels. Unfortunately, none of the attempts was successful because any further division yielded insignificant number of test sections in each subgroup such that no decisions could be made with any level of certainty. Therefore, the impacts of the base thickness and type were not studied any further. The impacts of the four climatic regions (WF, WNF, DF, and DNF), the AC thickness (4 and 7 in), and drainable and undrainable bases on the pavement performance in terms of the RFP and RSP were analyzed. The detailed results of the analyses were tabulated and are included in Tables C.1 through C.20 and Figures C.1 through C.20 of Appendix C. For convenience, the detailed results were summarized and are listed in Tables 5.3 through 5.8. The materials below provide explanation and discussion of the numbers (analyses results) in each cell of Tables 5.3 through 5.8. The presentation, discussion, and conclusions are organized in subsections based on the type of pavement condition and distress. The data in Tables 5.3 through 5.8 address the impact of climatic regions, the AC thickness, and drainable and undrainable bases on the pavement performance (in terms of the RFP and RSP values) of the SPS-1 test sections. The numbers in the tables indicate the differences in years in the RFP or RSP values of the SPS-1 test sections having the top heading parameters relative to the RFP and RSP values of the SPS-1 test sections having the side heading parameters. Thus, in each of Tables 5.3 through 5.7, the shaded diagonal represents the line of symmetry. If the table is folded along the diagonal, the aligned numbers from above and from below the diagonal will be the same but with different sign. Nevertheless, the proper readings of the data in the tables is illustrated in two examples below. 119 Example 1: this example illustrates how to read the data in Tables 5.3 through 5.7, with example data from Table 5.3. The first four numbers in the first row below the top headings imply the following: 1. The average RFP of the test sections located in the WF region and having 4-inch thick AC layer and undrainable bases is 5 years shorter (-5) than compatible test sections with drainable bases. 2. The average RFP of the test sections located in the WF region and having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases is the same (0) as those having 4-inch thick AC layer with drainable bases. 3. The average RFP of test sections located in the WF region and having 7-inch thick AC layer and undrainable bases is 2 years shorter (-2) than those having 4-inch thick AC layer with drainable bases. 4. The average RFP of the test sections located in the WNF region and having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases is 2 years longer (2) than those located in the WF region and having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases. Example 2; this example illustrates how to read the data in Tables 5.8. The data in the table address the impact of the climatic regions on the pavement condition (IRI) and distresses (rut depth and alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking). The numbers in the table indicate the percent of the test sections having the heading parameters performed either better, the same, or worse relative to the test sections having the side heading parameters. For example, for IRI, the six numbers (three numbers in each of the top two populated rows in the three columns under the heading WF) and for rut depth, the six numbers (three numbers in each of the next two populated rows) under the same three columns heading (WF) imply the following: 120 Table 5.3 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on IRI WF WNF DF DNF 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 4fl AC D -5 0 -2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 ND 5 4 3 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 6 7 7 7fl AC D 0 -4 -1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 ND 2 -3 1 4 3 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 WNF 4fl AC D -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 ND -2 -7 -2 -3 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 7fl AC D -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 ND -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 -1 0 0 DF 4fl AC D 0 -5 -1 -2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 ND -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 7fl AC D -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 ND -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 DNF 4fl AC D -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 ND -1 -6 -1 -3 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7fl AC D -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 -1 0 ND -2 -7 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 -1 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = un-drainable base; AC = asphalt concrete 121 Table 5.4 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP/RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on RD WF WNF DF DNF 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 4fl AC D -5 -1 -3 5 5 5 5 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 ND 5 4 2 10 10 10 10 9 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 7fl AC D 1 -4 -3 6 6 5 6 5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 ND 3 -2 3 8 9 8 9 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 WNF 4fl AC D -5 -10 -6 -8 0 0 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ND -5 -10 -6 -9 0 0 0 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7fl AC D -5 -10 -5 -8 0 0 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ND -5 -10 -6 -9 -1 0 -1 -2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 DF 4fl AC D -4 -9 -5 -7 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ND -6 -11 -7 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7fl AC D -6 -11 -7 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND -6 -11 -7 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 DNF 4fl AC D -6 -11 -7 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND -6 -11 -7 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 7fl AC D -6 -11 -7 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND -6 -11 -7 -9 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = un-drainable base; AC = asphalt concrete 122 Table 5.5 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on ALC WF WNF DF DNF 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 4fl AC D -4 -3 -3 0 0 2 2 -3 -5 -2 -3 -5 -6 -1 -2 ND 4 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 -2 2 1 -1 -2 3 2 7fl AC D 3 -1 0 3 2 4 4 -1 -3 1 0 -2 -3 2 1 ND 3 -1 0 3 3 5 5 0 -2 1 0 -1 -3 2 2 WNF 4fl AC D 0 -4 -3 -3 -1 1 1 -4 -6 -2 -3 -5 -6 -1 -2 ND 0 -3 -2 -3 1 2 2 -3 -5 -2 -3 -4 -6 -1 -1 7fl AC D -2 -5 -4 -5 -1 -2 0 -5 -7 -4 -5 -6 -8 -3 -3 ND -2 -5 -4 -5 -1 -2 0 -5 -7 -4 -4 -6 -8 -3 -3 DF 4fl AC D 3 0 1 0 4 3 5 5 -2 1 1 -1 -3 2 2 ND 5 2 3 2 6 5 7 7 2 3 2 1 -1 4 4 7fl AC D 2 -2 -1 -1 2 2 4 4 -1 -3 -1 -2 -4 1 0 ND 3 -1 0 0 3 3 5 4 -1 -2 1 -2 -3 2 1 DNF 4fl AC D 5 1 2 1 5 4 6 6 1 -1 2 2 -1 3 3 ND 6 2 3 3 6 6 8 8 3 1 4 3 1 5 4 7fl AC D 1 -3 -2 -2 1 1 3 3 -2 -4 -1 -2 -3 -5 0 ND 2 -2 -1 -2 2 1 3 3 -2 -4 0 -1 -3 -4 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = un-drainable base; AC = asphalt concrete 123 Table 5.6 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on LC WF WNF DF DNF 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 4fl AC D -1 -1 0 5 6 6 5 1 0 -1 0 6 5 6 7 ND 1 0 1 6 7 7 6 1 1 0 1 7 6 6 8 7fl AC D 1 0 1 6 7 7 6 2 1 0 1 7 6 7 8 ND 0 -1 -1 5 6 6 5 0 0 -1 0 6 5 5 7 WNF 4fl AC D -5 -6 -6 -5 1 1 0 -5 -5 -6 -5 1 0 0 2 ND -6 -7 -7 -6 -1 0 -2 -6 -6 -7 -6 -1 -1 -1 1 7fl AC D -6 -7 -7 -6 -1 0 -1 -6 -6 -7 -6 0 -1 -1 1 ND -5 -6 -6 -5 0 2 1 -4 -5 -5 -5 1 0 1 2 DF 4fl AC D -1 -1 -2 0 5 6 6 4 0 -1 -1 5 4 5 7 ND 0 -1 -1 0 5 6 6 5 0 -1 0 6 5 5 7 7fl AC D 1 0 0 1 6 7 7 5 1 1 1 7 6 6 8 ND 0 -1 -1 0 5 6 6 5 1 0 -1 6 5 6 7 DNF 4fl AC D -6 -7 -7 -6 -1 1 0 -1 -5 -6 -7 -6 -1 0 1 ND -5 -6 -6 -5 0 1 1 0 -4 -5 -6 -5 1 1 2 7fl AC D -6 -6 -7 -5 0 1 1 -1 -5 -5 -6 -6 0 -1 2 ND -7 -8 -8 -7 -2 -1 -1 -2 -7 -7 -8 -7 -1 -2 -2 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = un-drainable base; AC = asphalt concrete 124 Table 5.7 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP of LTPP SPS-1 test sections based on TC WF WNF DF DNF 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC 4fl AC 7fl AC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 4fl AC D 1 2 1 3 3 4 3 -3 2 -3 0 -1 2 2 0 ND -1 2 1 2 2 3 2 -4 1 -4 0 -1 1 1 0 7fl AC D -2 -2 -1 1 0 1 1 -6 0 -5 -2 -3 -1 0 -2 ND -1 -1 1 2 1 2 2 -5 1 -4 -1 -2 0 1 -1 WNF 4fl AC D -3 -2 -1 -2 -1 0 0 -7 -1 -6 -3 -4 -1 -1 -3 ND -3 -2 0 -1 1 1 1 -6 0 -5 -2 -3 -1 0 -2 7fl AC D -4 -3 -1 -2 0 -1 0 -7 -1 -6 -3 -4 -2 -1 -3 ND -3 -2 -1 -2 0 -1 0 -7 -1 -6 -3 -4 -1 -1 -3 DF 4fl AC D 3 4 6 5 7 6 7 7 6 1 4 3 5 6 4 ND -2 -1 0 -1 1 0 1 1 -6 -5 -2 -3 0 0 -2 7fl AC D 3 4 5 4 6 5 6 6 -1 5 3 2 5 5 3 ND 0 0 2 1 3 2 3 3 -4 2 -3 -1 1 2 0 DNF 4fl AC D 1 1 3 2 4 3 4 4 -3 3 -2 1 2 3 1 ND -2 -1 1 0 1 1 2 1 -5 0 -5 -1 -2 0 -1 7fl AC D -2 -1 0 -1 1 0 1 1 -6 0 -5 -2 -3 0 -2 ND 0 0 2 1 3 2 3 3 -4 2 -3 0 -1 1 2 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = un-drainable base; AC = asphalt concrete 125 Table 5.8 Summary of the results of analyses of the effects of climatic regions on the performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections Condition or distress type Climatic region Climatic regions and the percent of test sections where RFP/RSP was better, equal, or worse than other climatic regions WF WNF DF DNF Better Same Worse Better Same Worse Better Same Worse Better Same Worse IRI WF 58 4 38 56 28 17 58 42 0 WNF 38 4 58 77 6 17 8 84 8 DF 17 28 56 17 6 77 17 72 11 DNF 0 42 58 8 84 8 11 72 17 RD WF 83 17 0 82 13 5 73 27 0 WNF 0 17 83 23 68 9 9 91 0 DF 5 13 82 9 68 23 0 100 0 DNF 0 27 73 0 91 9 0 100 0 AC WF 67 8 25 42 4 54 42 8 50 WNF 25 8 67 38 8 54 13 0 87 DF 54 4 42 54 8 38 46 17 38 DNF 50 8 42 87 0 13 38 17 46 LC WF 88 8 4 46 4 50 92 8 0 WNF 4 8 88 8 29 63 42 42 16 DF 50 4 46 63 29 8 67 29 4 DNF 0 8 92 16 42 42 4 29 67 TC WF 54 33 13 42 12 46 46 21 33 WNF 13 33 54 38 54 8 7 50 42 DF 46 12 42 8 54 38 42 46 12 DNF 33 21 46 42 50 7 12 46 42 IRI = International Roughness Index; RD = rut depth; AC = alligator cracking; LC = longitudinal cracking; and TC = transverse cracking 126 1. Relative to IRI, 38 percent of the test sections located in the WF region performed better than those located in the WNF region, four percent performed the same, and 58 percent performed worse. 2. Relative to IRI, 17 percent of the test sections located in the WF region performed better than compatible sections located in the DF region, 28 percent performed the same, and 56 percent performed worse. 3. Relative to rut depth, none of the test sections located in the WF region performed better than those located in the WNF region, 17 percent performed the same, and 83 percent performed worse. 4. Relative to rut depth, five percent of the test sections located in the WF region performed better than compatible sections located in the DF region, 13 percent performed the same, and 82 percent performed worse. To this end, the discussion of the analyses results listed in Tables 5.3 through 5.7 are organized relative to the pavement condition and distress type and presented below. 5.3.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RFP values for the SPS-1 test sections having the same SHRP ID and located in each climatic region are listed in Tables C.1 through C.4 and shown in Figures C.1 through C.4 of Appendix C. As stated earlier, for convenience, the analyses results listed in Tables C.1 through C.4 are summarized in Table 5.3. The data in the summary table indicate that the differences between the average RFP of test sections located in different climatic regions and having 4 or 7-inch thick AC layers with drainable and undrainable bases vary from negative one to seven years. Since the one-year difference is not significant and is within the data variability, it will be considered as zero value in the discussion below. Nevertheless, the data in Table 5.3 indicate that: 127 1. In the WF region, the average RFP of test sections having 4-inch AC thickness and undrainable bases is about five years less than the average RFP of compatible test sections with drainable bases. The five-year difference decreases to two years when the AC thickness of the undrainable test sections increases from 4 to 7-inch. That is the average RFP of test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and undrainable bases is about three years higher than test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and undrainable bases. Finally, for test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases, the average RFP is the same as test sections having 4-inch thick AC and drainable bases and four years higher relative to test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and undrainable bases. 2. Also in the WF regions, the average RFP of the test sections having 4-inch and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases is two to seven years lower than compatible test sections located in the other three climatic regions. 3. In the WNF, DF, and DNF climatic regions the RFP of the test sections having 4-inch and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases is two to seven years higher than compatible test sections located in the WF region. 4. In the WNF region, the RFP/RSP of the test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases is almost the same. 5. In the DF region, the average RFP of the test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases is about two years shorter than test sections having 4 and 7--inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases located in the WNF and DNF climatic regions. 6. In the DNF region, test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases performed almost the same. That is the existence of drainable bases and thicker AC layer did not affect the pavement performance relative to IRI. 128 The impact of climatic regions on pavement performance relative to IRI is summarized in Table 5.8. The data in the table indicate that: 1. Fifty-eight percent of the test sections located in the WF regions performed worse, four percent performed the same, and thirty-eight percent performed better than compatible test sections located in the WNF regions. 2. Fifty-six percent of the test sections located in the WF regions performed worse, twenty-eight percent performed the same, and seventeen percent performed better than compatible test sections located in the DF regions. 3. Seventy-seven percent of the test sections located in the DF region performed better than compatible sections located in the WNF region. While test sections located in the DNF and WNF performed almost the same. 5.3.2 Rut Depth (RD) The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on rut depths for the SPS-1 test sections having the same SHRP ID and located in each climatic region are listed in Tables C.5 through C.8 and shown in Figures C.5 through C.8 of Appendix C. The results are also summarized in Table 5.4. Examination of the data listed in Table 5.4 indicates that on average: 1. In the WF regions, the average RFP/RSP of the SPS-1 test sections having 4-inch thick AC and undrainable bases is five years lower than the average RSP of compatible test sections with drainable bases. Further, the average RFP/RSP of SPS-1 test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and undrainable bases is three years lower than compatible sections with drainable bases. 2. All SPS-1 test sections having 4-inch or 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable or undrainable bases located in the WNF, DF, and DNF climatic regions performed significantly better than 129 compatible test sections located in the WF regions. The differences in the RFP/RSP vary from five to 11 years. The impact of climatic regions on pavement performance relative to rut depth is summarized in Table 5.8. The data in the table indicate that: 1. Eighty-three percent, eighty-two percent, and seventy-three percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the WF regions performed worse than compatible test sections located, respectively, in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions. 2. Almost all SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF region performed the same as compatible test sections located in the WNF and DF climatic regions. 5.3.3 Alligator cracking (AlC) For all SPS-1 test sections having the same SHRP ID, the same AC thickness, the same drainage type, and located in the same climatic region, the calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on alligator cracking are listed in Tables C.9 through C.12 and shown in Figures C.9 through C.12 of Appendix C. The average RSP of all SPS-1 test sections having different SHRP ID but the same AC thickness, drainage type and located in the same climatic region was calculated and summarized in Table 5.5. Examination of the data listed in Table 5.5 indicates that on average: 1. In the WF regions, the average RSP of test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and undrainable bases is four years lower than the average RSP of test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases. Further, the RSP of SPS-1 test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable and undrainable bases is almost the same. 130 2. SPS-1 test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable or undrainable bases located in the WNF region have higher RSP values relative to compatible test sections located in the WF region. 3. All SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF regions have lower RSP than those located in the WNF region. The differences in the RSP vary from one to eight years. The impact of climatic regions on pavement performance relative to alligator cracking is summarized in Table 5.8. The data in the table indicate that: 1. Sixty-seven percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the WF regions showed worse, eight percent showed the same, and twenty-five percent showed better performance than compatible test sections located in the WNF region. 2. Fifty-four percent and fifty percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the WF regions performed better and forty-two percent performed worse than compatible test sections located, respectively, in the DF and DNF regions. Hence, statistically speaking, SPS-1 test sections located in the WF region have slightly better performance than those in the DF and DNF regions. 3. Forty-six percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF regions performed better than compatible test sections located in the DF region, whereas thirty-eight percent performed worse. 4. Finally, eighty-seven percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF region performed worse than compatible test sections located in the WNF region and only thirteen percent performed better. 131 5.3.4 Longitudinal Cracking (LC) For all SPS-1 test sections having the same SHRP ID, the same AC thickness, the same drainage type, and located in the same climatic region, the calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on longitudinal cracking are listed in Tables C.13 through C.16 and shown in Figures C.13 through C.16 of Appendix C. The results are also summarized in Table 5.6. Examination of the data listed in the table indicate that on average: 1. All SPS-1 test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases and located in WF climatic region showed almost the same RSP relative to longitudinal cracking. 2. The RSP values of most SPS-1 test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases located in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions are higher than compatible test sections located in the WF region. The differences in the RSP vary from one to eight years. 3. The RSP values of almost all SPS-1 test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases located in the DF and DNF regions are lower than the RSP of compatible test sections located in the WNF region. The differences in the RSP values vary from one to seven years. 4. Finally, the RSP of all SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF region is higher than the RSP of compatible sections located in the DF region. The differences in the RSP values vary from one to seven years. The impact of climatic regions on pavement performance relative to longitudinal cracking is summarized in Table 5.8. The data in the table indicate that: 132 1. Eighty-eight percent and ninety-two percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the WF regions performed worse than compatible test sections located, respectively, in the WNF and DNF regions. 2. Statistically speaking, the performance of SPS-1 test sections located in the WF region is almost the same as those located in the DF region. The data indicate that fifty percent performed better and forty-six percent performed worse. 3. Forty-two percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF regions performed better than compatible test sections located in the WNF region, and forty-two percent performed the same and only sixteen percent performed worse. 4. Sixty-seven percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the DNF regions performed better than compatible test sections located in the DF regions while twenty-nine percent performed the same. 5.3.5 Transverse Cracking (TC) For all SPS-1 test sections having the same SHRP ID, the same AC thickness, the same drainage type, and located in the same climatic region, the calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on longitudinal cracking are listed in Tables C.17 through C.20 and shown in Figures C.17 through C.20 of Appendix C. The results are also summarized in Tables 5.7. The data in the table indicate that: 1. In the WF region, the average RSP values of test sections having 4-inch and 7-inch thick AC layers and undrainable bases are almost the same as compatible sections with drainable bases. Further, the average RSP for SPS-1 test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases is two years higher than test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable bases. 133 2. All SPS-1 test sections located in the WNF regions have one to four year higher RSP values than compatible sections located in the WF region. 3. The majority of the SPS-1 test sections located in the DF and DNF regions have lower RSP than compatible sections located in the WF and WNF regions. The majority of the SPS-1 test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases and located in the DNF region have higher RSP values than compatible test sections located in the DF region. The impact of climatic regions on pavement performance relative to transverse cracking is summarized in Table 5.8. The data in the table indicate that: 1. Fifty-four percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the WF regions performed worse, thirteen percent performed better, and thirty-three percent performed the same as compatible test sections located in the WNF region. 2. Statistically speaking, the performance of SPS-1 test sections located in the WF and DF and DNF regions is the same. 3. Forty-two percent of the SPS-1 test sections located in the WNF regions performed better, fifty percent performed the same, and seven percent performed worse than compatible test sections located in the DNF region. 4. Forty-two percent of the SPS-test sections located in the DNF regions performed better, forty-six percent performed the same, and twelve percent performed worse than compatible test sections located in the DF region. 5.4 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, SPS-1 The performance of each of the SPS-1 test sections was analyzed using the available time series IRI, rut depth, and alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking data and the proper 134 mathematical functions. The results of the analyses were then expressed in terms of the RFP for IRI, the RFP/RSP for rut depth, and the RSP for each cracking type. The test sections and their performance (RFP and RSP) were then tabulated using the SHRP IDs, climatic regions, AC thicknesses, and drainable or undrainable bases. Based on the results, the following conclusions were drawn. 1. WF regions have a significant impact on pavement performance in terms of IRI, rut depth, and cracking. This conclusion was expected, due to the repeated volume changes caused by freezing and thawing groundwater, and has been reported by many researchers. Results of the analyses suggest that base drainage and AC thickness should be carefully examined in the pavement design in the WF region. 2. Drainable bases decrease the impact of the WF regions on pavement performance. Once again, this conclusion was expected and it was reported in the AASHTO 1983 Pavement Design Guide. 3. Increasing the thickness of the AC layer from 4 to 7-inch increases the frost protection of the lower layers and hence, it decreases the impact of the WF region. However, this option is not a cost-effective one. 4. The improvement of the pavement performance in the WF regions is almost equally affected by increasing the AC thickness or by including drainable bases. The latter option however, is a more cost-effective option. 5. The other three climatic regions (WNF, DF, and DNF) do not impact the pavement performance relative to rutting potential. 6. The DF region has more adverse effects on cracking potential than the DNF region. This could be attributed to higher oxidation (aging) potential of the AC layer in the DF region. 135 7. The DNF regions have significantly higher adverse effects on cracking potential than the WNF region. This could be attributed to higher solar radiation in the DNF region, which oxidizes the asphalt binder and makes AC more susceptible to cracking. 8. The inclusion of drainable bases in the DF and DNF regions does not impact pavement performance in terms of RFP or RSP. This was expected because the volume and frequency of available water are low. Further most rainfalls take place over short period of time where most water runs off the surface and does not penetrate the pavement layers. 9. The pavement performance relative to IRI and rut depths of most LTPP SPS-1 test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases and located in the WNF and DNF regions is very much similar. This scenario is substantially different based on cracking potential as stated in the above stated conclusions. Similarly, the pavement performance relative to IRI and rut depths of most LTPP SPS-1 test sections having 4 and 7-inch thick AC layers and drainable and undrainable bases and located in the DNF and DF regions is similar. Once again, this scenario is substantially different based on cracking potential. 5.5 Impacts of Maintenance Treatments on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP SPS-3 Test Sections The main objective of SPS-3 experiment is to compare the performance of different maintenance treatments on flexible pavements relative to the control (untreated) test sections. The 81 SPS-3 test sites were initiated between 1990 and 1991 and are distributed across the USA and Canada. Each of the SPS-3 test sites consists of four test sections for a total of 324 test sections. Fifty-one of the 81 test sites have control test sections labeled 340. The other thirty sites are linked to a GPS test section, listed in Table 5.9 along with their SHRP ID that can be used as control 136 sections (Hall et al. 2002). Each of the four SPS-3 test sections in each test site was subjected to one of the treatment listed below. 1. Thin overlay (310) 2. Slurry seal (320) 3. Crack seal (330) 4. Aggregate seal coat; chip seal (350) There are several variables that affect the performance of the treated pavement sections. These include climatic region, traffic, subgrade type, and the before treatment pavement condition and distress. Unfortunately, these variables cannot be separated to analyze the effects of each on pavement performance. The reason is that separating the variables yields statistically insignificant number of test sections to be used in the analyses. To illustrate, Table 5.10 provides a list of the number of test sections available for analyses based on the separation of the following variables: Four treatment types One pavement condition (IRI) Four pavement distress types Four climatic regions; WF, WNF, DF, and DNF Three traffic levels It can be seen from the table that in some cells, especially in the DF and DNF regions and for some pavement distress types, the number of available test sections for analyses is not significant (ranges from zero to two). Therefore, the analyses were conducted to assess the impact of each treatment type in each climatic region and for each pavement condition and distress type. That is, the data were not separated based on traffic level, type of base and subbase, or type of roadbed 137 soil. Nevertheless, the analyses of the impacts of each of the four treatment types on pavement performance were accomplished using the following steps: Step 1 Œ For each treated pavement test section in the SPS-3 experiment, the available pavement condition (IRI) and distress data in the LTPP database were used to calculate the RFP and RSP of that section after treatment. Step 2 Œ For each SPS-3 test section, each pavement condition and distress type, and for each pavement treatment type, the minimum and maximum RFP and RSP values were calculated and are listed in various tables included below. Further, the averages of the RFP and RSP of all test sections located in the same climatic region were also calculated and are listed in the same tables. Step 3 Œ The time dependent pavement condition and distress data of each control section and/or linked GPS section in the SPS-3 experiment were used to calculate the RFP and RSP of that section after the assignment date. Table 5.9 Linked GPS sections that serve as control sections (after Hall et al. 2002) Site ID Linked GPS section ID Site ID Linked GPS section ID 04_A300 4_1036 40_B300 40_1015 04_B300 4_1021 40_C300 40_4088 04_D300 4_1016 47_A300 47_3101 05_A300 5_3071 47_B300 47_3075 08_B300 8_2008 47_C300 47_1023 12_A300 12_9054 48_D300 48_2172 12_B300 12_3997 48_G300 48_1169 12_C300 12_4154 49_A300 49_1004 16_A300 16_1020 49_B300 49_1017 16_B300 16_1021 49_C300 49_1006 16_C300 16_1010 53_A300 53_1008 28_A300 28_1802 53_B300 53_1501 30_A300 30_1001 53_C300 53_1801 32_A300 32_1021 56_A300 56_1007 32_C300 32_2027 56_B300 56_7775 138 Table 5.10 Number of test sections that have BT and AT pavement condition, distress, and traffic data Condition or distress type Treatment type Traffic level experience by the test sections in the various climatic regions Wet-freeze Wet-no-freeze Dry-freeze Dry-no-freeze L M H L M H L M H L M H IRI Thin overlay 8 4 4 8 2 6 3 4 3 1 0 1 Slurry seal 6 4 4 6 3 6 3 3 2 1 0 1 Crack seal 7 4 4 2 1 6 3 3 2 1 0 1 Aggregate seal coat 5 4 4 7 2 5 3 3 3 0 1 1 Rut depth Thin overlay 4 2 2 4 2 7 2 1 2 0 0 1 Slurry seal 4 1 2 4 2 8 2 2 2 1 0 1 Crack seal 4 1 3 2 0 6 3 2 2 0 0 1 Aggregate seal coat 1 2 1 5 1 9 2 2 1 0 0 1 Alligator cracking Thin overlay 4 2 4 4 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Slurry seal 1 0 3 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crack seal 1 0 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aggregate seal coat 2 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longitudinal cracking Thin overlay 4 2 4 4 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Slurry seal 2 0 3 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crack seal 1 0 3 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aggregate seal coat 3 0 3 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Transverse cracking Thin overlay 4 2 4 4 2 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 Slurry seal 1 0 3 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Crack seal 2 0 3 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Aggregate seal coat 2 0 3 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 L = low traffic (0 to 60,000 yearly ESAL); M = medium traffic (61,000 to 120,000 yearly ESAL); H = high traffic (>120,000 yearly ESAL) For each pavement condition and distress type, the test section was analyzed if the database contains at least one data point before treatment and/or three or more data points after treatment that can be modeled. 139 5.5.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RFP values based on IRI data for the LTPP SPS-3 test sections that were subjected to the same treatment type and located in the same climatic region, and for the associated control sections are listed in Table 5.11. To assist the reader in the interpretation of the data in the table, the numbers listed in the first row of the table indicate that: There are 19 SPS-3 test sections in the WF region that were subjected to thin overlay and accepted for analyses. The minimum, maximum, and average RFP of the 19 SPS-3 test sections are 4, 20, and 16 years, respectively. There are 21 control sections in the WF region with a minimum RFP of 0 years, a maximum RFP of 19 years, and an average RFP of 11 years. The difference in the averages RFP of the test sections and the average RFP of the control sections is 5 years. That is, on average, the RFP of the treated sections is 5 years higher than the control sections. Examination of the results of the analyses listed in Table 5.11 indicate that: 1. Test sections that were subjected to thin overlay treatment performed better than the control sections by five, four, and five years in the WF, WNF, and DF regions, respectively. While they performed worse in the DNF region by two years. The reason of the latter is that the construction of the overlay caused increases in the IRI of all test sections in the DNF region. For example, the IRI of test section 04B310 increased from 1.3978 m/km before the overlay to 1.5136 m/km after the overlay. 2. Test sections that were subjected to slurry seal performed better than the control sections by one, four, one, and four years in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. 140 Table 5.11 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI Climatic region Treatment type Remaining functional period (year) Difference in RFP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of sections Min Max Average Number of sections Min Max Average WF Thin overlay 19 4 20 16 21 0 19 11 5 WNF 23 8 20 18 29 3 19 14 4 DF 13 5 20 17 13 2 19 12 5 DNF 3 3 13 9 4 3 18 11 -2 WF Slurry seal 15 0 20 12 21 0 19 11 1 WNF 22 4 20 19 29 3 19 15 4 DF 13 4 20 14 13 2 19 13 1 DNF 2 9 20 15 4 3 18 11 4 WF Crack seal 18 0 20 11 21 0 19 11 0 WNF 12 1 20 16 29 3 19 14 2 DF 13 3 20 15 13 2 18 12 3 DNF 4 6 20 14 4 3 18 11 3 WF Aggregate seal coat 16 0 20 13 21 0 19 11 2 WNF 21 14 20 19 29 3 19 15 4 DF 13 1 20 14 13 2 19 13 1 DNF 3 4 10 7 4 3 18 11 -4 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 141 3. Test sections that were subjected to crack seal performed better than the control sections by two, three, and three years in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. Further, crack sealing has no impact on pavement performance in the WF region. 4. Test sections that were subjected to aggregate seal coat performed better than the control sections by two, four, and one year in the WF, WNF, and DF regions, respectively. While they performed worse in the DNF regions by four years. Once again, the reason of decreasing performance in the DNF regions is construction of the aggregate seal coat, which increased the IRI of two of the three test sections. For some of the SPS-3 test sections, the LTPP database contains one or more IRI data points before the sections were subjected to maintenance treatments. In order to assess the impact of the BT pavement conditions on the AT pavement performance, for each maintenance treatment type, the RFP values after treatment were plotted against the last collected IRI data point BT. The results are shown in Figures 5.3 through 5.6 for thin overlay, slurry seal, crack seal, and aggregate seal coat, respectively. Although the data in the figures are widely scattered, the general trend is that the higher is the IRI value before treatment, the lower is the RFP after treatment. This finding was expected and supports the notion that maintaining pavement sections in good conditions pays higher dividends than treating deteriorated sections. Nevertheless, the scatter of the data in Figures 5.3 through 5.6 is likely caused by differences in the original pavement cross-sections, pavement materials, roadbed soil, climatic region, and by traffic level. Unfortunately, the number of test sections subjected to the same traffic level bracket is so small such that no decision regarding the impacts of traffic can be made with any level of certainty. 142 5.5.2 Rut Depth The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RFP/RSP values based on rut depth data for the SPS-3 test sections that were subjected to the same treatment type and for the associated control sections are listed in Table 5.12. From the table it can be summarized that: Test sections subjected to thin overlay performed better than the control sections by seven, eight, seven, and one year in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions respectively. Test sections subjected to slurry seal performed better than the control sections by two, five, four, and three years in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions respectively. Test sections subjected to crack seal performed better than the control sections by one, five, seven, and two years in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions respectively. Test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat performed better than the control sections by three, three, five, and nine years in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions respectively. Similar to the IRI analyses, the RSP values after treatment were plotted against the last measured rut depth data point BT. The results are shown in Figures D.1 through D.4 of Appendix D. The data in the figures indicate that, higher BT rut depths lead to lower AT RFP/RSP or better performance relative to rut depth after treatment. Once again, the scatter of data in the figures is mainly due to differences in the original pavement cross-sections, pavement materials, roadbed soil, climatic region, and by traffic level. 5.5.3 Alligator cracking The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on alligator cracking for the SPS-3 test sections for the associated control sections are listed in Table 5.13. The results listed in the table indicate that: 143 Test sections subjected to thin overlay performed better than the control sections by two years in the WF and WNF regions, while they performed worse by one and nine years in the DF and DNF regions. Figure 5.3 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay Figure 5.4 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal 144 Figure 5.5 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal Figure 5.6 After treatment RFP versus before treatment IRI of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat 145 Table 5.12 Impacts of various maintenance treatments on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on RD Climatic region Treatment type Remaining functional/structural period (year) Difference in RFP/RSP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of sections Min Max Average Number of sections Min Max Average WF Thin overlay 18 13 20 19 14 0 18 12 7 WNF 21 5 20 19 16 0 19 11 8 DF 8 9 20 19 8 0 19 12 7 DNF 4 0 20 10 3 0 16 11 1 WF Slurry seal 12 1 20 14 14 0 18 12 2 WNF 19 0 20 16 16 0 19 11 5 DF 10 1 20 16 8 0 19 12 4 DNF 3 1 20 14 3 0 16 11 3 WF Crack seal 11 0 20 13 14 0 18 12 1 WNF 9 0 20 16 16 0 19 11 5 DF 9 2 20 18 8 0 18 11 7 DNF 3 0 20 13 3 0 16 11 2 WF Aggregate seal coat 11 0 20 15 14 0 18 12 3 WNF 22 0 20 14 16 0 19 11 3 DF 8 0 20 17 8 0 19 12 5 DNF 2 0 20 20 3 0 16 11 9 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 146 Test sections subjected to slurry seal performed worse than the control sections by one, three, and seven years in the WF, DF, and DNF regions respectively, while they performed the same in the WNF region. Test sections subjected to crack seal performed better than the control sections by one year in the DF region, while they performed worse by two, one, and 15 years in the WF, WNF, and DNF regions. Test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat performed better than the control sections by two, two, and one years in the WF, WNF, and DNF regions respectively, while they performed worse by one year in the DF region. Similar to the IRI and rut depths, for each treatment type, the RSP values of the test sections after treatment were plotted against the last collected alligator cracking data points BT. The results are shown in Figures D.5 through D.8 of Appendix D. In summary, the data in the four figures indicate that, as the alligator cracking increases, the after treatment RSP values decrease. That is, the data indicate that, on average, treating pavement sections at an early stage pays higher dividends than delayed treatment. 5.5.4 Longitudinal cracking The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on longitudinal cracking for the SPS-3 test sections that were subjected to the same treatment type and located in the same climatic region and for the associated control sections are listed in Table 5.14. The results listed in the table indicate that: Test sections subjected to thin overlay performed better than the control sections by one and two years in the DF and DNF regions, while they performed worse than the control sections by three years in the WF region. They performed the same in the WNF region 147 Table 5.13 Impacts of various maintenance treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on AC Climatic region Treatment type Remaining structural period (year) Difference in RSP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of sections Min Max Average Number of sections Min Max Average WF Thin overlay 21 2 20 10 15 0 16 8 2 WNF 24 3 20 11 20 0 17 9 2 DF 11 4 20 11 8 6 18 12 -1 DNF 3 0 15 7 1 16 16 16 -9 WF Slurry seal 16 0 20 7 15 0 16 8 -1 WNF 30 2 20 10 20 0 17 10 0 DF 10 3 20 9 8 6 18 12 -3 DNF 2 0 18 9 1 16 16 16 -7 WF Crack seal 10 0 20 6 15 0 16 8 -2 WNF 22 0 20 8 20 0 17 9 -1 DF 11 0 20 13 8 5 18 12 1 DNF 2 0 2 1 1 16 16 16 -15 WF Aggregate seal coat 15 2 20 10 15 0 16 8 2 WNF 18 4 20 12 20 0 17 10 2 DF 9 6 20 11 8 6 18 12 -1 DNF 2 13 20 17 1 16 16 16 1 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 148 Test sections subjected to slurry seal performed better than the control sections by two and three years in the DF and DNF regions, while they performed worse than the control sections by two years in the WF region. They performed the same in the WNF region. Test sections subjected to crack seal performed better than the control sections by one year in the WNF region, while they performed worse by five, one, and 11 years in the WF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. Test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat performed better than the control sections by two, four, and seven years in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions respectively, while they performed worse by two years in the WF region. Once again, for each treatment type, the RSP values of the test sections after treatment were plotted against the last measured longitudinal cracking data point BT as shown in Figures D.9 through D.12 of Appendix D. It can be seen from the figures that, on average, the higher is the longitudinal cracking length before treatments, the lower is the RSP after treatments. 5.5.5 Transverse cracking The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on transverse cracking for the SPS-3 test sections that were subjected to the same treatment type and located in the same climatic region and for the associated control sections are listed in Table 5.15. The data in the table indicate that: Test sections subjected to thin overlay performed better by one, one, and 12 years in the WF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively, while they performed the same as the control sections in the WNF region. 149 Test sections subjected to slurry seal performed better by two and five years in the DF and DNF regions, while they performed the same as the control sections in the WF and WNF regions. Test sections subjected to crack seal performed better than the control sections in the DF region by one year, while they performed the same in the WF and WNF regions respectively. Note that insufficient data were available to make a comparison in the DNF region. Test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat performed better by two, one, one, and five years in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively For each treatment type, the RSP values of the test sections after treatment were plotted against the last measured transverse cracking data point BT as shown in Figures D.13 through D.16 of Appendix D. It can be seen from the figures that the lower is the cumulative transfer cracks, the higher is the RSP values after treatment. 5.6 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, SPS-3 Table 5.16 provides a summary of the impacts of the four SPS-3 maintenance treatments on the pavement performance. The number in each cell of the table expresses the average increase in the RFP or RSP of the test sections relative to the control sections. It should be noted that the number of sections in the DNF region are too few in number to make any reliable conclusions. Also, in many instances, the control sections were not truly representative of the test sections that have undergone treatments in terms of pavement condition and distress. Nevertheless, the data in the table indicate that: 1. The thin overlay treatment improves the pavement performance relative to IRI and rut depth in WF, WNF, and DF regions. No conclusions can be made in the DNF region because of the limited number of test sections. 150 Table 5.14 Impacts of various maintenance treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on LC Climatic region Treatment type Remaining structural period (year) Difference in RSP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of sections Min Max Average Number of sections Min Max Average WF Thin overlay 23 2 20 9 12 4 19 12 -3 WNF 26 5 20 12 20 0 18 12 0 DF 12 2 20 15 6 5 18 14 1 DNF 2 15 15 15 2 10 16 13 2 WF Slurry seal 13 3 20 10 12 4 19 12 -2 WNF 30 4 20 13 20 0 18 13 0 DF 10 8 20 16 6 5 18 14 2 DNF 1 16 16 16 2 10 16 13 3 WF Crack seal 12 0 20 7 12 4 19 12 -5 WNF 14 1 20 13 20 0 18 12 1 DF 7 1 20 13 6 5 18 14 -1 DNF 1 2 2 2 2 10 16 13 -11 WF Aggregate seal coat 21 3 20 10 12 4 19 12 -2 WNF 19 5 20 14 20 0 18 12 2 DF 9 8 20 18 6 5 18 14 4 DNF 1 20 20 20 2 10 16 13 7 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 151 Table 5.15 Impacts of various maintenance treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on TC Climatic regions Treatment type Remaining structural period (year) Difference in RSP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of sections Min Max Average Number of sections Min Max Average WF Thin overlay 22 1 20 9 18 0 16 8 1 WNF 24 5 20 12 20 3 17 12 0 DF 12 2 20 13 8 0 18 11 1 DNF 2 12 20 16 1 4 4 4 12 WF Slurry seal 14 0 20 8 18 0 16 8 0 WNF 30 3 20 12 20 3 17 12 0 DF 7 2 20 13 8 0 18 11 2 DNF 1 9 9 9 1 4 4 4 5 WF Crack seal 14 0 20 8 18 0 16 8 0 WNF 18 0 20 12 20 3 16 12 0 DF 9 0 20 12 8 0 18 11 1 DNF 0 0 0 - 1 4 4 4 NC WF Aggregate seal coat 17 0 20 10 18 0 16 8 2 WNF 16 3 20 13 20 3 16 12 1 DF 8 1 20 12 8 0 18 11 1 DNF 1 9 9 9 1 4 4 4 5 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; NC = could not be compared 152 2. In general, the thin overlay treatment does not improve the pavement performance relative to alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking. This is mainly due to the high rate of reflective cracking. Immediately after treatment, all cracks are hidden by the thin overlay. 3. However, one or few years later, most cracks are reflected through the overlay, which implies relatively high rate of deterioration and hence short RSP. The exception is the DNF region, where the 12 year increase in the average RSP of the two test sections relative to the one control section is mainly due to the limited number of sections. That is, the conclusion is not reliable due to the limited number of test sections and control sections. 4. The slurry seal treatment improves the pavement performance relative to IRI and rut depth but does not have much impact on alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking. The increase in the RSP based on transverse cracking in the DNF region is likely due to the limited number of sections (one test section and one control section). 5. Crack sealing appears to improve the pavement performance relative to rutting. This was expected because crack sealing decreases water infiltration, which increases the stiffness of the lower pavement layers. The pavement performance relative to IRI was improved in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions. However, it did not improve the pavement performance relative to cracking. 6. The aggregate seal coat appears to improve the pavement performance in all climatic regions in terms of IRI, rut depth, and cracking. This improvement varies from about one to five years. Relative to the IRI, the decrease in the RFP of four years in the DNF region is highly likely due to three reasons; construction quality, the good ride quality of one of the three control sections, and limited number of sections. 7. In general, the worse are the pavement conditions BT, the lower are the AT RFP or RSP. 153 Table 5.16 Summary of the impact of treatment type on pavement performance relative to the control sections Treatment type Condition or distress type Climatic region WF WNF DF DNF Thin overlay IRI 5 4 5 -2 RD 7 8 7 1 AC 2 2 -1 -9 LC -3 0 1 2 TC 1 0 1 12 Slurry seal IRI 1 4 1 4 RD 2 5 4 3 AC -1 0 -3 -7 LC -2 0 2 3 TC 0 0 2 5 Crack seal IRI 0 2 3 3 RD 1 5 7 2 AC -2 -1 1 -15 LC -5 1 -1 -11 TC 0 0 1 NC Aggregate seal coat IRI 2 4 1 -4 RD 3 3 5 9 AC 2 2 -1 1 LC -2 2 4 7 TC 2 1 1 5 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; and DNF = dry-no-freeze RD = rut depth; AC = alligator cracking; LC = longitudinal cracking; and TC = transverse cracking; NC = could not be compared 154 5.7 Impact of Rehabilitation Treatments on Pavement Performance Using LTPP SPS-5 Test Sections Once again, one of the objectives of this study is to analyze the benefits of the various rehabilitation treatments applied to the LTPP SPS-5 test sections. Unfortunately, for some test sections, the LTPP database does not have enough time series pavement condition and distress data to conduct the analyses. In one scenario, some of the test sections were subjected to a second treatment and only one or two data points are available. In another scenario, the measured IRI, rut depth, and/or cracking data show improvement in the pavement condition and/or distresses over time without treatment. After exhaustive search of the database, it was found that the database has adequate number of time series pavement condition and distress data for the evaluation of the benefits of the following rehabilitation treatments: 1. Thin (2-inch) and thick (4-inch) AC overlay using recycled asphalt mixes. 2. Thin (2-inch) and thick (4-inch) AC overlay using virgin asphalt mixes. 3. Thin (2-inch) and thick (4-inch) mill and fill using recycled asphalt mixes. 4. Thin (2-inch) and thick (4-inch) mill and fill using virgin asphalt mixes. After identifying the types of treatments that can be analyzed, the time dependent pavement condition and distress data were then organized per treatment type, climatic region, and per pavement condition and distress type. The data were then analyzed and the RFP and RSP values of each treated test section accepted for analyses and the corresponding control and/or linked sections were calculated. For each pavement condition (IRI) and distress type (rut depth and alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking) the RFP/RSP of the treatment and the treatment benefits are listed in Tables 5.17 through 5.26. The benefits are listed per climatic region and pavement condition and distress type and are summarized in Table 5.27. 