TheImplicationsofClimateChangeon

PavementPerformanceandDesign

ByQiangLi,LeslieMillsandSueMcNeil

AreportsubmittedtotheUniversityofDelawareUniversity
TransportationCenter(UDUTC)

September25,2011

UDUTCFinalReport

Page1

DISCLAIMER:

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who
areresponsibleforthefactsandtheaccuracyoftheinformation
presented herein. This document is disseminated under the
sponsorship of the Department of Transportation University
Transportation Centers Program, in the interest of information
exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the
contentsorusethereof.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page2

TableofContents
Abstract

Acronyms

Symbols

1.

Introduction............................................................................................................12
PROBLEMSTATEMENT....................................................................................................................12
BACKGROUND...............................................................................................................................13
EnvironmentalEffectsonPavementDesign.........................................................................13
ClimateChangeanditsImpact.............................................................................................14

PROJECTOBJECTIVES......................................................................................................................18
OVERVIEWOFTHEMETHODOLOGY...................................................................................................19
REPORTOUTLINE...........................................................................................................................20
2.
EnvironmentalEffectsintheMechanisticEmpiricalPavementDesignGuide
(MEPDG)
22
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................22
Temperature.........................................................................................................................22
Precipitation..........................................................................................................................22
Freeze/Thaw.........................................................................................................................23
CLIMATICINPUTSINMEPDG...........................................................................................................23
GeneralInformation.............................................................................................................24
WeatherRelatedDataInput................................................................................................24
GroundwaterTableDepthInput..........................................................................................26
MAJOROUTPUTSOFTHEEICM........................................................................................................26
3.
ClimateChangeandVariability...............................................................................28
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................28
IPCCSPECIALREPORTEMISSIONSSCENARIOS.....................................................................................28
CLIMATECHANGEVARIABILITY.........................................................................................................29
MAGICC/SCENGENSOFTWARE....................................................................................................32
4.
IncorporatingClimateChangeintotheMEPavementDesign..............................35
INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................35
PAVEMENTPERFORMANCEPREDICTIONINMEPDG.............................................................................35
FlexiblePavementPerformanceModels..............................................................................36
PavementPerformanceModelsforJPCP.............................................................................39
PavementPerformanceModelsforCRCP............................................................................41
LOCALCALIBRATIONAPPROACH........................................................................................................42
UDUTCFinalReport

Page3

OverviewoftheMethodology..............................................................................................43
5.

CaseStudyandImplementation.............................................................................46
STUDYSITESANDPAVEMENTSTRUCTURES..........................................................................................46
HISTORICALCLIMATICDATA.............................................................................................................47
TRAFFICINPUTSREQUIREDINMEPDG..............................................................................................49
DevelopmentofMEPDGTrafficInputs.................................................................................49
WIMDataSourcesandResults.............................................................................................51
MATERIALINPUT............................................................................................................................52
CLIMATECHANGEPROJECTIONSANDMEPDGCLIMATEDATAGENERATION.............................................54
ClimateSensitivity.................................................................................................................55
GeneralCirculationModels(GCMs).....................................................................................55
ClimateChangeProjectionResults.......................................................................................55
GenerationofHCDDataFilesConsideringClimateChange.................................................57
PAVEMENTPERFORMANCECOMPARISONSANDANALYSIS......................................................................58
ComparingPerformanceResults..........................................................................................58

MODELCALIBRATIONTOLOCALCLIMATECHANGECONDITIONS.............................................................63
VALIDATION..................................................................................................................................64
6.
ConclusionsandRecommendations.......................................................................67
CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................................................67
LIMITATIONS.................................................................................................................................67
RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................................................................68
7.
References..............................................................................................................69
APPENDIXAFormatsoftheIntegratedClimaticModelFiles......................................................74
APPENDIXBWeighInMotion(WIM)TrafficResults...................................................................77
APPENDIXCFormatsoftheMEPDGTrafficImportFiles.............................................................90
APPENDIXDMAGICC/SCENGENClimateChangeProjectionResults...........................................92
APPENDIXEPavementPerformanceComparisonResults:BeforeandAfterClimateChange.107

UDUTCFinalReport

Page4

Abstract
Pavementsaredesignedbasedonhistoricclimaticpatterns,reflectinglocalclimateand
incorporatingassumptionsaboutareasonablerangeoftemperaturesandprecipitationlevels.
Givenanticipatedclimatechangesandtheinherentuncertaintyassociatedwithsuchchanges,a
pavementcouldbesubjectedtoverydifferentclimaticconditionsoverthedesignlifeand
mightbeinadequatetowithstandfutureclimateforcesthatimposestressesbeyond
environmentalfactorscurrentlyconsideredinthedesignprocess.
Thisresearchexplorestheimpactsofpotentialclimatechangeanditsuncertaintyonpavement
performanceandthereforepavementdesign.Twotoolsareintegratedtosimulatepavement
conditionsoveravarietyofscenarios.Thefirsttool,MAGICC/SCENGEN(Modelforthe
AssessmentofGreenhousegasInducedClimateChange:AregionalClimateScenario
Generator),providesestimatesofthemagnitudeofpotentialclimatechangeandits
uncertainty.Thesecondtool,theMechanisticEmpiricalPavementDesignGuide(MEPDG)
softwareanalyzesthedeteriorationofpavementperformance.
Threeimportantquestionsareaddressed:(1)Howdoespavementperformancedeteriorate
differentlywithclimatechangeanditsuncertainty?(2)Whatistheriskifclimatechangeandits
uncertaintyarenotconsideredinpavementdesign?and(3)Howdopavementdesigners
respondandincorporatethischangeintopavementdesignprocess?
Thisresearchdevelopsaframeworktoincorporateclimatechangeeffectsintothemechanistic
empiricalbasedpavementdesign.ThreetestsitesintheNorthEasternUnitedStatesare
studiedandtheframeworkisapplied.Itdemonstratesthattheframeworkisarobustand
effectivewaytointegrateclimatechangeintopavementdesignasanadaptationstrategy.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page5

Acronyms
T2xClimateSensitivity
A1familyofemissionsscenariosincludingA1F1fossilintensive,A1Tnonfossilenergy
sources,andA1Bbalancedacrossallsources.
AADTTAnnualAverageDailyTruckTraffic
AASHTOAmericanAssociationofStateHighwayandTransportationOfficials
ACAsphaltconcrete
AMDTTAverageMonthlyDailyTruckTraffic
AOGCMatmosphere/oceanglobalclimatemode
AVCAutomatedvehiclecounts
B1andB2familiesofemissionscenarios
CDFClassDistributionFactor
CGCM3CanadianCentreforClimateModeling
CRCPContinuouslyreinforcedconcretepavement
ECHAM5/MPIOMMaxPlanckInstituteforMeteorology(Germany)
EICMEnhancedIntegratedClimaticModel
GBGranularbase
GCMGeneralCirculationModel
GFDLCM2.0andCM2.1GeophysicalFluidDynamicsLaboratoryClimateModels
GHGGreenhousegas
GMTGlobalMeanTemperature
GPSGlobalPositioningSystem
GSunboundgranularsubbase
HadCM3andHadGEM1HadleyCentreforClimatePredictionandResearch(UnitedKingdom)
HATTHourlyAveragetrucktrafficforonehourtimeperiod
HCDfileextensionforhourlyclimaticdatabasefilesusedbyMEPDG
HMAHotmixasphalt
ICMfileextensionforclimatefilesgeneratedbyMEPDG
IPCCIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange
IPSL_CM4InstitutePierreSimonLaplace(France)ClimateModel
IRIInternationalRoughnessIndex
UDUTCFinalReport

Page6

JPCPJointedplainconcretepavement
LTPPLongtermpavementperformanceprogram
MAGICC/SCENGENModelfortheAssessmentofGreenhousegasInducedClimateChange:A
regionalClimateScenarioGenerator
MEPDGMechanisticEmpiricalPavementDesignGuide
MIROC3.2CenterforClimateSystemResearch(Japan)(mediumresolution)
MRICGCM2.3.2MeteorologicalResearchInstitute(Japan))
MSLPMeanSeaLevelPressure
NCARCCSMNationalCenterforAtmosphericResearchCCSM
NCDCNationalClimaticDataCenter
NFSNonfrostsusceptible
PCCPortlandCementConcrete
SRESSpecialReportonEmissionsScenarios
SSSandsoil
TBBoundtreatedbase
TMGTrafficMonitoringGuide
TMIThornwaiteMoistureIndex
TRBTransportationResearchBoard
UKCIPUnitedKingdomClimateImpactsProgramme
WIMWeighinmotion

UDUTCFinalReport

Page7

Symbols

a, b, c=calibrationconstants
ai,bj,cj=regressioncoefficients
Age=Ageafterconstruction,years
Age=pavementageinyears
BC =Totalareaofblockcracking(low,medium,andhighseveritylevels),percentoftotal
lanearea,%
C throughC =calibrationconstants

C , C =calibrationconstants
CDFj=Classdistributionfactorforvehicleclassj
CidefaultvalueofCi
COV
DE

=Rutdepthcoefficientofvariation,percent
Differentialdeformationenergyaccumulatedduringmonthi.

D =accumulatedfatiguedamageattheendofi monthlyincrement
distressestimateddistressusingdefaultcalibrationfactors
E=Stiffnessofthematerial
EROD=Base/subbaseerodibilityfactor
E

ElasticityoffactorCifortheassociateddistresscondition

Fault =Meanjointfaultingattheendofmonthm,in.
FAULTMAX

Maximummeantransversejointfaultingformonthi,in

FC =Totalareaoffatiguecracking(low,medium,andhighseveritylevels),percentofwheel
patharea,%
FD=totalfatiguedamage
Fenv=compositeenvironmentaleffectsadjustmentfactor,
FF=adjustmentfactorforfrozencondition
FI=Averageannualfreezingindex.
FR=adjustmentfactorforrecoveringconditions
FR=Basefreezingindexdefinedaspercentageoftimethetopbasetemperatureisbelow
freezing(32 temperatures.
FU=unboundlayermodulusadjustmentfactorforunfrozenconditions
UDUTCFinalReport

Page8

h=Thicknessoflayer/sublayer
h =Thicknessofsublayeri.
HDFi=Hourlydistributionfactorforithonehourtimeperiod
i=age(accountsforchangeinPCCmodulusrapture,layerbondcondition,deteriorationof
shoulderLoadTransferEfficiency)
IRI =IRImeasuredwithinsixmonthsafterconstruction,m/km
j=month(accountsforchangeinbaseandeffectivedynamicmodulusofsubgradereaction)
k=axletype
k , k , k =Laboratoryregressioncoefficients
l=loadlevel(incrementalloadforeachaxletype)
LC

=Mediumandhighseveritysealedlongitudinalcracksoutsidethewheelpath,
m/km.

LC

=Mediumandhighseveritysealedlongitudinalcracksoutsidethewheelpath,
m/km

m=temperaturedifference
MAFi=Monthlyadjustmentfactorformonthi
Mj=changeinsmoothnessduetomaintenanceactivities
MR=Unboundmaterialadjustmentfactor
MR =PCCmodulusofraptureatagei,psi
N=Numberofloadrepetitions
N=Numberoftrafficrepetitions
n=trafficpath
N =Numberofrepetitionstofatiguecracking
N,,

, =allowablenumberofloadapplicationsatconditioni, j, k, l, m, n

N,,

, =allowablenumberofloadapplicationsatconditioni, j, k, l, m, n.

n,,

, =appliednumberofloadapplicationsatconditioni, j, k, l, m, n

nsublayers=numberofsublayers
P =Areaofhighseveritypatches,percentoftotallanearea,%
PATCH=pavementsurfaceareawithflexibleandrigidpatching(allseverities),percent
PATCH=percentagepavementsurfacewithpatching(MHseverityflexibleandrigid)
P . =Percentpassingthee0.02mmsieve
P . =Percentpassingthe0.075mmsieve
UDUTCFinalReport

Page9

=Percentsubgradepassing#200sieve

=percentsubgradematerialpassingthe0.075mmsieve.

PD=pavementpermanentdeformation
PI =Plasticityindex
PO =totalpredictednumberofpunchoutspermileattheendofi monthlyincrement
PUNCH=numberofmediumandhighseveritypunchouts/km
P =Overburdenonsubgrade,lb
R =Averageannualrainfall,mm
R =Standarddeviationinthemonthlyrainfall,mm
RF=Reductionfactorduetothawing
RR=Recoveryratio
S=degreeofsaturation
S(t)=pavementsmoothnessataspecifictimet
S0=initialsmoothnessimmediatelyafterconstruction
SD(t)=changeofsmoothnessduetotheithdistressatagiventimetintheanalysisperiod(i=1
ton)
SD

=Standarddeviationoftherutdepth,mm.

SDP(%)Standarddeviationofthepercentagechangeinprecipitation
SDT(%)Standarddeviationoftemperature
Sequil=degreeofsaturationatequilibrium
SF =sitefactor
SF=sitefactor
Sj=changeinsmoothnessduetositefactors(subgradeandage)
SLR(cm)sealevelrise
Sopt=degreeofsaturationatoptimumconditions
SPALL=percentageofjointswithspalling(allseverities)
T=Mixtemperature(degF)
TC=percentageofslabswithtransversecracking(allseverities)
TC=numberofmediumandhightransversecracks/km
TC

=Averagespacingofhighseveritytransversecracks,m

TC

=Totallengthoftransversecracks(low,medium,andhighseveritylevels),m/km

UDUTCFinalReport

Page10

TFAULT=totaljointfaultingcumulatedperkm,mm
V =airvoids(%)
V =effectivebindercontent(%)
WetDays=Averageannualnumberofwetdays(greaterthan0.1inrainfall).
=Calibrationfactorfortheunboundgranularandsubgradematerials
, , =Calibrationparameters
, , =Calibrationfactorsfortheasphaltmixturesrutmodel
=Permanentdeformationforthelayer/sublayer

MaximummeanmonthlyslabcornerupwarddeflectionPCCduetotemperature
curlingandmoisturewarping

, , =Materialproperties
, , . =Averageverticalresilientstraininthelayer/sublayerasobtainedfromthe
primaryresponsemodel
=Accumulatedpermanentstrain
=Totalplasticstraininsublayeri
=Resilientstrain
=Resilientstrainimposedinlaboratorytesttoobtainmaterialproperties
=Tensilestrainatthecriticallocation
,,

, =appliedstressatconditioni, j, k, l, m, n

Ci changeinthefactorCi
distress changeintheestimateddistressassociatedwithachangeinthefactorCi
Fault =Incrementalchange(monthly)inmeantransversejointfaultingduringmonthi,in.
P(%)Percentagechangeinprecipitation
T(C)Changeintemperature
sat=saturatedvolumetricwatercontent
w=volumetricwatercontent

UDUTCFinalReport

Page11

1. Introduction
ProblemStatement
Pavementstructuresrepresentasignificantinfrastructureinvestmentthatiscriticaltothewell
being,growthandexpansionofanygeographiclocation.Assuchpavementsareexpectedtobe
durableandresilient,andtoperformsatisfactorilythroughouttheirservicelives.Indesigning
durablepavements,severalfactorsareassessedandonesuchprimaryfactoristheclimateof
theproposedhighwaylocation.Climateservesasanessentialinputinpavementdesignand
dependingonitsvariabilitycanhavesignificantimpactonpavementperformance.Climatedata
foraparticularregioninwhichahighwayislocatedprovidesengineerswithusefulinformation
whendecidingonthecombinationofpavementlayersandmaterialsthatcanwithstandthe
elementsoftheenvironmentpeculiartothatregionandperformadequatelyinthefaceof
adverseweatherconditions.Climaticindicatorsalsoprovideanexpectationastothetypeand
extentofclimateinduceddeteriorationthatthehighwayissusceptibleto.Pavementsare
designedbasedontypicalhistoricclimaticpatterns,reflectinglocalclimateandincorporating
assumptionsaboutareasonablerangeoftemperatureandprecipitationlevels.Assuchchanges
inglobalandmorespecificallyregionalclimatehavethepotentialtoaffectpavementdesign
andsubsequentpavementperformanceonceitisputinservice.
AccordingtotheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC),warmingoftheearths
climatesystemisunequivocalandmostoftheobservedincreaseisduelikelytoanincreasein
anthropogenicgreenhousegasemissions(IPCC,2007a).Itisprojectedfurtherthatprofound
consequenceswilloccurtohumanlifeaswellasnaturalandbuiltsystemsifthistrendin
anthropogenicclimatechangeweretocontinueunabated.Suchsystemsincludecivil
infrastructuresystems,meaninganysignificantfuturechangeinclimatepertainingto
temperature,precipitationorsealevelrisewillonlyservetocreateadverseeffectsforthese
systems.However,inallthesesystemsthereisuncertaintyasstudiesofclimatechangedonot
knowtheexactamountorrateofchangeduetocomplexitiesintheclimatesystemandinthe
modelingprocess(Foley,2010).Asaresult,translatingthisuncertaintytothedesignand
performanceofcivilinfrastructuresystemsischallenging.Thereisasharpdivideintheway
climatescientistsandpavementdesignersanalyzesystemsintheirrespectivedisciplines.
Climatescientistsdescribethefutureinprobabilistictermswithaportfolioofplausible
scenariosandoutcomesthatarerefinedasnewknowledgebecomesavailable,whereas
pavementprofessionalstendtofocusonknownsandworkwiththebestavailabledata
(TransportationResearchBoard,2008).Althoughcurrentpavementdesignstandardsare
robustandconservativeinmanyoccasions,theyneedtobeevaluatedinlightofchanging
environmentalfactorsrecognizinguncertainty.Inadditionpavementengineershaveto
determinewhethertheirsystemsareadequatetowithstandclimateforcesthatarebeyond
environmentalfactorscurrentlyconsideredinthedesignprocess.
Thisresearchexploreshowtheuncertaintyassociatedwithclimatechangeaffectsthedesignof
pavementsandinfluencestheirperformanceafterconstruction.Presently,themajorityof
researchconductedisbasedonanaveragechangeofenvironmentalfactorswithout
UDUTCFinalReport

Page12

consideringtheuncertaintyofthechange.Thisresearchrepresentsadisconnectbetween
knowledgeandactualconditionssincethescienceofclimatechangeischaracterizedby
limitationsastotheextentandmagnitudeofthechangethatwilloccur.Theresearchtherefore
seekstoexplorehowuncertaintyasappliedtoclimatechangecouldaffectthedesignof
pavementsandinfluencetheirperformanceafterconstruction.Questionslikehowpavement
performancedeterioratesdifferentlywithclimatechangeanditsuncertainty,whatistheriskif
climatechangeanditsuncertaintyarenotconsideredinpavementdesignandhowdo
pavementdesignersrespondandincorporatethischangeintothepavementdesignprocess?

Background
EnvironmentalEffectsonPavementDesign
Environmentalconditionshavesignificantimpactonpavementdesignandperformance.These
conditionsarerepresentedastheeffectsofweatherandclimateonthestrength,durabilityand
loadbearingcapacityofthepavement.Inessence,theyimpactthestructuralandfunctional
integrityofanyhighway.Pavementsofalltypesaresusceptibletoconditionswithinthe
environmentandeachhasitsuniquewayofrespondingtoaharshenvironmentorclimate.
Environmentalconditions,incombinationwithfactorssuchastrafficrelatedloads,
constructionmethods,constituentlayermaterialsandmaintenanceandrehabilitation
regimensarekeyvariablesintheassessmentofpavementperformance.Theinteraction
betweenthesevariablesandtheireffectonpavementperformanceisshowninFigure1.1
(Haasetal,2004).