155 Table 5.17 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI for virgin AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RFP (year) Virgin AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RFP B1 B2 RFP B1 B2 RFP B1 B2 RFP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 17 20 3 20 20 3 20 20 3 20 20 3 20 Minnesota (27) 5 ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND New Jersey (34) 10 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 Alberta (81) 16 ND - ND 20 4 20 20 4 20 20 4 20 Manitoba (83) ND 20 - 18 20 - 19 NS - NS 20 - 20 WNF Alabama (1) 15 20 5 18 20 5 20 20 5 20 20 5 20 Florida (12) 12 20 8 20 20 8 20 20 8 20 20 8 20 Georgia (13) NCS 20 - 20 20 - 15 20 - 18 20 - 12 Maryland (24) 18 20 2 11 15 -3 12 20 2 20 20 2 20 Mississippi (28) 13 20 7 6 20 7 20 20 7 12 20 7 20 Missouri (29) ND NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) ND 20 - 10 NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS DF Colorado (8) ND NS - NS 20 - 20 17 - ND 20 - ND Montana (30) 4 16 12 6 20 16 20 20 16 20 20 16 NA DNF Arizona (4) 17 20 3 20 20 3 20 20 3 20 20 3 20 California (6) 0 10 10 6 20 20 10 20 20 15 20 20 20 New Mexico (35) ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in functional period; B2 = functional condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 156 Table 5.18 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI for recycled AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control Section RFP (year) Recycled AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RFP B1 B2 RFP B1 B2 RFP B1 B2 RFP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 17 NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS Minnesota (27) 5 ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND New Jersey (34) 10 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 20 10 20 Alberta (81) 16 20 4 18 20 4 20 20 4 17 20 4 20 Manitoba (83) ND 20 - 20 NS - NS 20 - 20 20 - 20 WNF Alabama (1) 15 20 5 17 20 5 20 20 5 20 20 5 10 Florida (12) 12 20 8 16 20 8 20 20 8 20 20 8 20 Georgia (13) NCS 20 - 15 20 - 15 20 - 14 20 - 11 Maryland (24) 18 ND - ND 20 2 15 20 2 12 20 2 20 Mississippi (28) 13 20 7 20 20 7 20 20 7 20 20 7 20 Missouri (29) ND NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) ND 20 - 15 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 16 DF Colorado (8) ND 20 - 20 NS - NS 20 - ND 20 - 20 Montana (30) 4 12 8 6 20 16 20 15 11 3 20 16 20 DNF Arizona (4) 17 13 -4 8 20 3 20 16 -1 14 20 3 20 California (6) 0 11 11 10 20 20 10 9 9 8 20 20 18 New Mexico (35) ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in functional period; B2 = functional condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 157 Table 5.19 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on RD for virgin AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RFP/RSP (year) Virgin AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RFP/ RSP B1 B2 RFP/ RSP B1 B2 RFP/ RSP B1 B2 RFP/ RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 0 20 20 20 12 11 15 8 8 13 10 10 11 Minnesota (27) 16 NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS New Jersey (34) NS 20 - 20 20 - 20 NS - NS NS - NS Alberta (81) ND ND - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND Manitoba (83) ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND WNF Alabama (1) NS 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND Florida (12) 12 20 8 20 20 8 20 20 8 20 20 8 20 Georgia (13) NCS 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 20 Maryland (24) ND NS - NS 20 - 3 NS - NS 20 - 20 Mississippi (28) 0 15 15 20 4 4 5 8 8 13 3 3 5 Missouri (29) NS 20 - 20 20 - 13 20 - 20 20 - 20 Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) 14 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 18 20 6 18 DF Colorado (8) NS 20 - 13 20 - 13 20 - 20 18 - 20 Montana (30) NS 20 - 20 14 - 7 10 - 10 17 - 13 DNF Arizona (4) NS 20 - ND NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS California (6) ND 20 - 6 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 20 New Mexico (35) ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 158 Table 5.20 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on RD for recycled AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RFP/RSP (year) Recycled AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RFP/ RSP B1 B2 RFP/ RSP B1 B2 RFP/ RSP B1 B2 RFP/ RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 0 15 15 16 14 14 15 12 12 18 10 10 15 Minnesota (27) 16 20 4 20 NS - NS 20 4 20 NS - NS New Jersey (34) NS 20 - 20 NS - NS NS - NS NS - NS Alberta (81) ND NS - NS 20 - ND 20 - ND NS - NS Manitoba (83) ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND WNF Alabama (1) NS 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND Florida (12) 12 20 8 20 20 8 11 20 8 20 20 8 20 Georgia (13) NCS 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 20 Maryland (24) ND 4 - 1 2 - 0 9 - 2 3 - 1 Mississippi (28) 0 9 9 20 6 6 12 9 9 20 4 4 9 Missouri (29) NS 20 - 20 20 - 3 20 - 20 20 - 1 Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) 14 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 20 6 20 DF Colorado (8) NS 19 - 6 20 - 8 18 - 20 13 - 20 Montana (30) NS 16 - 18 20 - 20 12 - 10 20 - 20 DNF Arizona (4) NS 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND NS - NS California (6) ND 20 - 20 20 - 11 20 - 20 20 - 20 New Mexico (35) ND NS - NS 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 159 Table 5.21 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on AlC for virgin AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control Section RSP (year) Virgin AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 10 ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Minnesota (27) 16 ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND New Jersey (34) ND 20 - 20 20 - 15 20 - 13 18 - 10 Alberta (81) ND ND - ND 13 - ND 11 - ND 14 - ND Manitoba (83) ND 9 - 0 13 - 0 11 - 0 13 - 0 WNF Alabama (1) 0 20 20 0 20 20 15 20 20 20 20 20 20 Florida (12) 12 20 8 11 20 8 20 20 8 20 19 8 20 Georgia (13) NCS 20 - 9 ND - ND ND - ND 20 - 10 Maryland (24) ND ND - ND ND - ND 20 - 20 20 - 20 Mississippi (28) 16 12 -4 7 10 -6 9 10 -6 5 9 -7 9 Missouri (29) NS ND - ND 8 - 6 9 - 8 10 - 7 Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) NS NS - NS NS - NS ND - ND 20 - NS DF Colorado (8) ND 6 - 4 7 - 3 6 - 4 8 - 1 Montana (30) ND NS - NS ND - ND 20 - 20 ND - ND DNF Arizona (4) ND 9 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND ND - ND California (6) ND 5 - ND 11 - ND 8 - ND 11 - ND New Mexico (35) ND 12 - 5 ND - ND 20 - 20 16 - 11 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 160 Table 5.22 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on AlC for recycled AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Recycled AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 10 ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Minnesota (27) 16 ND - ND ND - ND 20 4 - ND - ND New Jersey (34) ND 11 - 19 15 - 0 12 - 0 17 - 1 Alberta (81) ND 7 - ND 6 - ND 7 - ND 10 - ND Manitoba (83) ND 7 - 0 7 - 0 10 - 0 12 - 0 WNF Alabama (1) 0 16 16 4 20 20 20 20 20 10 20 20 20 Florida (12) 12 20 8 16 20 8 20 20 8 20 20 8 20 Georgia (13) - 20 - 20 ND - ND 20 - 16 ND - ND Maryland (24) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Mississippi (28) 16 7 -10 0 11 -5 5 6 -10 0 9 -8 4 Missouri (29) NS ND - ND ND - ND 20 - 17 ND - ND Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) NS 20 - NS 20 - NS 20 - NS 20 - NS DF Colorado (8) ND 6 - 0 6 - 4 20 - 0 7 - 5 Montana (30) ND ND - ND 3 - 7 4 - 5 6 - 6 DNF Arizona (4) ND 4 - ND 13 - ND 15 - ND 20 - ND California (6) ND 4 - ND 8 - ND 3 - ND 20 - ND New Mexico (35) ND 20 - 0 10 - 8 15 - 0 10 - 9 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 161 Table 5.23 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on LC for virgin AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Virgin AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 8 9 0 8 9 1 8 9 1 8 9 1 9 Minnesota (27) 9 6 -3 2 11 2 6 8 -1 5 8 -1 6 New Jersey (34) ND 20 - NA 15 - NA 18 - NA 12 - NA Alberta (81) ND ND - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 17 - ND Manitoba (83) ND 20 - 0 14 - 0 20 - 0 17 - 0 WNF Alabama (1) ND 20 - 6 20 - 0 20 - 8 20 - 0 Florida (12) ND 20 - 0 20 - 0 17 - 14 20 - 14 Georgia (13) NCS 11 - 0 14 - 0 13 - 0 14 - 0 Maryland (24) ND ND - ND ND - ND 13 - 0 12 - 3 Mississippi (28) 9 20 11 0 12 2 1 14 5 5 ND - ND Missouri (29) 4 5 1 5 10 6 10 10 5 10 18 13 19 Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) NS 11 - ND 20 - ND 17 - ND 20 - ND DF Colorado (8) ND 5 - 4 6 - 4 7 - 5 9 - 6 Montana (30) ND NS - NS ND - ND 10 - 9 ND - ND DNF Arizona (4) ND 20 - ND 18 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND California (6) ND 11 - ND 11 - ND 10 - ND 16 - ND New Mexico (35) ND 12 - 7 10 - 8 11 - 5 10 - 8 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 162 Table 5.24 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on LC for recycled AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Recycled AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) 8 10 2 10 9 0 8 10 2 10 9 1 9 Minnesota (27) 9 9 0 3 20 11 11 9 1 7 13 5 10 New Jersey (34) ND NS - NS 12 - NA NS - NS 12 - NA Alberta (81) ND 13 - ND 14 - ND 12 - ND 13 - ND Manitoba (83) ND NS - NS 20 - 0 20 - 0 16 - 0 WNF Alabama (1) ND 20 - 20 20 - 0 20 - 0 20 - 0 Florida (12) ND 20 - 20 19 - 19 20 - 1 20 - 18 Georgia (13) NCS 11 - 1 14 - 0 13 - 0 14 - 0 Maryland (24) ND 7 - 5 ND - ND 16 - 7 20 - 6 Mississippi (28) 9 20 11 4 20 11 0 9 0 7 14 5 0 Missouri (29) 4 13 9 10 10 5 7 13 9 6 13 8 11 Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) NS 10 - ND 12 - ND 12 - ND 12 - ND DF Colorado (8) ND 7 - 4 6 - 4 7 - 6 6 - 5 Montana (30) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND 19 - 8 DNF Arizona (4) ND NS - NS 19 - ND 20 - ND 18 - ND California (6) ND 10 - ND 10 - ND 8 - ND 9 - ND New Mexico (35) ND 10 - 9 8 - 6 10 - 6 8 - 5 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 163 Table 5.25 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on TC for virgin AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Virgin AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) NS ND - ND 11 - 10 11 - 10 ND - ND Minnesota (27) 16 2 -15 5 13 -4 15 6 -10 13 13 -3 14 New Jersey (34) ND 18 - 5 20 - 15 20 - 13 20 - 14 Alberta (81) ND ND - ND 20 - ND 17 - ND 11 - ND Manitoba (83) ND 20 - 0 10 - 2 20 - 0 14 - 0 WNF Alabama (1) 10 20 10 0 20 10 11 20 10 9 20 10 4 Florida (12) ND 19 - 7 20 - 7 20 - 0 20 - 2 Georgia (13) NCS ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Maryland (24) ND ND - ND ND - ND 20 - 5 20 - 20 Mississippi (28) 8 12 4 6 11 3 9 14 6 5 13 5 11 Missouri (29) NS 9 - 8 ND - ND 10 - 9 14 - 11 Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) NS 12 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND 20 - ND DF Colorado (8) ND 10 - 6 10 - 8 15 - 5 NS - NS Montana (30) ND 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 20 20 - 20 DNF Arizona (4) ND 14 - ND 19 - ND 19 - ND 19 - ND California (6) ND 9 - ND 12 - ND 9 - ND 13 - ND New Mexico (35) ND 15 - 10 ND - ND 12 - 11 17 - 16 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 164 Table 5.26 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on TC for recycled AC mixes Climatic region State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Recycled AC mix Overlay Mill and Fill Thin Thick Thin Thick RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 RSP B1 B2 WF Maine (23) NS ND - ND ND - ND 20 - 9 ND - ND Minnesota (27) 17 8 -8 5 13 -4 9 10 -7 7 9 -8 8 New Jersey (34) ND 13 - 1 17 - 8 20 - 0 20 - 10 Alberta (81) ND 12 - ND 14 - ND 9 - ND 9 - ND Manitoba (83) ND 17 - 0 17 - 0 20 - 0 8 - 6 WNF Alabama (1) 10 19 9 0 20 10 7 20 10 2 20 10 7 Florida (12) ND 20 - 14 ND - ND 20 - 10 20 - 20 Georgia (13) NCS ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Maryland (24) ND 14 - 10 8 - 7 20 - 20 ND - ND Mississippi (28) 8 8 0 6 9 1 3 10 2 7 10 2 5 Missouri (29) NS ND - ND ND - ND 20 - 15 ND - ND Oklahoma (40) ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND ND - ND Texas (48) NS 11 - ND 15 - ND 13 - ND 17 - ND DF Colorado (8) ND 6 - 4 ND - ND 6 - 4 ND - ND Montana (30) ND ND - ND 20 - 20 ND - ND NS - NS DNF Arizona (4) ND NS - NS 8 - ND 9 - ND 11 - ND California (6) ND 10 - ND 10 - ND 8 - ND 8 - ND New Mexico (35) ND 17 - 3 15 - 8 17 - 2 11 - 9 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; "-" = could not be estimated; Thin = 2-inch; Thick = 4-inch; B1= change in structural period; B2 = structural condition reoccurrence period; ND = no data ; NS = model has a negative slope; NA = not applicable 165 Table 5.27 Summary of benefits of various rehabilitation treatments Treatment type Thickness (inch) Statistic Condition Distress Rut depth Cracking IRI Alligator Longitudinal Transverse B1 B2 B1 B2 B1 B2 B1 B2 B1 B2 Overlay, virgin AC mix 2 Min 2 6 6 6 -4 0 -3 0 -15 0 Max 12 20 20 20 20 20 11 8 10 20 Average 7 14 12 18 8 7 2 3 0 7 4 Min -3 10 4 3 -6 0 1 0 -4 2 Max 20 20 11 20 20 20 6 10 10 20 Average 7 18 7 14 7 10 3 4 3 11 Overlay, recycled AC mix 2 Min -4 6 4 1 -10 0 0 1 -8 0 Max 11 20 15 20 16 20 11 20 9 14 Average 6 15 8 17 5 7 5 9 0 5 4 Min 2 10 6 0 -5 0 0 0 -4 0 Max 20 20 14 20 20 20 11 19 10 20 Average 8 18 9 12 8 8 7 6 2 8 Mill and fill, virgin AC mix 2 Min 2 12 6 10 -6 0 -1 0 -10 0 Max 20 20 8 20 20 20 5 14 10 20 Average 8 19 8 17 7 13 2 6 2 8 4 Min 2 12 3 5 -7 0 -1 0 -3 0 Max 20 20 10 20 20 20 13 19 10 20 Average 8 19 7 17 7 11 4 6 4 11 Mill and fill, recycled AC mix 2 Min -1 3 4 2 -10 0 0 0 -7 0 Max 11 20 12 20 20 20 9 10 10 20 Average 6 16 8 17 6 7 3 5 2 7 4 Min 2 10 4 1 -8 0 1 0 -7 5 Max 20 20 10 20 20 20 8 18 10 20 Average 8 18 7 15 7 8 5 6 2 9 B1 = Changes in functional or structural period (CFP/CSP) in years B2 = Functional or structural condition re-occurrence period (FCROP/SCROP) in years 166 Note that the treatment benefits in the tables are expressed in the following terms: 1. The differences in the RFP or the RSP values of the treated and the control section. 2. CROP, which the time in years for the treated pavement section to accumulate the same condition and distress as those existed immediately before treatment. This time is called herein the Condition Re-occurrence Period. CROP is the same as treatment life (TL) previously defined by Dawson et al., 2011 The benefits summary, listed in Table 5.27, are divided based on the pavement condition and distress type and on the treatment type. However, the discussion below is based on the benefits relative to the pavement condition and distress type. 1. IRI Œ The benefits data listed in Table 5.27 under the heading IRI indicate that the averages of the CFP (labeled B1 in the table) of all eight treatments are similar and equal about seven years. This was expected because a proper construction of 2 and 4-inch overlays and 2 and 4-inch mill and fill treatments result in smooth pavement surface and almost the same rate of deterioration. Further, the average FCROP in years of any of the eight treatments is about seventeen years. That is, seventeen years after applying any of the eight treatments, the IRI of the treated pavement will be the same as that just before treatment. 2. Rut Depth Œ The benefits data listed in Table 5.27 under the heading rut depth indicate that the B1 of seven of the eight treatments are almost the same; a gain in the RSP of the pavement sections of about seven years. Once again, this was expected because a proper construction of the 2 and 4-inch overlays and the 2 and 4-inch mill and fill treatments result in even pavement surface (no rutting) and almost even compaction of the AC overlay (almost the same deterioration rate). Further, the average structural period of the virgin AC mix is about one year higher than the recycled AC mixes. The average structural period of each 167 treatment using virgin mix is seventeen years, while it is sixteen years for the recycled mix; statistically the same. 3. Alligator Cracking Œ The benefits data listed in Table 5.27 under the heading alligator cracking indicate that the B1 of the eight treatments vary slightly depending on the thickness of the overlay and the type of the AC mix. On average, each treatment causes an increase in the RSP of about six years (this varies from a high of twenty years to a low of negative ten years). The latter is mainly due to the condition of the control sections; no alligator cracking. Thus, the minimum and maximum CSP values should not be taken seriously, they are for information only. The average CSP, on the other hand, is a good measure of the benefits of each treatment. Further, the average structural period of the 2-inch thick virgin AC overlay is one to three years lower than the 4-inch thick virgin AC overlay. The type of AC mix (virgin and recycled) appears not to impact the SCROP. 4. Longitudinal Cracking Œ The benefits data listed in Table 5.27 under the heading longitudinal cracking indicate that the about 3 years. The 2 and 4-inch thick overlays and mill and fill using virgin and recycled AC mixes appears to have the lowest CSP values (two to four years) while the CSP for the recycled mixes is about two years higher. Further, the average SCROP of each of the four mill and fill treatments is about six years. 5. Transverse Cracking Œ The benefits data listed in Table 5.27 under the heading transverse cracking vary and depend on the thickness of the AC overlay. The 2-inch AC overlay yields zero CSP whereas the 4-inch AC overlay yields, on average, CSP of three years. This was expected because the thin 2-inch overlay has minor resistance to reflective cracking. The average SCROP of the 2-inch overlay or mill and fill is about seven years whereas the average SCROP of the 4-inch overlay or mill and fill is about ten years. 168 5.8 Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations, SPS-5 Based on data availability in the LTPP database, eight rehabilitation treatments are included in the analyses of the treatment benefits. The benefits were estimated by comparing the RFP and the RSP of the test sections and the RFP and the RSP (CFP/CSP) of the control or linked sections. In addition, the FCROP/SCROP (the time in years from the treatment to the year during which the pavement condition or distresses are the same as those before treatment) were also used as calculated indicators of benefits. Based on the results of the analyses, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. On average, the impact of 2 and 4-inch virgin or recycled AC overlay on the pavement performance is almost the same. 2. The two inch AC overlay (virgin or recycled mix) does not provide a long-term remediation of transverse cracking. The cracks in the lower pavement structure will typically reflect through the overlay in few years. 3. On average, the benefits of the two inch AC overlay relative to alligator cracking is slightly less than the 4-inch overlay. 4. The minimum or maximum CFP or CSP should not be used as indicators of benefits. The values are also a function of the conditions and distresses of the control or linked sections. Based on the results of the data, it is strongly recommended that: 1. A solid criterion be established for the selection of the control sections. Such criterion should be based on the similarity of the pavement condition and distresses, traffic, and material types to the test sections. Perhaps, each control or linked section should border the test section in question. Ideally, the roughness, rut depth, cracking, and any other condition measures of the control and test sections before treatment should be similar. 169 2. The history of the selected control or linked section and the test sections should be obtained and kept in the database. This information should include construction and treatment history as well as pavement condition and distress data. 3. The pavement condition and distress data be measured no more than one month before the application of a treatment and no more than one month after the completion of the treatment. 4. The pavement condition and distress data be collected more frequently (once a year or less) and for a longer time period (six years is recommended) before the treatment is applied. 5.9 Impacts of Pavement Treatments on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP GPS-6 Test Sections The LTPP GPS-6 experiment contains flexible pavement test sections that were overlain prior to their assignment into the LTPP program. The experiment also includes test sections that were moved from other LTPP experiments after they were subjected to either AC overlay or mill and fill treatments. The test sections in the GPS-6 experiment are classified as GPS-6A, GPS-6B, GPS-6C, GPS-6D, and GPS-6S. Each of the classifications is explained below. 1. GPS-6A Œ The test sections under this classification are part of the original LTPP design. They were subjected to AC overlay prior to their assignment into the LTPP program. 2. GPS-6B Œ The test sections under this classification are also part of the original LTPP design. They were subjected to AC overlay following assignment into the LTPP program. 3. GPS-6C, -6D, and -6S Œ The test sections under these classifications do not have an experimental design associated with them. They were moved to either GPS-6C, -6D, or -6S classification from other LTPP experiments after they were subjected to rehabilitation actions. The specific GPS-6 classification depends on the type of pavement rehabilitation as detailed below: 170 If the test sections from other LTPP experiments were overlain with recycled AC mixes, they were moved into the GPS-6C classification. If the test sections from other LTPP experiments were overlain using virgin AC mixes, they are moved into the GPS-6D classification. If the test sections from other LTPP experiments were milled and filled using virgin or recycled AC mixes, they are moved into the GPS-6S classification. After an extensive search of the database, all of the test sections in the GPS-6 experiment that have three or more BT and/or three or more AT time series pavement condition and/or distress data points were grouped according to the following variables: Two treatment types (AC overlay and mill and fill) AC mix type (virgin and recycled) Thickness types (thin 2.5 inches and thick > 2.5 inches) Four climatic regions (WF, WNF, DF, and DNF) One pavement condition (IRI) Four pavement distress types Therefore, the analyses were conducted to assess the impacts of each treatment type and AC mix type and thickness on the pavement performance (IRI, rut depth, and cracking) in each climatic region using the RFP and RSP of each treated test section before and after treatment. Further, for each test section, the treatment benefits were expressed in terms of the changes in the functional and structural periods (CFP or CSP) which is the difference between the AT RFP or RSP and the BT RFP or RSP, and the minimum and maximum CFP and CSP values and their averages for all test sections located in the same climatic region were calculated and are listed in 171 Tables 5.28 through 5.32 depending on the pavement condition and distress type. The data in the five tables are discussed below per pavement condition and distress type. 5.9.1 IRI The data in Table 5.28 indicate that on average: 1. The thin and thick overlays using virgin AC mix extended the pavement functional period by about eleven and thirteen years, respectively. 2. The thick overlays using recycled AC mix extended the pavement functional period by thirteen years in the WF region and by eight years in the WNF region. The construction of this overlay type on the single test section in the DF region caused six years loss in the pavement functional period. The reason is the rough pavement surface after construction. 3. The CFP values of the thin mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix are four, seven, eleven, and thirteen years in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. While the CFP values of the thick mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mixes are nineteen, nine, and twelve years in the WF, WNF, and DNF regions, respectively. 4. The thin mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix extended the pavement functional period by about twelve years in the WF and WNF regions. Whereas, the thick mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix extended the pavement functional period by about thirteen years in the WF, WNF, and DNF regions, respectively. 172 Table 5.28 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CFP based on IRI Treatment type Mix type Thickness Climatic regions WF WNF DF DNF No. CFP (year) No. CFP (year) No. CFP (year) No. CFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Overlay Virgin Thin 6 4 20 11 16 6 17 10 3 6 17 12 0 0 0 - Thick 6 5 20 13 5 10 14 12 4 3 20 13 1 14 14 14 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 4 2 20 10 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 1 13 13 13 3 4 14 8 1 -6 -6 -6 0 0 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 4 -4 9 4 19 -7 12 7 3 6 14 11 1 13 13 13 Thick 1 19 19 19 4 4 14 9 0 0 0 - 7 5 20 12 Recycled Thin 2 10 13 12 2 11 16 13 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 3 10 20 15 7 3 19 12 0 0 0 - 1 13 13 13 No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-2.5 inch); CFP = Change in functional period Table 5.29 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CFP/CSP based on rut depth Treatment type Mix type Thickness Climatic regions WF WNF DF DNF No. CFP/CSP (year) No. CFP/CSP (year) No. CFP/CSP (year) No. CFP/CSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Overlay Virgin Thin 6 9 20 13 12 -2 20 10 1 8 8 8 0 0 0 - Thick 6 5 20 13 3 8 20 12 3 -2 9 5 2 10 13 9 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 2 4 10 7 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 1 14 14 14 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 11 1 20 11 20 0 20 16 2 12 16 14 0 0 0 - Thick 5 3 20 13 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - 6 2 15 9 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 2 11 20 15 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 1 -5 -5 -5 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-2.5 inch); CFP/CSP = Change in functional/structural period 173 Table 5.30 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on AlC Treatment type Mix type Thickness Climatic regions WF WNF DF DNF No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Overlay Virgin Thin 3 11 20 15 4 5 20 13 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 2 8 13 10 0 0 0 - 1 6 6 6 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 1 4 4 4 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 1 10 10 10 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 3 7 8 7 5 0 20 6 1 11 11 11 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 1 4 4 4 0 0 0 - 2 12 17 15 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 1 14 14 14 2 6 17 12 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = ( 2.5 inch); Thick = (> 2.5 inch); CSP = Change in structural period Table 5.31 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on LC Treatment type Mix type Thickness Climatic regions WF WNF DF DNF No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Overlay Virgin Thin 2 0 18 9 5 -3 20 7 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 2 5 8 7 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 1 5 5 5 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 4 -3 5 0 16 -10 20 5 2 10 12 11 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 1 14 14 14 0 0 0 - 2 0 12 6 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 1 10 10 10 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 1 17 17 17 2 14 14 14 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = ( 2.5 inch); Thick = (> 2.5 inch); CSP = Change in structural period 174 Table 5.32 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of CSP based on TC Treatment type Mix type Thickness Climatic regions WF WNF DF DNF No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) No. CSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Overlay Virgin Thin 3 5 12 8 10 -2 17 6 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 2 8 20 14 3 7 14 11 0 0 0 - 1 4 4 4 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 0 0 0 - 5 -6 16 5 1 3 3 3 0 0 0 - Thick 0 0 0 - 1 5 5 5 0 0 0 - 3 0 12 7 Recycled Thin 0 0 0 - 2 10 11 11 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - Thick 2 8 11 9 3 8 16 13 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = ( 2.5 inch); Thick = (> 2.5 inch); CSP = Change in structural period 175 5.9.2 Rut Depth The data in Table 5.29 indicate that on average: 1. The thin and thick overlays using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about thirteen, eleven, seven, and nine years in the WF, WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. 2. The thin and thick overlays using recycled AC mix in the WNF region extended the pavement structural period by seven and fourteen years, respectively. 3. The thin mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by eleven, sixteen, and fourteen years in the WF, WNF, and DF regions, respectively. On the other hand, the thick mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by thirteen, twenty, and nine years in the WF, WNF, and DNF regions, respectively. 4. The thick mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix extended the pavement structural period by fifteen years in the WNF regions. Whereas, the thick mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix caused a five-year loss in the pavement structural period in the WF region. This is most likely due to inadequate compaction during the construction of the AC fill. 5.9.3 Alligator Cracking The data in Table 5.30 indicate that on average: 1. The thin virgin AC mix overlays extended the pavement structural period by about fourteen years in the WF and WNF regions. While, the thick overlay using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by ten and six years in WNF and DNF regions, respectively. 2. In the WNF region, the thin and thick recycled AC mix overlays extended the pavement structural period by four and ten years, respectively. 176 3. The thin mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about six years in the WF and WNF regions and by eleven years in the DF region. Whereas, the thick mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by four and fifteen years in the WNF and DNF regions, respectively. 4. The thick mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about thirteen years in the WF and WNF regions. 5.9.4 Longitudinal Cracking The data in Table 5.31 indicate that on average: 1. The thin overlays using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about eight years in the WF and WNF regions. Likewise, the thick overlays using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by eight years in the WNF region. 2. The thin and thick overlays using recycled AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about four years in the WNF region. 3. The thin mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by five years in the WF and WNF regions and by eleven years in the DF region. Whereas, the thick mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by fourteen and six years in the WNF and DNF regions, respectively. 4. The thick mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about fifteen years in the WF and WNF regions. 5.9.5 Transverse Cracking The data in Table 5.32 indicate that on average: 1. The thin overlays using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about seven years in the WF and WNF regions. Whereas, the thick overlays using virgin AC mix 177 extended the pavement structural period by fourteen, eleven, and four years in the WF, WNF, and DNF regions, respectively. 2. The thin and thick overlays using recycled AC mix extended the pavement structural period by three years in the WNF region. 3. The thin mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by five years in the WNF region. On the other hand, the thick mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix extended the pavement structural period by about six years in the WNF and DNF regions. 4. The thin mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix extended the pavement structural period by eleven years in the WNF region. The thick mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mix extended the pavement structural period by nine and thirteen years in the WF and WNF regions, respectively. 5.9.6 Impact of the Before Treatment Condition and Distress on the Performance of the Pavement after Treatments, GPS-6 Several attempts were made to analyze the impacts of the BT pavement condition (IRI) and distresses (rut depths and cracking) on the pavement performance after treatment. Examples of the results for thin and thick virgin AC overlay and for IRI and transverse cracking are shown in the treatment transition matrices (T2Ms) in Tables 5.33 through 5.36. Although, only twenty-seven and sixteen test sections can be analyzed for thin and thick overlays using virgin AC mix; the results are logical and expected. The data in Tables 5.33 and 5.34 indicate that the before treatment pavement condition (IRI) has minute to no effects on the remaining functional period of the test sections. This is more pronounced for the thick AC overlay than for the thin AC overlay. That is if the AC overlay is constructed properly, it would produce a smooth pavement 178 surface. Certainly thicker AC overlays will be constructed using two or more courses. The higher is the number of the overlay courses, the smoother is the final pavement surface. The implication herein is that, if a pavement section is to be treated based on high IRI (low ride quality), then the AC overlay should be constructed using at least two courses. Otherwise, the rough surface could be milled to even one and then subjected to a single course AC overlay. Unfortunately, there are fewer number of test sections available for analyses of the structural period. Tables 5.35 and 5.36 for thin and thick virgin AC overlay, respectively, list the results of the analyses of the impacts of transverse cracking before treatment on the pavement performance relative to transverse cracking after treatment. It can be seen that there are only thirteen test sections for thin AC overlay and only five for the thick AC overlay. When these limited sections are distributed among the five condition states before treatment, the number of test sections in each CS becomes statistically insignificant to support reliable conclusions. Having stated that, the limited data indicate that the higher is the length of transverse cracks before treatment, the worse is the pavement performance after treatment. Further, the thick AC overlay performs better than the thin overlay; it retards reflective cracking better. 179 Table 5.33 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin overlay using virgin AC mix (IRI, number of LTPP test sections) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thin overlay using virgin AC mix based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) data RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition state (code and RFP ranges in years) and the number of LTPP test sections transferred from each BT condition state to the indicated AT condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state LTPP test sections 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 4 15 0 0 1 1 2 14 11 12 B 2 2 to < 4 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 20 13 16 C 3 4 to < 8 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 18 10 16 D 4 8 to < 13 15 56 0 0 0 1 14 10 6 16 E 5 > 13 4 15 0 0 0 0 4 9 0 16 F Total 27 100 0 0 1 2 24 12 6 15 180 Table 5.34 Functional treatment transition matrix for thick overlay using virgin AC mix (IRI, number of LTPP test sections) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thick overlay using virgin AC mix based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) data RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition state (code and RFP ranges in years) and the number of LTPP test sections transferred from each BT condition state to the indicated AT condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state LTPP test sections 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 4 25 0 0 0 0 4 20 15 16 B 2 2 to < 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 3 4 to < 8 4 25 0 0 0 0 4 20 10 16 D 4 8 to < 13 5 31 0 0 0 0 5 10 6 16 E 5 > 13 3 19 0 0 0 0 3 18 0 16 F Total 16 100 0 0 0 0 16 16 8 16 181 Table 5.35 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay using virgin AC mix (TC, number of LTPP test sections) Row designation Column designation A B C D F G H I J K L M Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay using virgin AC mix based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition state (code and RSP ranges in years) and the number of LTPP test sections transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state LTPP test sections 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 3 23 1 0 0 2 0 9 6 7 B 2 2 to < 4 2 15 0 0 0 0 2 12 13 16 C 3 4 to < 8 4 31 0 1 0 1 2 7 5 11 D 4 8 to < 13 3 23 0 0 1 0 2 6 3 13 E 5 > 13 1 8 0 0 0 1 0 6 -6 10 F Total 13 100 1 1 1 4 6 8 5 11 182 Table 5.36 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay using virgin AC mix (TC, number of LTPP test sections) Row designation Column designation A B C D F G H I J K L M Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick overlay using virgin AC mix based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition state (code and RSP ranges in years) and the number of LTPP test sections transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state LTPP test sections 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 3 60 0 0 0 1 2 13 13 14 B 2 2 to < 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 3 4 to < 8 2 40 0 0 0 2 0 10 4 10 D 4 8 to < 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 5 > 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F Total 5 100 0 0 0 3 2 12 9 12 183 5.10 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, GPS-6 The performance of pavement rehabilitation is a function of many variables including the type of rehabilitation, the material used, construction, traffic, and climate. Results of the analyses of the LTPP GPS-6 test sections confirm that. Although, the GPS-6 test sections do not represent full factorial for detailed analyses of each variable, there are several conclusions that can be cautiously made given the limited number of test sections. These conclusions include: 1. In each climatic region, the impacts of the thin and thick overlay or mill and fill treatment on IRI are almost the same. This was expected because good quality construction can decrease the pavement roughness substantially regardless of the overlay thickness. 2. Likewise, thin and thick overlays and mill and fill treatments have similar impact on rut depths. Once again, this was expected because most pavement rutting occurs early in the pavement life, which can be removed during the treatment. One word of caution is that poor compaction of the overlay may precipitate early rutting in the AC overlay. 3. The impact of the AC overlay and mill and fill treatments on pavement performance in terms of alligator and longitudinal cracking cannot be assessed with a certain degree of certainty due to the limited number of test sections. 4. The impact of thin and thick overlay on pavement performance in terms of transverse cracking is very much as expected; the thicker is the overlay or the mill and fill treatment, the more the reflective transverse cracking are retarded and the longer is the pavement structural period. 5. The effects of the climatic regions on the pavement condition and distress cannot be fully assessed because of the limited number of test sections in each climatic region. Based on the results of the analyses, it is strongly recommended that: 184 1. The data collection frequency on newly designed and constructed or newly rehabilitated LTPP test sections be increased to a minimum of once a year, twice a year for test sections subjected to light rehabilitation, and three times a year for test section subjected to maintenance treatments. 2. The construction process be documented and the quality control data be included in the database. 3. Future analyses of pavement condition and distress data be based on the new pavement rating and classification systems; RFP and RSP. 4. The benefits of pavement rehabilitation and/or maintenance treatments be measured in terms of the RFP or RSP, CFP or CSP and FCROP or SCROP. 185 CHAPTER 6 DATA ANALYSES RIGID PAVEMENTS 6.1 Background Chapter 5 presented the results of the analyses of the time series condition and distress data of the LTPP flexible pavement test sections. This chapter presents the results of the analyses of the time series condition and distress data of the LTPP rigid pavement test sections. 6.2 Impacts of Climatic Region, Drainage, Slab Thickness, Concrete Flexural Strength, and Slab Width on Pavement Condition and Distress Using LTPP SPS-2 Test Sections The main objective of the SPS-2 experiment is to study the effects of the climatic regions and the following structural factors on pavement performance (Jiang et al. 2005). 1. Slab thickness (8 and 11 inches) 2. The 14-day concrete flexural strength (3.8 MPa and 6.2 MPa) 3. Base type (dense-graded aggregate base, asphalt treated base, permeable asphalt treated base, and a combination thereof) 4. Presence or absence of a drainage layer 5. Slab widths (3.66 and 4.27 m) The analyses of the impacts of the various design variables were accomplished using the following steps: Step 1 - For each pavement test section in the LTPP SPS-2 experiment, the time dependent pavement condition (IRI) and distress (transverse and longitudinal cracking) data were downloaded from the LTPP database, organized, and analyzed. Results of the analyses included the RFP and RSP of each test section calculated as the time period from the time of construction to the time when the pavement condition or distress reach the appropriate 186 threshold values. The reason for calculating the RFP and RSP from the construction data (surface age is zero) is that the dates of construction and the dates of the last data collection for the SPS-2 test sections are not the same. The implication of this is that the reference time for each SPS-2 test section is taken as the date of construction. Step 2 - For each pavement condition and distress type, the resulting RFP and RSP values and other inventory data (such as SHRP ID, State, slab thickness, drainage, slab width, concrete flexural strength, and so forth) were then organized in an Excel spreadsheet format. Step 3 For each SHRP ID and for each pavement condition and distress type, the minimum and maximum RFP and RSP values and their averages were calculated and listed in the Excel spreadsheets. Step 4 - The data were then organized into the various groups and subgroups listed below and in Table 6.1. The main objective of the division is to separate the design variables impacting pavement performance. 1. Climatic Region Groups The results of the analyses were organized into the four climatic regions; wet-freeze (WF), wet-no-freeze (WNF), dry-freeze (DF), and dry-no-freeze (DNF). 2. Slab Thickness Subgroups The results of the analyses in each climatic region were then organized into two subgroups based on the slab thicknesses of 8- and 11-inch. 3. Slab Width Subgroups - The results of the analyses in each slab thickness subgroup were then organized into two subgroups based on the slab widths of 3.66 and 4.27 m. 187 4. Concrete Flexural Strength Subgroups - The results in each slab width subgroup were then organized into two subgroups based on the concrete 14-day flexural strength of 3.8 MPa and 6.2 MPa. 5. Drainage Subgroups The results in each concrete flexural strength subgroup were further divided into two drainage subgroups (presence and absence of drainage). Further grouping based on the aggregate base type and traffic would yield an insignificant number of test sections per each subgrouping. Hence, the impacts of the aggregate base types were studied based on the presence or absence of drainage only and the impact of traffic was not addressed. Nevertheless, the number of test sections available for analyses in each subgroup is listed in Table 6.1. The impacts of climatic region, slab thickness and width, flexural strength, and drainable and undrainable bases on the pavement performance in terms of RFP and RSP were analyzed. The detailed analysis results are listed in Tables E.1 through E.12 of Appendix E. For convenience, the detailed results were summarized and are listed in Tables 6.2 through 6.13. Since there are many design variables, four tables were populated to summarize the impacts of the design variables on RFP or RSP for each pavement condition or distress. Each table summarizes the impacts of climatic region, slab thickness, drainable bases, and a combination of slab width and concrete flexural strength on the RFP or RSP of test sections based on one condition (IRI) or one distress (longitudinal or transverse cracks). For example, Table 6.2 provides a summary of the results of the analyses of the impacts of design factors on the RFP based on the IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections having slab width of 3.66 m. and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa.188 Table 6.1 Analysis subgroups and the number of test sections available for analyses in the SPS-2 experiment in each subgroup Condition/ distress type Lane width (m) Slab strength (MPa) Slab thickness (in) Number of available test sections based on climatic region and presence of aggregate base drainage WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND IRI 3.66 3.8 8 1 4 1 4 2 2 1 2 11 3 8 1 2 3 2 1 2 6.2 8 3 7 1 2 3 2 1 1 11 1 3 2 3 1 2 1 2 4.27 3.8 8 3 6 1 2 3 2 1 2 11 1 4 1 4 1 2 1 2 6.2 8 2 4 0 4 2 2 1 2 11 2 7 0 2 2 2 1 2 LC 3.66 3.8 8 2 3 1 4 2 3 1 2 11 4 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 6.2 8 4 8 1 2 0 2 1 2 11 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 4.27 3.8 8 4 7 1 2 1 2 1 2 11 2 4 2 4 2 2 1 2 6.2 8 2 4 0 4 2 2 1 2 11 4 7 0 2 1 2 1 2 TC 3.66 3.8 8 2 3 1 4 2 2 1 2 11 4 8 1 2 1 2 1 2 6.2 8 4 8 1 2 0 2 1 2 11 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 2 4.27 3.8 8 4 7 1 2 1 2 1 2 11 2 4 2 4 2 2 1 2 6.2 8 2 4 0 4 2 2 1 2 11 4 7 0 2 1 2 1 1 IRI = international roughness index; TC = transverse cracking; LC = longitudinal cracking, D = drainable base; ND = undrainable base; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 189 While Table 6.3 provides a summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on the IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections having slab width of 4.27 m and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa. The numbers in the tables indicate the differences in years in the RFP or RSP values of the SPS-2 test sections having the top heading parameters relative to the RFP and RSP values of the SPS-2 test sections having the side heading parameters. For convenience, the listed numbers in Tables 6.2 through 6.13 are explained below using the data from the first and second rows in Table 6.2. 1. In the WF region, the RFP of the LTPP SPS-2 test sections having 11-inch thick slab and non-drainable bases is: Two years less than the RFP of test sections located in the WF region and having 8-inch thick slab and drainable bases. An insignificant one year less than the RFP of test sections located in the WF region and having 8-inch thick slab and none drainable bases. 2. In the DNF region, the RFP of the LTPP SPS-2 test sections having 8-inch thick slab and none drainable bases is three years less than the RFP of test sections located in the WF region and having 8-inch thick slab and either drainable or none drainable bases. 3. It should be noted that the results are listed in Tables 6.2 to 6.13 and conclusions cannot be made. Therefore, the data in Tables 6.2 through 6.13 were further summarized in Table 6.14 based on the relative performance of comparable SPS-2 test sections. In this context, the term c-2 test sections having the same slab thickness and slab width, the same concrete flexural strength, and similar bases. The summarized data in Table 6.14. The data in the table address the impact of the climatic regions on pavement performance in terms of functional condition (RFP based on IRI) and structural condition (RSP based on 190 longitudinal and transverse cracking). The values in the table indicate the percent of the test sections, having the heading parameters, which performed either better, the same, or worse relative to the test sections having the side heading parameters. These values are presented and discussed below for each pavement condition and distress type. 6.2.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) The data listed in the IRI block in Table 6.14 indicate that the pavement performance based on IRI, of the majority of the SPS-2 test sections, is not impacted by the climatic regions. The various findings leading to the above conclusion are detailed below. In the WF region, seventy, sixty-eight, and sixty-five percent of the SPS-2 test sections performed the same as comparable test sections located in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. While twenty-six, thirty-two, and twenty-six percent performed worse. In the WNF region, ninety and eighty-two percent of the SPS-2 test sections performed the same as comparable test sections located in the DF and DNF regions, respectively. While only ten and nine percent performed worse. In the DF region, ninety percent of the SPS-2 test section performed the same as comparable test sections located in the DNF region and only ten percent performed better. 191 Table 6.2 Summary of the results of the analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width of 3.66 m and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF D 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 ND 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 D 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 ND 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -2 2 2 WNF D 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 ND 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 D 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 ND 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 DF D 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 ND 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 D 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 ND 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 DNF D 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 ND 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 D 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 ND 0 0 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 192 Table 6.3 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 11 D 0 -4 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 0 -4 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 WNF 8 D 0 -4 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 1 -3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 11 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 DF 8 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 11 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 0 -4 0 2 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 DNF 8 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 11 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 ND 2 -2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 193 Table 6.4 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 ND 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 NC 4 NC 4 4 4 4 4 11 D 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 WNF 8 D 0 -4 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 ND 2 -2 2 2 2 2 2 NC 2 NC 2 2 2 2 2 11 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 DF 8 D NC NC NC 0 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 NC NC 0 0 0 0 0 11 D NC NC NC 0 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 DNF 8 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -4 0 0 0 -2 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 194 Table 6.5 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 WNF 8 D NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 0 0 0 NC NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 11 D NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 DF 8 D 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 11 D NC NC NC 0 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 DNF 8 D 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 195 Table 6.6 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 ND 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 -1 2 2 2 -5 2 2 11 D 0 -2 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 ND 0 -2 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 WNF 8 D 0 -2 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 ND 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 0 -2 1 1 1 -6 1 1 11 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 ND 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 DF 8 D 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -6 0 0 ND 3 1 3 7 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 -4 3 3 11 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 -7 0 0 ND 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 -7 0 0 DNF 8 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 -7 0 0 ND 7 5 7 7 7 6 7 7 6 4 7 7 7 7 7 11 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 ND 0 -2 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 196 Table 6.7 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 3 3 3 3 -4 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 11 D 0 -3 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -3 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 WNF 8 D 0 -3 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 7 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7 7 7 11 D 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 DF 8 D 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 3 -1 3 0 3 -5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 DNF 8 D 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 ND 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 11 D 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 ND 0 -3 0 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 -3 0 0 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 197 Table 6.8 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF PCC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 2 2 -1 2 -1 2 2 NC 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 D 0 -2 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 2 1 2 2 -1 2 2 NC 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 WNF 8 D 0 -2 0 -2 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 3 1 3 1 3 3 3 NC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 11 D 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DF 8 D NC NC NC -2 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 DNF 8 D 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 0 -2 0 -2 0 -3 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 198 Table 6.9 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on longitudinal cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF PCC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 WNF 8 D NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 0 0 0 NC NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 11 D NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 DF 8 D 1 1 1 0 NC 1 NC 1 1 1 -2 1 1 1 1 ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 -3 0 0 0 0 11 D 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 -3 0 0 0 0 ND 3 3 3 0 NC 3 NC 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 DNF 8 D 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 11 D 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 ND 0 0 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -1 0 0 -3 0 0 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 199 Table 6.10 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -6 1 -1 1 -4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -12 1 1 ND 6 6 5 6 2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 -6 6 6 11 D -1 -6 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 ND 1 -5 2 2 -3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 -11 2 2 WNF 8 D -1 -6 0 -2 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 ND 4 -2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 -8 4 4 11 D -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 ND -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 DF 8 D -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 ND -1 -6 0 11 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 11 D -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 ND -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 DNF 8 D -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 0 ND 12 6 12 11 12 8 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 11 D -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 ND -1 -6 0 -2 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 200 Table 6.11 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 3.8 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF PCC D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -2 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 ND 2 2 2 2 -3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 11 D 0 -2 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 ND 0 -2 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 WNF 8 D 0 -2 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 ND 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 3 11 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 ND 0 -2 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 DF 8 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 ND 0 -2 0 1 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 11 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 ND 0 -2 0 1 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 DNF 8 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 ND 1 0 1 1 1 -3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 11 D 0 -2 0 0 0 -5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 -1 ND 1 0 1 1 1 -3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 201 Table 6.12 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 3.66 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -1 -2 -5 1 -5 1 1 NC 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ND 1 0 -3 2 -4 2 2 NC 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 11 D 2 0 -3 3 -4 3 3 NC 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 ND 5 3 3 6 -1 6 6 NC 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 WNF 8 D -1 -2 -3 -6 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND 5 4 4 1 6 6 6 NC 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 11 D -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DF 8 D NC NC NC -6 NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 D -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 DNF 8 D -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 D -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 ND -1 -2 -3 -6 0 -6 0 0 NC 0 0 0 0 0 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 202 Table 6.13 Summary of the results of analyses of the impacts of design factors on RSP based on transverse cracking of LTPP SPS-2 test sections with slab width 4.27 meters and concrete flexural strength of 6.2 MPa C.R PCC Slab thick. (in) Base type Differences between the RFP of the top heading and the RFP of the side heading (year) WF WNF DF DNF D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND D ND WF 8 D -2 2 2 NC 2 NC 2 -5 2 2 0 2 -3 2 2 ND 2 4 4 NC 4 NC 4 -3 4 4 2 4 -1 4 4 11 D -2 -4 0 NC 0 NC 0 -7 0 0 -2 0 -5 0 0 ND -2 -4 0 NC 0 NC 0 -7 0 0 -2 0 -5 0 0 WNF 8 D NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND -2 -4 0 0 NC NC 0 -7 0 0 -2 0 -5 0 0 11 D NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC ND -2 -4 0 0 NC 0 NC -7 0 0 -2 0 -5 0 0 DF 8 D 5 3 7 0 NC 7 NC 7 7 7 5 7 2 7 7 ND -2 -4 0 5 NC 0 NC 0 -7 0 -2 0 -5 0 0 11 D -2 -4 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -7 0 -2 0 -5 0 0 ND 0 -2 2 0 NC 2 NC 2 -5 2 2 2 -3 2 2 DNF 8 D -2 -4 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -7 0 0 -2 -5 0 0 ND 3 1 5 5 NC 5 NC 5 -2 5 5 3 5 5 5 11 D -2 -4 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -7 0 0 -2 0 -5 0 ND -2 -4 0 0 NC 0 NC 0 -7 0 0 -2 0 -5 0 WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; D = drainable base; ND = non-drainable base; PCC= Portland cement concrete; NC = could not be compared 203 Table 6.14 Summary of the results of the analyses of the effects of climatic region on the performance of the LTPP SPS-2 test sections Condition / distress type Climatic regions Climatic regions WF WNF DF DNF Better Same Worse Better Same Worse Better Same Worse Better Same Worse IRI WF 26 70 4 32 68 0 26 65 9 WNF 4 70 26 10 90 0 9 82 9 DF 0 68 32 0 90 10 0 90 10 DNF 9 65 26 9 82 9 10 90 0 LC WF 13 78 9 14 68 18 17 79 4 WNF 9 78 13 14 72 14 78 18 4 DF 18 68 14 14 72 14 18 77 5 DNF 4 79 17 4 18 78 5 77 18 TC WF 39 44 17 48 43 9 39 35 26 WNF 17 44 39 18 77 5 13 64 23 DF 9 43 48 5 77 18 9 64 27 DNF 26 35 39 23 64 13 27 64 9 IRI = International Roughness Index; LC = longitudinal cracking; TC = transverse cracking; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 204 6.2.2 Longitudinal Cracking The data listed in the longitudinal cracking block in Table 6.14 indicate that: 1. In the WF region, seventy-eight, sixty-eight, and seventy-nine percent of the SPS-2 test sections performed the same as comparable test sections located in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. While thirteen, fourteen, and seventeen percent performed worse and nine, eighteen, and four percent performed better. 2. In the WNF region, seventy-two and eighteen percent of the SPS-2 test sections performed the same as comparable test sections located in the DF and DNF regions, respectively. While fourteen and seventy-eight percent performed worse and fourteen and four percent performed better. 3. In the DF region, seventy-seven percent of the SPS-2 test section performed the same as comparable test sections located in the DNF region and eighteen percent performed worse. 6.2.3 Transverse Cracking The data listed in the transverse cracking block in Table 6.14 indicate that: 1. In the WF region, forty-four, forty-three, and thirty-five percent of the SPS-2 test sections performed the same as comparable test sections located in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions, respectively. While seventeen, nine, and twenty-six percent performed better and thirty-nine, forty-eight, and thirty-nine percent performed worse. 2. In the WNF region, the majority (seventy-seven and sixty-four percent) of the SPS-2 test sections performed the same as comparable test sections located in the DF and DNF regions, respectively. While few percentages performed either better or worse. 205 3. Likewise, in the DF region, the majority of the SPS-2 test sections performed the same as comparable test sections located in the DNF region. While twenty-seven percent performed better and nine percent performed worse. 6.3 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, SPS-2 The available data in the LTPP database standard release 28 regarding the LTPP SPS-2 experiment were downloaded, organized, and analyzed. When the data were divided into various groups based on separation of variables, the number of test sections under each variable was statistically insignificant. However, for each test section, the resulting RFP and RSP values are listed in Tables 6.2 through 6.13. Because of the limited number of SPS-2 test sections under each variable, the impact of the design variables on pavement performance were not analyzed or discussed any further. Rather, the data were summarized in Table 6.14 and the impacts of the climatic region on pavement performance was presented in the previous section. Based on the analyses results, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. On average, the pavement performance relative to IRI is not affected by the climatic region. Although, the data slightly indicate that SPS-2 test sections located in the WF region performed slightly worse than compatible test sections located in the other three climatic regions. 2. On average, the majority of the SPS-2 test sections located in the WNF region performed worse relative to longitudinal cracking than those in the DNF region. This is mainly due to the impact of excessive moisture on pavement performance. 3. The WF region has more damaging impact on pavement performance relative to transverse cracking than the WNF, DF, and DNF regions. This was expected due to the combined effects of subfreezing temperatures and moisture. 206 6.4 Impacts of Maintenance Treatments on Pavement Condition and Distress Using the LTPP SPS-4 Test Sections The main objective of the LTPP SPS-4 experiment is to compare the performance of rigid pavement test sections subjected to selected maintenance treatments to the performance of untreated test sections or the control sections. The thirty-four SPS-4 test sites were initiated between 1990 and 1995 and are distributed across the USA and Canada. Each of the SPS-4 test sites consists of three test sections, two were subjected to one of the treatments listed below and the other is counted as a control section that was not treated as per the original experimental design. 1. Joint and crack sealing (410) 2. Joint undersealing (420) However, only 10 of the 34 test sites contain a test section that was joint undersealed, bringing the total number of test sections and control sections to 78. There are several variables that affect the performance of the treated pavement sections. These include climatic region, traffic, subgrade type, etc. Similar to the SPS-3 experiment, unfortunately, if these variables were separated, in some scenarios, the number of test sections available for analyses becomes insignificant. To illustrate, Table 6.15 provides a list of the number of test sections available for analyses based on the separation of the following variables: Two treatment types One pavement condition (IRI) Two pavement distress types (longitudinal and transverse cracking) Four climatic regions; WF, WNF, DF, and DNF Three traffic levels 207 It can be seen that, for longitudinal and transverse cracking, the number of SPS-4 test sections that are available for analyses is statistically insignificant in each climatic region. Therefore, the analyses were conducted to assess the impact of each treatment type in each climatic region and for each pavement condition and distress type. That is, the data were not separated based on traffic level or by the type of subbase or subgrade. Nevertheless, the analyses of the impacts of each of the two treatment types on pavement performance were accomplished using the following steps: Step 1 - For each treated pavement test section in the SPS-4 experiment, each of the available pavement condition (IRI) and distress data were used to calculate the RFP and RSP of that section from the time of the treatment to the time when the pavement condition or distress reach the pre-specified threshold values. Step 2 For each pavement condition and distress type and for each pavement treatment type, the minimum and maximum RFP and RSP values and their averages for all test sections located in the same climatic region were calculated and are listed in Tables 6.16 through 6.18 depending on the pavement condition and distress type. The results of the analyses are discussed per pavement condition and distress type in the next three subsections. 6.4.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RFP values based on IRI data for the SPS-4 test sections that were subjected to the same treatment type and for the associated control sections are listed in Table 6.16. The data in the table indicate that: 1. There are eight SPS-4 test sections in the WF region that were subjected to joint and crack sealing and accepted for analyses. The minimum, maximum, and average RFP values of the 208 Table 6.15 Number of test sections that have AT pavement condition and distress and traffic data Condition or distress type Treatment type Number of test sections subjected to each of three traffic levels in the various climatic regions Wet-freeze Wet-no-freeze Dry-freeze Dry-no-freeze L M H L M H L M H L M H IRI Joint and crack sealing 0 0 7 1 3 6 0 0 2 0 0 2 Joint undersealing 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 Control section 0 0 7 1 3 7 0 0 1 0 0 2 Longitudinal cracking Joint and crack sealing 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Joint undersealing 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control section 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Transverse cracking Joint and crack sealing 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 Joint undersealing 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Control section 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 L = low traffic (0 to 60,000 ESAL/yr); M = medium traffic (61,000 to 120,000 ESAL/yr); H = high traffic (>120,000 ESAL/yr) For each pavement condition and distress type, a test section is analyzed only if it exhibits any condition or distress and has three or more data points after treatment that can be modeled. 209 eight SPS-4 test sections are ten, twenty, and seventeen years, respectively. In addition, there are eight control sections with minimum, maximum, and average RFP values of eight, 2. twenty, and seventeen respectively. Thus, the difference between the average RFP of the treated and control test sections is zero. That is, joint crack sealing has no impact on pavement performance in the WF region. 3. The average RFP value of the ten treated SPS-4 test sections located in the WNF region is three years higher than the average RFP value of the eleven control sections located in the same region. 4. The average RFP value of the four treated SPS-4 test sections located in the DF region is three years less than the average RFP value of the two control sections located in the same region. Table 6.16 Impacts of various maintenance treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI C.R. Treatment type Remaining functional period (year) Difference in RFP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of test sections Min Max Avg Number of test sections Min Max Avg WF JCS 8 10 20 17 8 8 20 17 0 WNF 10 6 20 18 11 0 20 15 3 DF 4 1 16 9 2 11 13 12 -3 DNF 2 5 20 12 2 17 17 17 -4 WF JUS 0 - - - 8 8 20 17 NC WNF 6 0 20 12 11 0 20 15 -3 DF 1 3 3 3 2 11 13 12 -10 DNF 1 2 2 2 2 17 17 17 -14 JCS = joint crack sealing; JUS = joint undersealing; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 210 Table 6.17 Impacts of various maintenance treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on LC C.R. Treatment type Remaining structural period (year) Differences in RSP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of sections Min Max Avg Number of sections Min Max Avg WF JCS 0 - - - 1 20 20 20 NC WNF 5 13 20 19 2 20 20 20 -1 DF 0 - - - 1 20 20 20 NC DNF 0 - - - 2 17 20 19 NC WF JUS 0 - - - 1 20 20 20 NC WNF 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 DF 0 - - - 1 20 20 20 NC DNF 0 - - - 2 17 20 19 NC JCS = joint crack sealing; JUS = joint undersealing; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze Table 6.18 Impacts of various maintenance treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on TC C.R. Treatment type Remaining structural period (year) Differences in RSP (year) Test sections Control sections Number of sections Min Max Avg Number of sections Min Max Avg WF JCS 1 20 20 20 2 11 20 16 4 WNF 4 6 20 14 3 20 20 20 -6 DF 1 19 19 19 1 20 20 20 -1 DNF 0 - - - 1 14 14 14 NC WF JUS 0 - - - 2 11 20 16 NC WNF 2 1 20 11 3 20 20 20 -9 DF 0 - - - 1 20 20 20 NC DNF 0 - - - 1 14 14 14 NC JCS = joint crack sealing; JUS = joint undersealing; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze 211 1. The average RFP value of the two treated SPS-4 test sections located in the DNF region is five years less than the average RFP value of the two control sections located in the same region. 2. The joint undersealing treatment of the SPS-4 test sections in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions caused higher pavement roughness and consequently the average RFP values of the control sections in the three regions are substantially lower than the test sections. The main reason for the differences between the average RFP values of the test sections and the control sections is that the conditions of the control sections are not representative of the conditions of the test sections when they were subjected to treatments. For example, the IRI value obtained from the first survey performed on the treated test section 06B420 is 2.4 m/km while the IRI value of the control section 06B430 is 1.9 m/km. Since the magnitude and the rates of deterioration of the two test sections are different, they precipitate differences in their RFP values. 6.4.2 Longitudinal Cracking The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on longitudinal cracking data for the SPS-4 test sections that were subjected to the same treatment type and for the associated control sections are listed in Table 6.17. The data in the table indicate that neither treatment has any impact on the average RFP values of the SPS-4 test sections located in the WNF region. No test or control sections are located in the other three climatic regions. 6.4.3 Transverse Cracking The calculated minimum, maximum, and average RSP values based on transverse cracking of the SPS-4 test sections that were subjected to the same treatment type and for the associated control sections are listed in Table 6.18. The data in the table indicate that: 212 Joint and crack sealing has positive impact on pavement performance in the WF region. The RFP value of the one SPS-4 test section is four years higher than the average RFP of the two control sections. Whereas, the same treatment caused losses in the average RFP values of the SPS-4 test sections located in the WNF and DF regions. The two SPS-4 test sections located in the WNF region and subjected to joint undersealing performed worse than the three control sections by nine years. 6.5 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, SPS-4 The available data in the LTPP database standard release 28 regarding the LTPP SPS-4 experiment were downloaded, organized, and analyzed. The intent was to study the impact of two maintenance treatments, joint and crack sealing (410) and joint undersealing (420), on pavement performance. When the data were separated based on traffic levels, the number of test sections that were available for analyses in each traffic level was statistically insignificant. Therefore, the data were grouped based on the two maintenance treatment types and the four climatic regions. For each group, the minimum, maximum, and average RFP and RSP values for the test and control sections were calculated and are listed in Tables 6.16 through 6.18. The impacts of the two maintenance treatments in each climatic region were presented in the previous section. Based on the results of the analyses, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. On average, relative to IRI, joint and crack sealing treatment has no impact on pavement performance in the WF region, positive impact in the WNF region, and negative impact in the DF and DNF regions. 2. On average, relative to IRI, joint undersealing treatment has negative impact on pavement performance in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions. 213 3. On average, the two maintenance treatments have no impact on pavement performance relative to longitudinal cracking in the WNF region. 4. Joint and crack sealing treatment has positive impact on pavement performance in the WF region and negative impact in the WNF region. 5. Likewise, joint undersealing treatment has no impact on the pavement performance relative to transverse cracking in the WNF region. Based on the above, joint and crack sealing is effective in the WF region and not effective in the other three climatic regions. While joint undersealing is not effective in any region. 6.6 Impacts of Rehabilitation Treatments on Pavement Condition and Distress Using the LTPP SPS-6 Test Sections The main objective of the SPS-6 experiment is to examine the effects of various rehabilitation treatments on the performance of rigid pavement test sections. The fourteen SPS-6 test sites were initiated between 1989 and 1998 and are distributed across the USA and Canada. Each SPS-6 test site consists of one control section and seven treated test sections for a total of 112 test sections. Each of the seven treated sections were subjected to one of the following rehabilitation actions: 1. Minimum restoration (602) 2. Minimum restoration with 4-inch AC overlay (603) 3. Minimum restoration with 4-inch AC overlay and sawed and sealed joints in the AC (604) 4. Maximum restoration (605) 5. Maximum restoration with 4-inch AC overlay (606) 6. Crack, break, and seat with 4-inch AC overlay (607) 214 7. Crack, break, and seat with 8-inch AC overlay (608) The minimum restoration action includes limited patching, crack sealing, and joint stabilization. Further, diamond grinding was performed when faulting was considered too high. Maximum restoration includes sub-sealing, sub-drainage, joint repair and sealing, full-depth repairs and load transfer restoration, and diamond grinding. Cracking and seating was used for jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) test sections while breaking and seating was performed for jointed reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP) test sections. For each SPS-6 test section subjected to one of the above listed rehabilitation actions, the time series pavement condition and distress data (collected after the rehabilitation action was taken and before the next treatment was applied) were used to calculate the RFP and RSP values of that section. Thus, the RFP and RSP values express the pavement service period between rehabilitation and the time when the pavement condition or distress reaches the pre-specified threshold values. Similarly, the RFP and RSP values of the control sections were also calculated. For each pavement condition (IRI) and distress type (rut depth and alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking), the treatment benefits were expressed in two terms as follows: 1. The RFP or the RSP value of the treated pavement section. 2. The difference in the RFP or RSP value of the treated pavement section and the RFP or RSP value of the associated control section. period (CFP) or change in structural period (CSP Results of the analyses of the treatment benefits are listed in Tables 6.19 through 6.23 based on two climatic regions (no test sections are present in the DF and DNF regions), pavement type, and pavement condition and distress type. The data in the tables are discussed below per pavement condition and distress type. 215 6.6.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) The data listed in Table 6.19 indicate that: 1. Although the RFP and CFP of some treated pavement sections are listed in the table, the results are based on only one test section and one control section. Hence, no substantial discussion and/or conclusion can be made at this time. 2. Based on the limited number of test sections in each treatment type, it appears that, on average: The maximum restoration and no AC overlay treatment type yielded the lowest RFP value. This could be related to the treatment type or more likely the construction quality that yielded high pavement roughness. The impact of rigid pavement type and climatic region on the performance of the treated test sections is similar. 6.6.2 Rut depth The data listed in Table 6.20 indicate that: 1. Although the test sections which received AC overlay have rut depth measurements available in the LTPP database, the PCC control sections were not subjected to AC overlay and hence do not have rut depth data. Therefore, no CFP/CSP values could be calculated. 2. Once again, although the RFP/RSP values of most treated pavement sections are listed in the table, the data in each category (each cell in the table) are based on only one test section. Nevertheless, the data in the table indicate that the RFP/RSP values of all treated pavement sections, where a minimum of three data points were collected, is twenty years regardless of the treatment type, pavement type, or climatic region. 216 Table 6.19 The RFP of control sections and the impact of treatment types on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI C.R Pave-ment type State (state code) Control section RFP (year) Minimum restoration and no AC overlay Minimum restoration and AC overlay Maximum restoration and no AC overlay Maximum restoration and 4-inch AC overlay Crack/break and seat and AC overlay 4-inch 4-inch with SS 4-inch 8-inch RFP CFP RFP CFP RFP CFP RFP CFP RFP CFP RFP CFP RFP CFP WF JPCP AZ (04) ND ND - 18 - 20 - ND - 20 - 20 - 20 - IN (18) ND NS - 20 - 20 - NS - 20 - 14 - 20 - MO (29) ND 20 - 20 - 10 - 16 - 15 - 20 - 20 - SD (46) ND ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - Average - 20 - 19 - 17 - 16 - 18 - 18 - 20 - JRCP IL (17) 7 20 13 20 13 20 13 13 6 ND - 20 13 20 13 IA (19) ND ND - ND - ND - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - MI (26) 11 ND - 20 9 NS - 3 -8 20 9 NS - 20 9 MO (29) ND ND - 20 - 20 - ND - 20 - ND - 20 - PA (42) ND ND - 19 - 20 - ND - 19 - 20 - 20 - Average 9 20 11 20 11 20 11 12 3 20 11 20 11 20 11 WNF JPCP AL (01) 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 ND - 20 20 AK (05) ND 20 - 20 - 20 - ND - 20 - 20 - 20 - CA (06) 0 ND - 15 15 ND - 7 7 ND - 16 16 20 20 TN (47) ND 15 - 20 - 13 - ND - 20 - ND - 20 - Average 0 18 18 19 19 18 18 14 14 20 20 18 18 20 20 JRCP OK (40) ND ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavements; JRCP = jointed reinforced concrete pavements; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; RFP = remaining functional period; CFP = change in functional period; SS = saw and seal of joints; ND = no data; NA = not applicable; NS = negative model slope (pavement condition and/or distress improving over time with no treatment)- 217 Table 6.20 Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RFP/RSP based on rut depth C.R Pavement type State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Minimum restoration and no AC overlay Minimum restoration and AC overlay Maximum restoration and no AC overlay Maximum restoration and 4-inch AC overlay Crack/break and seat and AC overlay 4-inch 4-inch with SS 4-inch 8-inch RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP WF JPCP AZ (04) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - NS - 20 - 20 - IN (18) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - 20 - 20 - MO (29) NA NA - NS - NS - NA - NS - NS - NS - SD (46) NA NA - ND - ND - NA - ND - ND - ND - Average - - - 20 - 20 - - - 20 - 20 - 20 - JRCP IL (17) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - ND - NS - NS - IA (19) NA NA - NS - 20 - NA - NS - NS - 20 - MI (26) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - 20 - 20 - MO (29) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - ND - 20 - PA (42) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - 20 - 20 - Average - - - 20 - 20 - - - 20 - 20 - 20 - WNF JPCP AL (01) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - 20 - 20 - AK (05) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - 20 - 20 - CA (06) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - ND - 20 - 20 - TN (47) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - ND - 20 - Average - - - 20 - 20 - - - 20 - 20 - 20 - JRCP OK (40) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - 20 - 20 - JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavements; JRCP = jointed reinforced concrete pavements; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; RFP = remaining functional period; CFP = change in functional period; SS = saw and seal of joints; ND = no data; NA = not applicable; NS = negative - 218 Table 6.21 Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on alligator cracking Climatic region Pavement type State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Minimum restoration and no AC overlay Minimum restoration and AC overlay Maximum restoration and no AC overlay Maximum restoration and 4-inch AC overlay Crack/break and seat and AC overlay 4-inch 4-inch with SS 4-inch 8-inch RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP WF JPCP AZ (04) NA NA - 13 - 20 - NA - 19 - 19 - 20 - IN (18) NA NA - 20 - 13 - NA - 11 - 12 - 12 - MO (29) NA NA - ND - 15 - NA - 19 - 19 - 20 - SD (46) NA NA - ND - ND - NA - ND - ND - ND - Average - - - 17 - 16 - - - 16 - 17 - 17 - JRCP IL (17) NA NA - 5 - 13 - NA - ND - ND - 18 - IA (19) NA NA - ND - 8 - NA - 8 - 8 - 10 - MI (26) NA NA - 20 - ND - NA - 10 - ND - 20 - MO (29) NA NA - ND - 20 - NA - ND - ND - 16 - PA (42) NA NA - 20 - ND - NA - ND - 20 - ND - Average - - - 15 - 14 - - - 9 - 14 - 16 - WNF JPCP AL (01) NA NA - 9 - 15 - NA - ND - 3 - 7 - AK (05) NA NA - 18 - 16 - NA - 18 - 20 - 20 - CA (06) NA NA - 7 - ND - NA - ND - 5 - 7 - TN (47) NA NA - ND - 12 - NA - ND - ND - ND - Average - - - 11 - 14 - - - 18 - 9 - 11 - JRCP OK (40) NA NA - 20 - 20 - NA - 20 - 5 - 9 - JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavements; JRCP = jointed reinforced concrete pavements; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; RFP = remaining functional period; CFP = change in functional period; SS = saw and seal of joints; ND = no data; NA = not applicable; NS = negative - 219 Table 6.22 Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking Climatic region Pavement type State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Minimum restoration and no AC overlay Minimum restoration and AC overlay Maximum restoration and no AC overlay Maximum restoration and 4-inch AC overlay Crack/break and seat and AC overlay 4-inch 4-inch with SS 4-inch 8-inch RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP WF JPCP AZ (04) ND ND - 7 - 12 - ND - 13 - 10 - 13 - IN (18) ND 19 - 6 - 12 - 20 - 14 - 15 - 10 - MO (29) 20 ND - 10 -10 6 -14 13 -7 9 -11 10 -10 10 -10 SD (46) ND ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - Average 20 19 1 8 -12 10 -10 17 -3 12 -8 12 -8 11 -9 JRCP IL (17) 13 ND - 20 7 12 -1 ND - ND - 20 7 17 4 IA (19) ND ND - ND - 7 - ND - 3 - 0 - 1 - MI (26) 19 ND - 10 -9 ND - NS - 10 -9 9 -10 9 -10 MO (29) ND ND - ND - 19 - ND - 20 - ND - 20 - PA (42) ND ND - 14 - 15 - ND - 14 - 14 - 17 - Average 16 - - 15 -1 13 -3 - - 12 -4 11 -5 13 -3 WNF JPCP AL (01) ND 20 - 5 - 6 - ND - 5 - 7 - 20 - AK (05) ND ND - 10 - 10 - ND - 12 - 9 - 9 - CA (06) ND ND - 6 - 7 - ND - 7 - 5 - 5 - TN (47) ND 20 - 6 - 5 - ND - 5 - ND - 7 - Average - 20 - 7 - 7 - - - 7 - 7 - 10 - JRCP OK (40) ND ND - 3 - 3 - ND - 3 - 3 - 3 - JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavements; JRCP = jointed reinforced concrete pavements; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; RFP = remaining functional period; CFP = change in functional period; SS = saw and seal of joints; ND = no data; NA = not applicable; NS = negative - 220 Table 6.23 Impact of various treatments and control section on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking Climatic region Pavement type State (state code) Control section RSP (year) Minimum restoration and no AC overlay Minimum restoration and AC overlay Maximum restoration and no AC overlay Maximum restoration and 4-inch AC overlay Crack/break and seat and AC overlay 4-inch 4-inch with SS 4-inch 8-inch RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP RSP CSP WF JPCP AZ (04) ND ND - 3 - 0 - ND - 7 - 8 - 12 - IN (18) ND ND - 3 - 0 - ND - 3 - 3 - 16 - MO (29) 20 20 0 12 -8 0 -20 20 0 9 -11 11 -9 10 -10 SD (46) ND ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - ND - Average 20 20 0 6 -14 0 -20 20 0 6 -14 7 -13 13 -7 JRCP IL (17) 5 0 -5 20 15 20 15 0 -5 ND - ND - 20 15 IA (19) ND ND - ND - NS - ND - NS - 20 - 14 - MI (26) 0 ND - 19 19 ND - 0 0 15 15 14 14 12 12 MO (29) ND ND - ND - NS - ND - 20 - ND - 20 - PA (42) ND ND - 20 - NS - ND - 20 - 20 - ND - Average 3 0 -3 20 17 20 17 0 -3 18 15 18 15 17 14 WNF JPCP AL (01) 20 20 0 7 -13 0 -20 12 -8 5 -15 4 -16 20 0 AK (05) ND ND - 8 - 0 - ND - 8 - 10 - 13 - CA (06) ND ND - 6 - ND - ND - ND - 11 - 12 - TN (47) ND 20 - 13 - 1 - ND - 11 - ND - ND - Average 20 20 0 9 -11 0 - 20 12 -8 8 -12 8 -12 15 - 5 JRCP OK (40) ND ND - 12 - 17 - ND - 17 - 4 - 20 - JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavements; JRCP = jointed reinforced concrete pavements; WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; RFP = remaining functional period; CFP = change in functional period; SS = saw and seal of joints; ND = no data; NA = not applicable; NS = negative - 221 6.6.3 Alligator Cracking The data listed in Table 6.21 indicate that: 1. The LTPP database has no alligator cracking data for any of the control sections. Once again, the reason is that the control sections are rigid pavement, while the test sections are composite pavements. 2. The reported alligator cracking data on the test sections are highly likely top-down cracking. The reason that in composite pavements, surface tensile stress and strain due to pavement-tire interaction is higher than the tensile stress and strain at the bottom of the AC overlay. Nevertheless, the RSP values of most treated pavement sections listed in Table 6.21 are based on only one test section per treatment type, pavement type, and climatic region. The data cannot be compared to the control sections to extract treatment benefits because of the different pavement types. However, the differential benefits of the various treatments can be obtained by studying the minimum, maximum, and average values of the RSP. The data in the table indicate that: The RSP values of the test sections subjected to minimum restoration and 4-inch AC overlay ranges from a low of five years to a high of twenty years with an average of about fourteen years. The RSP values of the test sections subjected to minimum restoration, sawing and sealing the joints, and 4-inch AC overlay ranges from a low of five years to a high of twenty years with an average of about fifteen years. The RSP values of the test sections subjected to maximum restoration and 4-inch AC overlay ranges from a low of eight years to a high of twenty years with an average of about fifteen years. 222 The RSP values of the test sections subjected to crack, break and seat, and 4-inch AC overlay ranges from a low of five years to a high of twenty years with an average of about fifteen years. The RSP of the test sections subjected to crack, break, and seat and 8-inch AC overlay ranges from a low of seven years to a high of twenty years with an average of about fifteen years. 3. The above observations indicate that the pavement performance of the five treatments is almost the same and independent of pavement type and climatic region. 6.6.4 Longitudinal Cracking The data listed in Table 6.22 indicate that: 1. The LTPP database contains three or more time series data points for only 3 control sections. The other eleven sections either have less than three data points or the control section was treated before three data points were collected. 2. It appears that all treatment types of JPCP and JRCP test sections located in the WF region were not effective. The performance of the treated sections is less than the performance of the control sections. 3. For JPCP test sections located in the WNF region, it appears that the minimum restoration and no AC overlay treatment yielded the highest RSP value (twenty years). While the crack and break and seat and 8-inch AC overlay yielded RSP value of ten years. The RSP value of the test sections that received each of the other four treatments was seven years. 6.6.5 Transverse Cracking The data listed in Table 6.23 indicate that: 223 1. For the JRCP test section located in Illinois (WF region), the minimum restoration and no AC overlay treatment appears not to address the transverse cracking problem; the RSP value of the treated test section is zero. Further, the RSP values of two test sections located in Illinois and Michigan and subjected to maximum restoration and no AC overlay treatment is also zero. The data from the limited number of test sections suggest that neither the minimum nor the maximum restoration with no overlay treatments address transverse cracking problems in JRCP test sections, or the treatment construction quality was not adequate, or combination thereof. On the other hand, the two treatments appear to be the right treatment for the four JPCP test sections located in the WF (two sections in Missouri) and WNF regions (two sections in Alabama). 2. The other three treatments; minimum and maximum restoration with 4-in AC overlay appear to be the right treatment for transverse cracking of JRCP test sections located in the WF region. 6.7 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, SPS-6 The available data in the LTPP database standard release 28 regarding the LTPP SPS-6 experiment were downloaded, organized, and analyzed. The intent was to study the impact of seven maintenance treatments on pavement performance. Each of the seven test sections of each of the fourteen test sites was subjected to certain treatment. The measured condition and distress data for each test site and control section were analyzed and the RFP, RSP, CFP, and CSP values were calculated. The results were then grouped per pavement type and climatic region for further analyses. Unfortunately, the IRI and distress data for many control sections and for some test sections did not support the analyses because of either the lack of three data points or improvement in the pavement condition and/or distress over time without the application of 224 treatments. Consequently, the results for only few test sections can be compared. Based on the limited number of test and control sections, the conclusions listed below were drawn. It should be noted that each of these conclusions should be handled cautiously, they are based on the results of a few and sometimes on only one test section. 1. The RFP values of the treated pavement sections are independent of pavement type and climatic region. 2. The pavement performance based on rut depth of treated test sections is independent of the treatment type, pavement type, and climatic region. 3. The alligator cracking data in the database are highly likely an advanced form of top down cracking (the top-down cracks are fatigue cracks which initiate at the pavement surface and, over time, propagate downward) where the transverse and longitudinal cracks resemble alligator cracking. 4. The performance of the test sections relative to longitudinal cracking was worse after subjecting the section to any of the seven treatment types. 5. Minimum and maximum pavement restoration with no AC overlay treatments do not improve the performance of the JRCP test sections. 6.8 Impacts of Bonded Concrete Overlays on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP SPS-7 Test Sections The main objective of the SPS-7 experiment is to study the effects of bonded concrete overlay thickness, surface preparation before concrete overlay, and the use of cement grout on the performance of Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements. There are four SPS-7 test sites that were initiated between 1990 and 1992. Three of the four sites consist of continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP) test sections while the other four sites consist of JPCP test sections. 225 Each of the four test sites has eight test sections and one control section, except the test site in the Louisiana where no control section is included. The eight test sections were subjected to one of the following treatments: 1. Three-inch concrete overlay with milling and grouting (702) 2. Three-inch concrete overlay with milling (703) 3. Three-inch concrete overlay with shot blasting (704) 4. Three-inch concrete overlay with shot blasting and grouting (705) 5. Five-inch concrete overlay with shot blasting and grouting (706) 6. Five-inch concrete overlay with shot blasting (707) 7. Five-inch concrete overlay with milling (708) 8. Five-inch concrete overlay with milling and grouting (709) For each test section that was subjected to one of the above treatments, the available time series pavement condition and distress data from the time of treatment to that of the next treatment were used to calculate the RFP and RSP values of that section. Hence the RFP and RSP values describe the time period between the treatment construction and the time when the pavement condition or distress reaches the pre-specified threshold values. The RFP and RSP values of the control sections were also calculated. For each pavement condition (IRI) and distress type (longitudinal and transverse cracking), the treatment benefits were calculated based on two terms: 1. The RFP and RSP of each treated test section 2. The difference in the RFP or RSP of the treated test section and the RFP or RSP of the control section, CFP and CSP. 226 Results of the analyses are listed in Tables 6.24 through 6.26 and are discussed below based on pavement condition and distress type. It should be noted that, for each of the CRCP test sections, the total transverse crack length was calculated as the sum of half of the cumulative length of low severity transverse cracks, the total length of medium severity cracks, and the total length of high severity transverse cracks. The reason is that the signature of CRCP is the tightly spaced transverse cracks (also called shrinkage cracks). Some of these transverse cracks may open up over time, connect, and produce punchouts. After careful observations of the CRCP transverse crack data, it was observed that, for most CRCP test sections, the total length of the low severity transverse cracks reported in the database exceeds the crack saturation point. Therefore, it was assumed that about half of the total length of the reported low severity transverse cracks are open enough to be considered in the analyses. The other half are very tight shrinkage cracks. 6.8.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) Table 6.24 lists the RFP and the CFP values of all LTPP CRCP test sections located in each of the States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Louisiana and the JPCP test sections located in the State of Missouri. The data in the table indicate that: 1. In the State of Iowa, the measured time dependent IRI data of three of the eight CRCP test sections showed improvement in the IRI over time (negative slope, NS) without the application of any treatment. Hence, the RFP and CFP of the three sections were not calculated. 2. The RFP values of the other twenty-one CRCP test sections in the States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Louisiana are about twenty years (twenty years for twenty sections and seventeen years 227 for one section in Minnesota). That is, the data indicate that the performance of the treated CRCP test sections is independent of the eight treatment types and the two climatic regions. 3. The RFP and the CFP values of the eight JPCP test sections located in the State of Missouri appear to be related to the treatment type. The RFP values of the two test sections that were not grouted and subjected to three-inch concrete overlay with milling (703) or with shot blasting (704) are sixteen and ten years, respectively. These RFP values are 20 and 50 percent lower than the other two test sections that were grouted and subjected to 3-in overlay and the four test sections that were subjected to 5-in concrete overlays with and without grouting. The maximum CFP value of the JPCP test sections (ten years) is mainly due to the low RFP value of the control section (10 years) 6.8.2 Longitudinal Cracking Table 6.25 lists the RSP and the CSP values of all LTPP CRCP test and control sections located in each of the States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Louisiana and the JPCP test sections located in the State of Missouri. The data in the table indicate that: 1. In the State of Iowa, only one of the eight test sections have adequate time series longitudinal data to be analyzed. The RSP of that section is twenty years. Another test section showed improvement in the length of longitudinal cracking over time without the application of any treatment (NS). The LTPP database contains 0.1 ft long measured longitudinal cracking over time for the other six test sections and for the control section. 228 Table 6.24 Impact of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI Climatic region Existing pavement type State (state code) Control section RFP (year) The RFP and CFP of treated test sections (years) Thin bonded overlay Thick bonded overlay Milling Shot Blasting Milling Shot Blasting G NG G NG G NG G NG RFP B1 RFP B1 RFP B1 RFP B1 RFP B1 RFP B1 RFP B1 RFP B1 WF CRCP IA (19) 20 20 0 20 0 NS - NS - 20 0 20 0 NS - 20 0 MN (27) ND 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 17 - JPCP MO (29) 10 20 10 16 6 20 10 10 0 20 10 20 10 19 9 20 10 WNF CRCP LA (22) NCS 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - 20 - NS - WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; G = grouting; NG = no grouting; NCS = no control section; ND = no data, no distress is observed, or less than three data points; NS = negative slope; Thin = 3 inch; Thick = 5 inch; RFP = remaining functional period (year); B1 = CFP = change in functional period (year) Table 6.25 Impact of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on LC Climatic region Existing pavement type State (state code) Control section RSP (year) The RSP and CSP of treated test sections (years) Thin bonded overlay Thick bonded overlay Milling Shot Blasting Milling Shot Blasting G NG G NG G NG G NG RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 WF CRCP IA (19) ND ND - 20 - ND - ND - ND - NS - ND - ND - MN (27) ND ND - ND - ND - 20 - 20 - ND - 20 - 11 - JPCP MO (29) 20 ND - 18 -2 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 0 13 -7 20 0 WNF CRCP LA (22) NCS NS - ND - ND - ND - ND - 20 - ND - 20 - WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; G = grouting; NG = no grouting; NCS = no control section; ND = no data, no distress is observed, or less than three data points; NS = negative slope; Thin = 3 inch; Thick = 5 inch; RSP = remaining structural period (year); B1 = CSP = change in structural period (year) 229 Table 6.26 Impact of bonded concrete overlays on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on TC Climatic region Existing pavement type State (state code) Control section RFP (year) The RSP and CSP of treated test sections (years) Thin bonded overlay Thick bonded overlay Milling Shot Blasting Milling Shot Blasting G NG G NG G NG G NG RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 RSP B1 WF CRCP IA (19) ND 9 - 7 - 6 - 6 - 0 - 0 - 3 - 7 - MN (27) ND 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - ND - 0 - 2 - JPCP MO (29) 20 0 -20 11 -9 9 -11 0 -20 0 -20 0 -20 0 -20 0 -20 WNF CRCP LA (22) NCS 0 - 0 - 2 - 0 - ND - 0 - 0 - 0 - WF = wet-freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; G = grouting; NG = no grouting; NCS = no control section; ND = no data, no distress is observed, or less than three data points; NS = negative slope; Thin = 3 inch; Thick = 5 inch; RSP = remaining structural period (year); B1 = CSP = change in structural period (year) 230 2. In the State of Minnesota, the RSP and CSP values for four test sections are listed in Table 6.25. Once again, The LTPP database contains 0.1 ft long measured longitudinal cracking over time for three test sections and for the control section and only two data points for one test section. 3. In the State of Louisiana, the RSP and CSP values for two test sections are listed in Table 6.25. Once again, The LTPP database contains 0.1 ft long measured longitudinal cracking over time for four test sections, only two data points for one test section and the data show improvement over time in the length of longitudinal cracking without the application of any treatment. 4. The RSP and CSP values of six JPCP test sections located in the State of Missouri appear to be independent of the treatment type. The RSP value of one test section that was subjected to 5-in concrete overlay with shot blasting and grouting is thirteen years; about seven years shorter than the RSP values of the other test sections. This could be the exception and not the rule. Stated differently, no decision could be or should be drawn based on only one section. 6.8.3 Transverse Cracking Table 6.26 lists the RSP and the CSP values of most LTPP CRCP test sections located in each of the States of Iowa, Minnesota, and Louisiana and the JPCP test sections located in the State of Missouri. The LTPP database does not contain adequate data for only two CRCP test section, one is located in Minnesota and the other in Louisiana. The data in Table 6.26 indicate that all eight treatments in the two climatic regions are not successful in treating transverse cracking problems in CRCP. The time series transverse cracking data indicate that the RSP value is zero years for two test sections in Iowa, six test sections in Minnesota, and six test sections Louisiana. Further, the RSP of only one test section in each of the two states is 2 years. While the RSP 231 values of six test sections in Iowa range from three to nine years. 6.9 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations, SPS-7 The LTPP SPS-7 experiment was designed to study the effects of bonded concrete overlay thickness, surface preparation before concrete overlay, and the use of cement grout on the performance of PCC pavements. Such study would be based on comparison between the performance of the test sections and the performance of compatible control sections. The pavement condition and distress data for each test and control section were downloaded from the LTPP database, organized, and analyzed to obtain the performance of the sections. Results of the analyses are listed in Tables 6.24 through 6.26. Based on the results of the analyses, the following conclusions were drawn: 1. The IRI based performance of the treated CRCP test sections is independent of the eight treatment types and the two climatic regions. 2. The performance of the JPCP test sections subjected to 3-in concrete overlay with milling (703) or with shot blasting (704) treatments appear to be lower than the performance of the other JPCP test sections subjected to the other six treatments. 3. Because of lack of adequate number of data points in the LTPP database, no specific conclusions can be made relative to longitudinal cracking performance. 4. None of the eight treatments are effective to treat transverse cracking problems of the CRCP test sections. 6.10 Impacts of Pavement Treatments on Pavement Performance Using the LTPP GPS-7 Test Sections The LTPP GPS-7 experiment contains composite pavement test sections that were overlain prior to their assignment into the LTPP program. The experiment also includes rigid pavement test 232 sections that were moved from other LTPP experiments after they were subjected to AC overlay or existing composite pavement test sections that were subjected to mill and fill. The test sections in the GPS-7 experiment are classified as GPS-7A, GPS-7B, GPS-7C, GPS-7D, GPS-7F and GPS-7S. Each of the classifications is explained below. 1. GPS-7A The test sections under this classification are part of the original LTPP design. They were subjected to AC overlay prior to their assignment into the LTPP program. 