Figure1.1Factorsaffectingroadperformance(Haasetal,2004)
UDUTCFinalReport

Page13

Notableenvironmentalfactorsdiscussedintheliteratureincludetemperature,precipitation,
subsurfacemoistureandfreezethawcycles.Generallythesefactorsleadtodistressformation,
whichcontributestopavementdeteriorationandultimatefailureifleftunchecked.Theeffect
oftemperatureonpavementsprimarilyresultsinthermalcrackingandpavementdistortion
comprisingrutting,shovingandcorrugation(Baladi,1990).Precipitationischaracterizedbyits
intensityanddurationandaffectstheamountofwaterinfiltratingthepavementsurfaceand
theamountofmoisturewithinthepavementsection.Anexampleofadistresscausedby
sustainedprecipitationispumpinginrigidpavements(ERESConsultantsInc,1987,Yoderand
Witzcak,1979).Subsurfacemoistureisamajorcontributortothegrowthoficelensesbeneath
pavementsinwetfreezeregionsanddirectlyinfluencestheamountandrateoffrostheave
(Moulton,1980).Moisturerelatedpavementdistressesand/orfailuresarecharacterizedby
excessivedeflection,cracking,reducedloadbearingcapacityandconcretedeteriorationdueto
durabilitycracking(Carpenteretal,1981).Freezethawcyclesareassociatedwithaccumulated
iceunderneaththepavementsurfaceandleadtotheformationofvoidsandtensilestrainat
thesurfaceofthepavement(Haasetal,2004).
Tocounterdistressformationduetoenvironmentalfactors,atthehighwaydesignstage
engineersexamineyearsofclimaterecordsforthegeographicareawherethehighwayistobe
locatedandselectpavementstructuresandmaterialsthatwillperformwellunderthestated
climaticconditions.Climateinduceddeteriorationpatternsofexistinghighwaysarestudied
andusedasinputfornewpavementdesigns.Laboratorytestsarethenruntodeterminehow
proposedstructureswillperformunderworstcaseenvironmentalconditions.Thislevelof
detailisalsoadoptedduringtheconstructionphasewherecontractorsusemethodsthat
minimizetheeffectoftheenvironmentonconstructedhighways.
ClimateChangeanditsImpact
Climateattheglobal,regionalorlocallevelissubjecttochangeperiodicallyduetonaturaland
manmadefactors.Inallcases,changesinclimatearegenerallyunpredictableandclimatologists
takeaperiodoftime,onaverage50years,toestablishtrendsforaparticularjurisdiction.
However,sincethesecondhalfoflastcenturyclimatesciencehasobservedsignificantextreme
climaticeventsthattendtosuggestdeparturesfromeventsusuallyobservedinthepast.Given
thatthesedeparturesareattributedtoanincreaseinhumanactivitiesthataffectclimate,even
moreprofoundclimaticeventsareprojectedshouldthesehumanactivitiescontinueunchecked
(IPCC,1990).Iftheseprojectionsprovetoberight,bothnaturalandbuiltsystemswillbe
affectedandthismakespotentialclimatechangeaphenomenonworthinvestigating.
OverviewofGlobalClimateChange
Aprimaryingredientthatservesasatriggerforclimatechangeisthegreenhousegaseffect.
Greenhousegasesaccumulateintheatmospherefromnaturalormanmadesourcesand
comprisegasessuchaswatervapor,carbondioxide,methane,nitrousoxidesandozone.Once
theyaccumulateintheatmosphere,thesegasestraplongwaveterrestrialradiationandaffect
itsbalancewithshortwavesolarradiation.Studieshaveshownthatoverthepastcentury,
anthropogenicsourcesofgreenhousegasemissionshaveincreasedsubstantiallysincepre
industrialtimes,whichhasmadetheimpactofthegreenhouseeffectgreaterthanitshouldbe
UDUTCFinalReport
Page14

andhasledtoadditionalwarmingoftheEarthssurface(IPCC,1990).Furtherinvestigationinto
anthropogenicinducedclimatechangerevealedthathumanactivitiessuchasfossilfueluse,
landusechangeandagriculturearelikelytohaveproducedapositiveradiativeforcingof
climate,tendingtowarmtheearthssurfaceandtriggeringotherchangesinclimate(IPCC,
1995).Someofthesechangeshavepresentlybeenobservedwhereasothershavebeen
projectedtooccurinfuture.Amongthoseobservedpresentlyareriseinglobalaveragesea
level,adecreaseintheextentoficeandsnowcoverandforthepastfourdecades,a
temperatureriseinthelowesteightkilometersoftheatmosphere.Forfuturechanges,global
modelsimulationsandavarietyofscenariospredictanincreaseinmeanprecipitationwith
moreintenseprecipitationevents,highermaximumtemperaturesandmorehotdaysover
nearlyalllandareas,higherminimumtemperaturesandfewercoldandfrostdaysovernearly
alllandareas,increasedtropicalcycloneintensitiesandincreasedsummercontinentaldrying
withassociatedriskofdrought(IPCC,2001,IPCC,2007).Inallthesereports,theauthorscite
limitationswithregardstomodeluncertainty,futureemissionsanduncertaintiesinclimate
variability.Theseareintendedtobereducedasmoredataandscientificunderstandingofyet
tobeexplainedclimatephenomenabecomeavailable.
ImpactsofClimateChangeonTransportation
TheTransportationResearchBoards(TRB)SpecialReport290(TransportationResearchBoard,
2008)catalogsthepotentialimpactsofclimatechangeontransportationintheUnitedStates.
Fromthereport,climatechangewillhavesignificantimpactsonthewaytransportation
professionalsplan,design,construct,operateandmaintaininfrastructure.Itfurtherstatesthat
impactsfromincreasesinseveraltypesofweatherandclimateextremeswillvarybymodeof
transportation,geographicallocationandconditionoftheinfrastructure.Thereportthenlists
fiveclimatechangesofparticularimportancetotransportationasincreasesinveryhotdays
andheatwaves,increasesinArctictemperatures,risingsealevels,increasesinintense
precipitationeventsandincreasesinhurricaneintensity.Basedonthese,thepotentially
greatestimpactofclimatechangeonNorthAmericastransportationsystemisidentifiedas
floodingofcoastalroads,railways,transitsystemsandrunwaysasaresultofglobalsealevel
rise,coupledwithstormsurgesandexacerbatedinsomelocationsbylandsubsidence.Table
1.1,exertedfromtheTRBSpecialReport290showspotentialimpactstoUStransportationdue
tothefiveprojectedchangesinclimatelistedabove.
Anexampleofadetailedstudyontheimpactofclimatechangeontransportationatthe
regionallevelistheUnitedStatesGulfCoast(U.S.ClimateChangeScienceProgram,2008).The
studyidentifiedfourkeyclimatedriversintheGulfregionasrisingtemperatures,changing
precipitationpatterns,risingsealevelsandincreasingstormintensity.Findingsfromthestudy
showedthattheregionshighways,pipelines,ports,raillinesandairportswouldsuffersevere
damageshouldextremechangesinregionalclimateoccur.Thesewouldcausemajorandminor
disruptionstotheprovisionoftransportationserviceswithintheGulfandadverselyaffectthe
qualityoflifeintheregion.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page15

Table1.1:PotentialClimateChangesandIllustrativeImpactsonTransportation
(TransportationResearchBoard,2008)
PotentialClimateChange

ExamplesofImpactson
Operations
Increasesinveryhotdaysand Impactonliftoffloadlimitsat
heatwaves
highaltitudeorhotweather
airportswithinsufficient
runwaylengths;limitson
constructionactivitydueto
healthandsafetyconcerns
IncreasesinArctic
Longeroceantransport
temperatures
seasonandmoreicefree
portsinnorthernregions;
possibleavailabilityofa
northernsearouteora
northwestpassage
Risingsealevels,combined
Morefrequentinterruptions
withstormsurges
tocoastalandlowlying
roadwaytravelandrail
serviceduetostormsurges;
moreseverestormsurges
requiringevacuationor
changesindevelopment
plans;potentialforclosureof
airportsincoastalzones
Increasesinintense
precipitationevents

Morefrequentstrong
hurricanes(Category45)

Increasesinweatherrelated
delaysandtrafficdisruptions;
increasedfloodingof
evacuationroutes;increases
inairlinedelays
Morefrequentinterruptions
toairservice;morefrequent
andpotentiallymore
extensiveemergency
evacuations;moredebrison
roadsandraillines,
interruptingtravel

ExamplesofImpactson
Infrastructure
Thermalexpansionofbridge
expansionjoints;railtrack
deformities

Thawingofpermafrost,
causingsubsidenceofrail
beds,bridgesupports,
pipelinesandrunway
foundations
Inundationofraillinesand
airportrunwaysincoastal
areas,morefrequentor
severefloodingof
undergroundtunnelsandlow
lyinginfrastructure;erosionof
bridgesupports;reduced
clearanceunderbridges;
changesinharborandport
facilitiestocopewithtides
Increasesinfloodingofrail
lines,subterraneantunnels
andrunways;damagestorail
bedsupportstructures;
damagestopipes
Greaterprobabilityof
infrastructurefailures;
increasedthreattostabilityof
bridgedecks;adverseimpacts
onharborinfrastructurefrom
wavesandstormsurges.

Inrelatedstudies,researchershaveexpandedtheimpactofclimatechangeontransportation
beyondinfrastructureandoperationstoincludeitsinfluenceondecisionmakingprocessesand
consequently,policyformulation(TransportationResearchBoard,2008,U.S.ClimateChange
UDUTCFinalReport

Page16

ScienceProgram,2008,TransportationResearchBoard,2009).Forexample,TRBSpecial
Report299(TransportationResearchBoard,2009)laysoutadecisionframeworkfor
transportationprofessionalstouseinaddressingimpactsofclimatechangeonU.S.
transportationinfrastructureandinvolvesthefollowingsteps:
1. Assesshowclimatechangesarelikelytoaffectvariousregionsofthecountry
andmodesoftransportation.
2. Makeaninventoryoftransportationinfrastructureessentialformaintaining
networkperformanceinlightofclimatechangeprojectionstodetermine
whether,when,andwheretheimpactscouldbeconsequential.
3. Analyzeadaptationoptionstoassessthetradeoffsbetweenmakingthe
infrastructuremorerobustandthecostsinvolved.Considermonitoringasan
option.
4. Determineinvestmentpriorities,takingintoconsiderationthecriticalityof
infrastructurecomponentsaswellasopportunitiesformultiplebenefits(e.g.,
congestionrelief,removalofevacuationroutebottlenecks).
5. Developandimplementaprogramofadaptationstrategiesfornearandlong
termscenarios.Periodicallyassesstheeffectivenessofadaptationstrategiesand
repeatSteps1through5.
Other studies have looked into how transportation planning visvis land use planning could
minimize the effect of climate change and how improvements in the US fuel economy and
introduction of alternative fuels could affect total transportation greenhouse gas emissions.
What serves as a recurrent theme in a majority of these studies is the vulnerability of the
nationstransportationsectorwithincreasingriskofclimatechange.
ImpactsofClimateChangeonPavements
Allpavementtypesaresusceptibletodeteriorationgivenapotentialchangeinclimateoccurs
(Meyeretal,2010,MeyerandWiegel,2011).Fromdistressesatthesurfacetocollapseof
constituentlayers,pavementsarelikelytoundergodrasticdeformationshouldtheyexperience
extremesinweatherorclimate.Undernormalclimatechangeconditions,rigidpavements
sufferfromdistresseslikescaling,Dcracking,pumping,faulting,curling,cornercrackingand
punchouts.Flexiblepavementsunderthesameconditionsareaffectedbybleeding,
weathering,bumps,rutting,depressions,potholes,longitudinalandtransversecracking(Baladi,
1990).Someofthesedistressesareformedincombinationwithtrafficloadsandormaterial
defects.Ifextremeclimatechangesweretooccur,thesedistresseswillclearlybeexacerbated
andnewdistressesmaybeformed.Listedaresomeofthepotentialproblemspavementswill
faceunderextremeclimatescenarios(TransportationResearchBoard,2008).

Longperiodsofextremeheatmayleadtothermalexpansionofpavedsurfaces
andmaycompromiseflexiblepavementintegritye.g.softenasphalt,increase
ruttingfromtrafficandcausemigrationofliquidasphalt.

IncreasesinArctictemperaturescouldcausepermafrosttothawandleadto

UDUTCFinalReport

Page17

subsidenceofroadsandshorterseasonsforiceroads,whosefrozenbedstrucks
takeadvantageoftocarryheavierloadsduringwinter.

Risingsealevelscombinedwithstormsurgescouldinundateroadsoreroderoad
baseswhereasincreasesinintenseprecipitationeventswouldcauseroadways
tofloodandleadtoincreasesinroadwashouts.

SpecificstudiesundertakenforpavementsinSouthernCanada(Millsetal,2007)analyzedthe
effectsofpotentialclimatechangeonpavementinfrastructure.Twocasestudieswereanalyzed
basedonmidcenturyclimatepredictedbyselectedglobalclimatemodels.Thefirststudy
examineddeteriorationrelevantclimateindicatorsandshowedthatlowtemperaturecracking
wouldbelessproblematic,pavementstructureswouldfreezelaterandthawearlierwith
shorterfreezeseasonlengthsandpotentialruttingcouldoccurforinservicepavements
experiencinghightemperatures.ThesecondstudyusedtheMechanicalEmpiricalPavement
DesignGuide(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc,2004a)toassesstheimpactofclimatechange,
trafficloadsandthestructuralandmaterialpropertiesofthepavementonincrementaland
terminalpavementdeteriorationandperformance.Resultsshowedruttingandlongitudinal
andalligatorcrackingwouldbeexacerbatedbyclimatechange.
InstudiesundertakenfortheGulfCoastoftheUnitedStates(U.S.ClimateChangeScience
Program,2008),researchersobservedthatkeypotentialimpactsonthehighwaynetwork
wouldbelargelyduetosealevelriseandstormsurge.Temperatureandintenseprecipitation
wouldalsohavesomeimpactsbutwouldbelowercomparedtothoseresultingfromsealevel
rise.Extremeheatisexpectedtoincreasehighwaymaintenanceandconstructioncostsas
somepavementmaterialswilldegradefasterduetohighertemperatures.Intenseprecipitation
eventswillleadtoincreaseinaccidents,washouts,flooding,landslides,andcauseunduestress
forstormwatermanagementinfrastructure.Sealevelriseandstormsurgewouldaffect
highwaysinlowlyingareasoftheregionandwouldcauseinundation.Prolongedinundation
canleadtolongtermweakeningofpavements.
Asstatedabove,bothgeneralandspecificstudiesdescribingtheimpactsofclimatechange
indicatethatpavementswillbeadverselyaffectedbythisphenomenon.Itisimperative
thereforeforallstakeholderstoresearchwaystopreservepavementsandminimizethese
impactssoastoreducelossesthatwouldbeincurredintheeventofunexpectedchangesin
climate.

ProjectObjectives
Givenanticipatedclimatechangesandtheinherentuncertaintyassociatedwithsuchchanges,a
pavementcouldbesubjectedtoverydifferentclimaticconditionsoveritsdesignlife.The
objectiveofthisresearchistoexploretheimpactsofpotentialclimatechangeandits
uncertaintyonpavementperformancedeteriorationandthereforepavementdesign.Thereare
threefundamentalsourcesofuncertaintytobeaddressed:

Greenhouseandothergasemissions:TheIPCCSpecialReportEmission
Scenarios(SRES)project(IPCC,2011)averywiderangeofemissionsofkey
greenhousegases(GHG);

UDUTCFinalReport

Page18

Climatesensitivity:Howmuchglobalmeantemperature(GMT)willwarmfora
CO2doublinghastraditionallybeenthoughttobebetween1.5to4.50C;

Patternsofregionalchange:Thisthirdsourceofuncertaintyconcernsrelative
regionalchangesintemperatureandprecipitation.Bothglobaltemperatures
andprecipitationwillrise,butsomeareaswillwarmmorethanothersandsome
areasreceiveincreasedprecipitationwhileothersfacedecreases.

Toaccomplishthismainobjective,thefollowingsubobjectivesareexplored:

Reviewofthepotentialimpactofclimatechangeonpavementperformance

Explorationofclimatechangescenariosanduncertaintiesusingthe
MAGICC/SCENGENtool(Wigley,2008)

Simulationofpavementperformancedeteriorationovertimeforaselectionof
siteswithvariousclimatechangelevelsandpavementstructures

Analysistoassessthesignificanceofclimatechangepavementperformance

Developmentofguidanceonwhenandhowtointegrateclimatechangeinto
pavementdesignasanadaptionstrategy.

OverviewoftheMethodology
TheresearchfocusesonhowpotentialclimatechangeintheNorthEasternpartoftheUnited
Statescouldaffectroadpavementsatdifferentlocationswithintheregion.Threelocations
werechosen,oneineachofthefollowingstates:Delaware,NewJerseyandConnecticut.The
pavementtypesselectedwerejointedplainconcretepavement(JPCP),continuouslyreinforced
concretepavement(CRCP),acompositepavementandanasphaltconcretepavement.
UsingdatafromtheLongTermPavementPerformance(LTPP)database(FHWA,2010)andthe
MechanisticEmpiricalPavementDesignGuide(MEPDG)(TRB,2010)asadesigntool,
pavementsweredesignedwithsimilarinsitustructurestosimulatehowtheywouldperform
overtimeshouldchangesinclimateoccur.Indeterminingclimaticfactorstobeconsideredin
theresearch,areviewofpastresearchonclimaticimpactsonpavementperformancewas
doneandnarroweddowntoclimaticfactorsofrelevancetopavementswithineachofthe
selectedlocations.Ofkeyinterestishowuncertaintyinprojectingfuturechangesinthese
factorscanbecharacterized.
Toexploreuncertainty,climatemodelsandclimatechangescenariosdevelopedbasedon
researchbytheIntergovernmentalPanelandUnitedKingdomClimateImpactsProgramme
(UKCIP)(DepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs,2010)areprimarilyused.Dataon
climaticfactorswereobtainedfromtheNationalClimaticDataCenter(NCDC)(National
OceanographicandAtmosphericAdministration,2010)andservedasinputfordifferentclimate
changescenarios.Thusclimatemodelsweredevelopedandprojectionsoffutureclimatewere
donealongtheguidelinesandwithintheframeworksetbytheIPCCandUKCIP.Atool,Model
fortheAssessmentofGreenhousegasInducedClimateChange:AregionalClimateScenario
Generator(MAGICC/SCENGEN),wasusedineffectingclimatechangescenarios(Wigley,2008).
UDUTCFinalReport

Page19

Bycombiningpavementstructures,currentandprojectedclimaticagentsanddifferenttraffic
levelsinexperimentaldesigns,theperformanceofpavementsovertheirdesignliveswere
analyzedusingMEPDG.Thisinvolvedcomparingtheperformancedeteriorationsoftwoparallel
designs,onewhichconsiderstheimpactsofclimatechangewithitsdifferentscenariosandone
whichdoesnotconsiderclimatechange.Thisisachievedbyusingasetofperformance
indicatorsforeachpavementtype.
Ofparticularinterestishowpavementdistressesevolveunderuncertaintyinthedifferent
emissionandclimatechangemodels.Totailordistressestomeetlocalpavementconditions,
sensitivityanalysisisconductedtolocallycalibratedistresses.Subsequentanalysisinthe
researchisbasedonresultsobtainedfromtheparallelcomparisonsbetweenpotentialclimate
changeandnochangestoclimate.ThemethodologyisillustratedintheflowchartinFigure1.2.

ReportOutline
Tosupporttheoverarchinggoalofinvestigatingthepotentialimpactsofclimatechangeon
roadpavementsanditsunderlyinguncertainty,chapterswithinthereportarearrangedso
readerscanappreciatetheextenttowhichthisphenomenoncanaffectpavementdesignand
ultimatelyperformance.Thischapterprovidesanoverviewoftheproblem,includingareview
ofpaststudies,studyobjectivesandanoverviewofthemethodology.
Chapter2investigateshowenvironmentaleffectspertainingtoclimatearecapturedinMEPDG.
Itspecificallylooksathowthevariousclimaticfactorsareincorporatedinthedesignprocess
andhowtheseaffecttheoverallperformanceofeachpavementtype.Thescienceofclimate
changeispresentedinChapter3andtheknowledgeestablishedsofarbyleadingresearch
institutionsistabulated.MAGICC/SCENGENisalsointroducedinthischapter.Additionally,the
processbywhichitcanbeusedtoexploreuncertaintiesrelatedtopotentialclimatechangeis
demonstrated.Chapter4looksathowclimaticfactorsandtheirrelateduncertainty,as
discussedinChapter3,areemployedintheMEPDGsoftware.Thechapteralsoshowshow
pavementperformanceisachievedinMEPDGusingdistresspredictionmodelsandhowthese
canbecalibratedtosuitlocalconditionsinwhichthedifferentpavementtypescanbefound.A
casestudyisusedinChapter5toillustratetheprocessbywhichthevariousstagesofthe
researchareputtogethertodetermineindepththeimplicationsofclimatechangeon
pavementdesign.ConclusionsandrecommendationsarepresentedinChapter6.
Appendicesdocumentmodelinputsandcomprehensiveresults.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page20

Variabilitylevel

Emissionmodel

Analysisyear

Selecttestsite
Otherinputs:
traffic,materials,
structures

MAGICC
MEPDGdesigninputs
Globalmean
temperatureandsea
leveloutputs

Generalcirculation
models(GCMs)

Climaticinputs

Afterclimate
changescenarios

Historicaldata:
FromMEPDG

MEPDGanalysis
andperformance
predictions

MEPDGanalysis
andperformance
predictions

SCENGEN
Regionalclimate
changeoutputs

Comparison
analysisatvarious
variabilitylevels

Significant
differencein
prediction?

Sensitivity
analysisofthe
coefficients

Adjust
coefficients

N
Finalcalibration
coefficientsto
adaptclimate
changein
pavementdesign

Figure1.2Flowchartrepresentingthemethodology
UDUTCFinalReport

Page21

2. EnvironmentalEffectsintheMechanisticEmpirical
PavementDesignGuide(MEPDG)
Introduction
Apavementmustbeabletofunctionandperformeffectivelywithintheenvironmentinwhich
itisbuilt.Theenvironmentvariesacrosstheglobeatanyonetimeanditcanalsovarygreatly
acrosstimeatanyoneplace.Environmentalvariationscanhaveasignificantimpacton
pavementmaterialsandtheunderlyingsubgrade,whichinturncandrasticallyaffectpavement
performance.Certainlyeveryenvironmentalconstituent(e.g.,solarflux,heat,wind,humidity,
etc.)canhaveanincrementaleffectonpavement.However,thereareseveralconstituentsthat
exertanoverridinginfluence.Thesevariablesaretemperature,precipitation,andfreeze/thaw
cycles.Eachvariableisbrieflydescribedintermsofthedamagecaused.
Temperature
Temperaturevariationscancauseseverepavementdamageduetoexpansion,contractionand
(inthecaseofrigidpavements)slabcurling.Smallamountsofexpansionandcontractionare
typicallyaccommodatedwithoutexcessivedamage,howeverextremetemperaturevariations
canleadtocatastrophicfailures.Flexibleandrigidpavementscansufferlargetransversecracks
asaresultofexcessivecontractionincoldweather.
Theeffectoftemperatureonasphaltpavementsisdifferentfromthatofconcretepavements.
Temperatureaffectstheresilientmodulusofasphaltlayers,whileitinducescurlingofconcrete
slab.Inrigidpavements,duetodifferencesintemperaturebetweenthetopandbottomof
slab,temperaturestressesorfrictionalstressesaredeveloped.Whileinflexiblepavement,
dynamicmodulusofasphalticconcretevarieswithtemperature.Rigidpavementsarealso
pronetoslabbucklingasaresultofexcessiveexpansioninhotweatherandflexiblepavement
pronetoruttingduetochannelizedtrafficandhightemperature.
Precipitation
Thequantityandintensityofprecipitation,intheformofrainandsnow,affectsthequantityof
surfacewaterinfiltratingintothesubgradeandthedepthofgroundwatertable.Poordrainage
mayreduceshearstrength,orcausepumpingorlossofsupport.Moisture(intheformof
accumulatedwaterorrainfall)affectspavementsinseveralphasesofthepavementlifecycle:

Design.Certaintypesofsoilscanbehighlyexpansivewhenwet.Structural
designmustaccountforthisexpansiveness.

Construction.
o Subgradeshouldbecompactedatoptimalmoisturecontent.Excessive
rainfallcanraisesubgrademoisturecontentwellbeyondthisvalueand
makeitvirtuallyimpossibletocompact.
o Hotmixasphalt(HMA)andPortlandcementconcrete(PCC)shouldnot

UDUTCFinalReport

Page22

beplacedinwetconditions.