2. GPS-7B The test sections under this classification are also part of the original LTPP design. They were subjected to AC overlay following assignment into the LTPP program. 3. GPS-7C, -7D, 7F, and -7S The test sections under these classifications do not have an experimental design associated with them. They were moved to either GPS-7C, -7D, -7F, or -7S classification from other LTPP experiments after they were subjected to rehabilitation actions. The specific classification into the four GPS-7X experiment depends on the type of pavement rehabilitation detailed below: If the rigid pavement test sections from other LTPP experiments were overlain with virgin AC mixes, they were moved into the GPS-7B classification. If the rigid pavement test sections from other LTPP experiments were overlain or if the existing composite pavement test sections were overlain again using recycled AC mixes, they are moved into the GPS-7C classification. If the existing composite pavement test sections were overlain again using conventional AC mixes, they are moved into the GPS-7D classification. If the rigid pavement test sections from other LTPP experiments were subjected to crack/break and seat before overlain using virgin or recycled AC mixes, they are moved into the GPS-7F classification. 233 If the existing composite pavement test sections from other LTPP experiments were subjected to mill and fill using virgin or recycled AC mixes, they are moved into the GPS-7S classification. Unfortunately, the number of rigid and composite pavement test sections that have more than three condition and/or distress data points before they were subjected to overlay or mill and fill treatments is extremely low. Given that the behavior of rigid pavement test sections is much different than that of a composite pavement test sections, they cannot be grouped to increase the number of test sections for analyses. However, the LTPP test sections in the GPS-7 experiment that have three or more AT time series pavement condition and/or distress data points were grouped according to the following variables: Two treatment types (AC overlay and mill and fill) AC mix type (virgin and recycled) Four climatic regions (WF, WNF, DF, and DNF) One pavement condition (IRI) Four pavement distress types (rut depth, and alligator, longitudinal and transverse cracking). After grouping, the data were analyzed to assess, in each climatic region, the impacts of treatment type, AC mix type, and thickness on the calculated RFP and RSP based on IRI, rut depth, and cracking. It should be noted that the LTPP database contains no before treatment pavement condition and distress data for any test section. Therefore, only the RFP or the RSP of the pavement sections were calculated. For each pavement condition and distress type, the average RFP and/or RSP values of the test sections located in the same climatic region were 234 calculated and are listed in Tables 6.27 through 6.31. The data in the five tables are discussed below per pavement condition and distress type. 6.10.1 International Roughness Index (IRI) Table 6.27 lists the average RFP values of test sections located in the same climatic zone and subjected to one of the four treatments listed in the table. The data indicate that the average RFP of the test sections is between 17 and 20 years. 6.10.2 Rut Depth Table 6.28 lists the average RFP/RSP values of test sections located in the same climatic zone and subjected to one of the four treatments listed in the table. The data indicate that, except one test section, the average RFP of all other sections is 20 years. Again, the exemption is one test section located in the DF region and subjected to thin overlay using recycled AC mixes. Its RFP/RSP is only six years. The reason for the RFP/RSP is highly likely due problems associated with the AC mix or with construction of the overlay. The AC mix problems could be excessive binder content, or unstable mix. While construction issue could be inadequate compaction of the overlay or the early opening the road to traffic. 6.10.3 Alligator Cracking Table 6.29 lists the average RSP values of test sections located in the same climatic zone and subjected to one of the four treatments listed in the table. It is important to note that, the labeling pavements. The label is most likely related to advanced stages of top-down fatigue cracking. 235 Table 6.27 Impacts of various treatment types on the RFP of the test sections based on IRI Treatment type Mix type Thickness Number of test sections and the RFP values in the designated climatic region WF WNF DF DNF No. RFP (year) No. RFP (year) No. RFP (year) No. RFP (year) Overlay Virgin Thin 6 18 0 - 0 - 0 - Thick 25 19 6 20 1 20 1 20 Recycled Thin 2 20 1 20 1 20 0 - Thick 0 - 0 - 1 20 1 20 Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 3 20 2 17 1 20 0 - Thick 3 20 2 20 0 - 0 - Recycled Thin 1 20 0 - 0 - 0 - Thick 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = (< 2.5 inch); Thick = (>2.5 inch), RFP = Remaining functional period; Table 6.28 Impacts of various treatment types on the RFP/RSP of the test sections based on RD Treatment type Mix type Thickness Number of test sections and the RFP/RSP values in the designated climatic region WF WNF DF DNF No. RFP/RSP (year) No. RFP/RSP (year) No. RFP/RSP (year) No. RFP/RSP (year) Overlay Virgin Thin 4 20 0 - 0 - 0 - Thick 20 20 6 20 0 - 0 - Recycled Thin 0 - 0 - 1 6 0 - Thick 0 - 1 20 0 - 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 3 20 1 20 1 20 0 - Thick 3 20 1 20 0 - 0 - Recycled Thin 1 20 0 - 0 - 0 - Thick 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = (< 2.5 inch); Thick = (>2.5 inch), RFP/RSP = Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) 236 Nevertheless, the data in the table indicate that the average RSP values vary from nine to twenty years as detailed below: 1. In the WF region, the average RSP of the test sections that were subjected to thin overlay and mill and fill treatment treatments using virgin AC mixes is 19 and 20 years, respectively. While the average RSP of the test sections that were subjected to thick overlay and mill and fill treatments using virgin AC mixes is 14 and 12 years, respectively. Further, the RSP of thin overlay treatment using recycled AC mixes is only 9 years. 2. The RSP of the eight test sections located in the WNF region varies from 11 to 20 years. 3. In the DF region, the RSP of the one test section subjected to thin mill and fill treatment using virgin AC mix is 20 years. 4. In the DNF region, the RSP of the one test section subjected to thick overlay treatment using virgin AC mix is 10 years. Given the limited number of test sections that received certain treatments and located in climatic regions, and given the lack of pavement condition and distress data before treatment, no decision can be made regarding the variability or the functionality of the RSP after treatment. 6.10.4 Longitudinal Cracking Table 6.30 lists the average RSP values of test sections located in the same climatic zone and subjected to one of the four treatments listed in the table. The data in the table indicate that the average RSP values vary from four to 15 years as detailed below. 1. In the WF region, the average RSP of the test sections that were subjected to thin overlay and mill and fill treatment treatments using virgin AC mixes is 6 and 9 years, respectively. While the average RSP values of the test sections that were subjected to thick overlay and mill and fill treatments using virgin AC mixes are 8 and 6 years, respectively. Further, the RSP of thin 237 mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mixes is only 5 years. 2. The RSP of the 11 test sections located in the WNF region varies from 4 to 15 years. 3. In the DF region, the three test sections have an RSP value of 8 years. 4. In the DNF region, the average RSP of the test sections subjected to thick overlay treatment using virgin AC mix is 10 years. Given the limited number of test sections that received certain treatments and located in climatic regions, and given the lack of pavement condition and distress data before treatment, no decision can be made regarding the variability or the functionality of the RSP after treatment. 6.10.5 Transverse Cracking Table 6.31 lists the average RSP values of test sections located in the same climatic region and subjected to one of the four treatments listed in the table. The data in the table indicate that the average RSP values vary from four to 17 years as detailed below. 1. In the WF region, the average RSP of the test sections that were subjected to thin overlay and mill and fill treatments using virgin AC mixes is 8 and 11 years, respectively. While the average RSP values of the test sections that were subjected to thick overlay and mill and fill treatments using virgin AC mixes are 11 and 16 years, respectively. Further, the RSP of thin overlay and mill and fill treatment using recycled AC mixes are 3 and 12 years respectively. 2. The RSP of the 12 test sections located in the WNF region varies from 6 to 17 years. The thicker is the AC overlay, the higher is the RSP. In the DF region, the one test section has an RSP value of 9 years. In the DNF region, the one test section has an RSP value of 13 years. Given the limited number of test sections that received certain treatments and located in climatic regions, and given the lack of pavement condition and distress data before treatment, no decision can be made regarding the variability or the functionality of the RSP after treatment.238 Table 6.29 Impacts of various treatment types on the RSP of test sections based on AlC Treatment type Mix type Thickness Number of test sections and the RFP values in the designated climatic region WF WNF DF DNF No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Overlay Virgin Thin 2 19 1 11 0 - 0 - Thick 13 14 4 12 0 - 1 10 Recycled Thin 1 9 1 12 0 - 0 - Thick 0 - 1 20 0 - 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 1 20 1 20 1 20 0 - Thick 2 12 0 - 0 - 0 - Recycled Thin 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - Thick 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = (< 2.5 inch); Thick = (>2.5 inch), RSP = Remaining structural period (RSP) Table 6.30 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on LC Treatment type Mix type Thickness Number of test sections and the RFP values in the designated climatic region WF WNF DF DNF No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Overlay Virgin Thin 4 6 1 4 0 - 0 - Thick 17 8 6 8 0 - 2 10 Recycled Thin 0 - 0 - 1 8 0 - Thick 0 - 1 10 1 8 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 1 9 1 15 1 8 0 - Thick 3 6 2 13 0 - 0 - Recycled Thin 2 5 0 - 0 - 0 - Thick 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = (< 2.5 inch); Thick = (>2.5 inch), RSP = remaining structural period 239 Table 6.31 Impacts of various treatments on pavement performance in terms of RSP based on TC Treatment type Mix type Thickness Number of test sections and the RFP values in the designated climatic region WF WNF DF DNF No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Overlay Virgin Thin 4 8 1 6 0 - 0 - Thick 16 11 6 17 0 - 1 13 Recycled Thin 1 3 1 7 0 - 0 - Thick 0 - 1 17 0 - 0 - Mill and Fill Virgin Thin 1 11 1 17 1 9 0 - Thick 4 16 2 16 0 - 0 - Recycled Thin 2 12 0 - 0 - 0 - Thick 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - No. = number of test sections; WF = wet freeze; WNF = wet-no-freeze; DF = dry-freeze; DNF = dry-no-freeze; Thin = (< 2.5 inch); Thick = (>2.5 inch), RSP = remaining structural period 240 CHAPTER 7 STATE DATA ANALYSES 7.1 Background Results of the analyses of the LTPP time series pavement condition and distress data measured along flexible and rigid pavement test sections are presented and discussed in previous chapters. The results are presented based on treatment type, climatic regions, and various other factors. This chapter addresses the similarities and differences between the LTPP data and the pavement condition and distress data measured by the three States of Colorado, Louisiana, and Washington along various pavement segments of their respective pavement networks. The differences between the LTPP and the state data are enumerated below. 1. The LTPP data were measured along 152.4 m long test and control sections located throughout USA and Canada. Whereas, the state data were measured along 0.5 to 8-mile-long pavement projects and stored in the databases for each 0.1-mile-long pavement segment along the project. Thus, the data for an 8-mile-long pavement project are stored in eighty different fields; one field per 0.1 mile. 2. The units of measurement used by the LTPP program are not the same as those used by the SHAs. For example, the LTPP unit of measurement for IRI is m/km while it is inch/mile for the states. Therefore, prior to the analyses of the state data, the data were converted to the same units as the LTPP data. 3. The pavement condition and distress along one single LTPP test section represents one single data point in time. Whereas, for each pavement project, the state data contains as many data points at one time as the number of 0.1-mile-long pavement segments along the project. For 241 example, the data from one survey of an 8-mile-long pavement project is equivalent to 80 LTPP test sections. 4. The SHAs databases are based on their distress identification definitions and procedures, which may or may not be compatible with the LTPP Distress Identification Manual. 5. The SHAs databases lack details of the types, classifications, and properties of the pavement layers and roadbed soils. The LTPP data contain the pavement conditions and distresses of flexible, rigid and composite pavements test and control sections. Although the data from the three SHAs contain the same, the number of rigid and composite pavement projects that received treatments and the database contains three or more data points is very much limited. Hence, it was decided to limit the comparison to flexible pavement sections only. An effort has been made to compare the results of the analyses of the LTPP and state data and to determine whether or not the methodologies used in the analyses of the LTPP data apply equally to the state data as well. Therefore, the pavement condition and distress data for the three pavement networks of the three SHAs were requested from the three SHAs, received, organized, and were subjected to the same types of analyses as the LTPP data using the step by step procedure detailed in the next section. 7.2 Analysis Procedure Steps In this section, the steps of the procedure used in the analyses of the state data are presented. These steps are similar as those used in the analyses of the LTPP data. The difference is that the LTPP test sections are analyzed individually. On the other hand, a pavement project consists of many 0.1-mile-long pavement segments where the pavement condition and distress vary substantially along the project. Although each 0.1-mile-long pavement segment along a given 242 pavement project was analyzed individually, results of the analyses of each project within a SHA that received the same treatment were grouped into the five condition states system based on the RFP and RSP values of each 0.1-mile segment. The system was developed in this study and presented in Chapter 3 (Pavement Condition and Classification). Finally, the benefits of a given treatment type were calculated as the weighted average benefits of each 0.1-mile-long pavement segment within each state using the RFP or RSP, the CFP or CSP and the FCROP or SCROP. For the LTPP data, the benefits were calculated using the same parameters based on the weighted average benefits of each test section that received the same treatment type and located in any of the four climatic regions. The analyses procedure steps are detailed below: Step 1 - The pavement condition and distress data were converted into Excel spreadsheet format and separated per pavement type. Step 2 For each pavement network, the treatment data were searched and each 0.1-mile-long segment of several pavement projects that received one of the following treatments were identified, copied, and stored in a separate Excel datasheet. Thin overlay ( 2.5 inch) Thick overlay (> 2.5 inch) Thin mill and fill (2.5 inch) Thick mill and fill (> 2.5 inch) Single chip seal Step 3 The pavement condition and distress data for each identified 0.1-mile-long pavement segment were examined to determine whether or not the segment has a minimum of three-time series data that can be modeled using the proper mathematical function. Those segments that did not pass the test were not included in the analyses. Table 7.1 243 summarizes the number of 0.1-mile-long pavement segments that were accepted for analyses for each treatment type in each state. The above efforts yielded the numbers of 0.1-mile-long pavement segments listed in Table 7.1, which were subjected to analyses. The table also lists the number of LTPP test sections that received similar treatment type and were analyzed. The results of these LTPP test sections were compared to those of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments. Step 4 The data for each 0.1-mile-long pavement segment of each project were analyzed and the remaining functional and structural periods (RFP and RSP) before treatment were calculated. Step 5 For each 0.1-mile-long pavement segment, the treatment benefits were calculated in terms of the RFP or RSP after treatment, the changes in the functional and structural periods (CFP or CSP), and the functional and structural condition reoccurrence period (FCROP or SCROP). The treatment benefits were then compared to the treatment benefits obtained from the LTPP test sections. One issue that should be noted is that, the history of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments and the treatment dates are different from one pavement project to another and from one LTPP test section to another. In order to compare the benefits using an equivalent reference, the RFP and RSP were calculated from the treatment time to the time when the pavement reaches the pre-specified threshold value. Stated differently, the calculated RFP and RSP of each 0.1-mile-long pavement segment and of the LTPP test sections represent the time in years from the treatment date to the time when the pre-specified threshold value is reached. Further, the same threshold values were used in the analyses of the state and the LTPP data. 244 Table 7.1 Number of available 0.1-mile-long pavement segments and LTPP test sections Treatment type Data source Number of 0.1-mile-long pavement segments and LTPP test sections available for analyses IRI Rut depth Alligator cracking Longitudinal cracking Transverse cracking Thin overlay Washington 349 709 1,746 1,000 1,538 Colorado 94 126 128 129 70 Louisiana 219 224 202 71 134 SPS-3 & 5 36 35 34 40 37 GPS-5 25 19 7 7 13 Thick overlay Washington 10 122 403 310 220 Colorado No data No data No data No data No data Louisiana 1,416 1,242 1,199 595 984 GPS-5 14 15 10 15 13 GPS-6 15 13 5 2 6 Thin mill and fill Washington 123 701 886 357 633 Colorado 28 74 49 38 24 Louisiana 163 191 146 80 135 GPS-5 13 13 13 17 16 GPS-6 27 33 9 22 6 Thick mill and fill Washington No data No data No data No data No data Colorado No data No data No data No data No data Louisiana 735 957 605 286 396 GPS-5 14 14 13 15 14 GPS-6 12 13 3 3 4 Chip seal Washington 52 38 156 111 194 Colorado 50 12 43 35 52 Louisiana 1,089 574 1,605 772 819 SPS-3 21 22 18 21 17 Step 6 The results of the analyses of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments were grouped per 6 treatment transition matrices (T2Ms), which are included in Tables F.1 through F.60 of Appendix F. The T2Ms list the before and after treatment condition states for all 0.1-mile-long pavement segments that were analyzed. The T2Ms also list the benefits of the treatments in term of RFP/RSP, CFP/CSP, and FCROP/SCROP and their averages. 245 Step 7 Results of the analyses of all LTPP test sections (the numbers are also listed in Table 7.1) that were subjected to one of the above listed treatments and located in any climatic region were grouped for each pavement condition and distress type. The weighted average benefits in terms of RFP/RSP, CFP/CSP, and FCROP/SCROP were then calculated. Step 8 The two sets of benefits were then compared per pavement condition and distress type, as detailed in the following sections. 7.3 International Roughness Index (IRI) Table 7.2 provides a summary of the calculated benefits (relative to IRI) for all 0.1-mile-long pavement segments within each SHA that received the indicated treatment type and the comparable LTPP test sections. The table also lists the number of 0.1-mile-long segments and the number of LTPP test sections involved in the analyses. For the ease of visual comparison of the benefits, they were plotted in a bar chart format as shown in Figures 7.1 through 7.3. Examination of the three figures indicate that the benefits, relative to IRI in terms of the RFP, CFP, and FCROP of each treatment type of the LTPP SPS and GPS test sections and of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments in each of the cited SHAs, are very similar. 7.4 Rut Depth Table 7.3 provides a summary of the calculated benefits (relative to rut depth) for all 0.1-mile-long pavement segments within each cited SHA that received the indicated treatment type and the comparable LTPP test sections. The table also lists the number of 0.1-mile-long segments and the number of LTPP test sections involved in the analyses. For the ease of visual comparison of the benefits, they were plotted in a bar chart format as shown in Figures 7.4 through 7.6. Examination of the three figures indicate that the benefits, in terms of the RFP/RSP, CFP/CSP, 246 and FCROP/SCROP of each treatment type of the LTPP test sections and of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments in each of the cited SHAs, are very similar. Table 7.2 Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Treatment type Data source Number of 0.1-mile-long segments/ test sections Treatment benefits (year) RFP CFP FCROP Thin overlay Washington 349 19 9 13 Colorado 94 11 1 3 Louisiana 219 18 14 17 SPS-3 & 5 36 18 11 11 GPS-6 25 19 10 13 Thick overlay Washington 10 20 4 10 Louisiana 1,416 19 14 18 SPS-5 14 20 7 18 GPS-6 15 20 14 16 Thin mill and fill Washington 123 19 7 14 Colorado 28 14 8 10 Louisiana 163 18 11 15 SPS-5 13 20 8 19 GPS-6 27 18 7 6 Thick mill and fill Louisiana 735 18 12 16 SPS-5 14 20 8 19 GPS-6 12 20 12 15 Chip seal Washington 52 12 4 2 Colorado 50 16 4 0 Louisiana 1,089 12 2 -1 SPS-3 21 15 2 4 RFP = remaining functional period; CFP = change in functional period; FCROP = functional condition re-occurrence period 247 Figure 7.1 Comparison of the weighted average RFP based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs Figure 7.2 Comparison of the weighted average CFP based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs 248 Figure 7.3 Comparison of the weighted average FCROP based on IRI of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on various pavement projects in three SHAs Figure 7.4 Comparison of the weighted average RFP/RSP based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs 249 Table 7.3 Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Treatment type Data source Rut depth Number of 0.1 mile segments / test sections RFP/RSP (year) CFP/CSP (year) FCROP/SCROP (year) Thin overlay Washington 709 20 6 15 Colorado 126 14 -4 7 Louisiana 224 20 4 18 SPS-3 & 5 35 19 10 16 GPS-6 19 20 11 18 Thick overlay Washington 122 20 8 15 Louisiana 1,242 20 6 10 SPS-5 15 18 7 14 GPS-6 13 19 11 18 Thin mill and fill Washington 701 19 8 16 Colorado 74 20 6 14 Louisiana 191 20 14 19 SPS-5 13 17 8 17 GPS -6 33 19 14 17 Thick mill and fill Louisiana 957 18 9 14 SPS-5 14 18 7 17 GPS-6 13 20 12 18 Chip seal Washington 38 20 1 9 Colorado 12 19 3 0 Louisiana 574 19 6 8 SPS-3 22 15 4 11 RFP/RSP = remaining functional/structural period; CFP/CSP = change in functional/structural period; FCROP/SCROP = functional/structural condition re-occurrence period 250 Figure 7.5 Comparison of the weighted average CFP/CSP based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Figure 7.6 Comparison of the weighted average FCROP/SCROP based on rut depth of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs 251 7.5 Alligator Cracking Table 7.4 provides a summary of the average calculated benefits (relative to alligator cracking) for all 0.1-mile-long pavement segments within each cited SHA that received the indicated treatment type and the comparable LTPP test sections. The table also lists the number of 0.1-mile-long segments and the number of LTPP test sections involved in the analyses. For the ease of visual comparison of the benefits, they were plotted in a bar chart format as shown in Figures 7.7 through 7.9. Examination of the three figures indicate that the benefits of each treatment type of the LTPP test sections and of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments in each of the cited SHAs are very similar. Figure 7.7 Comparison of the weighted average RSP based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs 252 Table 7.4 Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Treatment type Data source Alligator cracking Number of 0.1 mile segments / test sections RSP (year) CSP (year) SCROP (year) Thin overlay Washington 1,746 18 6 13 Colorado 128 9 -6 0 Louisiana 202 11 9 10 SPS 34 12 5 6 GPS 7 16 14 15 Thick overlay Washington 403 18 5 14 Louisiana 1,199 15 13 15 SPS 10 14 7 10 GPS 5 14 9 12 Thin mill and fill Washington 886 18 2 10 Colorado 49 11 3 7 Louisiana 146 18 9 13 SPS 13 15 7 14 GPS 9 9 7 11 Thick mill and fill Louisiana 605 17 15 17 SPS 13 15 7 11 GPS 3 12 11 13 Chip seal Washington 156 19 2 7 Colorado 43 10 7 5 Louisiana 1,605 10 8 9 SPS 18 11 1 6 RSP = remaining structural period; CSP = change in structural period; SCROP = structural condition re-occurrence period 253 Figure 7.8 Comparison of the weighted average CSP based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Figure 7.9 Comparison of the weighted average SCROP based on alligator cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs 254 7.6 Longitudinal Cracking Table 7.5 provides a summary of the average calculated benefits (based to longitudinal cracking) for all 0.1-mile-long pavement segments within each cited SHA that received the indicated treatment Examination of the three figures indicate that the benefits, in terms of the RSP, CSP, and SCROP of each treatment type of the LTPP test sections and of the 0.1-mile-long pavement For the ease of visual comparison of the benefits, they were plotted in a bar chart format as shown in Figures 7.7 through 7.9. Examination of the three figures indicate that the benefits of each treatment type of the LTPP test sections and of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments in each of the cited SHAs are very similar. 7.7 Transverse Cracking Table 7.6 provides a summary of the average calculated benefits (relative to transverse cracking) for all 0.1-mile-long pavement segments within each cited SHA that received the indicated treatment type and the comparable LTPP test sections. The table also lists the number of 0.1-mile-long segments and the number of LTPP test sections involved in the analyses. For the ease of visual comparison of the benefits, they were plotted in a bar chart format as shown in Figures 7.10 through 7.12. Examination of the three figures indicate that the benefits, in terms of the RSP, CSP, and SCROP of each treatment type of the LTPP test sections and of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments in each of the cited SHAs, are very similar. 255 Table 7.5 Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Treatment type Data source Longitudinal cracking Number of 0.1 mile segments / test sections RSP (year) CSP (year) SCROP (year) Thin overlay Washington 1,000 18 4 13 Colorado 129 11 -2 1 Louisiana 71 17 8 11 SPS 40 13 1 5 GPS 7 10 8 10 Thick overlay Washington 310 19 0 14 Louisiana 595 17 7 11 SPS 15 14 3 4 GPS 2 8 7 4 Thin mill and fill Washington 357 18 4 9 Colorado 38 9 -2 4 Louisiana 80 18 11 12 SPS 17 14 2 6 GPS 22 7 5 4 Thick mill and fill Louisiana 286 16 7 13 SPS 15 15 4 6 GPS 3 15 9 10 Chip seal Washington 111 19 4 10 Colorado 35 13 10 5 Louisiana 772 17 9 11 SPS 21 18 1 8 RSP = remaining structural period; CSP = change in structural period; SCROP = structural condition re-occurrence period 256 Figure 7.10 Comparison of the weighted average RSP based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Figure 7.11 Comparison of the weighted average CSP based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs 257 Figure 7.12 Comparison of the weighted average SCROP based on longitudinal cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Figure 7.13 Comparison of the weighted average RSP based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs 258 Table 7.6 Comparison of the weighted average treatment benefits based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Treatment type Data source Transverse cracking Number of 0.1 mile segments / test sections RSP (year) CSP (year) SCROP (year) Thin overlay Washington 1,538 19 2 12 Colorado 70 13 4 4 Louisiana 134 11 3 7 SPS 37 13 0 7 GPS 13 12 6 8 Thick overlay Washington 220 20 2 17 Louisiana 984 14 8 10 SPS 13 16 3 11 GPS 6 14 11 12 Thin mill and fill Washington 633 19 2 11 Colorado 24 8 -4 1 Louisiana 135 15 9 12 SPS 16 16 2 9 GPS 6 11 5 5 Thick mill and fill Louisiana 396 16 12 15 SPS 14 17 4 11 GPS 4 16 7 14 Chip seal Washington 194 20 0 5 Colorado 52 7 3 3 Louisiana 819 13 9 9 SPS 17 12 2 5 RSP = remaining structural period; CSP = change in structural period; SCROP = structural condition re-occurrence period 259 Figure 7.14 Comparison of the weighted average CSP based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs Figure 7.15 Comparison of the weighted average SCROP based on transverse cracking of five treatment types performed on LTPP test sections and on pavement projects in three SHAs 260 7.8 Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations Pavement condition and distress databases of three pavement networks were requested and received from three SHAs. Each database was searched and pavement projects that received one of the five treatment types listed below were identified. Thin overlay (2.5 inch) Thick overlay (> 2.5 inch) Thin mill and fill (2.5 inch) Thick mill and fill (> 2.5 inch) Single chip seal The pavement condition and distress data for each of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments along each selected pavement project that was treated using one of the five treatment listed above was analyzed. Results of the analyses included the RFP and RSP values before and after treatment, the CFP and CSP values after treatment, and the FCROP and SCROP values after treatment. The pavement segments of all pavement projects within one SHA that received the same treatment type were grouped based on their RFP or RSP values into the proper condition states before treatment. Each of the 0.1-mile-long pavement segments within each condition state group before treatment was listed in the after treatment condition state based on their after treatment RFP or RSP values. For each treatment type, the weighted average treatment benefits, relative to each pavement condition and distress type, were then calculated. The results are listed in Tables F.1 through F.60 of Appendix F. These weighted average treatment benefits were then compared to the weighted average treatment benefits of the LTPP test sections. The results are listed in Tables 7.2 through 7.6 and shown in Figures 7.1 through 7.15. The data in the 15 figures indicate that: 261 1. The weighted average benefits of each of the five treatment types, relative to each pavement condition and distress types, obtained from the analyses of the LTPP data are similar to the benefits obtained from the state data. The implication of this is that the treatment benefits provided using the LTPP data, can be used as benchmark values for the national practice. SHAs may utilize such data to: Gauge the effectiveness of their current practices using similar analyses. Conduct life cycle cost analyses of various treatment alternatives to optimize the pavement network rehabilitation and treatment strategy. 2. The methodologies described in previous chapters for the analyses of the LTPP pavement condition and distress data apply to the state data. 3. The three (poor, fair, and good) and the five (very poor, poor, fair, good, and very good) pavement rating systems developed and presented in Chapter 3 based on the time series pavement condition and distress, are equally applicable to the LTPP and state data. 4. The average variability in the measured pavement condition and distress data over time for the LTPP test sections is very similar to the variability of the state measured data along most pavement projects. 5. The percent of the LTPP test sections that were excluded from the analyses due to in-adequate number of data points or because of improving pavement condition and/or distress over time without the application of treatments is equivalent to the percent of the 0.1-mile-long segments of a pavement project that was excluded from the analyses for the same reasons. Based on the results of the analyses, it is strongly recommended that: 262 1. The duel pavement condition rating systems be submitted for approval and adoption by the FHWA, AASHTO, and the SHAs. 2. The algorithms developed in this study be standardized and used on future research studies. 3. The benchmark values regarding the benefits of the five treatment types included in this study be expanded to include additional pavement treatments. 263 CHAPTER 8 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Summary A comprehensive review of the state-of-the-practice of various SHAs with regard to several aspects of pavement condition measures, pavement condition and distress data analyses, and treatment selection was conducted. The review also included previous related studies that were conducted using the LTPP database. The detailed literature review can be found in Chapter 2. The topics covered include: Pavement distress severity levels. Pavement condition and distress descriptions. Pavement performance modeling and treatment benefit calculations. Treatment type and time selection. Preservation costs and LCCA. The effectiveness of pavement treatments at the project and network levels. The LTPP program, its objectives, and the SPS and GPS test sections. Previous findings regarding the impacts of pavement treatments and various design factors on pavement performance. Date required for the analyses was downloaded from the six data volumes housed in the LTPP database standard release 28.0, the data elements of the more than 2500 test sections included in the LTPP program. The data were organized in a special format and readied for analyses. In addition, the pavement management databases from three SHAs; Colorado, Washington, and Louisiana were requested and received. From each database, several pavement 264 projects that were subjected to certain treatments in the past were identified and their data were downloaded from the respective databases and formatted for analyses. Based on the literature review, and general review of the LTPP data, two dual pavement condition rating systems were developed based on the pavement function and its structural integrity. One system is based on three condition states (CSs), and the other is based on five CSs. For each pavement section, the functional CS is based on ride quality in term of the International Roughness Index (IRI) and safety in term of rut depth. The functional CS is expressed in term of the remaining functional period (RFP) in years for the pavement to reach the pre-specified threshold value for IRI or rut depth. The structural CS is based on the remaining structural period (RSP) in years for the pavement section to reach the threshold values relative to alligator, transverse, or longitudinal cracking or rut depth. The rating system for each CS consists of numerical classification, color coding, range of the RFP and RSP, and the average cost per 0.1 mile of preserving the pavement. Further, based on the literature review and common engineering practice, threshold value for each of IRI, rut depth, alligator, transverse, and longitudinal cracking were recommended and used in the analyses of the LTPP and state data. The performance of each of the LTPP flexible pavement test sections included in the SPS-1, SPS-3, SPS-5, and GPS-6 experiments was analyzed. In the analyses, the available before and after treatments time series pavement condition (IRI and rut depth) and distress (rut depth, alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking) data were used. The data were modeled as a function of time using the proper mathematical function form (power function for rut depth, exponential for IRI, and logistic for cracking). Results of the analyses were expressed in terms of the RFP for IRI, the RFP/RSP for rut depth, and the RSP for each cracking type. Thus, for each 265 test section, two RFP and four RSP values were calculated. These values were used to assess the impacts of regional climatic and design factors on pavement performance. Likewise, the performance of each of the LTPP rigid pavement test sections included in the SPS-2, SPS-4, SPS-6, SPS-7, and GPS-7 experiments was analyzed. In the analyses, the available before and after treatments time series pavement condition (IRI and rut depth) and distress (rut depth, alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking) data were used. The intent was to study the impact of each design variable on pavement performance. When the data were divided into various groups based on separation of variables, the number of test sections under each design variable was statistically insignificant (for some variables there is only one or no test section). Therefore, the impact of the design variables on pavement performance were not analyzed or discussed any further. Rather, the data were used to study the impacts of climatic regions on pavement performance. The pavement condition and distress databases of three pavement networks were requested and received from three State Highway Agencies (SHAs). Each database was searched and pavement projects that received one of the five treatment types listed below were identified. Thick overlay (> 2.5 inch) Thick mill and fill (> 2.5 inch) Single chip seal The pavement condition and distress data measured before and after treatment of each 0.1 mile long pavement segment along each selected pavement project that was treated using one of 266 the five treatment listed above were analyzed. The main objective of the analyses is to calculate the treatment benefits in terms of: The RFP and RSP values before and after treatment. The change in function period (CFP) and the change in structural period (CSP) due to the treatment. The functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP) and the structural condition re-occurrence period (SCROP). For each treatment type, the weighted average treatment benefits, relative to each pavement condition and distress type, were then calculated. The weighted average treatment benefits were then compared to the weighted average treatment benefits of the LTPP test sections. 8.2 Conclusions Based on the literature review and the results of the data analyses, the following conclusions are made are presented based on topic. 8.2.1 Pavement Performance Measures 1. The pavement cracking data are typically collected and stored based on three severity levels (low, medium, and high). For most cases, the problem is that the data cannot be analyzed per severity level due to their excessive variability from one year to the next. Analyses of the cracking data based on the sum of all severity levels has been proven to overcome the problem. 2. For pavement projects received the same treatment type, treatment transition matrices (T2Ms) can be developed to display the distribution of the pavement conditions along the project before and after treatment. The data in the T2Ms can and were used to estimate the benefits of the various treatments. 267 3. Pavement condition rating should be based on current conditions and distresses as well as the 4. The three and five brackets dual pavement condition rating systems developed in this study are useful and were equally applied to both state and LTPP data. The systems are flexible and can be easily tailored to fit the needs and constraints of any road agency. 5. The estimated average cost of pavement preservation for each bracket of the dual pavement rating system can be used in the life cycle cost analyses and in strategy optimization. 6. Threshold values were provided for calculation of the RFP and RSP. The values are based on minimum level of service to the user (functional), and loss of structural integrity (structural). 8.2.2 Flexible Pavements 1. Wet-freeze (WF) region has significant adverse impacts on pavement performance in terms of IRI, rut depth, and cracking. 2. Drainable bases decrease the impacts of the WF regions on pavement performance. This conclusion was expected and support that reported in the AASHTO 1983 Pavement Design Guide. 3. Increasing the thickness of the AC layer from 4 to 7-inch increases the frost protection of the lower layers and hence, it decreases the impacts of the WF region on pavement performance. However, this option is not a cost-effective one. 4. The improvement in the pavement performance in the WF region due to drainable bases is slightly better than that due to increasing the AC thickness from 4 to 7 inch. 5. The wet-no-freeze (WNF), dry-freeze (DF), and dry-no-freeze (DNF) regions do not impact the pavement performance relative to rutting potential and IRI. 268 6. The DF region has more adverse effects on cracking potential than the DNF region. This is mainly attributed to higher oxidation (aging) potential of the AC layer in the DF region. 7. The inclusion of drainable bases in the DF and DNF regions does not impact pavement performance in terms of RFP or RSP. This was expected because the volume and frequency of available water are low. Further most rainfalls take place over short period of time where most water runs off the surface and does not penetrate the pavement layers. 8. The thin overlay treatment improves the pavement performance relative to IRI and rut depth in WF, WNF, and DF regions. No conclusions can be made in the DNF region because of the limited number of test sections. 9. In general, the thin overlay treatment does not improve the pavement performance of the SPS-3 test sections relative to alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking. This is mainly due to the high rate of reflective cracking. Immediately after treatment, all cracks are hidden by the thin overlay. However, one or few years later, most cracks are reflected through the overlay, which implies relatively high rate of deterioration and hence short RSP. The exception is in the DNF region where the two test sections showed an increase of 12 year in the average RSP relative to the one control section. This oddity is mainly due to the limited number of sections. That is, the conclusion is not reliable due to the limited number of test sections and control sections. 10. The slurry seal treatment improves the pavement performance of the SPS-3 test sections relative to IRI and rut depth but does not have much impact on alligator, longitudinal, and transverse cracking. 269 11. Crack sealing appears to improve the pavement performance of the SPS-3 test sections relative to rutting. However, it did not improve the pavement performance relative to cracking. 12. Aggregate seal coats appear to improve the pavement performance of the SPS-3 test sections in all climatic regions in terms of IRI, rut depth, and cracking. 13. In general, the worse are the pavement conditions before treatment, the lower are the benefits of treatments in terms of the RFP and/or RSP values. 14. On average, the impact of 2- and 4-inch virgin or recycled AC overlays on pavement performance of the SPS-5 test sections is almost the same. 15. The two inch thick AC overlay (virgin or recycled mix) does not provide a long-term remediation of transverse cracking. The cracks in the lower pavement structure typically reflect through the overlay in few years. 16. On average, the service life extension of a flexible pavement structure due to two inch AC overlay relative to alligator cracking is slightly less than the 4-inch overlay. 17. In each climatic region, the impacts of the thin and thick overlay or thin and thick mill and fill treatments on IRI and rut depths are almost the same. This was expected because good quality construction can decrease the pavement surface roughness substantially regardless of the overlay thickness and because most pavement rutting occurs early in the pavement life, which can be removed during the treatment. 8.2.3 Rigid and Composite Pavements 1. On average, the majority of the SPS-2 test sections located in the WNF region performed worse relative to longitudinal cracking than those in the DNF region. This is mainly due to the impact of excessive moisture on pavement performance. 270 2. The WF region has more damaging impacts on the performance of the SPS-4 test sections relative to transverse cracking than test sections located in the WNF, DF, and DNF regions. This was expected due to the combined effects of subfreezing temperatures and moisture (freeze-thaw cycles). 3. On average, relative to IRI, joint and crack sealing treatment has positive impact on the performance of the SPS-4 test sections located in the WNF region, no impact in the WF region, and negative impact in the DF and DNF regions. 4. Joint and crack sealing is effective in the WF region and not effective in the other three climatic regions. While joint undersealing is not effective in any region. 5. The performance of the treated SPS-6 test sections relative to IRI is independent of the climatic region and pavement type. Whereas, relative to rut depth, it is also independent of treatment type. 6. The alligator cracking data in the SPS-6 database are highly likely an advanced form of top down fatigue cracking (the top-down cracks are fatigue cracks initiate at the pavement surface and, over time, propagate downward). The short transverse and longitudinal cracks resemble the traditional alligator cracking pattern. 7. The performance of the test sections relative to longitudinal cracking was worse after subjecting the section to any of the seven analyzed treatment types. 8. Minimum and maximum pavement restoration with no AC overlay treatments do not improve the performance of the JRCP test sections. 9. The IRI based performance of the treated continuously reinforced concrete pavements (SPS-7) test sections is independent of the eight treatment types and the two climatic regions (WF and WNF). 271 10. The performance of the JPCP test sections subjected to 3-in concrete overlay with milling (703) or with shot blasting (704) treatments is lower than the performance of the other JPCP test sections subjected to the other six treatments. 11. None of the eight applied treatments are effective to treating transverse cracking problems of the CRCP test sections. 8.2.4 State Data 1. thick overlay (> 2single chip seal] relative to each pavement condition and distress types, obtained from the analyses of the LTPP data are similar to the benefits obtained from the three state data. 2. The treatment benefits provided using the LTPP data, can be used as benchmark values for the national practice. SHAs may utilize such data to: a) Gauge the effectiveness of their current practices using similar analyses. b) Conduct life cycle cost analyses of various treatment alternatives to optimize the pavement rehabilitation and treatment strategy at the network level. 3. The methodologies described for the analyses of the LTPP pavement condition and distress data apply to the state data. 4. The three (poor, fair, and good) and the five (very poor, poor, fair, good, and very good) pavement rating systems developed in this study, and presented in Chapter 3 based on the time series pavement condition and distress, are equally applicable to the LTPP and the state data. 272 5. The average variability in the measured pavement condition and distress data over time for the LTPP test sections is very similar to the average variability of the state measured data along most pavement projects. 6. The percent of the LTPP test sections that were excluded from the analyses due to in-adequate number of data points or because of improving pavement condition and/or distress over time without the application of treatments is equivalent to the percent of the 0.1 mile long pavement segments of a given pavement project that was excluded from the analyses for the same reasons. 8.3 Recommendations Based on the results of the LTPP and state data analyses and the conclusions listed above, various recommendations were drawn. For convenience, these recommendations are also listed by topics. 8.3.1 Pavement Performance Measures Based on the results of the LTPP and state data analyses and the conclusions listed above, it is strongly recommended that: 1. The sum of crack lengths or crack areas of all severity levels be used to model the data as a function of time. 2. Accurate pavement planning and management decisions be based on the pavement conditions and rates of deterioration. 3. The three or the five brackets rating systems be adopted by the FHWA and submitted to AASHTO for approval. 4. The threshold values used in this study be either adopted or similar ones be developed by the highway owners to estimate the RFP and RSP of the various pavement sections. 273 5. Each highway agency develop the average cost of pavement preservation for each RFP and RSP bracket of the dual pavement rating systems using their own cost record. 6. LCCA be performed at the project level and strategy optimization at the network level to improve the overall cost-effectiveness of the pavement management application. 7. Treatment transition matrices procedure be adopted and used by the road owners to assess treatment effectiveness and to select the optimum treatment time. 8. The dual pavement rating system included in Chapter 3 be adopted for future analyses and assessment of the benefits of pavement rehabilitation and/or maintenance treatments. 8.3.2 Flexible Pavements 1. Drainable bases be constructed to enhance the performance of pavement sections located in the wet-freeze region. 2. For future studies, the control or linked test sections be selected to border the regular test sections in question and their history be included in the database. This would eliminate unnecessary variability. 3. The pavement condition and distress data be measured before and after treatments. The quality control data for project acceptance be included in the PMS database. 4. The frequency of pavement condition and distress data collection be a function of treatment type. Treatments having short treatment life should be surveyed more frequently than long life treatments. 8.3.3 State Data 1. The dual pavement condition rating systems be adopted by the FHWA, AASHTO, and the SHAs. This would unify the analyses of pavement performance. 274 2. The benchmark benefit values of the five treatment types included in this study be expanded to include additional pavement treatments. 275 APPENDICES 276 APPENDIX A Inventory of Automated and Manual Surveys 277 APPENDIX A Inventory of Automated and Manual Surveys This appendix contains the Table A.s of number of automated and manual distress surveys conducted on LTPP test sections for the experiments SPS-1 to SPS-7 and GPS-6, GPS-7 and GPS-9. 278 Table A.1 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-2 test sections State (code) Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-2 test sections 0201 0202 0203 0204 0205 0206 0207 0208 0209 0210 0211 0212 Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated CA (6) 11 1 11 1 11 1 10 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 11 1 DE (10) 13 4 12 4 11 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 13 4 12 4 11 4 12 4 KS (20) 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 11 7 NV (32) 7 6 2 1 7 6 13 6 7 6 2 1 7 6 7 6 8 6 8 6 7 6 - - NC (37) 19 4 6 4 12 5 11 5 6 4 6 4 11 5 12 5 10 4 6 4 11 5 12 5 OH (39) 7 6 7 6 10 6 8 6 7 6 6 6 9 6 7 6 8 6 7 6 10 6 8 6 WA (53) 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 16 3 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-2 test sections 0213 0214 0215 0216 0217 0218 0219 0220 0221 0222 0223 0224 AZ (4) 12 5 11 5 26 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 12 5 AR (5) 7 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 CO (8) 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 14 7 14 7 14 7 14 7 14 7 14 7 14 7 14 7 IA (19) 10 6 9 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 10 6 9 6 10 6 9 6 MI (26) 5 2 6 6 5 2 14 6 4 1 3 1 13 6 14 6 15 6 11 6 14 6 14 6 ND (38) 10 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 10 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 10 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 WI (55) 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 279 Table A.2 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-3 test sections State (code) Site Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-3 test sections Thin overlay Slurry seal Crack seal Control section Chip seal Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated AL (1) A300 6 2 6 2 6 2 5 2 6 2 B300 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 5 2 C300 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 5 2 AZ (4) A300 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - B300 - - 1 - 1 - 5 - 1 - C300 4 - 2 - 3 - 3 - 4 - D300 3 - 1 - 2 - 5 - 1 - AR (5) A300 8 2 8 2 - - 8 - 8 2 CA (6) A300 6 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 CO (8) A300 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - 2 - B300 2 - 2 - 2 - 3 - 2 - FL (12) A300 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 - 6 2 B300 4 2 4 2 4 2 6 - 4 2 C300 7 2 6 2 6 2 6 - 6 2 ID (16) A300 5 - 5 - 5 - 6 - 5 - B300 6 - 6 - 6 - 7 - 6 - C300 4 - 4 - 4 - - 4 - IL (17) A300 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 B300 8 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 7 2 IN (18) A300 6 2 7 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 IA (19) A300 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - KS (20) A300 6 1 6 1 6 1 5 1 6 1 B300 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 1 KY (21) A300 4 2 4 2 5 2 4 2 4 2 B300 6 2 6 2 5 2 4 2 4 2 MD (24) B300 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - MI (26) A300 4 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 4 1 B300 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 C300 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 D300 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 MN (27) A300 3 - 3 - 3 1 3 1 3 1 B300 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 C300 4 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 2 1 D300 4 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 MS (28) A300 5 - 5 - 5 - 13 - 5 - MO (29) A300 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 B300 8 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 MT (30) A300 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - NE (31) A300 5 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - NV (32) A300 4 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 4 - B300 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - C300 2 - 2 - 2 - 4 - 2 - 280 Table A.2 (cont) State (code) Site Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-3 test sections Thin overlay Slurry seal Crack seal Control section Chip seal Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated NY (36) A300 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - B300 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - OK (40) A300 - - 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 B300 6 1 6 2 6 2 7 - 6 1 PA (42) A300 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - B300 6 - - - 7 - 6 - 7 - TN (47) A300 3 2 3 2 3 2 10 - 1 2 B300 4 2 4 2 4 2 6 - 4 2 C300 4 1 4 1 4 1 9 - 4 1 TX (48) A300 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - - - B300 9 4 9 4 9 4 8 4 9 4 D300 5 1 5 1 4 1 5 1 5 1 E300 5 3 4 3 5 3 6 3 4 3 F300 7 2 6 2 6 2 5 2 5 2 G300 6 1 6 1 6 1 7 5 1 H300 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 I300 6 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 7 1 J300 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - K300 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - 9 - L300 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 M300 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - N300 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - Q300 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - 8 - UT (49) A300 4 - 4 - 4 - 5 - 4 - B300 6 2 - 6 - 5 - 6 - C300 6 1 6 1 6 1 6 - 6 1 VA (51) A300 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - 7 - WA (53) A300 2 - 2 - 2 - 7 - 2 - B300 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - C300 4 - 4 - 5 - 4 - 5 - WY (56) A300 3 - 3 - 3 - 20 - 3 - B300 6 - 6 - 6 - 8 - 6 - MB (83) A300 7 1 7 1 7 1 8 1 7 1 ON (87) A300 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - B300 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - - - PQ (89) A300 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - 6 - SK (90) A300 5 1 6 1 4 1 6 1 7 1 B300 5 1 6 1 6 1 6 - 6 1 281 Table A.3 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-4 test sections State (code) Site 410 420 430 Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated AZ (4) A400 4 3 - - 4 2 AK (5) A400 4 1 - - 4 1 B400 3 2 - - 3 2 C400 3 2 - - 3 2 CA (6) A400 5 3 4 3 5 3 B400 5 - 5 - 5 - CO (8) A400 4 2 - - 4 2 IN (18) A400 5 1 - - 5 1 IA (19) A400 1 1 - - 1 1 B400 2 - - - 2 - KS (20) A400 2 2 - - 2 2 B400 2 1 - - 2 1 KY (21) A400 3 1 - - 3 - MS (28) A400 4 - - - 4 - MO (29) A400 3 - - - 3 - B400 4 2 - - 4 2 NE (31) A400 4 3 - - 4 3 B400 4 3 - - 4 3 C400 4 1 - - 4 1 NV (32) A400 3 1 4 1 3 1 OH (39) A400 4 1 - - 4 1 B400 3 1 - - 3 1 OK (40) A400 5 3 5 3 5 2 PA (42) A400 5 - - - 5 - C400 6 1 - - 6 1 SD (46) A400 5 1 4 1 4 1 TX (48) A400 4 2 4 2 4 2 B400 8 1 8 1 8 1 C400 7 1 7 1 7 1 D400 7 1 7 1 7 1 E400 7 2 7 2 7 2 UT (49) C400 6 - - - 6 - D400 4 - - - 4 - 282 Table A.4 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-5 test sections State (code) Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-5 test sections 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated AL (1) 7 - 14 5 14 5 14 5 14 5 14 5 14 5 14 5 14 5 AZ (4) 2 5 11 8 11 8 11 8 12 8 12 8 11 8 11 8 12 8 CA (6) 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 CO (8) 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 FL (12) 10 - 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 12 4 GA (13) - - 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 10 5 ME (23) 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 MD (24) 10 6 13 7 13 7 12 7 12 7 12 7 12 7 13 7 12 7 MN (27) 11 8 11 8 9 7 12 8 11 8 12 8 12 8 11 8 11 8 MS (28) 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 MO (29) 4 2 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 8 3 MT (30) 7 - 8 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 9 6 8 6 NJ (34) 9 8 11 8 12 8 11 8 12 8 11 8 12 8 12 8 11 8 NM (35) 6 3 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 9 4 8 4 OK (40) 9 3 10 4 10 4 10 4 10 4 10 4 10 4 10 4 10 4 AB (81) 12 6 12 4 12 4 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 MB (83) 6 4 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 12 6 11 6 12 6 11 6 283 Table A.5 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-6 test sections State (code) Number of manual and automated surveys and treatments for SPS-6 test sections 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated AL (1) 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 9 3 AZ (4) 1 2 1 2 7 7 7 6 2 2 7 6 7 6 7 6 AK (5) 10 3 10 3 10 3 11 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 10 3 CA (6) - - 10 8 11 6 11 6 8 8 11 6 11 6 11 6 IL (17) 10 6 10 5 11 6 11 6 10 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 IN (18) 2 3 9 8 10 7 11 7 8 8 10 7 11 7 10 7 IA (19) 6 10 6 10 8 10 8 10 8 10 10 10 11 10 10 10 MI (26) 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 8 4 9 4 10 4 MO (29) 6 4 6 4 9 4 9 5 3 4 4 5 4 2 4 5 OK (40) 13 6 13 6 13 4 13 4 13 6 13 4 13 5 13 5 PA (42) 11 6 11 6 11 5 11 5 11 6 11 5 11 5 11 5 SD (46) 10 7 9 7 9 6 9 6 9 7 9 6 9 6 9 6 TN (47) 8 4 8 4 8 3 8 3 8 4 8 3 6 2 8 3 284 Table A.6 Number of manual and automated surveys for SPS-7 test sections State (code) Number of manual and automated surveys and treatments for test sections in SPS-7 0701 0702 0703 0704 0705 0706 0707 0708 0709 Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated IA (19) 2 - 4 - 4 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - LA (22) - - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - MS (28) 3 - 5 - 5 - 5 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 4 - 3 - MO (29) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 5 6 5 7 7 7 7 285 Table A.7 Number of manual and automated surveys for GPS-6 test sections State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated AL (1) 6012 7 4 CA (6) 6044 1 3 FL (12) 4101 1 5 6019 5 5 2038 8 6 4135 5 7 1001 5 7 2041 8 6 4136 5 6 4127 4 7 2051 5 7 4137 5 6 4129 3 5 7452 9 6 4096 9 8 1019 6 6 8150 9 6 1370 9 8 4155 9 6 8153 10 7 3997 6 5 AZ (4) 6053 1 5 8202 6 6 4100 8 8 6054 2 6 8534 10 6 4106 7 7 6055 3 6 8535 10 6 GA (13) 4420 8 8 6060 4 7 2002 9 5 4096 8 7 1002 2 5 7454 6 6 4112 6 6 1003 7 9 7491 9 7 4113 6 6 1006 8 9 8149 10 6 ID (16) 6027 4 1007 8 7 CO (8) 6002 6 7 1001 7 8 1015 6 8 6013 4 6 1007 7 8 1016 6 6 7780 8 5 IL (17) 6050 1 5 1017 9 6 7783 8 6 IN (18) 6012 9 6 1018 8 8 1047 2 4 1037 9 7 1021 7 6 7781 7 6 2008 8 6 1022 10 7 1053 19 6 1028 10 4 1024 17 7 1029 9 6 IA (19) 6049 3 6 1025 13 6 CT (9) 1803 13 7 6150 7 5 AK (5) 3058 7 7 DE (10) 1450 8 6 0107 7 7 2042 7 8 DC (11) 1400 1 3 1044 8 7 286 Table A.7 d) State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated KS (20) 1006 2 6 MS (28) 3081 5 7 NM (35) 6033 11 5 6026 9 8 3091 4 6 6035 2 5 1005 9 6 3093 4 7 6401 4 5 1009 8 7 MO (29) 6067 1 5 2118 9 6 KY (21) 6040 3 5403 4 8 NY (36) 1008 3 6 6043 2 5 5413 4 8 1011 4 7 1034 7 8 1010 3 6 1643 7 7 ME (23) 1009 5 8 MT (30) 6004 8 5 1644 7 7 1026 7 7 7075 9 5 NC (37) 1040 5 5 1028 9 8 7066 9 7 1645 9 6 1001 4 6 7076 9 6 1802 6 6 MD (24) 1634 13 6 7088 9 7 1352 7 6 2805 6 7 8129 18 7 1817 7 5 MA (25) 1004 7 7 NE (31) 6700 3 7 1992 8 5 MI (26) 6016 1 5 NV (32) 1030 1 4 2819 8 6 MN (27) 6064 3 6 1020 9 8 2824 8 6 1016 4 8 NH (33) 1001 12 7 1803 6 8 1018 13 7 NJ (34) 6057 3 5 1006 8 6 1023 6 9 1003 4 6 1024 4 6 1028 10 6 1011 5 7 1028 11 6 6251 18 7 1030 5 6 1801 7 6 MS( 28) 3094 5 7 1031 5 7 1814 7 6 3087 9 8 1033 8 7 2825 6 6 1001 5 7 NM (35) 1002 5 5 OH (39) 111 13 6 2807 4 5 2007 3 3 OK (40) 6010 5 5 287 Table A.7 (contd) State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated OK (40) 4086 9 7 TN (47) 1029 8 6 TX (48) 1068 14 7 4154 11 6 3101 10 6 2108 11 7 4164 7 7 3110 7 7 2176 10 6 4087 7 6 9025 8 6 3769 9 8 4163 9 8 TX (48) 1046 8 6 UT (49) 1004 4 5 OR (41) 6011 2 4 6079 6 5 1005 1 4 6012 - 1 6086 6 5 1006 6 8 2002 8 6 6160 2 3 1007 1 4 PA (42) 1608 6 6 6179 6 6 VT (50) 1681 5 8 1605 8 5 1039 9 8 1683 7 8 1618 3 6 1092 12 7 1004 14 7 1599 7 8 1093 9 7 VA (51) 1002 6 6 1597 10 7 1096 10 6 1417 8 7 SC (45) 1025 4 4 1111 11 7 1419 9 7 SD (46) 9106 5 7 1113 7 7 1423 7 6 9197 4 6 1116 5 5 2021 3 4 TN (47) 6015 4 4 1119 7 6 2004 10 6 6022 1 3 1130 9 7 1023 9 6 1023 9 7 3669 10 6 1464 6 7 1028 8 5 3729 9 7 WA (53) 6020 5 6 2001 9 6 3835 10 5 6048 3 4 2008 8 6 3855 10 7 6049 2 3 3108 7 7 3875 7 6 6056 8 6 3109 8 7 9005 14 6 7322 6 5 9024 8 6 3865 14 7 1005 9 7 288 Table A.7 d) State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys Manual Automated Manual Automated WA (53) 1007 10 7 MB (83) 6451 7 7 1008 7 8 6454 7 6 WV (54) 1640 5 6 NB (84) 6804 5 7 WY (56) 6029 6 6 1684 10 5 6031 7 6 NS (86) 6802 5 7 6032 5 5 ON (87) 1680 8 7 2017 10 5 1806 6 7 2019 8 6 1620 5 7 7772 9 6 1622 12 7 7775 12 7 PQ (89) 1021 10 4 2020 10 6 1125 5 6 AB (81) 8529 10 5 1127 5 7 1804 10 5 SK (90) 6400 4 7 1805 10 6 6801 4 7 BC (82) 6006 8 6 6405 14 6 6007 11 6 6410 4 7 1005 7 6 6412 4 7 MB (83) 6450 7 6 6420 8 6 289 Table A.8 Number of manual and automated surveys for GPS-7 test sections State (code) SHRP ID No of surveys State(code) SHRP ID No of surveys State(code) SHRP ID No of surveys State(code) SHRP ID No of surveys Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated Manual Automated AL (1) 3998 2 5 IN (18) 5528 6 6 NE (31) 7017 5 1 PA (42) 1617 3 3 CA (6) 7455 2 5 5538 7 6 7040 5 2 1627 8 5 7456 2 3 IA (19) 3006 6 9 7050 4 6 1691 6 6 CO (8) 7035 7 8 3055 7 6 3024 8 6 1606 7 15 7036 4 1 9116 6 5 4019 5 8 1623 7 5 CT (9) 4020 5 7 9126 7 2 6702 6 2 RI (44) 7401 7 7 5001 1 6 KS (20) 7073 5 3 NC (37) 5826 4 4 SC (45) 7019 3 2 DE (10) 4002 6 4 7085 6 1 5827 - 1 SD (46) 7049 6 3 5005 1 7 4067 4 1 3008 5 8 TX (48) 3629 5 4 GA (13) 7028 7 8 3013 7 7 OH (39) 7021 7 2 7165 3 5 ID (16) 5025 1 5 ME (23) 7023 6 3 3013 7 8 5287 1 5 IL (17) 5423 4 4 MI (26) 7072 5 1 5010 6 4 5154 1 5 5453 6 4 MN (27) 7090 4 - 4018 7 11 5274 2 5 7937 7 4 5076 5 1 5003 - 1 VT (50) 1682 6 7 5151 7 7 MS (28) 3097 4 2 OK (40) 7024 5 4 VA (51) 2564 - 1 5217 3 1 7012 6 6 OR (41) 7018 6 4 WA (53) 3813 7 13 5849 2 3 3099 2 3 7019 4 2 WV (54) 7008 4 2 5854 1 3 5803 - - 7025 4 1 4004 5 7 9267 1 6 MO (29) 7054 8 3 5006 - 4 5007 2 2 9327 3 2 7073 5 2 5008 - 4 MB (83) 3802 6 11 5843 6 5 4069 7 2 PA (42) 1610 7 3 6452 7 1 IN (18) 3003 8 7 5393 6 - 7025 3 1 ON (87) 2811 7 4 5022 4 6 5473 6 3 7037 6 2 2812 5 1 5043 - 4 5483 5 3 1613 4 3 PQ (89) 3001 - 5 5518 4 5 NE (31) 7005 5 4 1614 7 5 3015 6 15 290 Table A.9 Number of manual and automated surveys for GPS-9 test sections State(code) SHRP ID No of surveys Manual Automated CA (6) 9048 5 8 9049 3 4 9107 5 4 CO (8) 9019 7 1 9020 6 1 GA (13) 4118 - - IN (18) 9020 5 4 KS (20) 9037 5 1 MI (26) 9029 6 4 9030 5 2 MN (27) 6300 5 3 9075 5 1 MS (28) 9030 7 2 NE (31) 6701 5 3 OH (39) 5569 5 5 9006 7 6 9022 5 6 OK (40) 4155 - - PA (42) 9027 6 9 TX (48) 3569 - - 3845 - - 9167 7 8 9355 7 8 PQ (89) 9018 7 5 291 APPENDIX B Summary of the LTPP Data 292 APPENDIX B Summary of the LTPP Data This appendix houses summary Table B.s regarding the LTPP data. In all Table B.s the alphabetically labeled columns list the following information: Column A The climatic Zone. Column B The State. Column C Treatment type. Column D The number of SPS-1 test sections. Column E The number of times the treatment type was applied. When the number in column E is higher than the number in column D, it implies that one test section received the treatment more than one time. Column F The number of treatment applications where three or more time series data points are available before and after treatment. Column G The number of treatment applications where 3 or more time series data points are available before treatment only. Column H The number of treatment applications where 3 or more time series data points are available after treatment only. Column I - The number of treatment applications where one data point can be assigned (assumed), (see note below), which make 3 time series data points before and after treatment. Column J The number of treatment applications where one data point can be assigned (assumed), (see note below), which make 3 time series data points before treatment only. Column K The number of treatment applications where one data point can be assigned (assumed), (see note below), which make 3 time series data points after treatment only. Column L The number of SPS-1 test sections that have three or more time series data points and can be analyzed before and after treatment. Column M The number of SPS-1 test sections that have three or more time series data points and can be analyzed before treatment only. Column N The number of SPS-1 test sections that have three or more time series data points and can be analyzed after treatment only. 293 Table B.1 Summary of cracking data for SPS-1 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze KS (20) CS 6 6 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 CS-STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MOAC 9 9 0 2 0 0 0 8 2 0 6 PP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) ASC 12 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 12 36 1 11 12 0 0 0 1 11 12 NE (31) GS 11 11 1 0 0 0 12 0 1 12 0 NV (32) CS 7 7 6 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 1 FDP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 6 7 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 294 Table B.1 (cont) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 AR (5) CS 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 FDP 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 MPSP 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-PPH 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wet -freeze DE (10) ACOL 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IA (19) STP 12 12 11 0 1 0 1 0 12 0 0 OH (39) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HMACR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 SR-MOAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MI (26) CS 8 15 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MOAC 8 8 0 5 0 0 3 0 0 8 0 SR-MOAC 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 VA (51) STP 12 12 11 1 0 0 0 0 11 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 11 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 295 Table B.2 Summary of cracking data for SPS-2 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-No-freeze AZ (4) PDPJ 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 CA (6) GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LSLJS 6 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 LSLJS-TJS 7 10 2 1 6 0 0 0 2 1 6 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) PDPJ 5 8 3 2 2 0 0 1 4 2 1 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NV (32) CS 6 10 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 1 5 FDPOJ 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ 3 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 CS-PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wet-no-freeze AR (5) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LSLJS 12 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 PDPJ 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 NC (37) PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 296 Table B.2 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet -freeze DE (10) CS/OTHER 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS/PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GS 7 7 6 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 LSLJS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA (19) TJS-LSLJS-SR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 KS (20) FDTJRP 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 4 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ-SR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SR 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 9 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 OH (39) OTHER 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 MI (26) ACSR 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LSLJS 7 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 PDPJ 5 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 Table B.3 Summary of cracking data for SPS-3 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry- no-freeze AZ (4) ACOL 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MPSP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OK (40) ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) ACOL 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 ASC 8 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 CS 16 18 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-SP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 5 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 7 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 8 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 298 Table B.3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA(6) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 7 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO(8) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID(16) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 SS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 KS(20) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 6 8 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 FDACP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 MT(30) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 299 Table B.3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze NE (31) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 4 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NV (32) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 CS 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 4 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 UT (49) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WA (53) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WY (56) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SK (90) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPAC 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 MPSP 3 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP-ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 4 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 300 Table B.3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet -no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 5 6 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 4 10 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 SS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 AR (5) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 SS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 OK (40) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 CS 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 MPP 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 301 Table B.3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet -no-freeze TN (47) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 4 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 SS 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 SS-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 TX (48) ACOL 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 SS 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 ASC 5 5 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 MPSP 4 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 CS 6 8 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASCR 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 302 Table B.3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet - freeze IL (17) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 3 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 LS-LJS 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 IN (18) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IA (19) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KY (21) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MD (24) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 303 Table B.3 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet -freeze MI (26) ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ASC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 6 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MPSP 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MN (27) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 ASC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 5 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MO (29) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 6 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 2 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-STP 5 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 CS-STP-SP 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 3 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 NY (36) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 MPSP-PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 6 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 Table B.3 ( A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze PA (42) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ASCR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ON (87) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PQ (89) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 305 Table B.4 Summary of cracking data for SPS 4 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CA (6) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 306 Table B.4 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA (6) ACSR 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO (8) PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KS (20) FDTJRP 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE (31) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NV (32) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SD (46) ACSR 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT (49) LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 4 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 307 Table B.4 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) PDPJ 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IA (19) TJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO (29) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OH (39) CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA (42) ACSR 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-PDPJ-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Wet no-freeze AR (5) TJS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 OK (40) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) TJS-LSLJS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS-TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PG 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 308 Table B.5 Summary of cracking data for SPS 5 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry no-freeze AZ (4) CS 7 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 FSC 8 20 8 3 7 0 1 0 8 4 7 M&F 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 CA (6) CS 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 STSL 7 7 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 5 OK (40) MPSP-TC-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-TC-ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 9 10 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 TC-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ASR-M&F 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ASR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM (35) ACOL 8 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ACOL-STSL 5 5 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 5 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 4 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 RACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 309 Table B.5 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry- freeze AB (81) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 5 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 CS-PPH 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 CS-TJS-PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 5 17 1 4 1 0 0 0 1 4 1 CO (8) ACOL/FSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 CS 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 9 0 M&F-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 M&FARC-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 PPH 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 MT (30) ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 M&F-ASC 8 8 7 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310 Table B.5 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze MN (27) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 9 18 5 9 3 0 0 0 5 9 3 MB (83) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ASC 8 15 0 2 0 0 0 15 2 0 13 CS 9 15 0 5 7 0 5 0 5 5 2 M&F 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MPP-ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) M & FRAC-ACSR 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M &F-ACSR 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MS (28) MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 311 Table B.5 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MA (23) ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 9 9 0 8 0 8 0 0 0 8 0 M&F-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FRAC-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GA (13) M & FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M & FRAC-ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 M &F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M &F-ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 NJ (34) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPAP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 312 Table B.5 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MO (29) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MD (24) MPP-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 FDPAP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 M&F 3 3 0 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 MPP 4 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 MPP-ACSR_ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP-ACSR-HSRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MPP-ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 MPP-ACSR-MPP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 ` 313 Table B.6 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze AZ (4) PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS-PDPOJ-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRS-TJS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-PCCSR-GS-LS-JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 5 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 5 0 PPH 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 314 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA (6) ACSR 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-LS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SAS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 6 11 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 CS-GS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-SR-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-LS-TJS-FDTJRP-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 3 4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 315 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze SD (46) ACOL-FDTJRP-PCCSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPJ-PDPOJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 7 7 1 3 0 0 0 4 2 2 3 ASC-SAS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-GSFDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-LSLJS 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FTP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 3 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-ACOL-LS-JLTR-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-LS-JLTR-CS-GS-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SSC-SAS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 316 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACSR 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 JLTR-TJS-GS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 317 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AK (5) ACSR 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS-GS-TJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-PDPOJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 JLTR-CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDPOJ-LS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PDPOJ 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 318 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze OK (40) ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 6 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 2 4 FDTJRP 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-LS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-ACSR-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FTP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FTP-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-GS-TJS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 12 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 319 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TN (47) FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR-ACOL -LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FTP-FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR -ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FTP-FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDTJRP-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-TJS-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-PCCSR 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-GS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IL (17) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 CS-SP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PGS-LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT-ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 SP 8 19 3 6 1 0 0 0 3 6 1 TJS-ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 321 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ACSR-ACOL-SAS 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 9 1 4 4 0 0 0 1 4 4 FDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-LS-JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 GS-FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LS-FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-JLTR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-JLTR-FDTJRP-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 SP 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 322 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IA (19) ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-LS-JLTR-PDPJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-CS-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 8 12 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 4 FDPAC 4 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 LS-FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-JLTR-PDPJ-GS-TJS-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS-GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 323 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MI (26) PDPJ-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-TJS-FDTJRP-PDPJ-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-LS-GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-FT 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO (29) CS 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PG-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FT-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PG-CS-FDTJRP-PCC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 SR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDPOJ-LSLJS 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 324 Table B.6 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MO (29) CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJ-CS-GS-TJS-PG-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FT-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LSLJS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SAS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 1 PA (42) ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-PCCSR-PGS-PDPOJ-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-GS-FDTJRP-PCCSR-PDPOJ-PGS-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FTP-ACOL-LS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PCCSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 4 19 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PDPJ-PDPOJ 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 325 Table B.7 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze LA (22) FDPOJ-GS-SR-PCCOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS-PCCSR-PCCOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 PCCSR-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Wet-freeze MO (29) ACSR-PCCOL-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 GS-ACSR-PCCOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 6 6 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA (19) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PCCOL-GS-LSLJS 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PCCOL-LSLJS 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 LSLJS-PDPJ 8 8 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 MN (27) LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 GS-LS-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 LS-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 326 Table B.8 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6A test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPF-FSC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM (35) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-M&FCRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPF 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dry-freeze CO (8) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 PPH 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 CS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MT (30) CS-ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SD (46) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 327 Table B.8 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 PPH 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 CS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MT (30) CS-ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SD (46) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 328 Table B.8 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze TX (48) CS 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 PPH 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 UT (49) M&F-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WA (53) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WY (56) CS 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 329 Table B.8 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDPAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 TN (47) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC (82) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 CS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 HSSRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-freeze AK (2) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IN (18) M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IA (19) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPP-STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KS (20) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 330 Table B.8 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MN (27) ACSR-M&FRAC-ACOL-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PA (42) ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AB (81) CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NB (84) M&F 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 NS (86) MPSP 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SK (90) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 331 Table B.9 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6B test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) ACOL 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID (16) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) M&F 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 M&F-ASC 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WA (53) ACOL 3 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SD (46) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WY (56) ACOL 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 ASC 4 6 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 0 2 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ACOL-FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 332 Table B.9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 ASC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 AR (5) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CA (6) CS-MPP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL 9 13 0 3 6 0 0 2 1 2 7 ACOL-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 CS 3 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 CS-FDPAC-PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FL (12) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STSL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MS (28) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OK (40) ACOL 3 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 ACOL-CS-FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 TN (47) CS 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACOL 7 8 4 0 3 1 0 0 5 0 3 PPH 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ACOL-MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 333 Table B.9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TX (48) SP-SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 9 10 1 1 4 0 0 1 1 1 5 PPH 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC-ACOL 5 5 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 3 ASC 8 9 0 4 2 0 1 3 1 4 4 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MPP 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 ACOL-STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 3 3 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 GA (13) ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NC (37) ACOL 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SC (45) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SK (90) ACOL 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 334 Table B.9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze CT (9) CS 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL-FDPAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IN (18) ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IA (19) FDPAC-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-FSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MN (27) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO (29) ACOL-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NE (31) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 NY (36) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 335 Table B.9 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze PA (42) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL-LS-TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VI (51) ACOL 5 10 0 0 3 0 4 2 2 1 5 PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 DC (11) M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ME (23) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VT (50) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WV (54) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 AB (81) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MB (83) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PQ (89) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 336 Table B.10 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6C test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) HSRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-no-freeze CA (6) CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DE (10) CS 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FL (12) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GA (13) RACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MS (28) ACOL 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 NC (37) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-FDPAC-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP-SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 OK (40) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-freeze MD (24) RACOL-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PA (42) CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VA (51) RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 337 Table B.11 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6D test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze NC (37) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Wet-freeze MA (25) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ON (87) M&F 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 338 Table B.12 Summary of cracking data for SPS-6S test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) PPH 6 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 10 10 2 0 7 0 1 0 3 0 6 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FSC 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 GS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH-STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CA (6) M&F 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NM (35) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NV (32) CS 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WY (56) M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 BC (82) GS-RACOL-HSRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 339 Table B.12 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) M&FRAC 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 AR (5) MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) ACSR-MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 M&FRAC-STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GA (13) MPP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACOL 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 KY (21) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MD (24) GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MS (28) ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 4 4 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 2 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MO (29) ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 340 Table B.12 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze NC (37) ACSR-M&FRAC 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 M&F 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 STP-SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 OK (40) FSC 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 TN (47) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) FSC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 GS-ACOL-SC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VA (51) M&F 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 341 Table B.12 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 KS (20) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ME (23) ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MN (27) PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 3 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 3 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 NH (33) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 342 Table B.12 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze NJ (34) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MPSP 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 NY (36) LS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA (42) CS 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VT (50) CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB (84) ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON (87) M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 343 Table B.13 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7A test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPF 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wet-no-freeze GA (13) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-freeze IL(17) M&F 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 KS (20) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HSRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 344 Table B.13 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MI (26) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MS (28) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-PCCOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 NE (31) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RI (44) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SD (46) ASC 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON (87) CS-PPF 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 345 Table B.14 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7B test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze WA (53) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-no-freeze DE (10) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL-FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MS (28) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO (29) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ASCR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC (37) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VA (51) GRS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WV (54) FDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 M&FRAC-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 346 Table B.14 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze CT (9) MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID (16) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IL (17) FDPOJ 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 6 6 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP-FDPAC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IN (18) PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 CS 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 IA (19) PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 4 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 347 Table B.14 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze KS (20) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN (27) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE (31) PDPJ 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PA (42) CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-LSJJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL-SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-RACOL-SAS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VT (50) CS 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MB (83) TJS-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PQ (89) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH-FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 348 Table B.15 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7C test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TX (48) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 349 Table B.15 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IL (17) PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KS (20) LSLJS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC (37) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 OH (39) PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL-FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA (42) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PQ (89) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FT-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 350 Table B.16 Summary of cracking data for SPS-7D test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze CA (6) ACOL-FT 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 351 Table B.17 Summary of cracking data for GPS-9 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze CA (6) PCCSR 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wet-freeze KS (20) FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MI (26) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN (27) PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE (31) CS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) PPH-PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JTLR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PCCSR-OTHER 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PA (42) GS 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 352 Table B.18 Summary of IRI data for SPS-1 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry -no-freeze AZ (4) CS 6 9 2 4 3 0 0 0 2 4 3 FDP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PHP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SS 6 6 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 NM (35) GS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 OK (40) MPSP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SP 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 TX (48) ACOL 12 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ASC 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MOAC-SR 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 MPSP 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 353 Table B.18 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze KS (20) CS 6 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 CS-STP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 9 9 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 PP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) ASC 12 12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 12 36 1 11 12 0 0 0 1 11 12 NE (31) GS 11 11 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 NV (32) CS 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 FDP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 6 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 SP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 354 Table B.18 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet no-freeze AL (1) FDP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 AR (5) CS 8 8 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 FDP 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 MPSP 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-PPH 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wet -Freeze DE (10) ACOL 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IA (19) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 STP 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 OH (39) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 HMACR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SR-MOAC 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 MI (26) CS 8 15 7 0 8 0 0 0 7 0 8 CS-PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MOAC 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 SR-MOAC 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 VA (51) ACOL 11 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STP 11 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 355 Table B.19 Summary of IRI data for SPS-2 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) PDPJ 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 CA (6) GS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 6 