DrivingConditions.Rainfallreducesskidresistanceandcancausehydroplaning
inseverelyruttedareasorotherareaswherewaterpondsontheroadsurface.

Freeze/Thaw
Frostactionisacriticalpavementstructuraldesignconcerninpartsofthecountrythat
regularlyexperiencegroundfreezing.Therearetwobasictypesoffrostactionwithwhichto
contend:

Frostheave:Anupwardmovementofthesubgraderesultingfromtheexpansion
ofaccumulatedsoilmoistureasitfreezes.Frostheavingofsoiliscausedby
crystallizationoficewithinthelargersoilvoidsandusuallyasubsequent
extensiontoformcontinuousicelenses,layers,veins,orothericemasses.An
icelensgrowsthroughcapillaryriseandthickensinthedirectionofheattransfer
untilthewatersupplyisdepletedoruntilfreezingconditionsattheinterfaceno
longersupportfurthercrystallization.Astheicelensgrows,theoverlyingsoil
andpavementwillheaveup,potentiallyresultinginacracked,rough
pavement.Thisproblemoccursprimarilyinsoilscontainingfineparticles(often
termedfrostsusceptiblesoils),whilecleansandsandgravels(smallamounts
offineparticles)arenonfrostsusceptible(NFS).Thethreeelementsnecessary
foricelensesandthusfrostheaveare:

Frostsusceptiblesoil(significantamountoffines).

Subfreezingtemperatures(freezingtemperaturesmustpenetratethesoil
and,ingeneral,thethicknessofanicelenswillbethickerwithslowerrates
offreezing).

Water(mustbepresent,eitherfromthegroundwatertable,infiltration,an
aquifer,orheldwithinthevoidsoffinegrainedsoil).

Frostheavecausesdifferentialsettlementsandpavementroughness.

Thawweakening:Aweakenedsubgradeconditionresultingfromsoilsaturation
asicewithinthesoilmelts.Thawingisessentiallythemeltingoficecontained
withinthesubgrade.Astheicemeltsandturnstoliquiditcannotdrainoutof
thesoilfastenoughandthusthesubgradebecomessubstantiallyweaker(less
stiff)andtendstolosebearingcapacity.Therefore,loadingthatwouldnot
normallydamageagivenpavementmaybequitedetrimentalduringthaw
periods(e.g.,springthaw).

ClimaticInputsinMEPDG
Changingtemperatureandmoistureprofilesinthepavementstructureandsubgradeoverthe
designlifeofapavementareconsideredinMEPDGthroughtheEnhancedIntegratedClimatic
Model(EICM).TheEICMisaonedimensionalcoupledheatandmoistureflowprogramthat
UDUTCFinalReport

Page23

simulateschangesinthebehaviorandcharacteristicsofpavementandsubgradematerialsin
conjunctionwithclimaticconditionsoverseveralyearsofoperation.Itisfullylinkedtothe
MEPDGsoftwareandinternallyperformsallthenecessarycomputations.Theuserinputstothe
EICMareenteredthroughinterfacesprovidedaspartoftheMEPDGsoftware.TheEICM
processestheseinputsandfeedsitsoutputstothethreemajorcomponentsoftheMEPDG
frameworkmaterials,structuralresponses,andperformanceprediction.Thefollowing
informationthroughouttheentirepavement/subgradeprofilearepredicted:temperature,
resilientmodulusadjustmentfactors,porewaterpressure,watercontent,frostandthaw
depths,frostheave,anddrainageperformance(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc,2004a).
Theinputsrequiredbytheclimaticmodelfallunderthefollowingbroadcategories:

Generalinformation

Weatherrelatedinformation

Groundwaterrelatedinformation

Drainageandsurfaceproperties

Pavementstructureandmaterials

TheuseofthenewThornthwaiteMoistureIndex(TMI)modelintheMEPDGsoftwaremakes
theentryofdrainagepathandinfiltrationunnecessary.Thepavementstructureandmaterials
relateddataareoutofthescopeandexcludedfromthisstudy.
GeneralInformation
Thegeneralinformation,suchaspavementstructure,constructiondates,trafficopeningtime,
isrequiredtoinitializethemoisturemodelintheEICM.Underthiscategory,thefollowing
inputsspecificallyrelatetotheclimaticmodel:

Base/SubgradeConstructionCompletionMonthandYear.

ExistingPavementConstructionMonthandYear.

PavementConstructionMonthandYear

TrafficOpeningMonthandYear

WeatherRelatedDataInput
Toaccomplishtheclimaticanalysisrequiredforincrementaldamageaccumulation,MEPDG
requiresfiveweatherrelatedparametersonanhourlybasisovertheentiredesignlifeforthe
designproject(21):

Hourlyairtemperature

Hourlyprecipitation

Hourlywindspeed

Hourlypercentagesunshine(usedtodefinecloudcover)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page24

Hourlyrelativehumidity

InMEPDG,theweatherrelatedinformationisprimarilyobtainedfromweatherstationslocated
neartheprojectsite.TheMEPDGsoftwareprovidesover800weatherstationscontaining
hourlydataacrosstheUnitedStatesfromtheNationalClimaticDataCenter(NCDC)database.
AllthedatasetsforeachstationaresavedinafilewithHCDextensionandcanbedownloaded
fromthewebsiteforNCHRP137Aproject(http://www.trb.org/mepdg)(TRB,2011).Inthe
MEPDGreport,itstatesthatseveralofthemajorweatherstationshaveapproximately60to
66monthsofclimaticdataateachtimestep(1hour)neededbytheEICM.Otherweather
stationscouldhavelessthanthisamountofdata,however,theDesignGuidesoftwarerequires
atleast24monthsofactualweatherstationdataforcomputationalpurposes(Applied
ResearchAssociatesInc,2004a).Theclimaticdatabasecanbetappedintobysimplyspecifying
thelatitude,longitude,andelevationoftheprojectsiteinMEPDGsoftware.Oncetheglobal
positioningsystem(GPS)coordinatesandelevationarespecifiedforthedesignprojectsite,the
MEPDGsoftwarehighlightsthesixclosestweatherstationstothesitefromwhichtheusermay
selectanynumberofstationstogenerateavirtualprojectweatherstation.Afterselectingthe
climatestationsandinputtingthewatertabledepthforthedesign,clickgeneratebuttonand
alltheclimaticdatasetsrequiredaresavedinafilewithanicmextensionthroughtheEICM
numericalengine.TheclimategeneratingscreenwindowisshowninFigure2.1.

Figure2.1ClimaticGeneratingWindowinMEPDG
UDUTCFinalReport

Page25

Intheclimatedatagenerationprocess,therearethreetypesoffilesthatareusedbytheEICM
numericalengineintheMEPDGsoftware:icmfile,hcdfile,andstation.datfileAsshown
above,icmfilesaregeneratedfromhcdfilesandstation.datfile.Eachfilehasitsunique
fileformat,whichisdocumentedinAppendixA.
GroundwaterTableDepthInput
Thegroundwatertabledepth,intendedtobeeitherthebestestimateoftheannualaverage
depthortheseasonalaveragedepth,isanotherimportantparameterneededtobeinputto
theMEPDGsoftware.AtinputLevel1,itcouldbedeterminedfromprofilecharacterization
boringspriortodesign.AtinputLevel3,anestimateoftheannualaveragevalueorthe
seasonalaveragescanbeprovided,suchasusingthedataproducedbytheUnitedStates
GeologicalSurvey(USGS).

MajorOutputsoftheEICM
TheoutputoftheEICMcanbedescribedontwofrontsinternalandexternal.Bothformsof
outputsoftheEICMaretransparenttotheuserwiththedifferencebeingthattheinternal
outputsarenotpassedontoothercomponentsoftheDesignGuidesoftware(e.g.,structural
responsecalculationmoduleortheperformancepredictionmodule),whiletheexternal
outputsare.However,theuserhasfullcontrolovertheinputsthatdriveboththeseoutputs
(e.g.,watertabledepths,climaticinformationfortheprojectsite).
RegardingtheinternaloutputoftheEICM,thecomputationalengineoftheEICMdetermines
valuesofvolumetricwatercontent,w,andtemperatureateachnodeovertimebasedon
abovementionedclimaticinput.Thevaluesofw aredividedbythesaturatedvolumetricwater
contents,sat,togetvaluesofdegreeofsaturation,S.Withnooscillationsintheinput
groundwatertableandnocracksintheAClayer,valuesofS areessentiallyvaluesatastateof
equilibrium,Sequil,unlessfreezingorthawrecoveryisinprogress.ValuesofSequil,togetherwith
valuesofdegreeofsaturationatoptimumconditions,Sopt,arethenusedtocomputethe
unboundlayermodulusadjustmentfactorforunfrozenconditions,FU,ateachnode.The
outputtemperaturesareusedtosignalfreezingatanodeandanadjustmentfactorforfrozen
condition,FF,iscomputedateachfreezingnode.Thawingnormallyfollowsfreezing,as
signaledbytheriseintemperatureabovethefreezingpoint.Duringtherecoveryperiod,
materialtype/propertiesareusedtocomputetherecoveryratio,RR,atrecoveringnodes.
TheseRR values,togetherwithreductionfactorsduetothawing,RF,areusedtocomputeand
adjustmentfactorforrecoveringconditions,FR,ateachrecoveringnode.
TheexternalEICMoutputsfeeddirectlyintothematerialscharacterization,structuralresponse
computation,andperformancepredictionmodulesoftheMEPDGsoftware,includingthe
following:

UnboundmaterialMR adjustmentfactorasfunctionofpositionandtimevalues
ofcompositeenvironmentaleffectsadjustmentfactor,Fenv,arecomputedfor
everysublayerfromthevaluesofFF, FR,orFU ateachnode.Thesublayeringis
internallydefinedbytheEICMandisafunctionofthefrostpenetrationdepth,

UDUTCFinalReport

Page26

amongotherfactors.TheseFenv factorsaresentforwardtostructuralanalysis
modulesoftheMEPDGsoftware.

Temperaturesatthesurfaceandatthemidpointofeachasphaltbound
sublayerthesevaluesaresubjectedtostatisticalcharacterizationforevery
analysisperiod.Themean,standarddeviation,andquintilepointsaresent
forwardforuseinthefatigueandpermanentdeformationpredictionmodels.

Valuesofhourlytemperatureatthesurfaceandatasetdepthincrement(every
inch)withintheboundlayersforuseinthethermalcrackingmodel.

Volumetricmoisturecontentanaveragevalueforeachsublayerisreportedfor
useinthepermanentdeformationmodelfortheunboundmaterials.

TemperatureprofileinthePCChourlyvaluesaregeneratedforuseinthe
crackingandfaultingmodelsforJPCPandCRCPpavements.

NumberoffreezethawcyclesandfreezingindexarecomputedforuseinJPCP
performanceprediction.

RelativehumidityvaluesforeachmontharegeneratedforuseintheJPCPand
CRCPmodelingofmoisturegradientsthroughtheslab.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page27

3. ClimateChangeandVariability
Introduction
Theworldsleadingclimatescientistshavereachedconsensusthathumanactivityintheform
ofgreenhousegas(GHG)emissionsiswarmingtheplanetinwaysthatwillhaveprofoundand
unsettlingimpactsonnaturalresources,energyuse,ecosystems,economicactivity,and
potentiallyqualityoflife.Manystudieshavealreadyexaminedthepotentialimpactsofclimate
changeonbroadsectorsoftheeconomy,suchasagricultureandforestry,butfewhavestudied
theimpactsontransportation(TransportationResearchBoard,2008,Walther,2002,Kheshgil
etal,2000).
Transportationinfrastructuresystemsaredesignedfortypicalweatherpatterns,takinginto
considerationlocalclimateandmakingprojectionsbasedonitshistorywithinthelocality.
Shouldanyprofoundfutureclimatechangeoccur,transportationwillbeprimarilyaffected
throughincreasesinseveraltypesofweatherandclimateextremes,suchasveryhotdays;
intenseprecipitationevents;intensehurricanes;drought;andrisingsealevels,coupledwith
stormsurgesandlandsubsidence(TransportationResearchBoard,2008).Theimpactswillvary
bytransportationmodeandregionofthecountry,buttheywillbewidespreadandcostlyin
bothhumanandeconomictermsandwillrequiresignificantchangesineveryfacetofthe
provisionoftransportationinfrastructure.

IPCCSpecialReportEmissionsScenarios
Greenhousegasemissionsfromanthropogenicsourceshavebeenassociatedwithchanging
globalclimatictrendsandhavebeenincreasingsteadilyoverthepastfewdecades(10).
EstimatesoffutureGHGemissionlevelsbeginwithidentifyingarangeofpossiblefuture
scenariosthatrelatetosuchfeaturesaspopulationandeconomicgrowth,andtypeofpower
generation.ThescenariosusedinthisresearchwereadoptedfromtheIPCCSpecialReporton
EmissionsScenarios(SRES)(IPCC,2011).TherearesixSRESscenariosbeingwidelyusedbased
onfourfamilies:

TheA1scenariofamilydescribesafutureworldofveryrapideconomicgrowth,
globalpopulationthatpeaksinmidcenturyanddeclinesthereafter,andtherapid
introductionofnewandmoreefficienttechnologies.TheA1scenariofamily
developsintothreegroupsthatdescribealternativedirectionsoftechnological
changeintheenergysystem:fossilintensive(A1FI),nonfossilenergysources(A1T),
orabalanceacrossallsources(A1B).

TheA2scenariofamilydescribesaveryheterogeneousworld.Theunderlyingtheme
isselfrelianceandpreservationoflocalidentities.Economicdevelopmentis
primarilyregionallyorientedandpercapitaeconomicgrowthandtechnological
changearemorefragmentedandslowerthaninotherscenarios.

TheB1scenariofamilydescribesaconvergentworldwiththesameglobal
populationthatpeaksinmidcenturyanddeclinesthereafter,asintheA1storyline,

UDUTCFinalReport

Page28

butwithrapidchangesineconomicstructurestowardaserviceandinformation
economy,withreductionsinmaterialintensity,andtheintroductionofcleanand
resourceefficienttechnologies.Theemphasisisonglobalsolutionstoeconomic,
social,andenvironmentalsustainability.

TheB2scenariofamilydescribesaworldinwhichtheemphasisisonlocalsolutions
toeconomic,social,andenvironmentalsustainability.Itisaworldwithcontinuously
increasingglobalpopulationataratelowerthanA2,intermediatelevelsof
economicdevelopment,andlessrapidandmorediversetechnologicalchangethan
intheB1andA1scenarios.

ClimateChangeVariability
Thereisbroadconsensusthatanthropogenicwarmingisoccurring.However,theobvious
limitationstoperformingscientificexperimentsontheglobalclimatesystemanditsextremely
complicatednaturerenderourunderstandingincomplete.The2007IPCCreportonthephysical
sciencebasisofclimatechangeincludesmanymodelswhichshowthewiderangeof
temperatureincreasepredictions(IPCC,2007b).Figure3.1givesasenseoftheuncertainties
involvedinclimatechangemodelingforthe10models(Andronova,2001;Annan,2005;Forest,
2002;Forest,2006;Forster,2006;Frame,2005;Gregory,2002;Hegerl,2006;Knutti,
2002;Schneider,2006ascitedinIPCC,2007b).Eachmodelattemptstotakewhatweknow
abouttheclimatesystemanddeterminetheprobabilitythattheclimatewillstabilizewitha
globalmeantemperatureincreasefrom010C.Whilethereisbroadagreementacrossthe
modelsthattemperatureincreaseswilloccur,thedistributionsvaryconsiderably.

TemperatureChange(oC)

TemperatureChange(oC)

a)Probabilityofequilibriumtemperaturechange(climatesensitivity)indifferentclimatemodels.
b)Confidenceinterval(5%95%)fortemperaturechangeCirclesrepresentthemediantemperatureandtriangles
themaximumprobability.

Figure3.1ProbabilitiesofEquilibriumTemperatureIncreasesinSampleofDifferentClimate
Models(ascitedinIPCC,2007b)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page29

Asaresult,thereareamyriadofuncertaintiesindividualsconfrontwhenmakingdecisionsthat
affect,orareaffectedbyclimatechange.Ingeneral,therearethreefundamentalsourcesof
uncertaintytobeaddressed:
1. Greenhouseandothergasemissions:Variousemissionmodelshavebeen
developedworldwidebutpredictionsvarysignificantly.Forexample,theIPCC
SRESmodelsprojectaverywiderangeofemissionsofkeygreenhousegases
(GHG);
2. Climatesensitivity:Climatesensitivityisameasureofhowresponsivethe
temperatureoftheclimatesystemistochangeintheradiativeforcing.Itis
usuallyexpressedasthetemperaturechangeassociatedwithadoublingofthe
concentrationofCO2intheearthsatmosphere.Howmuchglobalmean
temperature(GMT)willwarmforaCO2doublinghasnotbeenfullyunderstood;
3. Patternofregionalchange:Thisthirdsourceofuncertaintyconcernsrelative
regionalchanges.Someareaswillwarmmorethanothersandsomeareaswill
receiveincreasedprecipitationwhileothersfacedecreasesinprecipitation.
Quantifyinguncertaintyischallenging.Thereareaspectsofclimatechangeaboutwhichweare
almostcertain(thephysicalchemistry),andareasinwhichuncertaintyissignificant(e.g.the
effectofclouds,theocean,theresponseofbiologicalprocesses,climatechangemitigation).As
aresult,variousapproachesmaybeadoptedtocharacterizetheuncertainty.Thesimplestbut
widelyusedapproachistoassumetheclimaticparametersaresubjecttonormaldistributions.
Forexample,foratemperaturerecordthatisstationary,thedistributionisassumedtobe
normal(thebellcurve)andcharacterizedbytwostatisticalparameters,themeanand
variance.Iftheclimatechangeundergoesawarmingwithoutanychangeinthevariancethen
thewholebellcurvemovessideways.Theconsequenceofashifttoahighermeanisthatthere
arefewercolddaysandmorehotdays,andahigherprobabilitythatpreviousrecordhigh
temperatureswillbeexceeded.Ifhowever,thereisanincreaseinvariancebutnochangein
themeanthebellcurvebecomesfatterandlower.Theconsequenceisthattherearecooler
andhotterdaysandahighprobabilitythatpreviousrecordsforboththecoldestandhottest
dayswillbebroken.Ifboththemeanandthevarianceincreasethenthebellcurveshifts
sidewaysandbecomeslowerandfatter.Theeffectisforrelativelylittlechangeinthe
frequencyofcoldweatherortheoccurrenceofextremelowtemperatures,butabigincreasein
hotweatherandpreviousrecordhightemperaturesbeingexceededfarmoreoften.Thethree
combinationsofthemeanchangingovertimeandthevariancearoundthemeanareshownin
Figure3.2.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page30

Figure3.2ClimateChangeUncertainties

UDUTCFinalReport

Page31

MAGICC/SCENGENSoftware
MAGICCandSCENGENareasuiteofmodelsthatdeterminetheregionaldetailsoffuture
climaticchangeforspecifiedemissionsscenarios,togetherwithestimatesoftheiruncertainties
(Wigley,2008).Itisacoupledgascycle/climatemodel(MAGICC;ModelfortheAssessmentof
GreenhousegasInducedClimateChange)thatdrivesaspatialclimatechangeSCENario
GENerator(SCENGEN).AflowchartdescribinghowMAGICC/SCENGENisconfiguredasshown
inFigure3.3.
MAGICChasbeenoneoftheprimarymodelsusedbyIPCCsince1990toproduceprojectionsof
futureglobalmeantemperatureandsealevelrise.TheclimatemodelinMAGICCisan
upwellingdiffusion,energybalancemodelthatproducesglobalandhemisphericmean
temperatureoutputtogetherwithresultsforoceanicthermalexpansion.TheMAGICCclimate
modeliscoupledinteractivelywitharangeofgascyclemodelsthatgiveprojectionsforthe
concentrationsofthekeygreenhousegases.Climatefeedbacksonthecarboncycleare
thereforeaccountedfor.Theyears1990and2100arethedefaultstartandendoutputyears
usedbythesoftware,buttheycanbechangedbytheuser.ThemainaimsofMAGICCare:

Tocomparetheglobalmeantemperatureandsealevelimplicationsoftwo
differentemissionsscenarios.Forconvenience,MAGICCreferstotheseasa
"Reference"scenarioanda"Policy"scenario.However,anytwoscenariosmay
becompared.

Todeterminethesensitivityofthetemperatureandsealevelresultsforany
chosenemissionsscenariotochangesinanduncertaintiesinmodelparameters,
suchastheclimatesensitivity.Basicuncertaintyrangesanda"bestestimate"
resultarecalculatedbydefault.Inaddition,theusermayselectasetofmodel
parametersthatdiffersfromthebestestimatesettoexamineuncertainties
associatedwithmodelparameteruncertaintiesinmoredetail.