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 LSLJS-TJS 7 10 2 1 7 0 0 0 2 1 7 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) PDPJ 5 8 4 2 2 0 0 0 4 2 2 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NV (32) CS 6 10 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 FDPOJ 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 3 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 CS-PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wet-no-freeze AR (5) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-TJS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 LSLJS 12 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 PDPJ 3 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 NC (37) PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 356 Table B.19 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze DE (10) CS/OTHER 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS/PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GS 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 LSLJS 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA (19) TJS-LSLJS-SR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 KS (20) FDTJRP 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PDPJ 4 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 PDPJ-SR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SR 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 9 9 7 2 0 0 0 0 7 2 0 OH (39) OTHER 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 MI (26) ACSR 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 LSLJS 7 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 PDPJ 5 6 5 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 1 SR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 357 Table B.20 Summary of IRI data for SPS-3 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) ACOL 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 5 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MPP 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MPSP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 4 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OK(40) ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) ACOL 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 ASC 8 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 CS 16 18 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-SP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 4 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 7 16 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SS 8 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 358 Table B.20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA (6) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 7 4 1 2 0 0 0 4 1 2 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO (8) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID (16) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 SS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 KS (20) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 6 8 1 5 2 0 0 0 1 5 2 FDACP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MT (30) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 359 Table B.20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze NE (31) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NV (32) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MPSP 4 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 SS 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 UT (49) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WA (53) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WY (56) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SK (90) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPAC 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 MPSP 2 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP-ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 4 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 360 Table B.20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 5 6 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 4 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 SS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 AR (5) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 OK (40) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 361 Table B.20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TN (47) ACOL 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACS-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 SS 5 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ASC 5 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPSP 4 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 6 8 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 362 Table B.20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IL (17) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 3 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 LS-LJS 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 IN (18) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IA (19) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KY (21) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MD (24) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 363 Table B.20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MI (26) ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ASC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 6 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MPSP 3 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MN (27) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 5 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MO (29) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 6 3 1 2 0 0 0 3 1 2 CS-PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-STP 5 5 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 CS-STP-SP 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPSP 3 6 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 NY (36) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 MPSP-PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 6 4 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 SS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 364 Table B.20 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze PA (42) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ON (87) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PQ (89) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 365 Table B.21 Summary of IRI data for SPS-4 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CA (6) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 366 Table B.21 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA (6) ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS-TJS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CO (8) PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KS (20) FDTJRP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NE (31) PDPJ 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 NV (32) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SD (46) ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 UT (49) LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 4 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 367 Table B.21 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) PDPJ 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IA (19) TJS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MO (29) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 OH (39) CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA (42) ACSR 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPOJ-PDPJ-SR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-no-Freeze AK (5) TJS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 OK (40) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) TJS-LSLJS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS-TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PG-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 368 Table B.22 Summary of IRI data for SPS-5 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) CS 7 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 FSC 8 20 9 4 7 0 0 0 9 4 7 M&F 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CA (6) CS 5 5 0 5 0 9 0 0 0 5 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 M&FRAC 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 STSL 7 7 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 5 OK (40) MPSP-TC-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-TC-ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 9 10 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 TC-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ASR-M&F 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ASR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM (35) ACOL 8 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ACOL-STSL 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 SP-ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 369 Table B.22 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze AB (81) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 5 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 CS-PPH 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 CS-TJS-PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 6 16 2 5 1 0 0 0 2 5 1 CO (8) ACOL-FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 9 9 1 8 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 M&F-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FARC-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MT (30) ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 M&F-ASC 8 8 7 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 370 Table B.22 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze MN (27) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 9 18 8 6 2 0 0 0 8 6 2 MB (83) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 8 15 0 8 7 0 0 0 0 8 7 CS 9 15 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP-ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) M & FRAC-ACSR 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M &F-ACSR 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MS (28) MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 371 Table B.22 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MA (23) ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 9 9 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 M&F-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FRAC-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GA (13) M & FRAC-ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M &F-ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 NJ (34) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 PPH 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 372 Table B.22 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MO (29) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MD (24) MPP-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAP 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 M&F 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 MPP 4 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 MPP-ACSR-ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 MPP-ACSR-HSRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPP-ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MPP-ACSR-MPP 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 373 Table B.23 Summary of IRI data for SPS-6 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze AZ (4) PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-LSLJS-PDPOJ-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRS-TJS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-PCCSR-GS-LS-JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 PPH 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 374 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA (6) ACSR 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-LS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SAS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 6 11 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 CS-GS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-SR-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-LS-TJS-FDTJRP-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 3 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 375 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze SD (46) ACOL-FDTJRP-PCCSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPJ-PDPOJ 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACSR-SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 7 7 1 4 3 0 0 0 1 4 3 ASC-SAS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-GSFDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FTP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 3 7 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-ACOL-LS-JLTR-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-LS-JLTR-CS-GS-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 3 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 SSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SSC-SAS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 376 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACSR 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 JLTR-TJS-GS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 377 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AK (5) ACSR 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS-GS-TJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-PDPOJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 JLTR-CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDPOJ-LS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PDPOJ 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 378 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze OK (40) ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 5 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 FDTJRP 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-LS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-ACSR-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FTP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FTP-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPJ 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-GS-TJS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 12 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 379 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TN (47) FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FTP-FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FTP-FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDTJRP-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-TJS-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPOJ-PCCSR 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-GS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 380 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IL (17) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 CS-SP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-TJS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 FDTJRP-PGS-LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT-ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 SP 8 19 0 10 4 0 0 0 0 4 TJS-ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 381 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ACSR-ACOL-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 9 1 4 4 0 0 0 1 4 4 FDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-JLTR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-LS-JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 GS-FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LS-FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-JLTR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-JLTR-FDTJRP-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 SP 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 382 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IA (19) ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-LS-JLTR-PDPJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-CS-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-CS-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 8 12 1 2 6 0 0 0 1 2 6 FDPAC 4 5 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 2 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-JLTR-PDPJ-GS-TJS-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS-GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MI (26) PDPJ-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-TJS-FDTJRP-PDPJ-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-LS-GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-FT 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MO (29) CS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 3 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP-ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PG-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FT-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PG-CS-FDTJRP-PCC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 SR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDPOJ-LSLJS 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 384 Table B.23 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MO (29) CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJ-CS-GS-TJS-PG-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FT-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LSLJS 3 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SAS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 PA (42) ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 JLTR-FDTJRP-PCCSR-PGS-PDPOJ-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-GS-FDTJRP-PCCSR-PDPOJ-PGS-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FTP-ACOL-LS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PCCSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 4 19 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 2 4 PDPJ-PDPOJ 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 385 Table B.24 Summary of IRI data for SPS-7 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze LA (22) FDPOJ-GS-SR-PCCOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS-PCCSR-PCCOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 PCCSR-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Wet-freeze MO (29) ACSR-PCCOL-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 GS-ACSR-PCCOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 6 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 3 2 1 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IA (19) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-PDPJ 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PCCOL-GS-LSLJS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PCCOL-LSLJS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 LSLJS-PDPJ 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 MN (27) LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 3 8 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 GS-LS-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 LS-PCCOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 386 Table B.25 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6A test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 PPF-FSC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NM (35) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-M&FCRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SSC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 STP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) CS-ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SD (46) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 387 Table B.25 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze TX (48) CS 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 PPH 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 UT (49) M&F-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WA (53) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 WY (56) CS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACOL 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 388 Table B.25 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (ode) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TN (47) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC (82) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 HSSRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-freeze AK (2) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IN (18) M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IA (19) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPP-STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KS (20) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 389 Table B.25 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MN (27) ACSR-M&FRAC-ACOL-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PA (42) ACSR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 AB (81) CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NB (84) M&F 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 NS (86) MPSP 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SK (90) ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 390 Table B.26 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6B test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) ACOL 2 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ID (16) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) M&F 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 M&F-ASC 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 ASC 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-ACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 WA (53) ACOL 3 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SD (46) ACOL 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ASC 4 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WY (56) STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 391 Table B.26 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ASC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 AR (5) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CA (6) CS-MPP-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 9 13 5 2 4 0 0 0 5 2 4 ACOL-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 CS-FDPAC-PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FL (12) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STSL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MS (28) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OK (40) ACOL 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 ACOL-CS-FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 TN (47) CS 3 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 ACOL 7 8 3 1 4 0 0 0 3 1 4 PPH 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 FDPAC 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ACOL-MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 392 Table B.26 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TX (48) SP-SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 9 10 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 2 4 PPH 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC-ACOL 4 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 ASC 8 9 0 5 3 0 0 0 0 5 3 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 ACOL-STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 3 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 GA (13) ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NC (37) ACOL 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SC (45) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SK (90) ACOL 4 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 4 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ACSR 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 393 Table B.26 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze CT (9) CS 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACSR-ACOL-FDPAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IN (18) ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IA (19) FDPAC-CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MN (27) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO (29) ACOL-SP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-SP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NE (31) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NY (36) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPP 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 394 Table B.26 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze PA (42) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL-LS-TS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VA (51) ACOL 5 10 4 1 4 0 0 0 4 1 4 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DC (11) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ME (23) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACOL 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 VT (50) ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 WV (54) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 AB (81) ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MB (83) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 ASC 2 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PQ (89) ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 395 Table B.27 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6C test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) HSRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-no-freeze CA (6) CS 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DE (10) CS 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FL (12) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GA (13) RACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MS (28) ACOL 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 NC (37) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-FDPAC-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RACOL 4 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 OK (40) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TX (48) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wet-freeze MD (24) RACOL-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PA (42) CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VA (51) RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 396 Table B.28 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6D test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze NC (37) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-freeze MA (25) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ON (87) M&F 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 397 Table B.29 Summary of IRI data for GPS-6S test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) PPH 6 8 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 10 10 8 0 2 0 0 0 8 0 2 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FSC 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS 3 5 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 GS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH-STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CA (6) M&F 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NM (35) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) PPH 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NV (32) CS 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WY (56) M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 BC (82) GS-RACOL-HSRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 398 Table B.29 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) M&FRAC 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 AR (5) MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) ACSR-MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC-STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GA (13) MPP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACOL 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 KY (21) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MD (24) GS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MS (28) ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MO (29) ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 399 Table B.29 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze NC (37) ACSR-M&FRAC 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 STP-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 OK (40) FSC 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 TN (47) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) FSC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 GS-ACOL-SC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VA (51) M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 400 Table B.29 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 KS (20) PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ME (23) ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MN (27) PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 3 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NH (33) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 401 Table B.29 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze NJ (34) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 MPSP 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NY (36) LS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PA (42) CS 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VT (50) CS 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NB (84) ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ON (87) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 402 Table B.30 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7A test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPF 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-no-freeze GA (13) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TX (48) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-freeze IL (17) M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 KS (20) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HSRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 403 Table B.30 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MI (26) CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MS (28) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-PCCOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NE (31) M&FRAC 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&HRAC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RI (44) PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SD (46) ASC 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON (87) CS-PPF 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 404 Table B.31 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7B test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze WA (53) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-no-freeze DE (10) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL-FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MS (28) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 ACSR-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MO (29) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASCR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 3 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 SS 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC (37) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VA (51) GRS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WV (54) FDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FRAC-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC-PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 405 Table B.31 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze CT (9) MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP-PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ID (16) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IL (17) FDPOJ 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 6 6 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPP-FDPAC 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IN (18) PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 5 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 CS 2 4 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IA (19) PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 4 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 CS 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 406 Table B.31 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze KS (20) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MN (27) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NE (31) PDPJ 2 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PA (42) CS-TJS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-LSJJS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-RACOL-SAS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VT (50) CS 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 FDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MB (83) TJS-PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PQ (89) PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH-FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 407 Table B.32 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7C test sections Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 TX (48) ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 408 Table B.32 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IL (17) PDPOJ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KS (20) LSLJS-PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 JLTR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 GS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC (37) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 OH (39) PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 HMRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 HMRAC-FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA (42) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACSR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PQ (89) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 5 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 ACSR-PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RACOL-PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FT-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 409 Table B.33 Summary of IRI data for GPS-7D test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze CA (6) ACOL-FT 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 410 Table B.34 Summary of IRI data for GPS-9 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze CA (6) PCCSR 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 GS-PDPJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-freeze KS (20) FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MI (26) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN (27) PDPJ 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 FDTJRP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NE (31) CS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) PPH-PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JTLR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PCCSR-OTHER 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PA (42) GS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 411 Table B.35 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-1 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry -no-freeze AZ (4) CS 6 9 4 3 2 0 0 0 4 3 2 FDP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PHP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SS 6 6 4 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 2 NM (35) GS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 OK (40) MPSP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SP 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 TX (48) ACOL 12 12 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ASC 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MOAC-SR 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 MPSP 10 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 412 Table B.35 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze KS (20) CS 6 6 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 0 CS-STP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 9 9 8 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 PP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) ASC 12 12 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 CS 12 36 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 NE (31) GS 11 11 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 NV (32) CS 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 FDP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 6 7 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 SP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 AR (5) CS 8 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 FDP 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 MPSP 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-PPH 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 413 Table B.35 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze DE (10) ACOL 12 12 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IA (19) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 LS 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 STP 12 12 12 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 OH (39) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HMACR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SR-MOAC 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 MI (26) CS 8 15 0 0 7 0 5 0 0 5 7 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MOAC 8 8 0 8 0 5 0 0 5 3 0 SR-MOAC 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 VA (51) ACOL 11 11 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STP 11 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 414 Table B.36 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-3 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ASC 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 4 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPP 4 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 MPSP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 OK (40) ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) ACOL 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 ASC 8 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 CS 16 18 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 5 1 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-SP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 5 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 7 16 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 8 8 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 415 Table B.36 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA (6) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 7 3 2 2 0 0 0 3 2 2 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CO (8) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ID (16) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 SS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 KS (20) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 6 8 0 6 2 0 0 0 0 6 2 FDACP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MT (30) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 416 Table B.36 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze NE (31) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 4 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NV (32) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 4 6 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT (49) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 4 5 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WA (53) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 WY (56) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SK (90) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPAC 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 MPSP 3 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP-ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 417 Table B.36 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 5 6 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 4 10 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 SS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 AR (5) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 ASC 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 2 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 OK (40) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 MPP 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 418 Table B.36 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TN (47) ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 4 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 6 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 SS 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 ASC 5 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPSP 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 CS 6 8 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASCR 4 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 419 Table B.36 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IL (17) ACOL 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 3 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 LS-LJS 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 IN (18) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IA (19) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KY (21) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MD (24) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 420 Table B.36 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MI (26) ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ASC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 6 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MPSP 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MN (27) ACOL 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 5 5 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MO (29) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 6 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-STP 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 CS-STP-SP 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 3 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NY (36) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 3 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 MPSP-PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 6 4 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 SS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 421 Table B.36 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze PA (42) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ASCR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ON (87) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PQ (89) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 422 Table B.37 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-5 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) CS 7 7 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 FSC 8 19 9 3 7 0 1 0 9 3 7 M&F 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CA (6) CS 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 STSL 7 7 2 0 5 0 0 0 2 0 5 OK (40) MPSP-TC-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-TC-ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 9 10 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 TC-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ASR-M&F 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TC-ASR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM (35) ACOL 8 8 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ACOL-STSL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 4 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 SP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP-RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 423 Table B.37 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze AB (81) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 6 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 CS-PPH 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 CS-TJS-PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 6 16 2 5 1 0 0 0 2 5 1 CO (8) ACOL-FSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 CS 9 9 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 7 0 M&F-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FARC-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL-ACSR-FSC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MT (30) ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 M&F-ASC 8 8 7 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 424 Table B.37 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze MN (27) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 8 8 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 M&FRAC 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 9 20 7 9 2 0 0 0 7 9 2 MB (83) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ASC 8 15 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 CS 9 15 6 8 1 0 0 0 6 8 1 M&F 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 SP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MPP-ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 RACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) M & FRAC-ACSR 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 M &F-ACSR 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 MS (28) MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 425 Table B.37 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MA (23) ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 9 9 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 M&F-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FRAC-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GA (13) M & FRAC-ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M &F-ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 NJ (34) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 PPH 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 426 Table B.37 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MO (29) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 MD (24) MPP-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAP 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 MPP 4 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 MPP-ACSR_ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 MPP-ACSR-HSRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPP-ACSR-M&FRAC 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 MPP-ACSR-MPP 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 427 Table B.38 Summary of rut depth data for SPS-6 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze AZ (4) PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GRS-TJS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 5 5 0 0 4 0 5 0 4 1 0 PPH 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 SP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CA (6) ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-LS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SAS-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 10 3 4 1 0 0 0 3 4 1 FDPAC 4 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-SR-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FT 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 3 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 428 Table B.38 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze SD (46) ACOL-FDTJRP-PCCSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 4 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 ASC-SAS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FTP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-ACOL-LS-JLTR-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SSC-SAS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 4 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 JLTR-FDTJRP-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AK (5) ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-CS-TJS-FDPOJ-PDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SAS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 429 Table B.38 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze OK (40) ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS 5 6 1 0 4 0 1 0 1 1 4 FDTJRP 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 LS-FTP-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 LS-FTP-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TN (47) FTP-FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR-ACOL-LS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-PCCSR-ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS-FDTJRP-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-freeze IL (17) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 4 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 CS-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PGS-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT-ACOL-ACSR 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 LS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 SP 5 11 1 5 2 0 0 0 1 5 2 TJS-ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 430 Table B.38 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) ACSR-ACOL 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 ACSR-ACOL-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 5 9 1 4 4 0 0 0 1 4 4 LS-FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 5 5 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 IA (19) ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-LS-JLTR-PDPJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 5 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 FDPAC 4 5 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 1 LS 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 LS-FT 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 5 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MI (26) ACOL-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-TJS-FDTJRP-PDPJ-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-FT 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 431 Table B.38 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MO (29) CS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS-MPSP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-FT-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 MO (29) FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FT-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SAS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 4 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 PA (42) ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ACSR-SAS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 JLTR-FDTJRP-PCCSR-PGS-PDPOJ-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACOL-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LS-FTP-ACOL-LS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 432 Table B.39 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6A test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PPF-FSC 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SSC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NM (35) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-M&FCRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SSC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 STP 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) CS-ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 SD (46) CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 433 Table B.39 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze TX (48) CS 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 PPH 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 CS-FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 UT (49) M&F-ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WA (53) ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PPH 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WY (56) CS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACOL 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 434 Table B.39 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDPAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 OR (41) MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TN (47) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BC (82) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 CS 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 HSSRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-freeze AK (2) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IN (18) M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IA (19) CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MPP-STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KS (20) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 435 Table B.39 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MN (27) ACSR-M&FRAC-ACOL-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PA (42) ACSR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 AB (81) CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-FDPAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NB (84) M&F 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 NS (86) MPSP 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 STP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SK (90) ASC 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPP 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 436 Table B.40 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6B test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) ACOL 2 3 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ID (16) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MT (30) M&F 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 M&F-ASC 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 3 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 ASC 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 ACSR-ACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 WA (53) ACOL 3 4 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 PPH 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SD (46) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 WY (56) ACOL 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ASC 4 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL-FSC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 437 Table B.40 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ASC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 AR (5) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CA (6) CS-MPP-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 9 13 4 3 4 0 0 1 5 2 4 ACOL-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 CS-FDPAC-PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-MPP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FL (12) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STSL 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 MS (28) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OK (40) ACOL 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 ACOL-CS-FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 TN (47) CS 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 ACOL 7 8 3 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 5 PPH 2 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 FDPAC 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL-MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 438 Table B.40 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TX (48) SP-SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 3 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 9 10 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 ASC-ACOL 4 4 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 ASC 8 9 1 5 3 0 0 0 1 5 3 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP 4 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 ACOL-STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 GA (13) ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NC (37) ACOL 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ACOL-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SC (45) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SK (90) ACOL 4 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 4 6 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 ACSR 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 439 Table B.40 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze CT (9) CS 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ACSR-ACOL-FDPAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IN (18) ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IA (19) FDPAC-CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-FSC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MN (27) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MO (29) ACOL-SP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-SP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NE (31) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NY (36) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 440 Table B.40 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze PA (42) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL-LS-TS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VI (51) ACOL 5 10 3 3 4 0 0 0 3 3 4 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 DC (11) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ME (23) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VT (50) ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 WV (54) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 AB (81) ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MB (83) ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 CS 2 4 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 ASC 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PQ (89) ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 441 Table B.41 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6C test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) HSRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-no-freeze CA (6) CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DE (10) CS 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FL (12) ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GA (13) RACOL-ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MS (28) ACOL 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 NC (37) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-FDPAC-RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP-SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RACOL 4 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 OK (40) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Wet-freeze MD (24) RACOL-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PA (42) CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VA (51) RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 442 Table B.42 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6D test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze NC (37) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-freeze MA (25) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ON (87) M&F 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 STP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-M&F 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 443 Table B.43 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-6S test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) PPH 6 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 10 10 4 0 5 0 1 0 5 0 4 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FSC 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS 3 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 GS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH-STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CA (6) M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 CS 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NM (35) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) PPH 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 NV (32) CS 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 FSC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 WY (56) M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 BC (82) GS-RACOL-HSRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ASC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 444 Table B.43 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) M&FRAC 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 AR (5) MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FL (12) ACSR-MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC-STSL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GA (13) MPP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACOL 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 KY (21) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MD (24) GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MS (28) ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 4 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MO (29) ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 445 Table B.43 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze NC (37) ACSR-M&FRAC 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 STP-SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 OK (40) FSC 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TN (47) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) FSC 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 TC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ASC 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 GS-ACOL-SC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VA (51) M&F 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 446 Table B.43 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 KS (20) PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ME (23) ACSR-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 MN (27) PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&FRAC 3 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 3 3 1 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 STSL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 NH (33) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 447 Table B.43 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze NJ (34) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC 4 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 MPSP 1 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 NY (36) LS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PA (42) CS 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VT (50) CS 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NB (84) ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ON (87) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&FRAC 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 RACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 448 Table B.44 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-7A test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CO (8) M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PPF 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wet-no-freeze GA (13) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 TX (48) ASC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-freeze IL (17) M&F 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 KS (20) PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HSRAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-RACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 449 Table B.44 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MI (26) CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MS (28) PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL-PCCOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE (31) M&FRAC 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 M&FRAC-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OH (39) FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 RI (44) PPH 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SD (46) ASC 1 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON (87) CS-PPF 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 450 Table B.45 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-7B test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze WA (53) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wet-no-freeze DE (10) ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL-FDPAC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MS (28) ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 ACSR-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MO (29) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ASCR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 3 4 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 SS 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC (37) ACOL 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 VA (51) GRS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WV (54) FDPOJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&FRAC-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPAC-PPH 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 451 Table B.45 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze CT (9) MPP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP-PPH 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ID (16) ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IL (17) FDPOJ 3 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 6 6 1 1 4 0 0 0 1 1 4 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MPP-FDPAC 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&F 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IN (18) PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 5 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 3 CS 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPAC-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 FDPAC-ACOL 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 IA (19) PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 4 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 CS 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 ASC 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPAC 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 452 Table B.45 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze KS (20) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MN (27) ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 NE (31) PDPJ 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OH (39) ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PA (42) CS-TJS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 CS-LSJJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ACSR-ACOL-SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ACSR-RACOL-SAS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 VT (50) CS 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 FDPOJ-ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MB (83) TJS-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PQ (89) PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PPH-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PPH-FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 453 Table B.46 Summary of rut depth data for GPS-7C test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 OR (41) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TX (48) ASC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACOL 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 454 Table B.46 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IL (17) PDPOJ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 KS (20) LSLJS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACOL-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NC (37) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&F 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 OH (39) PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 M&FRAC 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 RACOL-FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA (42) ACSR-ACOL 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PQ (89) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RACOL-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FT-M&F 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 455 Table B.46 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze CA (6) ACOL-FT 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 STSL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 456 Table B.47 Summary of faulting data for SPS-2 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) PDPJ 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 CA (6) GS 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 6 6 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 LSLJS-TJS 7 10 2 1 7 0 0 0 2 1 7 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Dry-freeze CO (8) PDPJ 5 8 3 2 3 0 1 0 4 2 2 PDPOJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 NV (32) CS 6 10 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 FDPOJ 1 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 PDPOJ 3 6 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 CS-PDPJ 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wet-no-freeze AR (5) CS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LSLJS 12 12 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 PDPJ 3 4 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 NC (37) PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 457 Table B.47 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze DE (10) CS-OTHER 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-PPH 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 GS 7 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 LSLJS 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 PPH 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IA (19) TJS-LSLJS-SR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SR 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 KS (20) FDTJRP 5 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 4 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PDPJ-SR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 SR 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 9 9 6 3 0 0 0 0 6 3 0 OH (39) OTHER 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 MI (26) ACSR 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 LSLJS 7 7 6 1 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 PDPJ 5 6 4 1 1 0 0 0 4 1 1 SR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 458 Table B.48 Summary of faulting data for SPS-4 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze AZ (4) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CA (6) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ 3 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 459 Table B.48 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze CA (6) ACSR 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO (8) PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 KS (20) FDTJRP 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE (31) PDPJ 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NV (32) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SD (46) ACSR 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 UT (49) LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 4 5 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 3 460 Table B.48 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IN (18) PDPJ 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 IA (19) TJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO (29) CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) CS-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA (42) ACSR 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPOJ-PDPJ-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Wet-no-freeze AR (5) TJS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 OK (40) TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PG-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 TX (48) TJS-LSLJS 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 CS-TJS-LSLJS 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PG-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 461 Table B.49 Summary of faulting data for SPS-6 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-freeze AZ (4) PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS-PDPOJ-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-PDPOJ-PCCSR-GS-LS-JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA (6) ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-GS-TJS-LSLJS-FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-LS-TJS-FDTJRP-SR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SD (46) ACSR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-ACOL 3 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 ACSR-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-PDPJ-PDPOJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ASC 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-GS-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 3 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PGS-LS-JLTR-CS-GS-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 462 Table B.49 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze AL (1) ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-TJS-GS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AK (5) ACSR 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-GS-TJS 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ-PDPOJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 JLTR-FDPOJ-LS-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MPSP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 3 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 PDPOJ 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OK (40) FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-LS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-ACSR-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPJ-GS-TJS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 12 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 463 Table B.49 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-no-freeze TN (47) FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-TJS-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PDPOJ 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-PCCSR 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wet-freeze IL (17) ACOL-ACSR 3 3 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 CS-TJS-GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PGS-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 SP 3 7 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 IN (18) ACSR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-JLTR 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 FDTJRP-LS-JLTR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 GS-FDPOJ-PDPJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 464 Table B.49 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze IA (19) ACSR-CS-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-SP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ACSR-CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 3 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-FDPOJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-ACSR-ACOL 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LS-JLTR-PDPJ-GS-TJS-FDTJRP-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS-GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ-CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MI (26) PDPJ-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ-LS-GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MO (29) CS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDPOJ 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PG-CS-FDTJRP-PCC 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SP 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SR 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TJS-FDPOJ-LSLJS 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 465 Table B.49 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Wet-freeze MO (29) CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-GS-TJS-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJ-CS-GS-TJS-PG-FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 CS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PA (42) ACSR-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JLTR-GS-FDTJRP-PCCSR-PDPOJ-PGS-LS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 3 18 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 466 Table B.50 Summary of faulting data for GPS-9 test sections A B C D E F G H I J K L M N Zone State (code) Treatment data Number of treatment applications Type Number of sections Total With 3 or more data points With one assigned data point after treatment (0.01 year) To be analyzed BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only BT & AT BT only AT only Dry-no-freeze CA (6) PCCSR 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 FDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 GS-PDPJ-PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TX (48) ACOL 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Wet-freeze KS (20) FDPOJ 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 MI (26) PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PCCSR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MN (27) PDPJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NE (31) CS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PDPOJ 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OH (39) PPH-PDPJ-PDPOJ 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CS-TJS-LSLJS 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 JTLR 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FDTJRP-GS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PCCSR-OTHER 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 PA (42) GS 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 ACSR-ACOL-LS 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 TJS 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 467 APPENDIX C Detailed Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-1 Test sections Impacts of Climatic Regions, AC Thickness, and Drainage on Pavement Performance 468 APPENDIX C Detailed Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-1 Test sections Impacts of Climatic Regions, AC Thickness, and Drainage on Pavement Performance The pavement condition and distress data of LTPP SPS-1 test sections were analyzed to determine the impacts of the pavement design factors and environmental conditions on pavement performance. The design factors included in the analyses are the thickness of the asphalt concrete (AC) and the presence or absence of base layer drainage. The test sections are located in the four environmental regions; wet-freeze (WF), wet-no-freeze (WNF), dry-freeze (DF), and dry-no-freeze (DNF). The data in the last two columns of Tables C.1 through C.20 express the comparative differences in pavement performance (in terms of the remaining functional period (RFP) and the remaining structural period (RSP)) between test sections located in the indicated climatic zones. For example, the last two columns in Table C.1 provide the comparative difference between the average RFP values in the wet-freeze and in the wet-no-freeze zones. A negative number implies worse performance whereas a positive means better performance. To illustrate, the two test sections having SHRP ID 0101 (first row in Table C.1), AC thickness of 4-inch and drainable bases, the average RFP (based on IRI) of the one section located in the wet-freeze region is 12 years less than the average RFP of the one test section located in the wet-no-freeze zone. The corresponding RFPs for each group of test sections are plotted in Figures C.1 through C.20. Open symbols in the figures represent the average RFP of test sections having the same SHRP ID. Closed symbols represent the overall average of the RFP of all test sections located in the same climatic region and having the same AC thickness. The numbers in the figures near the data points indicate the number of test sections included in the analyses. The numbers in parenthesis are the number of SHRP IDs included in the analyses. For example 14(6) implies 14 test sections having six different SHRP ID. 469 Table C.1 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic regions on pavement performance in terms of the remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 107 4 Y 1 8 8 8 1 20 20 20 -12 12 111 4 Y 3 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 112 4 Y 3 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 120 4 Y 2 20 20 20 3 20 20 20 0 0 122 4 Y 2 20 20 20 3 20 20 20 0 0 121 4 Y 3 20 20 20 4 17 20 19 1 -1 105 4 N 2 4 8 6 2 20 20 20 -14 14 102 4 N 1 8 8 8 2 20 20 20 -12 12 103 4 N 2 6 12 9 2 20 20 20 -11 11 118 4 N 3 16 20 19 2 20 20 20 -1 1 113 4 N 2 15 20 17 4 12 20 18 -1 1 116 4 N 3 20 20 20 3 20 20 20 0 0 108 7 Y 3 8 16 12 1 20 20 20 -8 8 110 7 Y 3 13 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 109 7 Y 3 10 20 16 2 20 20 20 -4 4 119 7 Y 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 123 7 Y 3 20 20 20 4 20 20 20 0 0 124 7 Y 2 20 20 20 3 20 20 20 0 0 101 7 N 1 7 7 7 2 20 20 20 -13 13 117 7 N 2 12 20 16 4 20 20 20 -4 4 106 7 N 2 15 19 17 2 20 20 20 -3 3 114 7 N 2 18 20 19 3 20 20 20 -1 1 115 7 N 2 18 20 19 3 20 20 20 -1 1 104 7 N 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 58% of test sections in WNF performed better; 4% performed worse and 38% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC = Could not be compared 470 Table C.2 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Dry freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 122 4 Y 1 17 17 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 121 4 Y 1 17 17 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 120 4 Y 1 17 17 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 111 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 112 4 Y 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 113 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 116 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 118 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 103 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 102 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 105 4 N 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 108 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 110 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 119 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 123 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 124 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 109 7 Y 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 114 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 115 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 117 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 101 7 N 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 104 7 N 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 106 7 N 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 17% of test sections in DNF performed better; 11% performed worse and 72% performed the same relative to those in the DF region; NC = Could not be compared 471 Table C.3 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (WNF) Difference in RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 107 4 Y 1 8 8 8 1 20 20 20 -12 12 111 4 Y 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 120 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 121 4 Y 3 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 122 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 112 4 Y 3 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 102 4 N 1 8 8 8 1 20 20 20 -12 12 103 4 N 2 6 12 9 1 20 20 20 -11 11 113 4 N 2 15 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 118 4 N 3 16 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 116 4 N 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 105 4 N 2 4 8 6 0 0 0 - NC NC 108 7 Y 3 8 16 12 1 20 20 20 -8 8 110 7 Y 3 13 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 119 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 123 7 Y 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 124 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 109 7 Y 3 10 20 16 0 0 0 - NC NC 117 7 N 2 12 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 114 7 N 2 18 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 115 7 N 2 18 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 101 7 N 1 7 7 7 0 0 0 - NC NC 104 7 N 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 106 7 N 2 15 19 17 0 0 0 - NC NC 56% of test sections in DF performed better; 28% performed worse and 16% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC = Could not be compared 472 Table C.4 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-1 test sections SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Number of sections RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 0121 4 Y 4 17 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0111 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0112 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0120 4 Y 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0122 4 Y 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0113 4 N 4 12 20 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0105 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0116 4 N 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0118 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0103 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 0102 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0108 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0109 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0110 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0119 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0123 7 Y 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0124 7 Y 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0101 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0104 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0106 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0114 7 N 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0115 7 N 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0117 7 N 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 8% of test sections in DNF performed better; 8% performed worse and 84% performed the same relative to those in the WNF region; NC = no change 473 Table C.5 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 107 4 Y 2 0 4 3 2 20 20 20 -17 17 122 4 Y 2 17 17 11 4 20 20 20 -9 9 121 4 Y 3 8 20 15 4 8 20 17 -2 2 120 4 Y 3 9 20 15 3 9 20 16 -1 1 111 4 Y 3 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 112 4 Y 3 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 102 4 N 2 0 3 3 2 16 20 18 -15 15 105 4 N 2 6 6 6 2 20 20 20 -14 14 116 4 N 3 8 17 10 3 20 20 20 -10 10 118 4 N 3 9 20 11 3 20 20 20 -9 9 103 4 N 2 9 17 13 2 20 20 20 -7 7 113 4 N 2 8 20 11 4 8 20 17 -6 6 108 7 Y 3 9 19 11 2 20 20 20 -9 9 119 7 Y 2 20 20 12 2 20 20 20 -8 8 123 7 Y 3 13 17 11 4 10 20 17 -6 6 109 7 Y 3 10 20 14 2 20 20 20 -6 6 124 7 Y 3 4 16 11 3 4 20 15 -3 3 110 7 Y 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 101 7 N 1 4 4 4 2 20 20 20 -16 16 115 7 N 3 9 9 7 3 20 20 20 -13 13 117 7 N 3 11 12 9 4 20 20 20 -11 11 114 7 N 2 7 16 10 4 7 20 17 -7 7 106 7 N 2 7 20 14 2 20 20 20 -6 6 104 7 N 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 83% of test sections in WNF performed better; 17% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC = Could not be compared 474 Table C.6 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Dry-freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 111 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 112 4 Y 0 0 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 107 4 Y 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 120 4 Y 1 0 18 18 0 0 0 - NC NC 121 4 Y 1 0 12 12 0 0 0 - NC NC 122 4 Y 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 102 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 103 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 105 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 113 4 N 1 0 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 116 4 N 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 118 4 N 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 108 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 109 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 110 7 Y 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 119 7 Y 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 123 7 Y 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 124 7 Y 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 101 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 0 20 0 0 106 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 104 7 N 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 114 7 N 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 115 7 N 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 117 7 N 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 100% of test sections in the DNF region performed the same relative to those in the DF region; NC = Could not be compared 475 Table C.7 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (DF) Difference in RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 122 4 Y 2 17 17 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 120 4 Y 3 9 20 15 1 0 18 18 -3 3 111 4 Y 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 112 4 Y 3 20 20 20 0 0 20 20 0 0 121 4 Y 3 8 20 15 1 0 12 12 3 -3 107 4 Y 2 0 4 3 0 0 0 - NC NC 102 4 N 2 0 3 3 1 20 20 20 -17 17 105 4 N 2 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 116 4 N 3 8 17 10 1 20 20 20 -10 10 118 4 N 3 9 20 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 113 4 N 2 8 20 11 1 0 20 20 -9 9 103 4 N 2 9 17 13 1 20 20 20 -7 7 108 7 Y 3 9 19 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 123 7 Y 3 13 17 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 124 7 Y 3 4 16 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 119 7 Y 2 20 20 12 1 20 20 20 -8 8 109 7 Y 3 10 20 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 110 7 Y 3 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 101 7 N 1 4 4 4 1 20 20 20 -16 16 115 7 N 3 9 9 7 1 20 20 20 -13 13 117 7 N 3 11 12 9 1 20 20 20 -11 11 114 7 N 2 7 16 10 1 20 20 20 -10 10 106 7 N 2 7 20 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 104 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 82% of test sections in DF performed better; 14% performed worse and 4% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC = Could not be compared 476 Table C.8 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of the LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) based on rut depth SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Number of sections RFP/RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 107 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 111 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 112 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 120 4 Y 3 9 20 16 0 0 0 - NC NC 121 4 Y 4 8 20 17 0 0 0 - NC NC 122 4 Y 4 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 102 4 N 2 16 20 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 103 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 105 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 113 4 N 4 8 20 17 0 0 0 - NC NC 116 4 N 3 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 118 4 N 3 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 108 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 109 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 110 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 119 7 Y 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 123 7 Y 4 10 20 17 0 0 0 - NC NC 124 7 Y 3 4 20 15 0 0 0 - NC NC 101 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 0 20 0 0 106 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 104 7 N 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 114 7 N 4 7 20 17 0 0 0 - NC NC 115 7 N 3 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 117 7 N 4 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 9% of test sections in DNF performed better; 91% performed the same relative to those in the WNF region; NC = Could not be compared 477 Table C.9 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 0112 4 Y 3 9 12 11 2 16 20 18 -7 7 0111 4 Y 3 9 17 12 2 14 20 17 -5 5 0121 4 Y 1 18 18 18 4 11 20 16 2 -2 0122 4 Y 1 20 20 20 4 13 20 18 2 -2 0120 4 Y 1 20 20 20 3 11 20 17 3 -3 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 2 12 20 16 4 -4 0103 4 N 2 7 8 7 2 16 20 18 -11 11 0105 4 N 2 5 9 7 2 12 20 16 -9 9 0116 4 N 2 8 20 14 3 17 20 19 -5 5 0102 4 N 2 6 20 13 2 10 20 15 -2 2 0113 4 N 1 17 17 17 4 8 20 14 3 -3 0118 4 N 1 20 20 20 3 12 20 17 3 -3 0109 7 Y 2 7 8 8 2 13 20 16 -9 9 0110 7 Y 3 7 13 9 2 15 20 18 -9 9 0124 7 Y 2 8 20 14 2 20 20 20 -6 6 0108 7 Y 2 7 20 13 2 14 20 17 -4 4 0119 7 Y 1 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0123 7 Y 2 20 20 20 4 20 20 20 0 0 0104 7 N 3 8 16 12 2 18 20 19 -8 8 0106 7 N 3 7 20 13 2 18 20 19 -6 6 0115 7 N 2 8 20 14 3 19 20 20 -6 6 0101 7 N 2 12 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0114 7 N 2 6 20 13 3 12 20 15 -3 3 0117 7 N 2 8 20 14 3 13 20 16 -2 2 67% of the test sections in WNF performed better, 25% performed worse while 8% perform same relative to those in WF region; 478 Table C.10 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Dry-freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 0120 4 Y 1 6 6 6 1 8 8 8 -2 2 0122 4 Y 1 7 7 7 1 8 8 8 -2 2 0111 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0121 4 Y 1 7 7 7 1 7 7 7 0 0 0112 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 15 15 15 5 -5 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0116 4 N 1 7 7 7 1 10 10 10 -2 2 0118 4 N 1 7 7 7 1 9 9 9 -2 2 0113 4 N 1 7 7 7 1 9 9 9 -1 1 0102 4 N 1 12 12 12 1 10 10 10 1 -1 0103 4 N 1 16 16 16 1 14 14 14 1 -1 0105 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 12 12 12 8 -8 0119 7 Y 1 9 9 9 1 18 18 18 -9 9 0123 7 Y 1 9 9 9 1 15 15 15 -5 5 0124 7 Y 1 9 9 9 1 14 14 14 -4 4 0110 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0108 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 14 14 14 6 -6 0109 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0115 7 N 1 8 8 8 1 18 18 18 -10 10 0117 7 N 1 8 8 8 1 16 16 16 -8 8 0114 7 N 1 8 8 8 1 8 8 8 -1 1 0106 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0104 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 15 15 15 5 -5 0101 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 14 14 14 6 -6 46% of the test sections in DNF performed better , 38% performed worse and 16% performed same relative to those in the DF region; NC =could not be compared 479 Table C.11 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (DF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 0112 4 Y 3 9 12 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 0111 4 Y 3 9 17 12 1 20 20 20 -8 8 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0121 4 Y 1 18 18 18 1 7 7 7 11 -11 0122 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 7 7 7 13 -13 0120 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 6 6 6 14 -14 0105 4 N 2 5 9 7 1 20 20 20 -13 13 0103 4 N 2 7 8 7 1 16 16 16 -8 8 0102 4 N 2 6 20 13 1 12 12 12 2 -2 0116 4 N 2 8 20 14 1 7 7 7 7 -7 0113 4 N 1 17 17 17 1 7 7 7 9 -9 0118 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 7 7 7 13 -13 0109 7 Y 2 7 8 8 1 20 20 20 -12 12 0110 7 Y 3 7 13 9 1 20 20 20 -11 11 0108 7 Y 2 7 20 13 1 20 20 20 -7 7 0124 7 Y 2 8 20 14 1 9 9 9 5 -5 0119 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 9 9 9 11 -11 0123 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 9 9 9 11 -11 0104 7 N 3 8 16 12 1 20 20 20 -8 8 0106 7 N 3 7 20 13 1 20 20 20 -7 7 0101 7 N 2 12 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0114 7 N 2 6 20 13 1 8 8 8 5 -5 0115 7 N 2 8 20 14 1 8 8 8 6 -6 0117 7 N 2 8 20 14 1 8 8 8 6 -6 42% of the test sections in DF performed better , 54% of the sections performed worse and 4% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC =could not be compared 480 Table C.12 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on alligator cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 0111 4 Y 2 14 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0107 4 Y 2 12 20 16 1 13 13 13 3 -3 0112 4 Y 2 16 20 18 1 15 15 15 3 -3 0120 4 Y 3 11 20 17 1 8 8 8 9 -9 0121 4 Y 4 11 20 16 1 7 7 7 9 -9 0122 4 Y 4 13 20 18 1 8 8 8 10 -10 0103 4 N 2 16 20 18 1 14 14 14 4 -4 0105 4 N 2 12 20 16 1 12 12 12 4 -4 0102 4 N 2 10 20 15 1 10 10 10 5 -5 0113 4 N 4 8 20 14 1 9 9 9 5 -5 0116 4 N 3 17 20 19 1 10 10 10 9 -9 0118 4 N 3 12 20 17 1 9 9 9 9 -9 0110 7 Y 2 15 20 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0119 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 18 18 18 2 -2 0108 7 Y 2 14 20 17 1 14 14 14 3 -3 0109 7 Y 2 13 20 16 1 13 13 13 3 -3 0123 7 Y 4 20 20 20 1 15 15 15 5 -5 0124 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 14 14 14 6 -6 0106 7 N 2 18 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0117 7 N 3 13 20 16 1 16 16 16 1 -1 0115 7 N 3 19 20 20 1 18 18 18 2 -2 0104 7 N 2 18 20 19 1 15 15 15 4 -4 0101 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 14 14 14 6 -6 0114 7 N 3 12 20 15 1 8 8 8 7 -7 13% of the test sections in DNF performed better , 87% of the sections performed worse relative to those in the WNF region; 481 Table C.13 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 0111 4 Y 3 9 20 13 2 20 20 20 -7 7 0121 4 Y 1 9 9 9 4 8 20 17 -7 7 0122 4 Y 1 8 8 8 4 8 20 16 -7 7 0120 4 Y 1 8 8 8 3 8 20 14 -6 6 0112 4 Y 2 12 20 16 2 20 20 20 -4 4 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 2 19 20 20 0 0 0116 4 N 2 8 8 8 3 18 20 19 -11 11 0118 4 N 1 9 9 9 3 20 20 20 -11 11 0103 4 N 2 8 14 11 2 20 20 20 -9 9 0113 4 N 1 9 9 9 4 8 20 17 -8 8 0105 4 N 2 11 20 16 2 19 20 19 -4 4 0102 4 N 2 17 20 19 2 17 19 18 1 -1 0119 7 Y 1 10 10 10 2 20 20 20 -10 10 0123 7 Y 2 10 10 10 4 12 20 18 -8 8 0109 7 Y 3 8 20 12 2 20 20 20 -7 7 0124 7 Y 2 8 9 9 3 8 20 16 -7 7 0108 7 Y 3 7 20 14 2 19 20 19 -5 5 0110 7 Y 3 11 20 14 2 19 20 20 -5 5 0104 7 N 2 10 10 10 2 20 20 20 -10 10 0115 7 N 2 9 9 9 3 11 20 17 -8 8 0117 7 N 2 9 12 11 4 8 20 16 -5 5 0101 7 N 2 12 20 16 2 18 20 19 -3 3 0106 7 N 3 12 20 17 2 17 20 18 -2 2 0114 7 N 2 7 20 14 4 8 20 14 0 0 88% of the test sections in WNF performed better, 4% performed worse while 8% perform same relative to those in WF region; 482 Table C.14 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Dry-freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 0121 4 Y 1 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 0122 4 Y 1 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 0120 4 Y 1 6 6 6 1 10 10 10 -4 4 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0111 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0112 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0118 4 N 1 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 0113 4 N 1 6 6 6 1 17 17 17 -11 11 0116 4 N 1 6 6 6 1 9 9 9 -3 3 0105 4 N 1 18 18 18 1 19 19 19 -1 1 0102 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0103 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0119 7 Y 1 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 0123 7 Y 1 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 0124 7 Y 1 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 0108 7 Y 1 15 15 15 1 16 16 16 -1 1 0110 7 Y 1 19 19 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0109 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0117 7 N 1 5 5 5 1 20 20 20 -15 15 0114 7 N 1 6 6 6 1 20 20 20 -14 14 0115 7 N 1 6 6 6 1 18 18 18 -12 12 0101 7 N 1 18 18 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0104 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0106 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 67% of the test sections in DNF performed better , 4% of the sections performed worse and 29% of the sections performed same relative to those in the DF region; NC =could not be compared 483 Table C.15 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (DF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 0111 4 Y 3 9 20 13 1 20 20 20 -7 7 0112 4 Y 2 12 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0120 4 Y 1 8 8 8 1 6 6 6 2 -2 0122 4 Y 1 8 8 8 1 6 6 6 2 -2 0121 4 Y 1 9 9 9 1 6 6 6 3 -3 0103 4 N 2 8 14 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 0105 4 N 2 11 20 16 1 18 18 18 -2 2 0102 4 N 2 17 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0113 4 N 1 9 9 9 1 6 6 6 2 -2 0116 4 N 2 8 8 8 1 6 6 6 2 -2 0118 4 N 1 9 9 9 1 6 6 6 2 -2 0109 7 Y 3 8 20 12 1 20 20 20 -8 8 0110 7 Y 3 11 20 14 1 19 19 19 -4 4 0108 7 Y 3 7 20 14 1 15 15 15 -1 1 0124 7 Y 2 8 9 9 1 6 6 6 3 -3 0119 7 Y 1 10 10 10 1 6 6 6 4 -4 0123 7 Y 2 10 10 10 1 6 6 6 4 -4 0104 7 N 2 10 10 10 1 20 20 20 -10 10 0106 7 N 3 12 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0101 7 N 2 12 20 16 1 18 18 18 -2 2 0115 7 N 2 9 9 9 1 6 6 6 3 -3 0117 7 N 2 9 12 11 1 5 5 5 5 -5 0114 7 N 2 7 20 14 1 6 6 6 8 -8 46% of the test sections in DF performed better , 50% of the sections performed worse while 4% perform the same relative to those in the WF region; NC =could not be compared 484 Table C.16 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 0122 4 Y 4 8 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0121 4 Y 4 8 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0107 4 Y 2 19 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0111 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0112 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0120 4 Y 3 8 20 14 1 10 10 10 3 -3 0102 4 N 2 17 19 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0103 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0105 4 N 2 19 20 19 1 19 19 19 0 0 0113 4 N 4 8 20 17 1 17 17 17 0 0 0118 4 N 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0116 4 N 3 18 20 19 1 9 9 9 10 -10 0124 7 Y 3 8 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0123 7 Y 4 12 20 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0110 7 Y 2 19 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0119 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0108 7 Y 2 19 20 19 1 16 16 16 3 -3 0109 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0114 7 N 4 8 20 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 0117 7 N 4 8 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0106 7 N 2 17 20 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0101 7 N 2 18 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0115 7 N 3 11 20 17 1 18 18 18 -1 1 0104 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 42% of the test sections in DNF performed better ,16% of the sections performed worse and 42% performed the same relative to those in the WNF region; NC =could not be compared 485 Table C.17 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 0120 4 Y 1 13 13 13 3 20 20 20 -7 7 0121 4 Y 1 12 12 12 4 14 20 18 -7 7 0112 4 Y 3 12 20 16 2 20 20 20 -4 4 0111 4 Y 3 14 20 18 2 20 20 20 -2 2 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 2 19 20 20 0 0 0122 4 Y 1 20 20 20 4 20 20 20 0 0 0105 4 N 2 8 14 11 2 20 20 20 -9 9 0102 4 N 2 11 20 15 2 15 20 17 -2 2 0103 4 N 2 15 20 18 2 20 20 20 -2 2 0118 4 N 1 20 20 20 3 20 20 20 0 0 0113 4 N 1 20 20 20 3 14 20 18 2 -2 0116 4 N 2 20 20 20 3 15 20 18 2 -2 0110 7 Y 3 15 20 17 2 20 20 20 -3 3 0108 7 Y 3 14 20 18 2 20 20 20 -2 2 0109 7 Y 3 16 20 19 2 20 20 20 -1 1 0119 7 Y 1 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0123 7 Y 2 20 20 20 4 20 20 20 0 0 0124 7 Y 2 20 20 20 3 20 20 20 0 0 0104 7 N 3 11 20 15 2 20 20 20 -5 5 0101 7 N 2 12 20 16 2 20 20 20 -4 4 0106 7 N 3 11 20 17 2 20 20 20 -3 3 0115 7 N 2 20 20 20 3 20 20 20 0 0 0117 7 N 2 20 20 20 4 20 20 20 0 0 0114 7 N 2 20 20 20 3 14 20 18 2 -2 54% of the test sections in WNF performed better relative to those in WF region, 13% of the sections performed worse and 33% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC =could not be compared 486 Table C.18 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Dry-freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 0122 4 Y 1 8 8 8 1 20 20 20 -12 12 0120 4 Y 1 7 7 7 1 10 10 10 -2 2 0121 4 Y 1 8 8 8 1 10 10 10 -2 2 0111 4 Y 1 19 19 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0107 4 Y 1 16 16 16 1 15 15 15 0 0 0112 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0102 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0103 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0105 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0116 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0118 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0113 4 N 1 11 11 11 1 10 10 10 1 -1 0123 7 Y 1 10 10 10 1 20 20 20 -10 10 0124 7 Y 1 8 8 8 1 17 17 17 -9 9 0109 7 Y 1 14 14 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 0119 7 Y 1 10 10 10 1 15 15 15 -5 5 0108 7 Y 1 19 19 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0110 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0115 7 N 1 12 12 12 1 16 16 16 -4 4 0114 7 N 1 10 10 10 1 12 12 12 -2 2 0104 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0106 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0101 7 N 1 19 19 19 1 18 18 18 2 -2 0117 7 N 1 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 46% of the test sections in DNF performed better , 12% of the sections performed worse and 42% performed the same relative to those in the DF region; NC =could not be compared 487 Table C.19 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (DF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 0112 4 Y 3 12 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0111 4 Y 3 14 20 18 1 19 19 19 -1 1 0121 4 Y 1 12 12 12 1 8 8 8 3 -3 0107 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0120 4 Y 1 13 13 13 1 7 7 7 6 -6 0122 4 Y 1 20 20 20 1 8 8 8 12 -12 0105 4 N 2 8 14 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 0102 4 N 2 11 20 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0103 4 N 2 15 20 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0116 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0118 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0113 4 N 1 20 20 20 1 11 11 11 9 -9 0110 7 Y 3 15 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0108 7 Y 3 14 20 18 1 19 19 19 -1 1 0109 7 Y 3 16 20 19 1 14 14 14 5 -5 0119 7 Y 1 20 20 20 1 10 10 10 10 -10 0123 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 10 10 10 10 -10 0124 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 8 8 8 12 -12 0104 7 N 3 11 20 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0101 7 N 2 12 20 16 1 19 19 19 -3 3 0106 7 N 3 11 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0117 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0115 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 12 12 12 8 -8 0114 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 10 10 10 10 -10 42% of the test sections in DF performed better , 46% of the sections performed worse while 12% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; 488 Table C.20 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-1 test sections in terms of remaining structural period (RSP) based on transverse cracking SHRP ID AC thickness (inch) Drainage Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Number of sections RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 0111 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0112 4 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0122 4 Y 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0107 4 Y 2 19 20 20 1 15 15 15 4 -4 0121 4 Y 4 14 20 18 1 10 10 10 8 -8 0120 4 Y 3 20 20 20 1 10 10 10 10 -10 0102 4 N 2 15 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0116 4 N 3 15 20 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0103 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0105 4 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0118 4 N 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0113 4 N 3 14 20 18 1 10 10 10 8 -8 0123 7 Y 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0108 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0109 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0110 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0124 7 Y 3 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 0119 7 Y 2 20 20 20 1 15 15 15 5 -5 0104 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0106 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0101 7 N 2 20 20 20 1 18 18 18 2 -2 0117 7 N 4 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0115 7 N 3 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0114 7 N 3 14 20 18 1 12 12 12 6 -6 8% of the test sections in DNF performed better , 42% of the sections performed worse and 50% performed the same relative to those in the WNF region; NC =could not be compared 489 Figure C.1 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases Figure C.2 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases 490 Figure C.3 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having un-drainable bases and 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers Figure C.4 Comparison of the average RFP of test sections having drainable bases and 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers 491 Figure C.5 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 4-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases Figure C.6 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 7-inch thick AC layer and drainable and un-drainable bases 492 Figure C.7 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers with un-drainable bases Figure C.8 Comparison of the average RFP/RSP of test sections having 7-inch and 4-inch thick AC layers with drainable bases 493 Figure C.9 Comparison of the average RSP of 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases Figure C.10 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases 494 Figure C.11 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with un-drainable bases Figure C.12 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable bases 495 Figure C.13 Comparison of the average RSP of 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases Figure C.14 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases 496 Figure C.15 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with un-drainable bases Figure C.16 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable bases 497 Figure C.17 Comparison of the average RSP of 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases Figure C.18 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer test sections with drainable and un-drainable bases 498 Figure C.19 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with un-drainable bases Figure C.20 Comparison of the average RSP of 7-inch AC layer and 4-inch AC layer test sections with drainable bases 499 APPENDIX D Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-3 Test sections Impacts of the pavement distress before treatment on pavement performance 500 APPENDIX D Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-3 Test sections Impacts of the pavement distress before treatment on pavement performance The pavement distress and condition data of LTPP SPS-3 test sections were analyzed to determine the impacts of four pavement treatment types (thin AC overlay, slurry seal, crack seal, and aggregate seal coat), environmental conditions, and the pavement condition and distress before treatment on the pavement performance after treatment. The results are presented and discussed in Chapter 5. Sixteen of the twenty figures showing the impacts of the pavement conditions and distress before treatment on the pavement performance after treatments are shown in Figures D.1 through D.16. 