GlobalmeantemperaturesfromMAGICCareusedtodriveSCENGEN.SCENGENusesaversion
ofthepatternscalingmethoddescribedinSanteretal.(1990)toproducespatialpatternsof
changefromadatabaseofatmosphere/oceanglobalclimatemodel(AOGCM).Thepattern
scalingmethodisbasedontheseparationoftheglobalmeanandspatialpatterncomponents
offutureclimatechange,andthefurtherseparationofthelatterintogreenhousegasand
aerosolcomponents.Spa alpa ernsinthedatabasearenormalizedandexpressedas
changesper10Cchangeinglobalmeantemperature.Thesenormalizedgreenhousegasand
aerosolcomponentsareappropriatelyweighted,added,andscaleduptotheglobalmean
temperaturedefinedbyMAGICCforagivenyear,emissionsscenarioandsetofclimatemodel
parameters.FortheSCENGENscalingcomponent,theusercanselectfromanumberof
differentAOGCMsforthepatternsofgreenhousegasinducedclimate.
Projectionsofabsolute(ratherthanrelative)futureclimateconditionsforanyfuturedate
coveredbytheinputemissionsdatacanbeobtainedaswell.Toproducetheseprojections,
SCENGENaddstheclimatechangeinformationtoobservedbaselineclimatedata(198099
means).Theseresultsaregivenasarrayfilesonastandard2.5x2.5degreelatitude/longitude
gridanddisplayedasmaps.
UDUTCFinalReport
Page32

Userchoicesintheproductionofsuchfutureclimateorclimatechangescenariosare:afuture
date;aclimatevariable(temperature,precipitationorMeanSeaLevelPressure(MSLP));either
aspecificmonthorseasonortheannualmean;andoneormoreoftheAOGCMsinSCENGEN's
libraryofmodelresults.Climatechangefieldsareconstructedusingapatternscalingmethod.
Beyondsimpleclimatechangescenarioconstruction(i.e.,changesinthemeanclimatestate),
SCENGENproducesspatialpatternresultsfor:changesininterannualvariability;twodifferent
formsofsignaltonoiseratio(toassessthesignificanceofchanges);probabilisticoutput(the
defaultbeingtheprobabilityofanincreaseinthechosenclimatevariable);andawiderangeof
modelvalidationstatisticsforindividualmodelsorcombinationsofmodelstoassistinthe
selectionofmodelsforscenariodevelopment.
Ascanbeseen,thetoolMAGICC/SCENGENcanbeusedtoaddressthethreeuncertaintiesand
allowsuserstoexplore:

GHGemissionscenarios,thusaddressinguncertainty#1;

Climatemodeluncertainties,includingclimatesensitivity,aerosolfeedbacks,
carboncycle,thermohalinecirculation,andicemelt,thusaddressinguncertainty
#2;

SCENGENusestheregionalpatternofrelativechangesacross20General
CirculationModels(GCMs)toaverageregionalGCMsoutputsbecauseitcontrols
fordifferencesinclimatesensitivityacrossmodels.Asaresult,thethird
variabilityisaddressed.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page33

Figure3.3StructureoftheMAGICC/SCENGENSoftware(Wigley,2008)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page34

4. IncorporatingClimateChangeintotheMEPavement
Design
Introduction
MEPDGislargelybasedonmechanisticengineeringprinciplesthatprovideafundamentalbasis
forthestructuraldesignofpavementstructures.Thedesignprocedureswerecalibratedusing
historicalclimatedata(withoutconsideringthepotentialofclimatechange),designinputsand
performancedatalargelyfromthenationalLTPPdatabase.Whateverbiasincludedinthis
calibrationdataisnaturallyincorporatedintothedistresspredictionmodels.Becauseofthe
differencesbetweennationalconditionsandlocalconditionssuchasclimate,material
properties,trafficpatterns,constructionandmanagementtechniques,thenationalcalibration
maynotbeentirelyadequateforspecificregionsofthecountrythusamorelocalorregional
calibrationandvalidationareneededforlocalconditions.Inaddition,thedistressmechanisms
arefarmorecomplexthancanbepracticallymodeled;therefore,theuseofempiricalfactors
andcalibrationisnecessarytoobtainrealisticperformancepredictions.

PavementPerformancePredictioninMEPDG
Pavementperformanceisprimarilyconcernedwithfunctionalandstructuralperformance.The
structuralperformanceofapavementrelatestoitsphysicalcondition(suchasfatiguecracking
andruttingforflexiblepavements,andjointfaultingandslabcrackingforrigidjointed
pavements).Severalofthesekeydistresstypescanbepredicteddirectlyusingmechanistic
conceptsandareconsideredinthedesignprocess.
Ridequalityisthedominantcharacteristicoffunctionalperformance,asmeasuredbythe
InternationalRoughnessIndex(IRI).InMEPDG,IRIisestimatedincrementallyovertheentire
designperiodbyincorporatingdistressessuchascracking,rutting,faulting,andpunchoutsas
majorfactorsinfluencingthelossofsmoothnessofapavement.Thegeneralhypothesisof
smoothnessmodelsisthatthevariousdistressesresultinginsignificantchangesinsmoothness
arerepresentedbyseparatecomponentswithintheMEPDGmodels,asshowninEquation4.1
(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc,2004b).

S (t )=S0 (a1 S D (t )1 an S D (t )n ) b j S j c j M j

(Eqn.4.1)

WhereS(t)denotespavementsmoothnessataspecifictimet;S0initialsmoothness
immediatelyafterconstruction;SD(t)(i=1ton)changeofsmoothnessduetotheithdistressata
giventimetintheanalysisperiod;a(i=1,,n),bj,cjareregressioncoefficients;Sjchangein
smoothnessduetositefactors(subgradeandage);Mjchangeinsmoothnessdueto
maintenanceactivities.
Thefollowingsectionexaminesthedifferentperformancemodelsasusedinthisresearchin
detail.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page35

FlexiblePavementPerformanceModels
Performancemodelsforflexiblepavementswereusedinanalyzingthefollowingdistresses:
rutting,bottomupcrackingandroughness.InMEPDG,ruttingisdefinedasaloadassociated
distressinflexiblepavementsystemsnormallyappearingaslongitudinaldepressionsinwheel
pathsaccompaniedbysmallupheavalstothesides(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc,2004c).
Thewidthanddepthofaruttingprofileishighlydependentonthepavementstructure(layer
thicknessandquality),trafficmatrixandquantityandtheenvironmentalconditionsatthe
designsite.Ruttingresultsfromdensificationandpermanentdeformationunderloads
combinedwithdisplacementofpavementmaterials(Millsetal,2007).Pavementsafflictedby
ruttingposeassafetyconcernsbymodifyingdrainagecharacteristicsoftheroadway,thereby
contributingtovehicleaquaplaningandreducingskidresistance.Ruttingalsoreducesriding
qualityoftheroadway.
Ruttingcanoccurinalllayersofapavementsystemanddesignersmodeltotalpermanent
deformationasaproductofcumulativerutsinalllayers.ForMEPDG,apredictiverutting
systemwasdevelopedtoevaluatepermanentdeformationinallrutsusceptiblelayerswithin
thepavementstructure.Layersgenerallyanalyzedforruttingaretheasphalticlayerandall
unboundmateriallayers.Consideringthedifferentlayers,thefieldcalibratedruttingmodel
usedintheDesignGuideforasphalticmixturesisgivenas:
10

(Eqn.4.2)

Where , , =Calibrationfactorsfortheasphaltmixturesrutmodel. =
Accumulatedpermanentstrain. =Resilientstrain.T=Mixtemperature(degF).N=Number
ofloadrepetitions.
Thebasicrelationshipusedforcharacterizingpermanentdeformationinunboundlayersas
statedintheDesignGuideisgivenas:
N

Eqn. 4.3

Where =Permanentdeformationforthelayer/sublayer.N=Numberoftrafficrepetitions.
, , =Materialproperties. =Resilientstrainimposedinlaboratorytesttoobtain
materialproperties, , , . =Averageverticalresilientstraininthelayer/sublayeras
obtainedfromtheprimaryresponsemodel.h=Thicknessoflayer/sublayer. =Calibration
factorfortheunboundgranularandsubgradematerials.
Individualandcumulativerutdepthsarefoundasafunctionoftimeandtrafficrepetitions.
Damageinducedbyruttingisestimatedforeachsubseasonatthemiddepthofeachsublayer
withinthepavementandtheplasticstrainaccumulatediscomputedattheendofeachsub
season.Theoverallpermanentdeformationattheendoftheseasonisgivenby
PD

Eqn. 4.4

UDUTCFinalReport

Page36

WherePD=pavementpermanentdeformation.nsublayers=numberofsublayers. =Total
plasticstraininsublayeri.h =Thicknessofsublayeri.Theprocessisrepeatedforeachload
level,monthandsubseasonoftheanalysisperiod.
Fatiguecracksareaseriesofinterconnectedcrackscausedbyfatiguefailureoftheasphaltic
surface(orstabilizedbase)byrepeatedloading(32).Theactionofrepeatedortrafficloads
inducestensileandshearstressesinlayersandcausefatiguecrackstoinitiateatpointswhere
thesecriticalstrainsandstressesoccur.Themostimportantfactorsinthelocationofcritical
strainsorstressesarethelayerstiffnessandtheloadconfiguration(AppliedResearch
AssociatesInc.,2004d).Themorecommonformoffatiguecrackinginitiatesatthebottomof
theasphalticlayerandpropagatesuptothesurface.Thisphenomenonisknownasbottomup
cracking.Amorerecentformoffatiguecracking,topdowncracking,whichstartsfromthe
surfaceandpropagatesdownwards,hasalsobeenobservedandisundergoingfurther
research.Assuch,onlybottomupcrackingisanalyzedinthisstudy.Fatiguecrackingleadstoa
lossinthestructuralintegrityoftheflexiblepavementandreducesitoverallserviceability.
Cracksallowwater,typicallyrunoff,toseepintothepavementstructureandweaken
underlyinglayers.Fatiguecrackscanalsocontributetotheformationofotherdistressessuch
asroughness.ThemostcommonlyusedfatiguemodelsarethosedevelopedbyShellOil
(Bonnaureetal,1980)andtheAsphaltInstitute(AsphaltInstitute,1982).Theoverallgeneral
formofthesetwomodelsisgovernedbyamathematicalrelationshipgivenas:
N

Ck

Eqn. 4.5

WhereN =Numberofrepetitionstofatiguecracking. =Tensilestrainatthecritical

location.E=Stiffnessofthematerial.k , k , k =Laboratoryregressioncoefficients.C=
Laboratorytofieldadjustmentfactor
Thedifferencesbetweenthetwomodelslieinthelaboratoryregressioncoefficientsandthe
laboratorytofieldadjustmentfactor.InMEPDG,fatiguecrackingpredictionwasachievedby
focusingonthesetwomodels.ThemodifiedmodelusedintheDesignGuidetocalibrate
fatiguecrackingtoactualfieldperformanceisrepresentedbytherelationship:
N

0.00432

10

Eqn. 4.7

4.84

0.69

Eqn. 4.6

Eqn. 4.8

WhereV =effectivebindercontent(%).V =airvoids(%). , , =Calibration

parameters.
InMEPDG,thechosenfunctionalperformanceindicatorispavementsmoothnessasindicated
bytheInternationalRoughnessIndex(IRI)(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.,2004).The
AmericanSocietyofTestingandMaterialsdefinesroughnessasthedeviationfromatrue
planarsurfacewithcharacteristicdimensionsthataffectsvehicledynamics,ridequality,
UDUTCFinalReport

Page37

dynamicloads,anddrainage(AmericanSocietyofTestingMaterials,2006).Roadroughnesshas
anappreciableimpactonvehicleoperatingcostsandonthesafety,comfort,andspeedof
travel.Italsoincreasesthedynamicloadingimposedbyvehiclesonthesurface,accelerating
thedeteriorationofthepavementstructure.Roughnesscanalsohaveadverseeffectson
drainage,causingwatertopondonthesurface,withsubsequentimpactsonboththe
performanceofthepavementandvehiclesafety(Salehetal,2000).InternationalRoughness
Index(IRI)isthewidelyacceptedstandardformeasuringroadroughness.Researchhasshown
IRIissignificantlyaffectedbydistressessuchasrutting,fatiguecracking,potholes,depressions
andswellingscausedbysoilmovements.OtherfactorsthataffectIRIaredesign,siteand
climaticparametersaswellastheinitialasconstructedIRIofthepavement(AppliedResearch
AssociatesInc,2004b).TheapproachutilizedintheDesignGuideforpredictingroughnesswas
topredictitovertimeasafunctionoftheinitialIRIandkeydistresstypes.Thebasicdesign
premisefortheDesignGuidewasthatincrementalincreasesinsurfacedistresscause
incrementalincreasesinsurfaceroughness.Usingbasetype,threeequationsweredeveloped
fornewflexiblepavementsandtheseareshownbelow:
ForConventionalFlexiblePavementwithThickGranularBase:
IRI
IRI

0.0463 SF e

0.00119 TC

0.00155 LC

0.00736 BC

0.1834 COV

0.00384 FC

Eqn. 4.9

WhereIRI =IRImeasuredwithinsixmonthsafterconstruction,m/km. TC =Totallength

oftransversecracks(low,medium,andhighseveritylevels),m/km. COV =Rutdepth
coefficientofvariation,percent. FC =Totalareaoffatiguecracking(low,medium,andhigh
severitylevels),percentofwheelpatharea,%. BC =Totalareaofblockcracking(low,
medium,andhighseveritylevels),percentoftotallanearea,%. LC
=Mediumand
highseveritysealedlongitudinalcracksoutsidethewheelpath,m/km.Age=Ageafter
construction,years.
.

SF

Eqn. 4.10

WhereR =Standarddeviationinthemonthlyrainfall,mm.R =Averageannualrainfall,mm.

P . =Percentpassingthe0.075mmsieve.P . =Percentpassingthee0.02mmsieve. PI=
Plasticityindex.FI=Averageannualfreezingindex.
ForFlexiblePavementwithAsphaltTreatedBase:
IRI

IRI

0.0099947 Age

0.0005183 FI

0.00235 FC

18.36

0.9694 P Eqn. 4.11

UDUTCFinalReport

Page38

Where TC =Averagespacingofhighseveritytransversecracks,m. P =Areaofhigh

severitypatches,percentoftotallanearea,%.FI=Averageannualfreezingindex.Age=Age
afterconstruction,years.
ForFlexiblePavementwithCementTreatedBase:
IRI IRI
0.00732 FC
0.0002115 LC

0.07647 SD
0.0001449 TC

Eqn. 4.12

0.00842 BC

Where LC
path,m/km. SD

=Mediumandhighseveritysealedlongitudinalcracksoutsidethewheel
=Standarddeviationoftherutdepth,mm.

PavementPerformanceModelsforJPCP
Performanceofjointedplainconcretepavements(JPCP)underdifferentclimatechange
scenarioswasanalyzedusingthefollowingdistressesasbenchmarks:faulting,andtransverse
cracking.Jointfaultingisthedifferenceinelevationbetweenadjacentjointsatatransverse
joint(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc,2004e).Faultingisusuallycausedbypumping,whichis
simplythemovementoferodiblematerialbywaterpressurewithinthepavementstructure
undertheactionofheavyaxleloadsorinadequateloadtransferatthejoints.Thisformsa
buildupofmaterialbeneaththeapproachcornerofaslab,whilstformingavoidunderthelead
corneroftheadjacentslab,therebycreatingdifferentialelevationbetweenthetwoslabs.
Faultingcanalsobecausedbyslabsettlement,curlingandwarping;andisacontributingfactor
ofroughnessinrigidpavements(WSDOT,2011).Informulatingamechanisticempiricalmodel
forfaulting,theDesignGuideexaminedfourmaincomponents:damageduetoaxleload
applications,inadequateloadtransfer,erodibilityofunderlyingmaterialsandthepresenceof
freewater.TheGuidethenusedincrementaldamageaccumulationasitsapproachin
developingthefaultingmodel,whereincrementsareobservedmonthly.Thefaultingateach
monthisdeterminedasasumoffaultingincrementsfromallpreviousmonthsinthepavement
lifesincetrafficopeningusingthismodel:
Fault

Fault

Fault

Eqn. 4.13

FAULTMAX

FAULTMAX

FAULTMAX

FAULTMAX

Fault
C

Log 1

DE
DE
C

Log 1
5

Eqn. 4.14
C

5
Log

Eqn. 4.15

Eqn.

4.16

WhereFault =Meanjointfaultingattheendofmonthm,in.Fault =Incrementalchange

(monthly)inmeantransversejointfaultingduringmonthi,in.FAULTMAX Maximummean
transversejointfaultingformonthi,in.FAULTMAX
Initialmaximummeantransversejoint
faulting,in.EROD=Base/subbaseerodibilityfactor.DE Differentialdeformationenergy
accumulatedduringmonthi.
Maximummeanmonthlyslabcornerupward
UDUTCFinalReport

Page39

deflectionPCCduetotemperaturecurlingandmoisturewarping.P =Overburdenonsubgrade,
lb.P =Percentsubgradepassing#200sieve.WetDays=Averageannualnumberofwetdays
(greaterthan0.1inrainfall).
C

FR

Eqn. 4.17

FR

Eqn. 4.18

WhereFR=Basefreezingindexdefinedaspercentageoftimethetopbasetemperatureis
belowfreezing(32 temp.C throughC arecalibrationconstants
Transversecracking,aprimarystructuralfatiguedistresstypeofJPCP,ischaracterizedbyits
initiationfromonelongitudinaledgeofaconcreteslabfollowedbyadiagonalprogression
acrosstheslabtotheotherlongitudinaljointoratransversejoint(39).Theyareusuallycaused
byacombinationofheavyloadrepetitionsandstressesduetotemperaturegradient,moisture
gradientanddryingshrinkage(Huang,2004).Anothercausecouldbeasaresultofpoor
construction(PapagiannakisandMasad,2008).FortheDesignGuide,themechanisticempirical
predictionfortransversecrackingincludesaniterativedamageaccumulationalgorithmwhere
damageisaccumulatedonamonthlybasisovertheanalysisperiod.Thealgorithmconsidered
truckaxleloadings,thermalgradientsandmoisturegradientsinthedevelopmentofthe
predictionmodel.Assuchtrafficinformation,climaticfactors,designfeaturesandinformation
onmaterialsusedindifferentlayerswithintheJPCPstructureserveasusefulsourcesof
informationfortransversecrackprediction.Theincrementaldamagealgorithmusedinthe
DesignGuideispresentedasfollows:
FD

,, ,, ,
,, ,, ,

Eqn. 4.19

WhereFD=totalfatiguedamage.n , , , =appliednumberofloadapplicationsatcondition
i, j, k, l, m, n.N , , , =allowablenumberofloadapplicationsatconditioni, j, k, l, m, n.i=age
(accountsforchangeinPCCmodulusrapture,layerbondcondition,deteriorationofshoulder
LoadTransferEfficiency).j=month(accountsforchangeinbaseandeffectivedynamic
modulusofsubgradereaction).k=axletype.l=loadlevel(incrementalloadforeachaxle
type).m=temperaturedifference.n=trafficpath.
Theappliednumberofloadapplications n , , , , , istheactualnumberofaxletypekofload
levellthatpassedthroughtrafficpathnundereachcondition(age,seasonandtemperature
difference).Theallowablenumberofloadapplicationsisdeterminedusingthefollowingfield
calibratedfatiguemodel:
log N , ,

,, ,

,, ,, ,

0.4371

Eqn. 4.20

WhereN , , , =allowablenumberofloadapplicationsatconditioni, j, k, l, m, n.MR =PCC

modulusofraptureatagei,psi. , , , =appliedstressatconditioni, j, k, l, m, n.C , C =
calibrationconstants.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page40

AnalysisofroughnessforJPCPfollowedthatforflexiblepavements.Noonefundamental
mechanismcouldbeidentifiedasthecause,butseveralfactorscametoplaywhenconsidering
roughnessasadistress.Thesefactorsincludeotherstructuralandnonstructuraldistresses
suchasfaulting,cornerbreaks,longitudinalandtransversecracking;surfacedefectssuchas
initialsmoothness;maintenanceregimens;andothervariableslikeage.Combiningallthese
factorsandvariables,theequationforpredictingJPCProughnessintheDesignGuideisgiven
as:
IRI
IRI
0.013
TC
TFAUL

0.007
SPALL
0.005
0.45
SF Eqn. 4.21

PATCH

0.0015

WhereTC=percentageofslabswithtransversecracking(allseverities).SPALL=percentageof
jointswithspalling(allseverities).PATCH=pavementsurfaceareawithflexibleandrigid
patching(allseverities),percent.TFAULT=totaljointfaultingcumulatedperkm,mm.SF =site
factor=Age
1 FI
1 P
/1000000,,inwhichAge=pavementageinyears,FI=
freezingindex,0Cdays,P =percentsubgradematerialpassingthe0.075mmsieve.
PavementPerformanceModelsforCRCP
Twodistresses:roughnessandpunchoutswereusedasindicatorstomonitortheeffectof
potentialclimatechangeoncontinuouslyreinforcedconcretepavements(CRCP).Roughnessfor
CRCPfollowedthesamedescriptiongiveninthesectionsforflexibleandJPCP.Aswasthecase
fortheaforementionedpavementtypes,roughnessinCRCPisalsotriggeredbyanumberof
factorssuchasage,initialroughnessafterconstructionanddistressesformedasaresultof
interactionsbetweentraffic,siteandenvironmentalfactors.FollowingJPCP,factorsthat
influenceroughnesscanbeclassifiedasstructural,surfacedefectsandmaintenancerelated.
Examplesofstructuralfactorsarepunchouts,transversecracksandpumping.Surfacedefects
includeinitialIRI,scalingandmapcracking.Amaintenancerelatedfactorispatching.The
modelforpredictingroughnessforCRCPasusedintheDesignGuideisgivenas:
IRI IRI
4.22

0.003

TC

0.008

PUNCH

0.45

SF

0.2

PATCH

Eqn.