501 Figure D.1 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay Figure D.2 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal 502 Figure D.3 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal Figure D.4 After treatment RFP/RSP versus before treatment rut depth of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat 503 Figure D.5 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay Figure D.6 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal 504 Figure D.7 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal Figure D.8 After treatment RSP versus before treatment alligator cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat 505 Figure D.9 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay Figure D.10 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal 506 Figure D.11 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal Figure D.12 After treatment RSP versus before treatment longitudinal cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat 507 Figure D.13 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to thin overlay Figure D.14 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to slurry seal 508 Figure D.15 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to crack seal Figure D.16 After treatment RSP versus before treatment transverse cracking of SPS-3 test sections subjected to aggregate seal coat 509 APPENDIX E Detailed Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-2 Test sections Impacts of Pavement Design Variables and Climatic Regions 510 APPENDIX E Detailed Results of the Analyses of LTPP SPS-2 Test sections Impacts of Pavement Design Variables and Climatic Regions The pavement condition and distress data of LTPP SPS-2 test sections were analyzed to determine the impacts of the pavement design factors and climatic regions on pavement performance. The design factors included in the analyses are the thickness of the Portland cement concrete (PCC) slab, the presence or absence of base layer drainage, concrete flexural strength, and slab width. The test sections are located in the four climatic regions; wet-freeze (WF), wet-no-freeze (WNF), dry-freeze (DF), and dry-no-freeze (DNF), and The data in the last two columns of Tables E.1 through E.12 express the comparative differences in pavement performance (in terms of the remaining functional period (RFP) and the remaining structural period (RSP)) between test sections located in the indicated climatic zones. For example, the last two columns in Table E.1 provide the comparative difference between the average RFP values in the wet-freeze and in the wet-no-freeze zones. A negative number implies worse performance whereas a positive means better performance. To illustrate, the four test sections having SHRP ID 0205 (second row in Table E.1), PCC slab thickness of 8-inch, undrainable bases, slab strength of 3.6 MPa, and slab width of 3.66 m, the average RFP (based on IRI) of the two sections located in the wet-freeze region is one year less than the average RFP of the two test sections located in the wet-no-freeze region. 511 Table E.1 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic regions on pavement performance in terms of the remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RFP (year) No. RFP (year) No. RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 18 20 19 2 20 20 20 -1 1 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 9 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 7 20 16 1 18 18 18 -3 3 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 7 20 17 1 15 15 15 1 -1 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 3 4 20 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 19 20 19 2 20 20 20 -1 1 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 7 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 3 19 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 26% of test sections in WNF performed better; 4% performed worse and 70% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC = Could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 512 Table E.2 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Dry-freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RFP (year) No. RFP (year) No. RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 10 % performed worse in DNF region and 90 % performed the same relative to those in the DF region; NC = Could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 513 Table E.3 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of remaining functional period (RFP) based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (DF) Difference in RFP (year) No. RFP (year) No. RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 18 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 9 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 7 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 7 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 3 4 20 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 19 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 3 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 7 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 3 19 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 32% of test sections in DF performed better and 68% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC = Could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 514 Table E.4 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance in terms of RFP based on IRI of LTPP SPS-2 test sections SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RFP (year) No. RFP (year) No. RFP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 18 18 18 1 20 20 20 -2 2 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 15 15 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 9% of test sections in WNF performed better; 9% performed worse and 92% performed the same relative to those in the DNF region; NC = Could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 515 Table E.5 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 15 17 16 2 18 20 19 -3 3 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 11 11 11 9 -9 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 7 20 14 1 15 15 15 -1 1 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 6 20 16 1 14 14 14 2 -2 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 15 15 15 2 20 20 20 -5 5 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 13% of the test sections in WNF performed better, 9% performed worse while 78% perform same relative to those in WF region; NC =could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 516 Table E.6 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Dry-freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 7 7 7 13 -13 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 8 20 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 17 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 15 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 14 14 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 18% of the test sections in DNF performed better , 5% of the sections performed worse and 77% of the sections performed same relative to those in the DF; NC =could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 517 Table E.7 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (DF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 15 17 16 2 8 20 14 2 -2 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 7 20 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 6 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 4 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 17 20 19 1 -1 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 15 20 17 3 -3 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 15 15 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 14 14 14 6 -6 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 14% of the test sections in DF performed better , 18% of the sections performed worse while 68% perform the same relative to those in the WF region; NC =could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 518 Table E.8 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on longitudinal cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 7 7 7 13 -13 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 18 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 11 11 11 1 20 20 20 -9 9 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 15 15 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 14 14 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 18% of the test sections in DNF performed better ,4% of the sections performed worse and 78% performed the same relative to those in the WNF region; NC =could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 519 Table E.9 Impacts of WF and WNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-freeze (WF) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF WNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 13 13 13 2 20 20 20 -7 7 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 8 20 14 2 10 13 11 3 -3 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 4 7 20 17 1 15 15 15 2 -2 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 19 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 3 20 16 1 8 8 8 8 -8 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 10 20 15 2 20 20 20 -5 5 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 10 20 15 2 20 20 20 -5 5 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 2 18 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 4 16 20 19 1 20 20 20 -1 1 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 15 20 17 0 0 0 - NC NC 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 8 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 12 12 12 2 20 20 20 -8 8 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 14 20 17 2 20 20 20 -3 3 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 2 15 20 17 2 20 20 20 -3 3 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 39% of the test sections in WNF performed better, 17% of the sections performed worse and 44% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; NC =could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 520 Table E.10 Impacts of DF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Dry-freeze (DF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg DF DNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 5 5 5 15 -15 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 10 10 10 10 -10 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 7 7 7 13 -13 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 5 20 13 1 20 20 20 -7 7 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 16 16 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 9 % of the test sections in DNF performed better , 27% of the sections performed worse and 64% performed the same relative to those in the DF region; NC =could not be compared; No. = number of test sections; 521 Table E.11 Impacts of WF and DF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-freeze (WF) Dry-freeze (DF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WF DF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 1 13 13 13 1 20 20 20 -7 7 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 8 20 14 1 20 20 20 -6 6 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 4 7 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 19 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 4 3 20 16 1 20 20 20 -4 4 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 10 20 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 10 20 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 2 18 20 19 2 20 20 20 -1 1 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 4 16 20 19 0 0 0 - NC NC 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 2 15 20 17 2 5 20 13 5 -5 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 8 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 1 12 12 12 1 20 20 20 -8 8 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 14 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 3 20 20 20 1 16 16 16 4 -4 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 2 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 2 15 20 17 1 20 20 20 -3 3 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 4 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 48% of the test sections in DF performed better , 9% of the sections performed worse while 43% performed the same relative to those in the WF region; No. = number of test sections; 522 Table E.12 Impacts of WNF and DNF climatic zones on pavement performance of LTPP SPS-2 test sections in terms of RSP based on transverse cracking SHRP ID PCC thickness Drainage Slab strength (MPa) Lane width (m) Wet-no-freeze (WNF) Dry-no-freeze (DNF) Difference in RSP (year) No. RSP (year) No. RSP (year) Min Max Avg Min Max Avg WNF DNF 0201 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 5 5 5 15 -15 0205 8 N 3.8 3.66 2 10 13 11 1 10 10 10 1 -1 0213 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 15 15 15 1 20 20 20 -5 5 0217 8 N 3.8 4.27 1 16 16 16 1 17 17 17 -2 2 0214 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0218 8 N 6.2 3.66 1 8 8 8 1 20 20 20 -12 12 0202 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 7 7 7 13 -13 0206 8 N 6.2 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 13 13 13 7 -7 0209 8 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0221 8 Y 3.8 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0222 8 Y 6.2 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0210 8 Y 6.2 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 0215 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0219 11 N 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0203 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 17 17 17 3 -3 0207 11 N 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0204 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0208 11 N 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0216 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0220 11 N 6.2 4.27 1 20 20 20 0 0 0 - NC NC 0223 11 Y 3.8 3.66 1 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0211 11 Y 3.8 4.27 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0212 11 Y 6.2 3.66 2 20 20 20 1 20 20 20 0 0 0224 11 Y 6.2 4.27 0 0 0 - 1 20 20 20 NC NC 14% of the test sections in DNF performed better , 23% of the sections performed worse and 63% performed the same relative to those in the WNF region; NC =could not be compared 523 APPENDIX F Treatment Transition Matrices of Various Treatments Done on Flexible Pavement Segments in Various States 524 APPENDIX F Treatment Transition Matrices of Various Treatments Done on Flexible Pavement Segments in Various States The impacts and benefits of thin overlay, thick overlay, thin mill and fill, thick mill and fill, and chip seal on the 0.1 flexible pavement segments for each pavement condition and distress type in the states of Washington, Colorado, and Louisiana are presented in the treatment transition matrices (T2M) are presented in Tables F.1 through F.60. The contents in each of the T2M s are detailed below based on the alphabetically numbered columns within each matrix. Columns A through D of Table F.1 list the following BT information: the CS of the test section, the ranges of the RFP or RSP, and the number and the percentages of the LTPP test sections in each BT CS. Columns E through I list the following AT information: the CS of the test section, the ranges of the RFP or RSP, and the number of the LTPP test sections transitioned from the given BT CS based on RFP or RSP to each AT CS based on RFP or RSP and the total number of LTPP test sections transitioned to each AT CS. Columns J through L list the following pavement treatment benefits: the average FCROP or SCROP, CFP or CSP, and AT RFP or AT RSP of all LTPP test sections transitioned from a given BT CS to all AT CSs, and the overall average FCROP or SCROP, CFP or CSP, and AT RFP or AT RSP. 525 Table F.1 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thin overlay based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 83 24 4 2 4 11 62 17 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 42 12 0 0 0 0 42 18 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 88 25 0 0 1 3 84 15 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 36 10 0 0 0 2 34 12 7 20 E 5 > 13 100 29 0 0 1 13 86 7 -1 19 F Total 349 100 4 2 6 29 308 13 9 19 526 Table F.2 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thin overlay based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 116 16 0 0 1 3 112 19 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 39 6 0 0 0 0 39 19 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 79 11 0 0 0 1 78 17 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 68 10 0 0 0 0 68 17 7 20 E 5 > 13 407 57 0 0 1 8 398 12 0 20 F Total 709 100 0 0 2 12 695 15 6 20 527 Table F.3 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 596 34 0 0 27 64 505 18 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 57 3 0 0 0 5 52 18 15 19 C 3 4 to < 8 108 6 0 0 21 23 64 13 8 16 D 4 8 to < 13 23 1 0 0 0 1 22 19 7 20 E 5 > 13 962 55 0 4 110 97 751 10 -2 18 F Total 1746 100 0 4 158 190 1394 13 6 18 528 Table F.4 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 176 18 0 6 6 36 128 16 17 18 B 2 2 to < 4 72 7 0 0 3 20 49 15 14 18 C 3 4 to < 8 90 9 0 0 12 21 57 14 9 17 D 4 8 to < 13 52 5 0 0 4 12 36 12 4 17 E 5 > 13 610 61 0 0 12 110 488 12 -1 19 F Total 1000 100 0 6 37 199 758 13 4 18 529 Table F.5 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 15 1 0 0 0 0 15 20 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 93 6 0 0 0 0 93 19 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 83 5 0 0 0 9 74 18 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 87 6 0 0 0 6 81 15 7 20 E 5 > 13 1260 82 0 0 15 87 1158 11 -1 19 F Total 1538 100 0 0 15 102 1421 12 2 19 530 Table F.6 Functional treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thick overlay based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 2 2 to < 4 1 10 0 0 0 0 1 20 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 4 8 to < 13 3 30 0 0 0 0 3 9 7 20 E 5 > 13 6 60 0 0 0 0 6 9 0 20 F Total 10 100 0 0 0 0 10 10 4 20 531 Table F.7 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thick overlay based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 23 19 0 0 0 1 22 18 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 18 15 0 0 0 1 17 16 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 20 16 0 0 0 1 19 18 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 9 7 0 0 0 0 9 16 7 20 E 5 > 13 52 43 0 0 0 0 52 13 0 20 F Total 122 100 0 0 0 3 119 15 8 20 532 Table F.8 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick overlay based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 135 33 0 0 24 39 72 15 15 16 B 2 2 to < 4 19 5 0 0 0 7 12 16 13 17 C 3 4 to < 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 3 20 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 7 20 E 5 > 13 245 61 0 0 1 53 191 13 -2 18 F Total 403 100 0 0 25 99 279 14 5 18 533 Table F.9 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick overlay based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 18 6 0 0 0 0 18 18 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 5 2 0 0 0 2 3 15 13 17 C 3 4 to < 8 6 2 0 0 0 0 6 15 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 5 > 13 281 91 0 0 0 49 232 13 -1 19 F Total 310 100 0 0 0 51 259 14 0 19 534 Table F.10 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick overlay based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 2 2 to < 4 28 13 0 0 0 1 27 19 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 6 3 0 0 0 0 6 16 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 5 > 13 186 85 0 0 0 0 186 16 0 20 F Total 220 100 0 0 0 1 219 17 2 20 535 Table F.11 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thin mill and fill based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 16 13 0 1 1 3 11 15 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 15 12 0 0 1 0 14 18 15 19 C 3 4 to < 8 25 20 0 0 0 1 24 17 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 17 14 0 0 0 1 16 13 7 20 E 5 > 13 50 41 0 0 0 2 48 12 0 20 F Total 123 100 0 1 2 7 113 14 7 19 536 Table F.12 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 222 32 0 0 3 22 197 19 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 35 5 0 0 1 0 34 18 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 60 9 0 1 3 4 52 16 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 45 6 0 0 3 5 37 14 5 18 E 5 > 13 339 48 0 1 7 13 318 13 -1 19 F Total 701 100 0 2 17 44 638 16 8 19 537 Table F.13 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 147 17 1 0 12 7 127 18 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 24 3 0 0 3 0 21 17 15 19 C 3 4 to < 8 14 2 0 0 1 0 13 18 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 89 10 0 0 0 0 89 4 7 20 E 5 > 13 612 69 0 0 77 100 435 9 -3 17 F Total 886 100 1 0 93 107 685 10 2 18 538 Table F.14 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 29 8 0 0 0 4 25 16 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 28 8 0 1 3 2 22 14 14 18 C 3 4 to < 8 51 14 0 0 1 13 37 15 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 34 10 0 0 2 8 24 14 5 18 E 5 > 13 215 60 0 0 5 36 174 6 -1 19 F Total 357 100 0 1 11 63 282 9 4 18 539 Table F.15 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 4 16 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 22 3 0 0 0 0 22 16 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 44 7 0 0 2 3 39 16 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 104 16 0 0 2 8 94 8 6 19 E 5 > 13 459 73 0 0 10 25 424 10 -1 19 F Total 633 100 0 0 14 36 583 11 2 19 540 Table F.16 Functional treatment transition matrix for chip seal (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after chip seal based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 20 38 12 1 4 3 0 6 3 4 B 2 2 to < 4 5 10 0 0 2 1 2 11 10 14 C 3 4 to < 8 8 15 1 0 0 1 6 0 9 17 D 4 8 to < 13 8 15 0 1 0 0 7 2 5 18 E 5 > 13 11 21 0 1 1 1 8 -7 -3 17 F Total 52 100 13 3 7 6 23 2 4 12 541 Table F.17 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after chip seal based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 2 2 to < 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 3 4 to < 8 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 20 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 2 5 0 0 0 0 2 20 7 20 E 5 > 13 35 92 0 0 0 0 35 9 0 20 F Total 38 100 0 0 0 0 38 9 1 20 542 Table F.18 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 10 6 0 0 0 0 10 18 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 6 4 0 0 2 1 3 12 11 15 C 3 4 to < 8 9 6 0 0 0 0 9 17 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 5 3 0 0 1 0 4 10 5 18 E 5 > 13 126 81 0 0 1 4 121 5 0 20 F Total 156 100 0 0 4 5 147 7 2 19 543 Table F.19 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 8 7 0 0 0 2 6 14 17 18 B 2 2 to < 4 11 10 0 0 1 1 9 16 14 18 C 3 4 to < 8 17 15 0 0 0 4 13 16 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 9 8 0 0 0 2 7 13 5 18 E 5 > 13 66 59 0 0 1 4 61 7 -1 19 F Total 111 100 0 0 2 13 96 10 4 19 544 Table F.20 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Washington) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 2 2 to < 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 10 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 4 8 to < 13 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 20 7 20 E 5 > 13 190 98 0 0 0 0 190 4 0 20 F Total 194 100 0 0 0 0 194 5 0 20 545 Table F.21 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thin overlay based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 16 17 5 2 1 2 6 10 9 10 B 2 2 to < 4 21 22 5 7 5 0 4 4 3 7 C 3 4 to < 8 17 18 3 6 4 0 4 3 0 8 D 4 8 to < 13 13 14 0 4 2 2 5 4 -1 12 E 5 > 13 27 29 1 2 1 3 20 -3 -3 17 F Total 94 100 14 21 13 7 39 3 1 11 546 Table F.22 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thin overlay based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 2 2 to < 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 4 C 3 4 to < 8 7 6 0 3 1 0 3 6 3 11 D 4 8 to < 13 15 12 0 5 3 1 6 6 -1 12 E 5 > 13 103 82 0 20 13 6 64 7 -5 15 F Total 126 100 0 29 17 7 73 7 -4 14 547 Table F.23 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 20 16 0 13 7 0 0 3 4 5 B 2 2 to < 4 10 8 0 4 6 0 0 2 2 6 C 3 4 to < 8 8 6 0 0 6 2 0 3 1 9 D 4 8 to < 13 5 4 0 1 3 1 0 0 -5 8 E 5 > 13 85 66 0 2 67 6 10 -1 -10 10 F Total 128 100 0 20 89 9 10 0 -6 9 548 Table F.24 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 24 19 0 3 18 2 1 4 7 8 B 2 2 to < 4 15 12 0 0 10 4 1 4 6 10 C 3 4 to < 8 16 12 0 0 10 3 3 3 3 11 D 4 8 to < 13 13 10 0 0 8 2 3 4 -1 12 E 5 > 13 61 47 0 0 35 16 10 -3 -9 11 F Total 129 100 0 3 81 27 18 1 -2 11 549 Table F.25 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 26 37 0 10 7 7 2 7 8 9 B 2 2 to < 4 9 13 0 0 4 0 5 9 11 15 C 3 4 to < 8 6 9 0 0 1 0 5 9 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 11 16 0 1 3 0 7 6 2 15 E 5 > 13 18 26 1 2 4 3 8 -5 -7 13 F Total 70 100 1 13 19 10 27 4 4 13 550 Table F.26 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thin mill and fill based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 19 68 0 0 7 6 6 14 12 13 B 2 2 to < 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 3 4 to < 8 2 7 0 1 0 0 1 11 4 12 D 4 8 to < 13 1 4 0 0 0 0 1 8 7 20 E 5 > 13 6 21 0 0 1 1 4 -3 -3 17 F Total 28 100 0 1 8 7 12 10 8 14 551 Table F.27 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 19 26 0 0 0 0 19 20 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 3 4 0 0 0 0 3 20 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 2 3 0 0 0 0 2 19 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 6 8 0 0 0 0 6 17 7 20 E 5 > 13 44 59 0 0 1 1 42 11 0 20 F Total 74 100 0 0 1 1 72 14 6 20 552 Table F.28 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 15 31 0 0 7 1 7 12 13 14 B 2 2 to < 4 12 24 0 0 7 2 3 8 8 12 C 3 4 to < 8 6 12 0 0 6 0 0 4 0 8 D 4 8 to < 13 3 6 0 0 3 0 0 4 -5 8 E 5 > 13 13 27 0 1 9 2 1 4 -11 9 F Total 49 100 0 1 32 5 11 7 3 11 553 Table F.29 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 2 5 0 0 1 1 0 7 10 11 B 2 2 to < 4 10 26 0 2 7 0 1 4 4 8 C 3 4 to < 8 9 24 0 0 9 0 0 3 0 8 D 4 8 to < 13 5 13 0 0 5 0 0 3 -5 8 E 5 > 13 12 32 0 0 10 1 1 3 -11 9 F Total 38 100 0 2 32 2 2 4 -2 9 554 Table F.30 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 4 17 0 0 3 1 0 7 8 9 B 2 2 to < 4 2 8 0 1 0 0 1 10 8 12 C 3 4 to < 8 5 21 0 2 3 0 0 1 -2 6 D 4 8 to < 13 4 17 0 0 3 1 0 -3 -4 9 E 5 > 13 9 38 0 3 5 1 0 -1 -13 7 F Total 24 100 0 6 14 3 1 1 -4 8 555 Table F.31 Functional treatment transition matrix for chip seal (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after chip seal based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 4 8 1 2 1 0 0 3 3 4 B 2 2 to < 4 9 18 0 1 3 4 1 4 7 11 C 3 4 to < 8 7 14 0 0 1 0 6 1 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 14 28 0 0 1 0 13 1 6 19 E 5 > 13 16 32 0 1 1 2 12 -5 -3 17 F Total 50 100 1 4 7 6 32 0 4 16 556 Table F.32 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after chip seal based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B 2 2 to < 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 3 4 to < 8 2 17 0 0 0 0 2 1 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 3 25 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 20 E 5 > 13 7 58 0 0 0 1 6 0 -1 19 F Total 12 100 0 0 0 1 11 0 3 19 557 Table F.33 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 24 56 1 2 18 3 0 5 7 8 B 2 2 to < 4 7 16 0 0 2 2 3 5 11 15 C 3 4 to < 8 9 21 0 0 3 4 2 5 5 13 D 4 8 to < 13 2 5 0 0 0 1 1 2 4 17 E 5 > 13 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 -12 8 F Total 43 100 1 2 24 10 6 5 7 10 558 Table F.34 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 16 46 0 0 8 3 5 7 12 13 B 2 2 to < 4 15 43 0 0 5 5 5 4 10 14 C 3 4 to < 8 4 11 0 0 2 2 0 4 3 11 D 4 8 to < 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E 5 > 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F Total 35 100 0 0 15 10 10 5 10 13 559 Table F.35 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Colorado) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 31 60 1 16 13 1 0 3 5 6 B 2 2 to < 4 12 23 0 2 9 1 0 2 4 8 C 3 4 to < 8 6 12 0 1 4 1 0 3 0 8 D 4 8 to < 13 2 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 -3 11 E 5 > 13 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 -16 4 F Total 52 100 1 20 27 4 0 3 3 7 560 Table F.36 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thin overlay based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 197 18 122 17 25 14 19 6 4 5 B 2 2 to < 4 54 5 5 10 12 10 17 4 7 11 C 3 4 to < 8 112 10 12 12 15 31 42 4 5 13 D 4 8 to < 13 598 55 8 34 144 166 246 -4 1 14 E 5 > 13 128 12 0 0 13 31 84 -5 -3 17 F Total 1089 100 147 73 209 252 408 -1 2 12 561 Table F.37 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thin overlay based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 39 17 0 0 4 4 31 18 17 18 B 2 2 to < 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 4 20 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 14 6 0 0 0 0 14 20 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 6 3 0 0 0 0 6 20 7 20 E 5 > 13 161 72 0 0 0 2 159 18 0 20 F Total 224 100 0 0 4 6 214 18 4 20 562 Table F.38 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 163 81 1 14 88 15 45 10 10 11 B 2 2 to < 4 12 6 0 1 7 1 3 8 7 11 C 3 4 to < 8 11 5 0 2 6 1 2 5 2 10 D 4 8 to < 13 10 5 0 0 7 1 2 6 -2 11 E 5 > 13 6 3 0 1 3 0 2 5 -9 11 F Total 202 100 1 18 111 18 54 10 9 11 563 Table F.39 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 18 25 0 0 1 9 8 12 15 16 B 2 2 to < 4 10 14 0 0 0 3 7 14 14 18 C 3 4 to < 8 12 17 0 0 1 4 7 11 9 17 D 4 8 to < 13 17 24 0 0 2 6 9 8 3 16 E 5 > 13 14 20 0 0 0 3 11 9 -2 19 F Total 71 100 0 0 4 25 42 11 8 17 564 Table F.40 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin overlay based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 67 50 1 4 50 7 5 7 8 9 B 2 2 to < 4 12 9 0 0 10 1 1 6 5 9 C 3 4 to < 8 15 11 0 0 6 1 8 6 7 15 D 4 8 to < 13 3 2 0 0 1 0 2 6 3 16 E 5 > 13 37 28 0 0 19 6 12 6 -7 13 F Total 134 100 1 4 86 15 28 7 3 11 565 Table F.41 Functional treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thick overlay based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 963 68 3 4 53 96 807 18 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 57 4 0 0 1 7 49 17 15 19 C 3 4 to < 8 82 6 0 0 4 9 69 16 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 263 19 0 0 5 18 240 16 6 19 E 5 > 13 51 4 0 0 3 1 47 17 -1 19 F Total 1416 100 3 4 66 131 1212 18 14 19 566 Table F.42 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thick overlay based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 309 25 0 1 0 22 286 10 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 39 3 0 0 0 2 37 10 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 58 5 0 0 0 0 58 10 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 53 4 0 0 0 3 50 10 7 20 E 5 > 13 783 63 0 1 0 24 758 9 0 20 F Total 1242 100 0 2 0 51 1189 10 6 20 567 Table F.43 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick overlay based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 957 80 6 51 220 140 540 15 14 15 B 2 2 to < 4 64 5 0 6 7 6 45 16 13 17 C 3 4 to < 8 61 5 2 3 4 10 42 15 9 17 D 4 8 to < 13 90 8 1 10 16 7 56 13 2 15 E 5 > 13 27 2 1 0 6 9 11 6 -6 14 F Total 1199 100 10 70 253 172 694 15 13 15 568 Table F.44 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick overlay based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 102 17 0 0 23 32 47 13 14 15 B 2 2 to < 4 74 12 0 0 6 22 46 13 13 17 C 3 4 to < 8 108 18 0 0 4 30 74 13 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 205 34 0 0 24 34 147 12 4 17 E 5 > 13 106 18 0 0 2 23 81 5 -2 18 F Total 595 100 0 0 59 141 395 11 7 17 569 Table F.45 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick overlay (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick overlay based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 511 52 0 2 175 173 161 12 12 13 B 2 2 to < 4 103 10 0 0 22 42 39 11 11 15 C 3 4 to < 8 127 13 0 1 47 32 47 9 6 14 D 4 8 to < 13 134 14 0 1 42 45 46 6 1 14 E 5 > 13 109 11 0 0 21 34 54 2 -4 16 F Total 984 100 0 4 307 326 347 10 8 14 570 Table F.46 Functional treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thin mill and fill based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 78 48 0 1 3 24 50 17 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 10 6 0 0 0 2 8 15 15 19 C 3 4 to < 8 17 10 0 0 2 2 13 13 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 35 21 0 0 1 3 31 14 6 19 E 5 > 13 23 14 0 0 0 0 23 10 0 20 F Total 163 100 0 1 6 31 125 15 11 18 571 Table F.47 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 110 58 0 0 1 6 103 20 19 20 B 2 2 to < 4 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 18 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 8 4 0 0 0 0 8 18 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 70 37 0 0 0 2 68 17 7 20 E 5 > 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F Total 191 100 0 0 1 8 182 19 14 20 572 Table F.48 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 68 47 0 1 2 2 63 19 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 3 2 0 0 1 0 2 15 12 16 C 3 4 to < 8 9 6 0 0 1 0 8 18 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 23 16 0 0 2 0 21 15 6 19 E 5 > 13 43 29 0 0 2 29 12 2 -5 15 F Total 146 100 0 1 8 31 106 13 9 18 573 Table F.49 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 34 43 0 0 2 3 29 18 18 19 B 2 2 to < 4 10 13 0 0 0 0 10 17 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 5 6 0 0 0 0 5 20 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 20 25 0 0 5 4 11 12 3 16 E 5 > 13 11 14 0 0 0 0 11 -14 0 20 F Total 80 100 0 0 7 7 66 12 11 18 574 Table F.50 Structural treatment transition matrix for thin mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thin mill and fill based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 86 64 0 1 41 23 21 11 11 12 B 2 2 to < 4 8 6 0 0 0 0 8 19 16 20 C 3 4 to < 8 7 5 0 0 0 0 7 20 12 20 D 4 8 to < 13 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 20 7 20 E 5 > 13 31 23 0 1 2 0 28 13 -1 19 F Total 135 100 0 2 43 23 67 12 9 15 575 Table F.51 Functional treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) ow designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after thick mill and fill based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 419 57 1 3 39 105 271 17 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 35 5 0 0 2 5 28 16 14 18 C 3 4 to < 8 47 6 0 0 2 6 39 15 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 227 31 0 1 11 29 186 14 5 18 E 5 > 13 7 1 0 0 0 0 7 17 0 20 F Total 735 100 1 4 54 145 531 16 12 18 576 Table F.52 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after thick mill and fill based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 267 28 0 1 31 63 172 17 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 26 3 0 0 0 2 24 18 15 19 C 3 4 to < 8 45 5 0 0 1 5 39 17 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 579 61 0 0 13 95 471 13 6 19 E 5 > 13 40 4 0 0 0 0 40 15 0 20 F Total 957 100 0 1 45 165 746 14 9 18 577 Table F.53 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick mill and fill based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 511 84 3 4 77 47 380 17 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 22 4 0 0 3 4 15 16 13 17 C 3 4 to < 8 20 3 0 0 2 0 18 17 11 19 D 4 8 to < 13 52 9 0 0 18 7 27 11 2 15 E 5 > 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F Total 605 100 3 4 100 58 440 17 15 17 578 Table F.54 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick mill and fill based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 45 16 0 0 17 13 15 12 12 13 B 2 2 to < 4 26 9 0 0 5 8 13 14 12 16 C 3 4 to < 8 45 16 0 0 6 5 34 14 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 170 59 0 1 29 20 120 13 4 17 E 5 > 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F Total 286 100 0 1 57 46 182 13 7 16 579 Table F.55 Structural treatment transition matrix for thick mill and fill (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after thick mill and fill based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 258 65 0 1 55 29 173 17 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 26 7 0 0 9 6 11 11 10 14 C 3 4 to < 8 31 8 0 0 9 7 15 12 7 15 D 4 8 to < 13 79 20 0 0 12 18 49 12 4 17 E 5 > 13 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 20 0 20 F Total 396 100 0 1 85 60 250 15 12 16 580 Table F.56 Functional treatment transition matrix for chip seal (IRI, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional period (RFP) before and after chip seal based on IRI Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RFP condition state to the indicated AT RFP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (FCROP), change in functional period (CFP), and AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 FCROP CFP AT RFP RFP condition code RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 197 18 122 17 25 14 19 6 4 5 B 2 2 to < 4 54 5 5 10 12 10 17 4 7 11 C 3 4 to < 8 112 10 12 12 15 31 42 4 5 13 D 4 8 to < 13 598 55 8 34 144 166 246 -4 1 14 E 5 > 13 128 12 0 0 13 31 84 -5 -3 17 F Total 1089 100 147 73 209 252 408 -1 2 12 581 Table F.57 Functional/structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (rut depth, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining functional/structural period (RFP/RSP) before and after chip seal based on rut depth Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP/RFP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP/ RFP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP/ RFP condition state to the indicated AT RSP/ RFP condition states Weighted average structural or functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP/FCROP), change in structural or functional period(CSP/CFP), and AT RSP or AT RFP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP/ FCROP CSP/ CFP AT RFP/ RSP RSP/RFP condition code RSP/RFP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 20 3 4 3 0 0 13 14 13 14 B 2 2 to < 4 15 3 0 0 1 1 13 17 15 19 C 3 4 to < 8 17 3 1 0 1 1 14 14 10 18 D 4 8 to < 13 393 68 2 0 1 6 384 8 7 20 E 5 > 13 129 22 0 1 2 0 126 6 0 20 F Total 574 100 7 4 5 8 550 8 6 19 582 Table F.58 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (alligator cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on alligator cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated AT RSP condition states Weighted average structural re-occurrence period, change in structural period, and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 1302 81 130 159 562 199 252 10 9 10 B 2 2 to < 4 69 4 7 14 12 13 23 7 7 11 C 3 4 to < 8 67 4 3 5 17 10 32 8 6 14 D 4 8 to < 13 119 7 17 5 39 17 41 -1 -1 12 E 5 > 13 48 3 0 0 5 11 32 -3 -3 17 F Total 1605 100 157 183 635 250 380 9 8 10 583 Table F.59 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (longitudinal cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on longitudinal cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 223 29 0 0 12 67 144 15 16 17 B 2 2 to < 4 131 17 0 0 19 47 65 12 12 16 C 3 4 to < 8 133 17 0 0 13 32 88 13 9 17 D 4 8 to < 13 222 29 0 0 40 49 133 6 3 16 E 5 > 13 63 8 0 0 0 7 56 7 -1 19 F Total 772 100 0 0 84 202 486 11 9 17 584 Table F.60 Structural treatment transition matrix for chip seal (transverse cracking, number of 0.1-mile pavement segments in the State of Louisiana) Row designation Column designation A B C D E F G H I J K L Remaining structural period (RSP) before and after chip seal based on transverse cracking Before treatment (BT) After treatment (AT) RSP condition state and the number and percent of pavement sections in each condition state RSP condition states and range in year and the number of the 0.1-mile pavement segments transferred from each BT RSP condition state to the indicated RSP condition states Weighted average functional condition re-occurrence period (SCROP), change in functional period (CSP), and AT RSP of the treatment (year) Condition state 0.1-mile pavement segments 1 2 3 4 5 SCROP CSP AT RSP RSP condition code RSP ranges (years) Number Percent < 2 2 to < 4 4 to < 8 8 to < 13 > 13 A 1 < 2 512 63 7 23 228 132 122 11 11 12 B 2 2 to < 4 76 9 0 1 14 25 36 10 11 15 C 3 4 to < 8 70 9 0 0 26 16 28 7 6 14 D 4 8 to < 13 119 15 0 0 28 28 63 4 3 16 E 5 > 13 42 5 0 0 2 8 32 4 -2 18 F Total 819 100 7 24 298 209 281 9 9 13 585 REFERENCES 586 REFERENCES of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington D.C., 1990 Highway and Transportation Officials, Guide for Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Washington, D. C., 1993 ervation 2006 Ahmed, K., G. Abu-Limited Data on Causal Factors: An Auto-onal Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 1, London, England, 2006 Ambroz, J.K. and M.I. Darter, SPS-6 Initial Evaluation and Analysis, Research Report, Long-Term Pavement Performance 2000. -17, Lexington, KY, 1983 Department of Transportation (MDOT), Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 1999 Baladi, G. Y., M. Snyder, and F. McKelvey, "Highway Pavements", National Highway Institute (NHI), Volumes I, II and III, Washington, D.C., 1992 Baladi, G. Y., T. Svasdisant, T. Van Dam, N. Buch, and K. Chatti, "Cost-Effective Preventive Maintenance: Case Studies", Transportation Research Board (TRB), Transportation Research Record 1795, pp. 17-26, Washington D.C., 2002 Baladi, G. Y., S. W. Haider, K. Chatti, L. Galehouse, T. A. Dawson, C. M. Dean, R. Muscott, N. (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2009 Baladi, G. Y., T. A. Dawson, C. M. Dean, S. W. Haider, K. Chatti, and L. Galehouse, Washington D.C., 2011 587 Transportation Research Board (TRB), Transportation Research Record 1864, pp. 7177, Washington D.C., 2004 Berthelot, C. F., G. A. Sparks, T. Blomme, L. Kajner, -(ASCE), Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 5, pp. 337-341, Reston, AV, 1996 Statistics (BLS), http://www.bls.gov/cpi/, Washington, D.C., 2011 (TRB), Transportation Research Circular No. E-C078: Roadway Pavement Preservation 2005: Papers from the First National Conference on Pavement Preservation, Washington D.C., 2005 Chatti, K., N. Buch, S. W. Haider, A. S. Pulipaka, R. W. Lyles, D. Gilliland, and P. Desaraju, nse Research Program (NCHRP), Web-Only Document 74 (Project 20-50 [10/16]), Washington, D.C., 2005 Highway Transportation Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 145-155, Reston, VA, 2002 Preservat-IF-00-013, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/t2/fs00013.cfm, Washington D.C., 2000 sportation Research Record 1732, pp. 70-79, Washington D.C., 2000 Conference: Integrated Transportation and Development for a Better Tomorrow (IT&D), Chicago, Illinois, 2011 Effectiveness Using Multi-Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, 2012 588 practices on effectiveness of hot-Research Board, No. 2292, Volume 1, pp 52-61, Washington DC 2012 Multi-Research Board, No. 2304, Volume 1, pp 55-66, Washington DC 2012 Transportation Research Board, No. 2013, Volume 1, pp 78-86, Washington DC 2013 Transportation (DelDOT), Pavement Preservation 2, Foundation for Pavement Preservation, Salina, KS, 2001 Clusterwise Linear Reg Elkins, G. E., Thompson, T., Simpson, A., & Ostrom, Long-term pavement performance (FHWA-RD-03-088), Federal Highway Administration, 2012. a Model to Predict Pavement Structural Number Using Rolling Wheel Deflectometer Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2015 -Research Board (TRB), Transportation Research Record 1749, Washington D.C., 2001 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington D.C., 2010 Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, D.C., 2005 -Board (TRB), National Research Council (NRC), National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 223, Washington, D.C., 1996 FHWA-HIF-12-049, Washington DC, 2011 589 Guerre, J., J. Groeger, S.V. Hecke, -HIF-12-049, Washington DC, 2012 (TRB), National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 342, Washington D.C., 2005 Hall, K.T., C.E. Correa, and A.L. al Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, April 2002. -Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1978 Highway Research Program, Research Results Digest, No. 268, November 2002 on (FPP), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Publication FHWA-IF-00-027, Washington, D.C., 2000 tion Engineers, Vol. 118(2), Reston, Virginia, 1992 Washington, D.C., 2009 Jiang, Y.J. and M.I. Darter, 2Initial Evaluation and Analysis, Research Report, Long-Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, November 2001 Transportation Studies (CTS), Minnesota T2/LTAP Program, University of Minnesota Report No. 2000-04, Minneapolis, MN, 2000 Lafayette, Lafayette, LA, 2007 (ISRN), Volume 2013, Article ID 901652, DOI: 10.1155/2013/901652, pp.1-10, 2013. 590 -RD-97-131, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 1998 Interventions Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2009 Kim, J. R., H. B. Kang, D, Kim, D. S. Park, a-Situ Modulus of Compacted Subgrades Using Portable Falling Weight Deflectometer as an Alternative to Washington, D.C., 2006 Labi, S. and K. -Term Benefits of Microsurfacing Applications in Indiana (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2006 Sensing System and Data Interpretation Techniques for PaComputer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Journal, Vol. 26, 513-523, 2011 n (FHWA), Purdue University, Report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2004/28, West Lafeyette, IN, 2004 pp.116, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1999 Research Board (TRB), National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Synthesis of Highway Practice 269, Washington D.C., 1999 Local Calibration of the MEPDG Using Pavement Management Systems. Final Report, HIF-11-0276. Federal Highway Administration Office of Asset Management for -RD-98-085, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington D.C., 2000 -tion, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, 2005 591 Lands Highway Division Publication No. FHWA-CFL/TD-05-004a, Washington D.C., 2005 of Transportation (MDOT), Lansing, MI, 2001 M-E PDG, "Part 3., Chapter 6: HMA Rehabilitation of Existing Pavements", Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (M-E PDG), National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Transportation Research Board (TRB), ARA, Inc., ERES division, Final Report: Guide for Mechanistic-Empirical Design of New and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures, Washington D.C., 2004 Spectrum, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 187-189, Woodstock, GA, 1987 d Substitution: The Volume 61, Issue 3, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1999 Mladenovic, G., Y.J. Jiang, and M.I. Darter, the Heavy LoadSPS8-Term Pavement Performance Program, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, January 2002. e -Place Recycling as a Reflective Crack Control Record (TRR) 1869, Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington D.C., 2004 ration (FHWA), Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University, Report FHWA/JHRP-91-11, West Lafeyette, IN, 1991 tation Research Board Meetings in Washington DC, and submitted for publication in the Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Washington DC 2014. Transportation (ODOT), The Office of Pavement Engineering Report, Columbus, OH, 2001 592 Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 523, Washington, D.C., 2004 National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, August 2001. -RD-99-074, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 1999 ood and Poorly -RD-99-193, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 1999 -Based Life-cycle Analysis for Project-Level Pavement , Transportation Research Record 1816, Washington D.C., 2002 Rhimi M., N. Lajnef, K. Chatti, and F. Faridazar, "A Self-Powered Sensing System for Continuous Fatigue Monitoring of In-service Pavements," International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology. Vol. 5. No. 5. pp. 303-310. 2012. Rhimi M., N. Lajnef, K. Chatti, and F. Faridazar, "Development of a Self-Powered Strain Sensor for Long-Annual Meeting. Paper No. 12-4353. Washington, D.C., 2012. Selezneva, O.I., Y.J. Jiang, and G. Mladenovic, -Term Pavement Performance Program, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, July 2002 Smith, RBoard (TRB), Transportation Research Record 1680, Washington D.C., 1999 York, NY, 1981 New York, NY, 1982 Variations in PCooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, March 2002. 593 Preventive Maintenance Surface TreatmentsTransportation (SDDOT), Report No. SD99-09, Pierre, South Dakota, 2001 -Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design Interim Technical FHWA-SA-98-079, Washington D.C., 1998