WhereTC=numberofmediumandhightransversecracks/km.PUNCH=numberofmedium
andhighseveritypunchouts/km.PATCH=percentagepavementsurfacewithpatching(MH
/1000000,inwhich
severityflexibleandrigid).SF=sitefactor=Age
1 FI
1 P
Age=pavementageinyears,FI=freezingindex,0Cdays,P =percentsubgradematerial
passingthe0.075mmsieve.
EdgeorstructuralpunchoutisamajorstructuraldistressofCRCPcharacterizedfirstbyalossof
aggregateinterlockatoneortwocloselyspacedtransversecracksattheedgeofthepavement.
Thecrackorcracksbegintofaultandspallslightly,andwiththeapplicationofheavyaxleloads
acrossthiscrackedsection,alongitudinalcrackisformedbetweenthetransversecracks.Asthe
cracksdeterioratewithtime,thesteelwithintheconcreterapturesandpiecesofconcrete
punchdownunderloadintothesubbaseandsubgrade.Thedistressedareaexpandsinsizeto
UDUTCFinalReport

Page41

adjoiningcracksanddevelopsintoalargeareaifleftunchecked(Huang,2004).CRCP
punchoutsareacombinationofrepeatedheavyaxleloads,lossofLTEacrosstwoclosely
spacedtransfercracksofwhichcrackwidthisaprimaryfactor,inadequatePCCslabthickness,
freemoisturebeneaththeCRCP,erosionofsupportingsubbaseorsubgradematerialalong
edgeofCRCPandnegativeslabcurlingandmoisturewarping.Punchoutsreducetheride
qualityoftheroadwayandinfluencetheformationofotherCRCPdistresses(AppliedResearch
AssociatesInc,2004g).IntheDesignGuide,onemethodforpredictingCRCPperformanceis
basedontheincrementaldevelopmentofpunchoutdistress.Thepredictionofpunchout
distressisachievedintermsoftheaccumulatedfatiguedamageassociatedwiththeformation
ofspecificlongitudinalcracksbetweentwocloselyspacedtransversecracks(LaCourseiereetal,
1978,Seleznevaetal,2001,Selezneva,2002,Zollingeretal,1990,Darter,1988).Thecalibrated
modelforpunchoutpredictionasafunctionofaccumulatedfatiguedamageduetoslab
bendinginthetransversedirectionisgivenas
PO

Eqn. 4.23

WherePO =totalpredictednumberofpunchoutspermileattheendofi monthly

increment.D =accumulatedfatiguedamageattheendofi monthlyincrement.a, b, c=
calibrationconstants

LocalCalibrationApproach
Currenthighwaysaredesignedbasedontypicalhistoricclimaticpatterns,reflectinglocal
climateandincorporatingassumptionsaboutareasonablerangeoftemperaturesand
precipitationlevels.Givenanticipatedclimatechangesandtheinherentuncertaintyassociated
withsuchchanges,apavementcouldbesubjectedtoverydifferentclimaticconditionsoverthe
designlifeandmightbeinadequatetowithstandfutureclimateforcesthatimposestresses
beyondenvironmentalfactorscurrentlyconsideredinthedesignprocess.
TheMEPDGperformancemodelsweredevelopedusinghistoricaldataanddidnttakeclimate
changeintoconsideration.Inaddition,thecoefficientsintheperformancewerebasedon
nationalclimatedatasets.Thesenationalcalibrationfactorsmaynotbeappropriateforspecific
regionsofthecountrythathavetheirownclimatepatterns.Inordertogeneratemoreaccurate
performancepredictionsforamorerobustpavementdesigninthelightofpotentialclimate
change,theperformancemodelsneedtobelocallycalibratedtoconsidertheimpactofthe
change.
TheconceptoflocalcalibrationinMEPDGistoeliminatebiasbetweennationalmodelsand
localconditions,toreducethestandarderrorassociatedwiththepredictionequationsandto
considerthedifferencesinmaterials,constructionspecifications,policiesonpavement
preservationandmaintenanceacrossthenation.TheMEPDGsoftwareincorporatesthelocal
calibrationcoefficientsfortheperformancemodelsthatcanbechangedbytheuserstomake
adjustmentstothepredictedperformancevalues.Figure4.1showsascreenshotofthetools
sectionwherethesevaluescanbeenteredintothesoftwareforeachperformanceindicatoron
aprojectbasis.Inthisstudy,weexpandthisconcepttolocalclimatechangeconditionsand
UDUTCFinalReport

Page42

applyittoadapttothechangebycalibratingthecoefficientsoftheperformanceprediction
models.

Figure4.1MEPDGLocalCalibrationScreenShot

OverviewoftheMethodology
Totailordistressestomeetlocalpavementconditions,sensitivityanalysiswasconductedto
locallycalibratedistresses.Subsequentlocalcalibrationanalysisintheresearchproceeded
basedonresultsobtainedfromtheparallelcomparisonsbetweenpotentialclimatechangeand
nochangestoclimate.Theprocedureoflocalcalibrationisamajoriterativeworkeffort.The
calibrationprocess,asdeveloped,involvesfivebasicstepsasfollows:

Reviewallinputdata.

Conductsensitivityanalysis.

Conductcomparativestudies.

Conductvalidation/calibrationstudies.

Modifyinputdefaultsandcalibrationcoefficientsasneeded.

Step1:ReviewAllInputData
AllinputstotheMEPDGsoftwareshouldbereviewedandthedesiredlevelandproceduresfor
obtainingeachinputonvarioustypesofdesignprojectsbedetermined.Severalinputsarevery
UDUTCFinalReport

Page43

criticalbutarenotwelldefinedintheMEPDGsoftwareandthesearetheonesthedesign
entityshouldconductsensitivityanalysison.Theprocessisasfollows:

DetermineifdefaultsprovidedwiththeMEPDGsoftwareareappropriateforthe
designentityandifnot,modifyasneeded.

Selectallowablerangesforinputsforvarioustypesofprojectswithinthe
geographicalareaofthedesigner(lowvolume,highvolume,different
geographicareaswithinthestate).

Selectprocedurestoobtaintheseinputsforregulardesignprojects(e.g.,traffic
volumeandweightinputs).Determinetheeffectsoftheaccuracyofinputvalues
ontheresultingdesign.

Conductnecessarytestingtoestablishspecificinputs(e.g.,material
characterization,axleloaddistributions)andacquireneededequipmentforany
testingrequired.

Conductanalysestoestablishthedesiredlevelofdesignreliabilityforvarious
typesofhighways(e.g.,Interstate,primary,secondary)orlevelsoftraffic.

Step2:SensitivityAnalysis
Thisisaccomplishedbyselectingatypicaldesignsituationwithalldesigninputs.Thesoftware
isrunandthemeandistressesandIRIpredictedoverthedesignperiod.Thenindividualinputs
arevariedandthechangeinalloutputsobserved.Appropriatetablesandplotsareprepared,
theresultsevaluated,andinputsdividedintogroupsbasedontheirsensitivitytooutputs,such
asthosethathaveverysignificanteffect,amoderateeffect,andonlyminoreffect.Those
inputsthathavesignificantimpactsmustbeselectedmorecarefullythanthosewithminor
effects.Theabovesensitivitymayberepeatedforlow,mediumandhightrafficprojectdesigns
toseeifthathasaneffectoninputs.
Step3:ComparativeStudies
ConductingcomparativestudiesusingtheMEPDGsoftwarecanprovideobservationsofvarious
designinputsonpavementperformance.Inthisstudy,thecomparisonanalysesareconducted
toexaminehowtheclimatechangevariabilitymightaffecttheperformanceofpavement
sectionsovertime.Thisinvolvedcomparingtheperformancedeteriorationsoftwoparallel
designs,onewhichconsideredtheimpactsofclimatechangewithitsdifferentscenariosand
onewhichdidnotconsiderclimatechange.
Step4:CalibrationtoLocalConditions
Avalidationprocessshouldbedevelopedtoconfirmthatthenationalcalibrationfactorsor
functionsareadequateandappropriatefortheconstruction,materials,climate,traffic,and
otherconditionsthatareencounteredwithinthedesignershighwaysystem.Preparea
databaseofagencyperformancedataandcomparethedesignresultswiththeperformanceof
theselocalsections.Thiswillrequirecomprehensiveexperimentaldesignandtheselectionof
astatisticallysufficientnumberofpavementsectionsforanalysis.Thegoalofthecalibration
UDUTCFinalReport

Page44

validationprocessistoconfirmthattheperformancemodelsaccuratelypredictpavement
distressandridequalityonanationalbasis.Foranyspecificgeographicarea,adjustmentsto
thenationalmodelsmaybeneededtoobtainreliablepavementdesigns.
Step5:ModifytheCalibrations/Inputs
IfsignificantdifferencesarefoundbetweenthepredictedandmeasureddistressesandIRIfor
theagencieshighways,appropriateadjustmentsmustbemadetothecalibrationcoefficients.
Makemodificationstothedefaultnationalcoefficientsintheperformancemodelsasneeded
basedonalloftheaboveresultsandfindings.Theseresultscouldthenbeusedtoestablisha
newstandarddeviationmodelforuseinreliabilitydesigntoprovideamorecosteffective
design.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page45

5. CaseStudyandImplementation
StudySitesandPavementStructures
Thepotentialimpactsofclimatechangeanditsuncertaintyonpavementperformanceand
designwereexploredusingsitesintheNorthEasternregionoftheUnitedStatesasthe
referenceareaofstudy.Threestates,namelyDelaware,NewJerseyandConnecticut,were
selectedwithinthestudyregionandflexibleandrigidpavementtypeswerechosenfor
experimentaldesigns.Eachofthepavementlocationshadclimateconditionspeculiartothe
locationandtheseconditionsformedtheplatformfromwhichexpectationswithrespectto
futureclimatechangesweremade.Pavementtypesanalyzedwereasphalticconcrete
pavement,continuouslyreinforcedconcretepavement(CRCP)andjointedplainconcrete
pavement(JPCP).
Foreachpavementtypeandaspecificlocation,anexistingLongTermPavementPerformance
(LTPP)pavementsectionwasidentifiedanditscharacteristicssuchaspavementstructure,
trafficinformationandlayermaterialpropertieswereusedasinputindevelopingexperimental
unitsforthestudy.Assuch,theasphaltconcretepavementusedinthisresearchwasareplica
ofInterstate95inNewJersey,theexperimentaldesignforCRCPwasbasedonInterstate495in
DelawareandthatforJPCPfollowedtherigidsectionofInterstate84WinConnecticut.
PavementstructuresforallthesehighwaysweredesignedusinginformationfromtheLong
TermPavementPerformance(LTPP)database.Thissectiondescribesthedevelopmentof
pavementstructuresforthestudy.
Thestructureoftheasphaltconcretepavementconsistedoftwolayers:anasphaltlayerandan
unboundgranularbase,placedontopofanexistingsubgrade.TheJPCPwasmadeupofa
Portlandconcretelayerandagranularbaselayerontopofitssubgrade.ThestructureforCRCP
consistedthreeconstructedlayersinadditiontothesubgrade.Theadditionallayerswerean
unboundsubbase,atreatedbaseandaPortlandconcretelayerinascendingorder.Thicknesses
foreachlayerwiththeexceptionofthesubgradewereprovidedintheLTPPdatabaseandwere
usedforinitialperformancerunsinMEPDG.AlsocontainedintheLTPPdatabasewerethe
constituentmaterialsofthelayersandtheirrespectivepropertiesandcharacteristics.The
locations,pavementtypes,LTPPstructures,andadjustedMEPDGdesignsforthethreetest
sitesareincludedinTable5.1.
GivenLTPPsectionsweredesignedusingtheAASHTOGuideforDesignofPavementStructure
andrecognizingthatthesestructuresaremoreconservativethanthosedesignedusingthe
MEPDGsoftware,thestructuraldesignsforthestudywereadjustedwherenecessary.Thiswas
doneasfollows:iftheAASHTOdesignpassedalltheMEPDGperformancecriteria
requirements,thesurfacelayerthicknesswasreducedinincrementsofhalfaninchand
MEPDGanalysiswasperformed.Thisprocesswasrepeateduntiloneoftheperformance
criteriafailed,thentheMEPDGdesignthicknesswasthatthicknessplus0.5inches.Onthe
otherhandiftheAASHTOdesignfailed,analysisstartedwithanincreaseofthethicknessby
halfaninchandfollowedthesamephilosophydescribedabovetoachieveanacceptable
MEPDGdesign.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page46

Table5.1TestSitesoftheCaseStudy
State
ID

SHRP
LTPP
Route Type
ID
Structure

Lat

Long

Elevation
(ft)

NJ34

6057 I95

AC

40.27

74.83

222

CT09

4008

I
84W

JPCP

41.80

72.56

155

DE10

5004 I495

CRCP

39.74

75.51

14

MEPDGAdjusted
Structure

Note:ACAsphaltConcrete;PCPortlandConcrete;GBgranularbase;SSsandsoil;TB
boundtreatedbase;GSunboundgranularsubbase.

HistoricalClimaticData
Foranyprojectedchangesinclimatetobemade,ahistoryofclimaticdatawasfirstexamined
forthethreetestsites.TheclimaticdatausedinMEPDGwasobtainedfromadatabase
managedbytheNationalClimaticDataCenterwhichcontainsrecordsforlocationsalloverthe
country.Forthethreetestsites,themostappropriateweatherstationswerethefollowing
stations:BradleyInternationalAirportinConnecticut(stationID14740)fortheJPCPsection,
NewCastleCountyAirportinDelaware(stationID13781)fortheCRCPandTrentonMercer
AirportinNewJerseyfortheasphaltsection.Thelocationsofthese3weatherstationsarein
Table5.2.
IntheMEPDGsoftware,thehistoricalclimatedataforeachstationarerecordedhourlyand
savedinafilewithanHCDextensionusingapredefinedformat.TheseHCDfiles,whichstore
thehistoricaldata,representthehistoricalclimaticpatternswithoutconsideringclimate
changeimpacts.Thefiveclimatevariablesforeachstationareairtemperature,precipitation,
windspeed,percentagesunshine,andrelativehumidity.Forpavements,themostsignificant
climatevariablesweretemperatureandprecipitation,whosevaluescanbeprojectedfor
variousclimatechangescenariosusingtheMAGICC/SCENGENsoftware.Thestatistical
summaryofthehistoricaltemperaturedataisprovidedinTable5.3.
UDUTCFinalReport
Page47

Table5.2MEPDGWeatherStationsforthethreepavementsections
First
data
date

Weather
Station City/State

Usedfor
Pavement Distan
section1
ce

Elevat
Location
Lat
Long
ion(ft)
Bradley
Windsor
International
14740
Locks,CT
Airport
41.56 72.41
165 960701
094008
Wilmington, NewCastle
13781
DE
CountyAirport
39.4 75.36
95 960701
105004
TrentonMercer
14792
Trenton,NJ Airport
40.17 74.49
197 980301
346057
1
thepavementsectionislabeledasStateIDSHRPID.Forexample,094008indicatesthe
pavementsectioninState09(NJ)withtheSHRPIDof4008.SeeTable5.1.

Table5.3StatisticalSummaryofHistoricalHourlyTemperatureData
Location Season
14740

13781

14792

Spring

#Record
13.73

19872

Summer

35

64.9

71

71.22

78

102

9.31

21360

Fall

12

43

53

52.9

63

90

13.43

21840

Winter

24

31

30.2

37

74

10.70

21648

Spring

17

44

53

52.74

61

91

12.82

19872

Summer

46

69

74

74.1

80 98.1

8.14

21360

Fall

18

48

57

57.01

66.9

91

12.81

21840

Winter

29

35.1

35.67

42

73

10.23

21648

Spring

12

42

51.1

51.7

60.1

93

13.22

17664

Summer

44

67

73

73.42

80

100

8.83

17664

Fall

21

47

56

55.93

65

90

12.39

17472

27

34

33.9

40

75

10.75

17328

Winter

UDUTCFinalReport

min 1st
Median Mean 3rd
Max SD
Quartile
Quartile
1
39
48 48.63
57.9
94

Page48

13.6
26.6
15

TrafficInputsRequiredinMEPDG
TheMEPDGrequiresfourbasiccategoriesoftrafficinputsasfollows(FederalHighway
Administration2001):

Thebaseyeartrafficvolume.OneimportantinputinthiscategoryisAnnual
AverageDailyTruckTraffic(AADTT)ofvehicleClasses4through13.This
informationcanbederivedfromweighinmotion(WIM),automatedvehicle
counts(AVC),orvehiclecountdataandisavailablewithinastatehighway
agency.

ThebaseyearAADTTmustbeadjustedbyusingtrafficvolumeadjustment
factors,includingmonthlydistribution,hourlydistribution,classdistribution,and
trafficgrowthfactors.Thesefactorscanbedeterminedonthebasisof
classificationcountsobtainedfromWIM,AVC,orvehiclecountdata.

Axleloaddistributionfactors(axleloadspectra).Theaxleloaddistribution
factorsrepresentthepercentageofthetotalaxleapplicationswithineachload
intervalforaspecificaxletype(single,tandem,tridem,andquad)andtruckclass
(class4toclass13).Theaxleloaddistributionsorspectracanbedetermined
onlyfromWIMdata.

Generaltrafficinputs,suchasnumberofaxlespertruck,axleconfiguration,and
wheelbase.Thesedataareusedinthecalculationoftrafficloadingfor
determiningpavementresponses(AppliedResearchAssociationInc.,2004i).The
defaultvaluesprovidedforthegeneraltrafficinputsarerecommendedifmore
accuratedataarenotavailable.

WIMdatacollectedinaccordancewiththeTrafficMonitoringGuide(TMG)(FederalHighway
Administration,2001)wouldmeetthetrafficcharacterizationrequirementsforMEPDGto
developallthetrafficinputparameters.
DevelopmentofMEPDGTrafficInputs
AnalysesofWIMdatabasedontheLTPPdatabaseshowedthatthedifferencesbetweenyear
toyearandmonthtomonthloadspectrawerenotsignificant(TranandHall,2007).Therefore,
thetrafficdatacanbenormalizedonanannualbasisforthedevelopmentoftrafficinputsfor
theMEPDGsoftware.
MonthlyAdjustmentFactors
BasedonthetrafficcountsbyclassobtainedfromWIMdata,themonthlyadjustmentfactors
werecalculatedasfollows:

Determinethetotalnumberoftrucks(inagivenclass)foreach24hourperiod.

DeterminetheAverageMonthlyDailyTruckTrafficforeachmonth(AMDTT)in
theyear.

Sumuptheaveragedailytrucktrafficforeachmonthfortheentireyear.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page49

Calculatethemonthlyadjustmentfactorsbydividingtheaveragedailytruck
trafficforeachmonthbysummingtheaveragedailytrucktrafficforeachmonth
fortheentireyearandmultiplyingitby12asgivenbelow(NCHRP137A,2004):

AMDTTi
MAFi 12
12
AMDTTi
i1

(Eqn.5.1)

Where MAFi =MonthlyAdjustmentFactorformonthi; AMDTTi =AverageMonthlyDailyTruck

Trafficformonthi.
VehicleClassDistribution
Thevehicleclassdistributionfactorscanbedeterminedasagivenformula(AppliedResearch
AssociationInc.,2004i).ThesumofClassDistributionFactors(CDF)forallclassesshouldequal
100%.
CDFj

AADTTj
AADTT .............................................................................................. Eqn. 5.2

Where: CDF j =ClassDistributionFactorforvehicleclassj; AADTT j =AnnualAverageDailyTruck

Trafficforclassj;AADTT=AnnualAverageDailyTruckTrafficforallclasses
HourlyTruckDistribution
Thehourlydataareusedtodeterminethepercentageoftotaltruckswithineachhouras
follows(24):

Determinethetotalnumberoftruckscountedwithineachhouroftrafficdatain
thesample.

Averagethenumberoftrucksforeachofthe24hoursofthedayinthesample.

Totalthe24hourlyaveragesfromstep3.

Divideeachofthe24hourlyaveragesfromstep2bythetotalfromstep3and
multiplyby100andgettheHourlyDistributionFactors(HDF),whichisshownin
Equation3(AppliedResearchAssociationInc.,2004i).Thesumofthepercentof
dailytrucktrafficpertimeincrementmustaddupto100%.
HDFi

HATTi
24

HATT j
j1

............................................................................................. Eqn. 5.3

Where: HDFi =HourlyDistributionFactorforithonehourtimeperiod; HATTi =Hourly

AverageTruckTrafficforithonehourtimeperiod
UDUTCFinalReport

Page50

AxleLoadDistributionFactors
AxleloaddistributionfactorscanbecalculatedusingWIMdatatoaveragethedailynumberof
axlesmeasuredwithineachloadintervalofanaxletypeforatruckclassdividedbythetotal
numberofaxlesforallloadintervals(WangandLi,2008).Theprocedureisgivenas:

FindtherangecontainingallweightdatafromaspecificWIMstation.

Countthenumberofaxlesineachweightbinfordifferentvehicleclassesusing
thefollowingloadintervals:
o Singleaxles:3,000lbto40,000lbat1,000lbintervals;
o Tandemaxles:6,000lbto80,000lbat2,000lbintervals;
o Tridemandquadaxles:12,000lbto102,000lbat3000lbintervals.

Summarizethemonthlyaxleloaddistributioninthepreviousstepand
determinetheaxleloadspectraforthesite.

WIMDataSourcesandResults
AtmostLTPPsites,WeighInMotion(WIM)equipmentwasinstalledtocollecttrafficdata.Itis
widelyrecognizedthatWIMdataareoftenerroneousduetouncalibratedsensors,pavement
conditionsandenvironmentalissues.Inordertoobtainhighqualitydata,thedataobtained
immediatelyafterasystemcalibrationareusedtogeneratethetrafficloadspectraforthe
pavementsection.ThecalibrationdetailsandthedataavailabilityaresummarizedinTable5.4.
Table5.4WIMCalibrationandDataAvailability
Pavement Calib
Equip Reason Quartz Induct. Manufacturer
Section
Date
Calib Calib
Piezo Loops
094008
270400 3
2
N
Y
IRD
094008
090605 3
2
Y
N
IRD
105004

346057
220400 1
1
N
Y
DYNAX
346057
120501 1
1
N
Y
DYNAX
Note:EQUIP_CALIB:1WIM;3BothWIMandAVC.
REASON_CALIB:1Regularlyscheduledvisit;2Research.

Availability
93(19),94,95,98
(111),99,06,07
(no9)
2008
2000,2008(512)

Basedonthedataavailableimmediatelyafterequipmentcalibration,2006datawasusedfor
094008JPCPpavementsection,2008for105004DelawareCRCPsection,and2000datafor
346057NewJerseyflexiblepavementsection.ForeachWIMstation,theloadspectrafor
vehicleclass5and9singleaxles,vehicleClass9tandemaxles,andVehicleclass7and10
Tridemaxles,themonthlyadjustmentfactors,andvehicleclassdistributionfactorsare
presentedasFiguresinAppendixB.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page51

ThetrafficmoduleintheMEPDGsoftwareisshowninFigure5.1,whichallowsdesignersto
importallthetrafficparametersrequired.Alltheimportableinputsaresavedin11files.These
files,assummarizedinAppendixC,requireaspecificformat.Thetrafficdatafromthesethree
WIMlocationsarepreparedaccordingtothefileformatsothattheMEPDGsoftwarecan
directlyimportthemforpavementanalysis.

Figure5.1TrafficInputintheMEPDGSoftware

MaterialInput
Materialsusedintheconstituentlayersofthedifferentpavementstructuresplayapivotalrole
intheoverallperformanceofthepavement.Materialinputsarerequiredforpavement
responsemodels,distressmodelsandclimatemodels(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc,2004h).
TheMEPDGDesignGuidecataloguessomeofthematerialpropertiesthatarerequiredforthe
models.Topredictthestatesofstress,strainanddisplacementwithinthepavementstructure
fortheresponsemodel,MEPDGuseselasticmodulusandPoissonratioofthematerialineach
ofthepavementlayers.Distressmodelsusematerialparameterssuchasstrength,expansion
contractioncharacteristics,frictionbetweenslabandbase,modulus,Poissonratio,erodibility
ofunderlyinglayers,layerdrainagecharacteristics,plasticityandgradation.Materialrelated
inputsthataffectclimatemodelsincludeengineeringindexproperties,gradationparameters
andthermalproperties.ThecorrectspecificationofmaterialinputsinMEPDGisthusa
significantingredientindeterminingpavementperformanceovertime.Examplesofmaterial
inputsfordifferentmaterialgroupsasrequiredbyMEPDGandasdisplayedintheDesignGuide
areshowninTable5.5.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page52

Table5.5Majormaterialinputconsiderationsbymaterialgroup
MaterialsCategory
HotMixAsphaltmaterials(coverssurface,
binder,baseandsubbasecourses)

PCCmaterials(surfacelayeronly)

ChemicallyStabilizedmaterials(coverslean
concrete,cementtreated,soilcement,lime
cementflyash,limeflyashandlimestabilized
layers)
UnboundBase/Subbaseandsubgrade
materials

Materialsinputsrequired
Timetemperaturedependentdynamic
modulus,Poissonsratio,tensilestrength,
creepcompliance,coefficientofthermal
expansion,surfaceshortwaveabsorptivity
Staticmodulusofelasticityadjustedwithtime,
Poissonsratio,unitweight,coefficientof
thermalexpansion,modulusofrapture,
compressivestrength,watertocementratio
Elasticmodulus,resilientmodulus,Poissons
ratio,unitweight,modulusofrapture,base
erodibility,thermalconductivityandheat
capacityofPCC.
Seasonallyadjustedresilientmodulus,
Poissonsratio,unitweight,coefficientof
lateralpressure,gradationparametersand
baseerodibility,plasticityindex,specific
gravity

Asastart,informationonpavementmaterialsandtheirpropertiesforeachpavementdesign
templatewasobtainedfromtheirrespectiveinservicepavementsasdocumentedintheLTPP
database.Informationgatheredincludedpavementlayerconfiguration,layercomposition,
gradationofasphaltconcrete,gradationofunboundlayers,subgradecondition,resultsof
strengthtestsandsteelreinforcementcharacteristicsamongstmanyothers.Notallthe
informationrequiredbyMEPDGwasfoundintheLTPPdatabase.Otherpiecesofinformation
wereinconsistentacrossthedatabaseandcouldnotbeused.Whensuchcasesarose,the
authorsusedotherpavementengineeringresourcesandtheirownexperienceindesigning
pavementstoformulatesolutions.UsingacombinationofdatainventoryfromLTPP,pavement
designmanualsandexperience,Table5.6showsthedifferentconstituentlayersforeachofthe
pavementdesigntypesemployedintheresearch.
ThegeneralapproachusedinselectingdesigninputsformaterialsintheDesignGuideisthe
hierarchicalsystem(AppliedResearchAssociatesInc,2004h).Thehierarchicalsystemis
developedbasedonthephilosophythatthelevelofengineeringeffortexertedinthepavement
designprocessshouldbeconsistentwiththerelativeimportance,sizeandcostofthedesign
process.Therearethreelevelsinvolvedwiththehierarchicalsystem.Level1requirestheuseof
comprehensivelaboratoryorfieldtests;Level2usesinputsthatareestimatedthrough
correlationswithothermaterialpropertiesthataremeasuredinthelaboratoryorfield;and
Level3requiresanestimationofthemostappropriatedesigninputvalueofthematerial
propertybasedonexperiencewithlittleornotesting.ThisstudyusedLevel3inputsbasedon
thesourcesfromwhichinformationwasobtainedtodesignthepavementstructures.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page53

Table5.6Layerandmaterialcompositionforpavementtypes

ClimateChangeProjectionsandMEPDGClimateDataGeneration
ThegreenhousegasemissionscenariosusedinthisresearchwereadoptedfromtheIPCC
SpecialReportonEmissionsScenarios(SRES)(26).Thefourscenariosusedaredescribedbelow:

TheA1Bscenariodescribesafutureworldofveryrapideconomicgrowth,global
populationbalancedacrossallsources.

TheA2scenariodescribesaveryheterogeneousworld.Theunderlyingthemeis
selfrelianceandpreservationoflocalidentities.

TheB1scenariodescribesaconvergentworldwiththesameglobalpopulation
thatpeaksinmidcenturyanddeclinesthereafter.

TheB2scenariodescribesaworldinwhichtheemphasisisonlocalsolutionsto
economic,social,andenvironmentalsustainability.

OnlyfouroutofsixSRESscenariosareused.Intheshortterm,theA1FIandA1Tscenariosmay
notbepractical,thusonlyA1BscenariowasselectedtorepresenttheA1family.Amongthese
fourscenarios,A2generatesthemostGHGemissionsfollowedbyA1B,B2,andB1.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page54

ClimateSensitivity
Climatesensitivity(T2x)isakeyvariableinestimatingfutureclimatechange.Accordingto
IPCC(2001),thebestestimateclimatesensitivityis3C(5.4F),whichisusedinthisresearchfor
centralestimates.Toexploretheimpactofclimaticsensitivity,thelowvariabilityissettohalf
themostlikelyvalue(whichis1.5C)andthehighendisdoubledto6C.Theserangesare
consistentwiththoseadoptedinMAGICC/SCENGENbyWigley(2008).Theratesofmeltingof
icefromglaciersandmajoricesheetsareassumedtobelow,mediumandhighleveledfor
thesethreevariabilitylevels.
GeneralCirculationModels(GCMs)
SCENGENcanbeusedtoexaminetheextenttowhichtheGCMsagreeordisagreeabout
regionalprojectionsoftemperatureandprecipitationbycalculatingasignaltonoiseratiofor
themodelsused.Studiessuggestthat10ofthe20climateAOGCMmodelsbestsimulatethe
currentUSclimate(Meyeretal,2010,MeyerandWiegel,2011andWigley,2008).The10
modelsselectedandusedinthispaperare:

CanadianCentreforClimateModeling(CGCM3)

NationalCenterforAtmosphericResearch(NCARCCSM)

GeophysicalFluidDynamicsLaboratory(GFDLCM2.0andCM2.1)

InstitutePierreSimonLaplace(France)(IPSL_CM4)

CenterforClimateSystemResearch(Japan)(MIROC3.2,mediumresolution)

MaxPlanckInstituteforMeteorology(Germany)(ECHAM5/MPIOM)

MeteorologicalResearchInstitute(Japan)(MRICGCM2.3.2)

HadleyCentreforClimatePredictionandResearch(UnitedKingdom)(HadCM3
andHadGEM1)

ClimateChangeProjectionResults
MAGICCgivesprojectionsofglobalmeantemperatureandsealevelchangewhichareusedby
SCENGEN.SCENGENgivesthechangesinabsolutevaluesoftemperatureandprecipitation,
changesinabsolutevaluesoftemperatureandprecipitationvariability,signaltonoiseratios
fortemporalvariability,andprobabilitiesoftemperatureandprecipitationchangeabovea
specifiedthresholdona2.5latitudeby2.5longitudegrid.
Forthethreetestsites,theflexiblepavementsectiononInterstate95inNewJerseyandthe
JPCPsectiononInterstate84WinConnecticutfellinthesameGPSgridwhiletheDelaware
CRCPsitebelongedtoanothergrid.Threescenarioyears:2030,2050,and2100wereexamined
intheanalysis.TheMAGICC/SCENGENclimatechangeprojectionresultsfortemperatureand
precipitationaresummarizedinAppendixD.Asanexample,theclimatechangeprojectionsfor
temperatureandprecipitationaresummarizedinTable5.7fortheJPCPpavementsection.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page55

Itshouldbenotedthatthechangeofabsolutevaluesandstandarddeviationsarecomparedto
thoseforthebaseyearin2010,whichareobtainedfromthehistoricaldataatMEPDGprovided
weatherstationsasshowninTable5.3.
Table5.7SCENGENProjectedtemperatureandprecipitationchangefortheJPCPsite
Year

Climate
Indicator

Criteria

Spring

Summer

Fall

Winter

Meanchange(C)
0.72
0.74
0.75
0.66
Standarddeviation(%)
2.1
14.21
2.31
7.94
2030
Meanchange(%)
3.54
0.19
0.09
2.05
Precipitation
Standarddeviation(%)
4.11
0.36
2.58
0.76
Meanchange(C)
0.3
1.31
1.34
1.18
Temperature
Standarddeviation(%)
3.73
25.26
4.11 14.11
2050
Meanchange(%)
6.3
0.34
0.16
3.65
Precipitation
Standarddeviation(%)
4.11
0.65
4.59
1.36
Meanchange(C)
2.25
2.29
2.34
2.06
Temperature
Standarddeviation(%)
6.53
44.17
7.19 24.67
2100
Meanchange(%)
11.01
0.59
0.28
6.38
Precipitation
Standarddeviation(%)
12.77
1.13
8.03
2.37
Theprojectedsealevelrise,whichcanbeobtainedfromMAGICC,mayhaveanimpacton
pavementperformanceaswell.Amongthesethreelocations,onlyCRCPinDelawarewas
structuredtoincludetheimpactofariseinsealevel.SealevelrisehadnoeffectontheJPCP
andasphaltconcretepavementbecausetheywerelocatedmoreinland.Themagnitudeofthe
riserangefrom9.54ftto9.88ftin2030forthefouremissionmodels,from9.11to9.81ftin
2050,andfrom7.37to9.66ftin2100.Whenconsideringclimateeffectsonpavement
performance,thesealevelriseshouldbeincluded.
Temperature

Climatechangeisdefinednotsimplyasaveragetemperatureandprecipitationchangebutalso
bythefrequencyandintensityofextremeweatherevents.Forpavementdesign,theextreme
temperatureisacriticalclimaticinput.Asaresult,thepotentialextremetemperaturechange
shouldbeconsidered.However,MAGICC/SCENGENdoesnotprovidethecapabilitytoproject
thischange.Inthisstudy,theresultsfromthe"GlobalclimatechangeimpactsintheUnited
States"Report(U.S.GlobalChangeResearchProgram,2009)fortheNortheastportionofthe
countryareusedandaresummarizedinTable5.8.
Table5.8ProjectedExtremeTemperatureChange(inoF)(U.S.GlobalChangeResearch
Program,2009)
2030
2050
2100
Low Med High Low Med High Low Med High
WinterMin
1.45 2.55 4.36 2.18 3.82
6.55
4
7
12
WinterMax
1.09 2.55 4.36 1.64 3.82
6.55
3
7
12
SummerMin
1.82 1.82 1.82 2.73 2.73
2.73
5
5
5
SummerMax 1.09 2.55
4 1.64 3.82
6
3
7
11

Parameter

UDUTCFinalReport

Page56

GenerationofHCDDataFilesConsideringClimateChange
Changingtemperatureandmoistureprofilesinthepavementstructureandsubgradeoverthe
designlifeofapavementareconsideredinMEPDGthroughtheEICMengine.TheEICM
requiresthefollowingclimaticdataforMEPDGanalysis:

Hourlyweatherrelatedparameters:airtemperature,precipitation,windspeed,
percentagesunshine,andrelativehumidity;

Others:elevationandwatertabledepth.

Fortheweatherrelatedinformation,theMEPDGsoftwareprovidesweatherstationsacrossthe
UnitedStates,whichcontainhistoricalhourlydatarepresentingthebaseyearclimaticpatterns
withoutconsideringclimatechangeimpacts.Thesebaseyearclimaticdataaresavedintheir
respectiveHCDfiles.MAGICC/SCENGENiscapableofprojectingthechangeoftemperatureand
precipitation.BycombiningthebaseyearHCDdataandMAGICC/SCENGENprojectedchanges,
anewHCDfileconsideringclimatechangecanbegeneratedforMEPDGbyfollowingthesteps:

Obtainhistoricaldatawithoutclimatechange.BasedontheGPScoordinates
andthesurroundinggeographyofthetestsites,selectthemostappropriate
weatherstationsfromtheMEPDGclimatedatabaseandobtaintheHCDfilefrom
theMEPDGsoftwarewebsite.ThedataintheHCDfilerepresentthehistorical
datawithoutclimatechange.Statisticalparametersaregeneratedforthese
stations,asshowninTable5.3.

Generateclimatechangestatistics.IdentifytheGPSgirdboxinthe
MAGICC/SCENGENsoftwareforthetestsitesandgeneratethestatistical
parametersofthechange(suchasmeanchangeandstandarddeviation)for
eachlocation.ExampleofresultsbyseasonisillustratedinTable5.7.Thestep
bystepguidelineonhowtogenerateclimatechangeparameterscanbe
referencedintheMAGICC/SCENGENUsersManual(Wigley,2008).

GenerateafterclimatechangeHCDfile.Withthebaseyearstatisticsandthe
potentialchangeinmean,standarddeviationandpossibleextremes,the
statisticsofafterclimatechangedatacanbedetermined.Historicaldataon
hourlytemperaturewasassumedtobenormallydistributedandthisservedasa
platformtogeneratevaluesthatreflectchangesshouldpotentialclimatechange
occur.Forprecipitation,itspercentagechangeunderindividualclimatechange
scenarioswascalculatedandappliedtothehistoricdata.Itisassumedthat
therewillbenosignificantchangesinwindspeed,percentagesunshineor
relativehumidityshouldclimatechangeoccurattheselocationsandhencetheir
originaldatasetswereusedthroughoutthestudy.Thisassumptionismade
becausepresentlythereisnosoftware/toolwhichhasthecapabilitytoproject
thesechangesunderclimatechange.Thenewlygenerateddataarethen
updatedintheclimaticfilesfollowingtheHCDfileformatrequirements,anda
newHCDfileiscreatedforthatclimatechangescenario.Sincemultipleemission
models,variabilitylevelsandanalysisyearsexist,multiplenewHCDfilesare

UDUTCFinalReport

Page57

createdforeachlocation.
ThenewlygeneratedHCDfilesrepresentclimaticconditionsafterclimatechangeandwere
importedintotheMEPDGsoftwaretogenerateperformancepredictionsfortheafterclimate
changescenarios.

PavementPerformanceComparisonsandAnalysis
Theperformanceindicatorsusedforflexiblepavementsinthisstudywerealligator(bottomup)
crackingandrutting.Forrigidpavementstructures,theperformanceindicatorsweremean
jointfaultingandloadrelatedtransverseslabcrackingforJPCPandpunchoutsforCRCP.
Functionalperformanceforallpavementtypeswasdefinedbytime(pavementage)dependent
pavementroughnessquantifiedasapredictedInternationalRoughnessIndex(IRI).Asdescribed
inChapter4,IRIispredictedusingaregressionequationwithcomputedpavementdistresses,
initial(asconstructed)IRI,andsite/climatefactorsastheprimaryindependentvariables.
Differentempiricalfunctionsareusedforflexiblepavementstructures,JPCPandCRCP.
ComparingPerformanceResults
MEPDGallowstheusertotestvariousassumptionsorscenariosusingpavementperformance
variables.Indoingso,itprovidesoutputconcerningtheprogressionofpavementdeterioration
andperformanceandtheadequacyofvariouspavementdesigns.Toexaminehowclimate
changeanditsvariabilitymightaffecttheperformanceofpavementsectionsovertime,
comparisonsandanalyseswereperformedbyassessingthefollowing:

Threeanalysisyears(2030,2050,and2100)toidentifyarangeofchangesin
temperatureandprecipitation;

Threelevelsofclimatechangevariability(low,medium,andhigh)torepresent
thesensitivityofclimatechangetoCO2emissions;

Fouremissionmodels(A1B,A2,B1,andB2)torepresentdifferentfuturepolicy
scenarios.

Asnotedearlier,theprimaryobjectiveoftheMEPDGanalysisistoevaluaterelative,not
absolute,changesinpavementperformancebetweenbaselineandfutureclimatechange
scenarios.Asaresult,allthefollowingresultsarepresentedintheformatofrelative
performancechangeinpercentagecomparedtothebaseyearscenarioin2010.The
performancecomparisonsforthethreepavementsectionsaregiveninAppendixE.
Forthepurposeofillustration,onlytheresultsoftheJPCPsectionareanalyzedhere.Figures
5.2,5.3and5.4showtherelativechangeinIRI,faultingandtransversecrackingforthree
scenariosconsideredforJPCP.Thethreescenariosarebasedonanalysisyear,climatechange
variabilityandemissionmodels.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page58

2
0

IRIChange(%)

10

15

20

4
6
8

2030

10

2050

12

2100

14

Age(years)

FaultingChange(%)

0
0

10

15

20

5
2030
10

2050
2100

15
20

Age(years)

TansverseCrackingChange(%)

120
100

2030

80

2050

60

2100

40
20
0
0
20

10
Age(years)

15

Figure5.2Analysisyearcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

20

Page59

2
0

IRIChange(%)

10

15

20

4
6
A1BAIM

A2ASF

10

B1IMA

12

B2MES

14

Age(years)

FaultingChange(%)

0
0

10

15

20

5
10
A1BAIM

15

A2ASF
20

B1IMA
B2MES

25

Age(years)

TransverseCrackingChange(%)

160
140

A1BAIM

120

A2ASF

100

B1IMA

80

B2MES

60
40
20
0
20

10
Age(years)

15

20

Figure5.3Emissionmodelcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page60

5
0
IRIChange(%)

10

15

20

5
10
Low

15

Medium
20

High

25

Age(years)

FaultingChange(%)

0
0

10

15

20

5
10
Low
15

Medium
High

20

Age(years)

TransverseCrackingChange(%)

120
100
Low
80

Medium

60

High

40
20
0
0
20

10

15

20

Age(years)

Figure5.4Climatechangevariabilitylevelcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page61

InfluenceofAnalysisYear
Forallthreedistresses,themostsignificantimpactofclimatechangeonpavement
performancewasobservedinyear2100asshowninFigure5.2.Thiswasduetoaprojected
increaseinextremeclimatechangeeventswithtime.Deteriorationtrendsforroughnessand
faultingareidenticalandsupporttheknowledgethatfaultingisamajorcontributingfactorin
theformationofroughnessinrigidpavements(WSDOT,2011).Asrespectiverelative
percentagesofroughnessandfaultingin2010,theplotshowsreductioninthetwodistresses
withincreasingyears.Thedamageobservedforbothishoweverminimalandislessthan20%.
Amoreprofoundimpactofclimatechangeisobservedwithtransversecracking.Transverse
cracksareusuallycausedbyacombinationofheavyloadrepetitionsandstressesdueto
temperaturegradient,moisturegradientanddryingshrinkage(Huang,2004).Thehighrelative
percentagesseeninFigure5.2fortransversecouldprimarilybearesultofextremesin
temperaturegradient,moisturegradientordryingshrinkagefrom2030to2100.Suchan
increaseinrateoftransversecrackingcouldleadtotheformationofotherdistressesand
reducepavementserviceabilityshouldclimatechangeoccur.
InfluenceofVariabilitylevel
Figure5.3showstheeffectofdifferentvariabilitylevelsofcarbondioxideintheatmosphereon
pavementperformance.Highlevelsofcarbondioxiderepresentthegreatestpropensityto
climatechangeandproducedthemostpronounceddeteriorationforallthreedistresses.
FollowingtheplotinFigure5.2,deteriorationtrendsforroughnessandfaultingshowreverse
progressionrelativeto2010distresses.Theseareminimalcomparedtotheformationof
transversecracks.Generally,asobservedinallthreedistresses,theplotsupportsthenotion
thatactivityinpavementdistressformationhasanincreasingeffectascarbondioxide
variabilitylevelsmovefromlowtohigh.
Influenceofemissionmodels
TheplotinFigure5.4illustrateshowfourclimatechangeemissionscenariofamilies:A1,A2,B1
andB2affectdeteriorationpatternsforthethreeidentifiedJPCPdistressesusedinthe
research.Observedtrendsforroughnessandfaultingshowthatmaximumimpactonpavement
performanceoccurundertheA1,A2andB2familyscenarioswhereasB1hadalowerimpact.
Thissupportsthescientificpremisethatofthefourlistedscenariofamilies,climatechangeis
significantlyenhancedunderA1,A2andB2familiesduetohighemissionlevelsofcarbon
dioxideforA1andA2,andmediumlevelsofemissionfortheB2family(IPCC,2011).B1is
characterizedbylowemissionlevelsofcarbondioxide.Thefouremissionscenariosareclearly
distinguishedintransversecrackingwhereA2showsthemostactivedeteriorationpattern
followedbyA1,B2andB1indecreasingeffect.ThisalsosupportsthepremisethatA2is
associatedwithhighemissionlevels,A1withmediumhighemissionlevels,B2withmediumlow
emissionlevelsandB1withlowemissionlevels.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page62

ModelCalibrationtoLocalClimateChangeConditions
Toevaluatetherelativeimpactofeachcalibrationcoefficienttothemodelestimation,the
conceptofelasticityproposedatWashingtonDepartmentofTransportation(Lietal,2006,Li
etal2009)wasadoptedanddefinedas:
E

(Eqn.5.4)

ElasticityoffactorCifortheassociateddistresscondition; distress
WhereE
changeintheestimateddistressassociatedwithachangeinthefactorCi; Ci changeinthe
factorCi;distressestimateddistressusingdefaultcalibrationfactors;CidefaultvalueofCi.
Elasticitycanbezero,positive,ornegative.Zeromeansthefactorhasnoimpactonthemodel;
positivemeanstheestimationincreasesasthefactorincreases;negativemeanstheestimation
decreasesasthefactorincreases.Thebiggertheabsolutevalueofelasticity,thegreaterimpact
thefactorhasonthemodel.Theelasticityvaluesmayvarywiththeselecteddesignparameters
andrelatedinputs.However,itistheorderfromhightolow,notthevaluestorankthe
calibrationfactors,thatisadjustedduringthecalibrationprocess.NumerousMEPDGruns
indicatethattheorderremainedaboutthesame(Lietal,2006,Lietal2009).Throughthis
process,thenumbersofMEPDGrunsaresignificantlyreduced,andthecalibrationprocesswill
beginwiththosefactorsrankinghighbasedontheelasticityvalue.
Basedonthebestavailableinformationforthetestsites,theelasticityresultsshowninTables
5.9,5.10,and5.11demonstratethatsomecoefficientsaremuchmoresensitivethanothers,
whichprovidesanorderofthecoefficientstobecalibrated.Inaddition,duetothe
mathematicalformationofthepredictionmodels:(a)theasphaltconcretefatiguemodels
shouldbecalibratedbeforethelongitudinalandalligatorcrackingmodels,(b)fortherutting
model,calibrationfactorsBr2andBr3shouldbeadjustedbeforeBr1,(c)theCRCPfatigue
modelsshouldbecalibratedbeforethepunchoutmodels.
DefaultvaluesofthecalibrationcoefficientsareprovidedintheMEPDGsoftwareforeach
predictionmodel,asshowninTables5.9,5.10,and5.11.Basedonsensitivityanalysisresults,
thecoefficientsarecalibratedintheorderofhightolowelasticity.First,abaselineMEPDGrun
withoutconsideringclimatechangeisperformed.Bycomparingtheperformanceofbaseline
designandafterclimatechangescenario,thedirectionofthecoefficientchangecanbe
determined.Forexample,inFigure5.3,the2100climatechangescenarioproducesmore
transversecrackingthanthebaselinescenario.Thesensitivityresultsshowthatthemost
sensitivecoefficientisC1withanelasticityof7.579,whichindicatesthatthepredictions
decreaseasthecoefficientsincrease.Thusforthatcase,thecalibratedcoefficientsshouldbe
smallerthanthedefaultvalueinMEPDG,whichis2.0.Thetrialanalysescanbedevelopedwith
adecrementof0.01startingfromthedefaultvalueuntiltheperformancepredictionsarelower
thanthoseforthebaseline.Withtwoconfidencelines:onegeneratinghigherpredictionsand
theotherlower,thecalibratedcoefficientcanbelinearlyinterpolated.Thisprocessisthen
repeatedwiththesecondrankedcoefficient.Theprocesswillstopwhenthedifferencesofthe
UDUTCFinalReport

Page63

performancepredictionsbetweenthosefromthebaselineandafterclimatechangescenario
convergetoanacceptablelevel.Theperformancemodelswerecombinedwiththeadjusted
calibrationcoefficientsandselectedasthefinalcalibrationresults.
ThecalibrationresultsareshowninTables5.9,5.10,and5.11forJPCP,CRCP,andflexible
pavementsectionsrespectively.TheresultsaredevelopedbasedontheA1Bmodelusingahigh
variabilitylevelinscenarioyear2100.Thesameprocedurecanbeappliedtocalibratethe
coefficientsforotherscenarios.Itwasnotedthatmostofthemodelsconvergedafterthe
secondordercoefficientswerecalibrated.Duetothefactthatsomeelasticityvalueswere
relativelylarge,thecalibratedcoefficientsdidnotdemonstrateanysignificantdifferencetothe
defaultvalues.Inotherwords,eventhoughthechangesofthesemodelcoefficientswere
minor,theimpactstoperformancepredictionweresubstantial.

TABLE5.9LocalCalibrationResultsforJPCP(A1Bmodel,3%trafficgrowth)
CalibrationFactor
Cracking

C1
C2
C4
C5
Faulting
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
Smoothness C1
C2
C3
C4

CalibratedCoefficient
Elasticity
National
Factor
Default
2030
2050
2100
7.579
2
1.971
1.961
1.894
7.079
1.22
1.216
1.214
1.224
0.658
1
1
1
1
0.579
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
0.42
1.0184
1.0184
1.0184
1.0184
0.08
0.91656
0.91656
0.91656
0.91656
0.07
0.0021848
0.0021848
0.0021848
0.0021848
0.01 0.000883739 0.000883739 0.000883739 0.000883739
0.07
250
250
250
250
0.57
0.4
0.396
0.391
0.313
0.55
1.8332
1.8332
1.8332
1.8332
0.00
400
400
400
400
0.011
0.8203
0.8203
0.8203
0.8203
0.003
0.4417
0.4417
0.4417
0.4417
0.077
1.4929
1.4929
1.4929
1.4929
0.003
25.24
25.24
25.24
25.24

Validation
ThecalibratedcoefficientswereusedasinputintotheMEPDGsoftwareandrunswere
conducted.Figure5.5providescomparisonsoftheperformancepredictionsforJPCPsection
beforeandaftercalibrationassumingclimatechangeoccurred.Itdemonstratesthatthelocal
calibrationapproachiseffectiveandthatclimatechangeeffectscanbefullyincorporatedinto
anypavementdesignprocess.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page64

TABLE5.10LocalCalibrationResultsforCRCP(A1Bmodel,3%trafficgrowth)
CalibrationFactor
Fatigue

C1
C2
Punchout
C3
C4
C5
Smoothness C1
C2

ElasticityFactor
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.33
0.01
0.02

National
Default
2
1.22
216.842
33.1579
0.58947
3.15
28.35

CalibratedCoefficient
2030
2050
2100
2.004
2.004
2.025
1.224
1.224
1.224
227.841
226.579 225.402
33.1579
33.1579 33.1579
0.58947 0.58947 0.58947
3.15
3.15
3.15
28.35
28.35
28.35

TABLE5.11LocalCalibrationResultsforFlexiblePavement(A1Bmodel,3%trafficgrowth)
CalibrationFactor
ACFatigue
Damage

Bf1
Bf2
Bf3
Longitudinal C1
Cracking
C2
C3
C4
Alligator
C1
Cracking
C2
C3
Rutting
Br1
Br2
Br3
Smoothness C1
C2
C3
C4

ElasticityFactor
3.3
40
20
0.2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0.6
20.6
8.9
NA
NA
NA
NA

National
Default
1
1
1
7
3.5
0
1000
1
1
6000
1
1
1
40
0.4
0.008
0.015

CalibratedCoefficient
2030
2050
2100
1
1
1
0.999
0.999
0.998
1.002
1.003
1.004
7.010
6.985
6.931
3.392
3.211
3.093
0
0
0
1000
1000
1000
0.996
0.996
0.993
1
1
1
6000
6000
6000
1
1
1
1.022
1.039
1.070
1.001
1.001
1.001
40
40
40
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.015
0.015
0.015

UDUTCFinalReport

Page65

0.06

PredictedFaulting(in.)

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
AfterCalibration
0.01

BeforeCalibration
LineofEqulity

0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

FaultingwhenConsideringClimateChange(in.)

14
AfterCalibration

Predicted%SlabCracked

12

BeforeCalibration
LineofEqulity

10
8
6
4
2
0

4
6
8
10
%SlabCrackedwhenConsideringClimateChange

12

14

Figure5.5Validationofthecalibrationcoefficients
UDUTCFinalReport

Page66

6. ConclusionsandRecommendations
Conclusions
Currentandpastpavementdesignsgenerallyassumeastaticclimatewhosevariabilityhasnot
beenconsidered.Thenotionofanthropogenicclimatechangechallengesthisassumptionand
raisesthepossibilitythatpavementperformancemaybealteredleadingtopremature
deterioration.Givenanticipatedclimatechangesandtheinherentuncertaintyassociatedwith
suchchanges,apavementcouldbesubjectedtoverydifferentclimaticconditionsoverthe
designlifeandmightbeinadequatetowithstandfutureclimateforcesthatimposestresses
beyondenvironmentalfactorscurrentlyconsideredinthedesignprocess.Toexplorethe
impactsofpotentialclimatechangeanditsuncertaintyonpavementperformanceand
thereforepavementdesign,thisstudyintegratestwotools:MAGICC/SCENGENtoaddressthe
potentialclimatechangeanditsuncertaintyandtheMEPDGsoftwaretoanalyzethe
deteriorationofpavementperformance.Intheprocess,threeimportantquestionswere
addressed:(1)Howdoespavementperformancedeterioratedifferentlywithclimatechange
anditsuncertainty?(2)Whatistheriskifclimatechangeanditsuncertaintyarenotconsidered
inpavementdesign?and(3)Howdopavementdesignersrespondandincorporatethischange
intothepavementdesignprocess?
BasedontheconceptoflocalcalibrationforMEPDGpredictionmodels,aframeworkto
incorporatetheclimatechangeeffectsintothemechanisticempiricalbasedpavementdesign
wasdevelopedbycalibratingthecoefficientsperformancemodels.Threetestsiteslocatedin
thenortheastUnitedStateswereidentifiedtoillustratetheapplicationoftheframework.This
studyhasestablishedaprocedureforhighwayagenciestofollowwhichshowshowclimate
changecanbeintegratedintopavementdesignasanadaptationstrategy.

Limitations
Limitationsencounteredindevelopingtheframeworktomodelclimatechangeuncertaintyare
listedbelow:

TheTransportationResearchBoardsSpecialReport290(13)notedthefive
climatechangesofparticularimportancetotransportationasincreasesinvery
hotdaysandheatwaves,increasesinArctictemperatures,risingsealevels,
increasesinintenseprecipitationeventsandincreasesinhurricaneintensity.In
thisstudy,theextremesofthesechangescouldnoteasilybemodeled.

Secondly,MEPDGrequiresfiveclimaticdatainputs:temperature,precipitation,
windspeed,cloudcoverandhumidity.SinceMAGICC/SCENGENonlyproduces
temperatureandprecipitationprojections,theotherthreeparametersarenot
includedandtheirimpactsnotquantified.

ThethreetestsitesusedinthepaperwerebasedonavailabledataintheLTPP
databaseonpavementsalongtheEastCoastcorridor.Inactualdesign,
calibrationusesdatafromaccessibledatabasesaswellasexperimentationon

UDUTCFinalReport

Page67

representativepavementsections.Conductingexperimentsonrepresentative
sectionscouldbetenuousandwasnotundertakeninthisresearch.

Recommendations
Toovercomesomeofthelimitationsmentionedabove,thefollowingsolutionsareproposed:

Whereresourcesareavailable,experimentsonrepresentativepavement
sectionsareneeded,usingsubgroupsamongsttheselectedsections.Subgroups
needtobeformedbasedonthemostcriticalinputfactorssuchastrafficlevel,
pavementtypes,andclimaticregionsandthecalibrationprocessshouldbe
conductedforthesesubgroups.

Theeffortinvolvedinexploringscenariosandvariabilityshouldnotdiminishor
beunderestimated.Asclimatechangeresearcherscometoabetter
understandingofclimatechangesensitivityandfocusonareasofitsuncertainty,
highwaydesignersshouldstreamlinemethodsbywhichclimateisincorporated
intothedesignprocess.

Finally,itshouldberealizedthatvariousinputsotherthanregionalclimatedata
andpotentialclimatechangeimpactarecriticalindesigningpavements.Such
inputsincludelocalmaterialcharacterization,constructionspecificationsand
pavementpreservationandmaintenancepractices.Inthisstudy,onlyclimatic
inputswereconsideredinthelocalcalibrationprocess.Futureresearchis
requiredtoincludealltheseinputssuchasthoselistedaboveincombination
withclimatechangeparametersintoMEPDGandsubsequentlyintothelocal
calibrationprocedure.

Theapplicationoftheframeworktothreepavementsectionsdemonstratedsignificantimpacts
duetoclimatechange.Incorporatingfuturescenariosintopavementdesignisimportant.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page68

7. References
AmericanSocietyofTestingandMaterials.E867.(2006).StandardTerminologyRelatingto
VehiclePavementSystem,www.astm.org.
Andronova,N.G.,andM.E.Schlesinger,(2001).Objectiveestimationoftheprobabilitydensity
functionforclimatesensitivity.J.Geophys.Res.,106,2260522612.
Annan,J.D.,etal.,(2005).Efficientlyconstrainingclimatesensitivitywithensemblesof
paleoclimatesimulations.ScientificOnlineLettersontheAtmosphere,1,181184.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004a).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures:Part2Chapter3DesignInputClimaticEffects.ERES
ConsultantsDivision,UrbanaChampion,IL.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004b).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.SmoothnessPredictionModelsforFlexiblePavements.
AppendixOO.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004c).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.CalibrationofPermanentDeformationModelsforFlexible
Pavements.AppendixGG.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004d).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.CalibrationofFatigueCrackingModelsforFlexible
Pavements.AppendixII,2004.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004e).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.TransverseJointFaultingModel.AppendixJJ.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004f).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.TransverseCrackingforJPCP.AppendixKK.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004g).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.PunchoutsinCRCP.AppendixLL.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004h).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.Part2:DesignInputs;Chapter2:MaterialCharacterization.
AppliedResearchAssociatesInc.(2004i).GuideforMechanisticEmpiricalDesignofNewand
RehabilitatedPavementStructures.Part2:DesignInputs;Chapter4:Traffic.
AsphaltInstitute.(1982).ResearchandDevelopmentoftheAsphaltInstitutesThicknessDesign
Manual(MS1).9thedition.ResearchReport822,1982.
Baladi,GilbertY.(1990)HighwayPavement(NHICourseNo.13114).FHWA,McLeanVA,May.
Bonnaure,F.,A.Gravois,andJ.Udron.(1980).ANewMethodofPredictingtheFatigueLifeof
BituminousMixes.JournaloftheAssociationofAsphaltPavingTechnologist,Vol.49,1980.
CarpenterS.H.,M.I.DarterandB.J.Dempsey.(1981)APavementMoistureAcceleratedDistress
IdentificationSystem:UsersManual,Volume2.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page69

Darter,M.I.(1988).CRCPDistressStudyonI77FairfieldandChesterCounties,SouthCarolina.
ERESConsultants,Inc.
DepartmentforEnvironment,FoodandRuralAffairs(Defra).(2010).UKClimateImpacts
Programme,http://www.ukcip.org.uk.AccessedSeptember3,2010.
ERESConsultants,Inc.(1987)PavementDesignPrinciplesandPractices.Champaign,Illinois,
NationalHighwayInstitute,WashingtonD.C.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2001).TrafficMonitoringGuide.FHWA,McLean,VA.
FederalHighwayAdministration(FHWA).(2010).LongTermPavementPerformance(LTPP)
Database,http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/ltpp,AccessedOctober26,2010.
FoleyA.M.(2010)Uncertaintyinregionalclimatemodeling:Areview.ProgressinPhysical
Geography,vol.34no.5,p:647670.
Forest,C.E.,etal.,(2002).Quantifyinguncertaintiesinclimatesystempropertieswiththeuse
ofrecentclimateobservations. Science,295,113117.
Forest,C.E.,P.H.Stone,andA.P.Sokolov,(2006).EstimatedPDFsofclimatesystemproperties
includingnaturalandanthropogenicforcings. Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,L01705,
doi:10.1029/2005GL023977.
Forster,P.M.D.,andK.E.Taylor,2006:Climateforcingsandclimatesensitivitiesdiagnosedfrom
coupledclimatemodelintegrations. J. Clim., 19,61816194.
Frame,D.J.,etal.,(2005).Constrainingclimateforecasts:Theroleofprior
assumptions.Geophys.Res.Lett.,32,L09702,doi:10.1029/2004GL022241.
Gregory,J.M.,etal.,(2002).Anobservationallybasedestimateoftheclimatesensitivity.J.
Clim.,15,31173121.
Haas,R.,L.C.Falls,D.MacLeodandS.Tighe.(2004)ClimateImpactsandAdaptationsonRoads
inNorthernCanada.ColdClimatesConference,Regina,AB.2004.
Hegerl,G.C.,T.J.Crowley,W.T.Hyde,andD.J.Frame,(2006).Climatesensitivityconstrainedby
temperaturereconstructionsoverthepastsevencenturies.Nature,440,10291032.
Huang,Y.H.(2004).PavementAnalysisandDesign(2ndEdition).PrenticeHallPublishingPress,
UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(1990)ClimateChange,theIPCCScientific
Assessment.EditedbyJ.T.Houghton,G.J.JenkinsandJ.J.Ephraums.CambridgeUniversity
Press,Cambridge.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(1995)TheScienceofClimateChange,
ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheSecondAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmental
PanelonClimateChange.EditedbyJ.T.Houghton,L.G.MeiraFilho,B.A.Callander,N.Harris,A.
KattenbergandK.Maskell.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(2001)ClimateChange2001:TheScientific
Basis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheThirdAssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmental
UDUTCFinalReport

Page70

PanelonClimateChange.EditedbyHoughton,J.T.,Y.Ding,D.J.Griggs,M.Noguer,P.J.vander
Linden,X.Dai,K.Maskell,andC.A.Johnson.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,United
KingdomandNewYork,NY,USA,
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(2007a)SummaryforPolicymakers.In:
ClimateChange2007:ThePhysicalScienceBasis.ContributionofWorkingGroupItotheFourth
AssessmentReportoftheIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange.EditedbySolomon,S.,
D.Qin,M.Manning,Z.Chen,M.Marquis,K.B.Averyt,M.TignorandH.L.Miller.Cambridge
UniversityPress,Cambridge,UnitedKingdomandNewYork,NY,USA.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(2007b).IPCCFourthAssessmentReport:
ClimateChange2007(AR4),CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork,NY,USA.
IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC).(2011).IPCCSpecialReportEmissions
Scenarios.http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/spm/sres-en.pdf,AccessedonMarch15,2011.
Kheshgi,HaroonS.,RogerC.Prince,andGreggMarland.(2000).ThePotentialofBiomassFuels
intheContextofGlobalClimateChange:FocusonTransportationFuels.AnnualReviewof
EnergyEnvironmentsVol.25,2000,pp:199244.
Knutti,R.,T.F.Stocker,F.Joos,andG.K.Plattner.(2002).Constraintsonradiativeforcingand
futureclimatechangefromobservationsandclimatemodelensembles.Nature,416,719723.
LaCourseiere,S.A.,M.I.Darter,andS.A.Smiley.(1978).StructuralDistressMechanismsin
ContinuouslyReinforcedConcretePavement.TransportationEngineeringSeriesNo.20,
UniversityofIllinoisatUrbanaChampaign.
LiJ.H.,MuenchS.T.,MahoneyJ.P.,SivaneswaranN.,PierceL.M.(2006).CalibrationofNCHRP
137ASoftwarefortheWashingtonStateDepartmentofTransportation:RigidPavement
Portion.TransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoardNo.
1949,TransportationResearchBoardBusinessOffice,Washington,DC,pp4353
Li,J.H.,PierceL.M,UhlmeyerJ.S.(2009).CalibrationofFlexiblePavementinMechanistic
EmpiricalPavementDesignGuideforWashingtonState.TransportationResearchRecord:
JournaloftheTransportationResearchBoardNo.2095,TransportationResearchBoard
BusinessOffice,Washington,DC,pp7383
MeyerM.,A.AmekudziandJ.P.OHar.(2010)TransportationAssetManagementSystemsand
ClimateChange.InTransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportationResearch
Board,No2160,TransportationResearchBoardoftheNationalAcademies,Washington,D.C.,
pp.1220.
MeyerM.,andB.Wiegel.(2011).ClimateChangeandTransportationEngineering.Preparingfor
aSustainableFuture.JournalofTransportationEngineering,Vol.137,pp.393403
Mills,B.N.,S.L.Tighe,J.Andrey,J.Smith,S.Parm.andK.Huen.(2007).TheRoadWell
Traveled:ImplicationsofClimateChangeforPavementInfrastructureinSouthernCanada.Final
TechnicalReport.UniversityofWaterloo,Canada.
Moulton,U.K.HighwaySubdrainageDesign.(1980)ReportNo.FHWATS80224.FHWA.
UDUTCFinalReport

Page71

NationalOceanographicandAtmosphericAdministration(NOAA).(2010).NationalClimatic
DataCenter,http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov.AccessedSeptember10,2010.
Papagiannakis,A.T.andE.A.Masad.(2008).PavementDesignandMaterials.JohnWileyand
Sons.
SalehM.,M.MamloukandE.OwusuAntwi.Mechanisticroughnessmodelbasedonvehicle
pavementinteractionInTransportationResearchRecord:JournaloftheTransportation
ResearchBoard,No.1699,TransportationReseaarchBoardoftheNationalAcademies,
WashingtonD.C.,2000,pp114120.
Santer,B.D.,Wigley,T.M.L.,Schlesinger,M.E.andMitchell,J.F.B.(1990).DevelopingClimate
ScenariosfromEquilibriumGCMResults.MaxPlanckInstitutfrMeteorologieReportNo.47,
Hamburg,Germany.
SchneidervonDeimling,T.,H.Held,A.Ganopolski,andS.Rahmstorf,(2006).Climatesensitivity
estimatedfromensemblesimulationsofglacialclimate.Clim.Dyn.,27,149163.
SeleznevaO.I.,D.Zollinger,M.Darter.(2001).MechanisticAnalysisofFactorsLeadingto
PunchoutDevelopmentforImprovedCRCPDesignProcedures.Proceedingsofthe7th
InternationalconferenceonConcretePavements,pp.731745,September.
Selezneva,O.I.(2002).DevelopmentofMechanisticEmpiricalDamageAssessmentProcedures
forCRCPavementswithEmphasisonTrafficLoadingCharacteristics.Ph.D.Dissertation,West
VirginiaUniversity.
TranNamH.andHallKevinD.(2007).DevelopmentandInfluenceofStatewideAxleLoad
SpectraonFlexiblePavementPerformance,TransportationResearchRecord:Journalofthe
TransportationResearchBoard,No.2037,TransportationResearchBoardoftheNational
Academies,Washington,D.C.,pp.106114.
TransportationResearchBoard(TRB).(2009)ATransportationResearchProgramforMitigating
andAdaptingtoClimateChangeandConservingEnergy.TransportationResearchBoard
SpecialReport299,WashingtonD.C.
TransportationResearchBoard(TRB)(2010).MechanisticEmpiricalPavementDesignGuide
(MEPDG).http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/home.htm.Accesseson
September2010.
TransportationResearchBoard(TRB).(2011).MechanisticEmpiricalPavementDesignGuide:
ClimateData,http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/mepdg/climatic_state.htm,accessed
onMarch10,2011.
TransportationResearchBoard.(2008)PotentialImpactsofClimateChangeonUS
Transportation.TransportationResearchBoardSpecialReport290,WashingtonD.C.,2008.
U.S.ClimateChangeScienceProgram(CCSP).(2008)ImpactsofClimateChangeandVariability
onTransportationSystemsandInfrastructure:GulfCoastStudy,PhaseI.Departmentof
Transportation,Washington,DC,USA,2008

UDUTCFinalReport

Page72

U.S.GlobalChangeResearchProgram(USGCRP)(2009).GlobalClimateChangeImpactsinthe
UnitedStates.ThomasR.Karl,JerryM.Melillo,andThomasC.Peterson,(eds.).Cambridge
UniversityPress,NewYork,NY,USA.
http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climateimpactsreport.pdf
Walther,GianReto,EricPost,PeterConvey,AnnetteMenzel,CamilleParmesank,TrevorJ.C.
Beebee,JeanMarcFromentin,OveHoeghGuldbergandFranzBairlein.(2002).Ecological
responsestorecentclimatechange.Nature,Vol.416No.28.
WangKelvinC.P.,LiQiang(2008),DatabaseSupportfortheNewMechanisticEmpirical
PavementDesignGuide(MEPDG).TransportationResearchRecord:Journalofthe
TransportationResearchBoard,No:2087,pp:109119.
WashingtonDepartmentofTransportation(WSDOT).(2011).WSDOTPavementGuide,
http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/.AccessedonJuly10,2011.
Wigley,TomM.L.(2008).MAGICC/SCENGEN5.3:USERMANUAL(version2).TheNational
CenterforAtmosphericResearch(NCAR),Boulder,CO.
Yoder,E.J.,andM.W.Witzcak.(1979)PrinciplesofPavementDesign.NewYork:JohnWiley&
Sons.
Zollinger,D.G.,andE.J.Barenberg.(1990).ContinuouslyReinforcedPavements:Punchoutsand
OtherDistressesandImplicationsforDesign.ProjectIHR518,IllinoisCooperativeHighway
ResearchProgram,UniversityofIllinoisatUrbanaChampaign,March.
Zollinger,D.G.,N.Buch,D.Xin,andJ.Soares.(1998).PerformanceofCRCPVolume6CRCP
Design,Construction,andPerformance.FHWARD97151,Report,U.S.Departmentof
Transportation,Washington,DC,February.

UDUTCFinalReport

Page73

APPENDIXAFormatsoftheIntegratedClimaticModelFiles

TheIntegratedClimaticModelusesseveralfileformatsformodelingpavementtemperature
andmoistureprofiles.Theformatofthesefilesisoutlinedbelow.
ICMFiles(*.icm)
ICMfilesaregeneratedbythehourlyclimaticdatabaseandcontainalloftheinformation
neededtoruntheIntegratedClimaticModelnumericalengine.
StartDate(YYYYMMDD)EndDate(YYYYMMDD):Theperiodforwhichthisfilecontainsdatafor.
1996070120011231
Longitude,Latitude,AnnualWaterTableDepth(1ifusingseasonal),springwatertabledepth,
summerwatertable,fallwatertable,winterwatertable,monthlyaveragehumidity(12total
startJanuary)
86.23,32.18,227,
1,10,20,19,10,64.8035,12.8717,44.1237,72.3013,69.6847,65.7183,70.4444,70.5253,75.7314,75.
2074,74.7334,74.5993,72.8259,74.0491,75.2558
Month,Day,Year,Sunrisetime(decimal24hour),sunset,dailysolarradiationmaximum.
Sunrise/SunsetcalculatedfromLat/Long.Solarradiationdatafromrad.datfile,correctfor
Lat/Long.
7119964.9589919.0413730.48
Hour,temperature,precipitation,windspeed,percentsunshine,hourlygroundwaterdepth.
0720010020
171.10010020
2700310020
3700010020
470037520
5720010020
6770610020
7820610020
887.10710020
9900710020
10910710020
1193057520
1291.9052520
1393.90610020
1495057520
15930510020
16910610020
1789.10510020
UDUTCFinalReport

Page74

18860310020
19840410020
20810410020
2180.10410020
22790510020
23770310020
HourlyClimaticDatabaseFiles(*.hcd)
Hourlyclimaticdatabasefilescontaininformationforaspecificweatherstation.Toadda
weatherstationtothosethatareavailablewithintheMEPDG,createanew*.hcdfile.Assigna
numberunusedinthestation.datfile(describedbelow).Addthatnumbertothestation.dat
filelist.
YYYYMMDDHH,Temperature(F),Windspeed(mph),%Sunshine,Precipitation,Relative
humidity.
1997060100,57.9,9,0,0.2,97
1997060101,57.9,9,0,0.35,97
1997060102,57.9,5,0,0.18,100
1997060103,59,9,0,0.06,93
1997060104,59,10,0,0.05,93
1997060105,59,12,0,0.07,96
1997060106,59,12,0,0.07,96
1997060107,60.1,9,0,0.03,96
1997060108,61,9,0,0.03,97
1997060109,62.1,9,0,0.06,96
1997060110,63,5,0,0,97
1997060111,64,4,0,0.01,96
1997060112,64.9,3,0,0.04,97
1997060113,68,0,0,0,90
1997060114,69.1,0,0,0,87
1997060115,69.1,0,0,0,84
1997060116,69.1,0,0,0,84
1997060117,69.1,0,0,0,78
1997060118,66.9,0,25,0,87
1997060119,64.9,4,100,0,97
1997060120,64,0,100,0,100
1997060121,62.1,0,50,0,100
1997060122,60.1,3,0,0,100
1997060123,62.1,0,0,0,100
1997060200,62.1,0,0,0,100
StationFile(station.dat)
UDUTCFinalReport

Page75

Thestation.datfilecontainsallofthehourlyclimaticdatabaseweatherstations.Eachweather
stationincludedhasthefollowinginformation.
Weatherstationnumber,weatherstationabbreviation,location(city|state),latitude,
longitude,elevation,firstdateinfile(YYYMMDD)
25704,ADK,ADAK|AK,ADAKNAS,51.53,176.39,17,19960701

UDUTCFinalReport

Page76

APPENDIXBWeighInMotion(WIM)TrafficResults
Thisappendixdocumentsthemonthlyadjustmentfactors,andvehicleclassdistributionfactors
usedforeachofthecasestudysections.Thefiguresareorganizedasfollows:

JPCPpavementsection
o Loadspecta
Class5singleaxlesFigureB1
Class9singleaxlesFigureB2
Class9tandemaxlesFigureB3
Class7tridemaxlesFigureB4
Class10tridemaxlesFigureB5
o MonthlyadjustmentfactorsFigureB6
o VehicleclassdistributionFigureB7
CRCPpavementsection
o Loadspecta
Class5singleaxlesFigureB8
Class9singleaxlesFigureB9
Class9tandemaxlesFigureB10
Class7tridemaxlesFigureB11
Class10tridemaxlesFigureB12
o MonthlyadjustmentfactorsFigureB13
o VehicleclassdistributionFigureB14
ACpavementsection
o Loadspecta
Class5singleaxlesFigureB15
Class9singleaxlesFigureB16
Class9tandemaxlesFigureB17
Class7tridemaxlesFigureB18
Class10tridemaxlesFigureB19
o MonthlyadjustmentfactorsFigureB20
o VehicleclassdistributionFigureB21

UDUTCFinalReport

Page77

1.JPCPPavementSection(094008)
20

January

%Axles

18

February

16

March

14

April

12

May

10

June

July
August

September

October

November

0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB1LoadSpectraforVehicleClass5SingleAxles
30

January
February

25

March
April

%Axles

20

May
June

15

July
August

10

September
5

October
November

0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB2LoadSpectraforVehicleClass9SingleAxles

UDUTCFinalReport

Page78

14

January
February

12

March

%Axles

10

April
May

June
6

July
August

September
October

November
0
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB3LoadSpectraforVehicleClass9TandemAxles
25

January
February

20

March

%Axles

April
May

15

June
July

10

August
September

October
November

0
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB4LoadSpectraforVehicleClass7TridemAxles

UDUTCFinalReport

Page79

25

January
February

20

March

%Axles

April
May

15

June
July

10

August
September

October
November

0
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

MonthlyAdjustmentFactor

FigureB5LoadSpectraforVehicleClass10TridemAxles
1.6

January

1.4

February
March

1.2

April
1.0

May

0.8

June

0.6

July
August

0.4

September

0.2

October

0.0

November
4

10

11

12

13

December

VehicleClass

FigureB6MonthlyAdjustmentFactor

UDUTCFinalReport

Page80

60

Percentage(%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
4

10

11

12

13

VehicleClass

FigureB7VehicleClassDistribution

UDUTCFinalReport

Page81

2. CRCP Pavement Section (10-5004)

40

January

35

February
March

30

%Axles

April
25

May

20

June
July

15

August

10

September
October

November
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB8LoadSpectraforVehicleClass5SingleAxles
25

January
February

20

March

%Axles

April
May

15

June
July

10

August
September

October
November

0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB9LoadSpectraforVehicleClass9SingleAxles

UDUTCFinalReport

Page82

16

January
February

14

March

12

April

%Axles

10

May
June

July
6

August
September

October

November

December
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB10LoadSpectraforVehicleClass9TandemAxles
30

January
February

25

March
April

%Axles

20

May
June

15

July
August

10

September
October

November
December

0
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB11LoadSpectraforVehicleClass7TridemAxles

UDUTCFinalReport

Page83

%Axles

50

January

45

February

40

March

35

April

30

May
June

25

July

20

August

15

September

10

October

November

December
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB12LoadSpectraforVehicleClass10TridemAxles
2.5

January

MonthlyAdjustmentFactor

February
2.0

March
April

1.5

May
June
July

1.0

August
September

0.5

October
November

0.0
4

10

11

12

13

December

VehicleClass

FigureB13MonthlyAdjustmentFactor

UDUTCFinalReport

Page84

50
45
40
Percentage(%)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
4

10

11

12

13

VehicleClass

FigureB14VehicleClassDistribution

UDUTCFinalReport

Page85

3. Flexible Pavement Section (34-6507)

50

January

%Axles

45

February

40

March

35

April

30

May

25

June
July

20

August

15

September

10

October

November

0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB15LoadSpectraforVehicleClass5SingleAxles
18

January

16

February

14

March
April

%Axles

12

May

10

June

July

August
September

October

November

December
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB16LoadSpectraforVehicleClass9SingleAxles

UDUTCFinalReport

Page86

18

January

16

February

14

March
April

%Axles

12

May

10

June

July

August
September

October

November

December
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB17LoadSpectraforVehicleClass9TandemAxles
14

January
February

12

March

%Axles

10

April
May

June
July

August
4

September
October

November
0

December
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB18LoadSpectraforVehicleClass7TridemAxles

UDUTCFinalReport

Page87

45

January

40

February

35

March
April

%Axles

30

May

25

June

20

July

15

August
September

10

October

November

0
0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

December

AxleLoad(lbf)

FigureB19LoadSpectraforVehicleClass10TridemAxles
3.0

January
February

MonthlyAdjustmentFactor

2.5

March
April

2.0

May
1.5

June
July

1.0

August
September

0.5

October
November

0.0
4

10

11

12

13

December

VehicleClass

FigureB20MonthlyAdjustmentFactor

UDUTCFinalReport

Page88

60

Percentage(%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
4

10

11

12

13

VehicleClass

FigureB21VehicleClassDistribution

UDUTCFinalReport

Page89

APPENDIXCFormatsoftheMEPDGTrafficImportFiles
TheMEPDGtrafficexport/importfiles,11intotal,comeasfollows.Theycontainallthetraffic
datasetsthatarerequiredintheMEPDGanalysis.

_HourlyTrafficPercentage.txt
MonthlyAdjustmentFactor.txt
VehicleClassDistribution.txt
TrafficGrowth.txt
Traffic.txt
GeneralTraffic.txt
AxlesPerTruck.txt
Single.alf
Tandem.alf
Tridem.alf
Quad.alf

UDUTCFinalReport

Page90

TableC.1Studiesonthe11ImportableTrafficFilesforMEPDG
Categories

FileName

DataIncluded

Notes

Basic
Information

Traffic.txt

Traffic
Volume
Adjustment

MonthlyAdjustmentFactor.txt
VehicleClassDistribution.txt
_HourlyTrafficPerc.txt
TrafficGrowth.txt

AxleLoad
Distribution
Factors

single.alf
tandem.alf
tridem.alf
quad.alf
GeneralTraffic.txt

InitialtwowayAADTT
Numberoflanesinthedesigndirection
Percentoftrucksinthedesigndirection
Percentoftrucksinthedesignlane
Operationalspeed
TableforMonthlyAdjustmentFactor
PercenttrucksinClass
Hourlytrucktrafficdistributionin24hours
Trafficgrowthfunction:0or1
Inputgrowth:No,LinearorCompound
GrowthRateNumber(%)growthrate
Axleloaddistributionfactorssingleload
Axleloaddistributionfactorstandemload
Axleloaddistributionfactorstridemload
Axleloaddistributionfactorsquadload
MeanWheelLocation
TrafficWander
Designlandwidth
AverageAxleWidth(edgetoedge)Outside
dimensions
DualTireSpacing
TirePressure
Tandem,tridem,andquadaxlespacing
Shortaxlespacing
Percenttruckswithshortaxlespacing
Mediumaxlespacing
Percentoftruckswithmediumaxlespacing
Longaxlespacing
Percentoftruckswithlongaxlespacing
Axlespertruckatdifferentloadcategories

General
Traffic
Inputs

AxlesPerTruck.txt

UDUTCFinalReport

Page91

10numbersthatsumto100

0Compositevehicleclassgrowth;
1Vehicleclassspecificgrowth;
1.Thesefilescanbeopenedwith
WordPad;
2.Theformatsofthesefilesaresame
asthoseinMEPDG

APPENDIXDMAGICC/SCENGENClimateChangeProjectionResults
zThisappendixtabulatestheMAGICC/SCENGENclimatechangeprojectionsforthe36scenarios
usedinthisstudy.Dataforeachseason(Spring,Summer,FallandWinter)andfortwolocations
(CT&NJ,andDE)included:

Changeintemperature((ange)

Standarddeviationoftemperature(SDT(%))

Percentagechangeinprecipitation((rcen)

Standarddeviationofthepercentagechangeinprecipitation(SDP(%))

Globalchangeintemperature,and

Globalsealevelrise(SLR(cm))

Thetablesareorganizedasfollows:

A1BAIMModel
o 2030

LowVariabilityTableD1

MediumVariabilityTableD2

HighVariabilityTableD3

o 2050

LowVariabilityTableD4

MediumVariabilityTableD5

HighVariabilityTableD6

o 2100

LowVariabilityTableD7

MediumVariabilityTableD8

HighVariabilityTableD9

A2ASFModel
o 2030

UDUTCFinalReport

Page92

LowVariabilityTableD10

MediumVariabilityTableD11

HighVariabilityTableD12

o 2050

LowVariabilityTableD13

MediumVariabilityTableD14

HighVariabilityTableD15

o 2100

LowVariabilityTableD16

MediumVariabilityTableD17

HighVariabilityTableD18

B1IMAModel
o 2030

LowVariabilityTableD19

MediumVariabilityTableD20

HighVariabilityTableD21

o 2050

LowVariabilityTableD22

MediumVariabilityTableD23

HighVariabilityTableD24

o 2100

UDUTCFinalReport

LowVariabilityTableD25

MediumVariabilityTableD26

HighVariabilityTableD27
Page93

B2MESModel
o 2030

LowVariabilityTableD28

MediumVariabilityTableD29

HighVariabilityTableD30

o 2050

LowVariabilityTableD31

MediumVariabilityTableD32

HighVariabilityTableD33

o 2100

LowVariabilityTableD34

MediumVariabilityTableD35

HighVariabilityTableD36

UDUTCFinalReport

Page94

TableD1A1BAIMModel,LowVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
DE
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

T(C)

SDT(%)

0.72
0.74
0.75
0.66
0.73
0.7
0.74
0.58

P(%)

2.1
14.21
2.31
7.94
0.55
7.17
5.07
6.56

SDP(%)

3.54
0.19
0.09
2.05
4.99
1.58
1.09
2.72

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
4.11
0.54
3.88
0.36
2.58
0.76
2.68
2.72
3.85
9.39

TableD2A1BAIMModel,MediumVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.17
1.2
1.22
1.08
1.18
1.13
1.2
0.95

SDT(%)

P(%)

3.41
23.1
3.76
12.9
0.89
11.16
8.24
10.66

5.76
0.31
0.15
3.34
8.11
2.57
1.77
4.2

SDP
Global Global
(%)
T(C)
SLR(cm)
6.68
0.87
7.99
0.59
4.2
1.24
4.36
4.43
6.25
15.25

TableD3A1BAIMModel,HighVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
1.69
1.73
1.76
1.56
1.7
1.63
1.72
1.37

SDT(%)

P(%)

18.6
33.31
5.42
18.61
1.28
16.81
11.89
15.38

8.3
0.45
0.21
4.81
11.69
3.71
2.55
6.37

SDP
Global Global
(%)
T(C)
SLR(cm)
9.63
1.26
13.88
0.85
6.05
1.79
6.28
6.38
9.01
22

Page95

TableD4A1BAIMModel,LowVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
0.3
1.31
1.34
1.18
1.29
1.24
1.31
1.04

SDT(%) P
SDP
Global Global
(%)
(%)
T(C) SLR(cm)
3.73
6.3
4.1
0.95
7.01
25.26 0.34
0.7
4.11 0.16
4.6
14.11
3.65
1.4
0.97
8.87
4.8
12.75
2.81
4.8
9.02 1.93
6.8
11.66
4.83
17

TableD5A1BAIMModel,MediumVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
2.13
2.17
2.22
1.96
2.14
2.05
2.17
1.72

SDT(%) P
SDP
Global Global
(%)
(%)
T(C) SLR(cm)
6.19 10.44
12
1.58
15.13
41.89 0.56
1.1
6.82 0.27
7.6
23.39 6.05
2.3
1.61 14.71
7.9
21.14 4.67
8
14.95
3.2
11
19.34 8.01
28

TableD6A1BAIMModel,HighVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
3.13
3.2
3.26
2.88
3.15
3.02
3.19
2.53

SDT(%) P
SDP
Global Global
(%)
(%)
T(C) SLR(cm)
9.11 15.36
18
2.33
27.09
61.64 0.83
1.6
10.03
0.4
11
34.42
8.91
3.3
2.38 21.64
12
31.1
6.87
12
21.99 4.71
17
28.45 11.78
41

Page96

TableD7A1BAIMModel,LowVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
2.25
2.29
2.34
2.06
2.26
2.17
2.29
1.82

SDT(%) P
SDP(%) Global Global
(%)
T(C) SLR(cm)
6.53 11.01
12.77
1.67
14.8
44.17 0.59
1.13
7.19 0.28
8.03
24.67
6.38
2.37
1.7 15.51
8.33
22.29
4.92
8.47
15.76 3.38
11.96
20.39
8.44
29.17

TableD8A1BAIMModel,MediumVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
3.98
4.06
4.15
3.66
4
3.84
4.05
3.22

SDT(%) P
SDP(%) Global Global
(%)
T(C) SLR(cm)
11.58 19.52
22.63
2.96
37.1
78.3 1.05
2.01
12.74
0.5
14.23
43.72 11.31
4.2
3.02 27.49
14.77
39.51
8.72
15.01
27.94 5.99
21.19
36.15 14.97
51.71

TableD9A1BAIMModel,HighVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
6.31
6.43
6.57
5.8
6.34
6.08
6.42
5.1

SDT(%) P
SDP(%) Global Global
(%)
T(C) SLR(cm)
18.34 30.93
35.86
4.69
73.2
124.04 1.66
3.18
20.19
0.8
22.55
69.29 17.93
6.66
4.78 43.56
23.41
62.61 13.82
23.78
44.28 9.49
33.58
57.28 23.72
81.95

UDUTCFinalReport

Page97


TableD10A2ASFModel,LowVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
0.66
0.68
0.69
0.61
0.67
0.64
0.67
0.54

SDT(%)
1.93
13.04
2.12
7.28
0.5
6.58
4.65
6.02

P(%)
3.25
0.17
0.08
1.88
4.58
1.45
1
2.49

SDP(%)
3.77
0.33
2.37
0.7
2.46
2.5
3.53
8.61

Global
T(C)
0.49

Global
SLR(cm)
3.77

TableD11A2ASFModel,MediumVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

DE

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

T(C)
1.09
1.11
1.14
1
1.1
1.05
1.11
0.88

SDT(%)

P(%)

3.17
21.44
3.49
11.97
0.83
10.82
7.65
9.9

5.34
0.29
0.14
3.1
7.53
2.39
1.64
4.1

SDP(%)

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
6.2
0.81
7.85
0.55
3.9
1.15
4.05
4.11
5.8
14.16

TableD12A2ASFModel,HighVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

DE

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
1.59
1.62
1.66
1.46
1.6
1.53
1.62
1.29

SDT(%)

P(%)

4.62
31.26
5.09
17.46
1.2
15.77

7.79
0.42
0.2
4.52
10.97
3.48

11.16
14.43

2.39
5.98

SDP(%)

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
9.03
1.18
13.72
0.8
5.68
1.68
5.9
5.99

8.46
20.64

Page98

TableD13A2ASFModel,LowVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.21
1.24
1.26
1.11
1.22
1.17
1.23
0.98

SDT(%)
3.52
23.84
3.88
13.31
0.92
12.03
8.51
11.01

P(%)
5.94
0.32
0.15
3.45
8.37
2.66
1.82
4.56

SDP(%)

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
6.9
0.9
6.77
0.6
4.3
1.3
4.5
4.6
6.5
16

TableD14A2ASFModel,MediumVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

DE

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

T(C)
2.01
2.05
2.23
1.85
2.02
1.94
2.19
1.62

SDT(%)

P(%)

SDP(%)

5.84
39.48
6.42
22.05
1.52
19.92

9.84
0.53
0.25
5.71
13.86
4.4

11
1
7.2
2.1
7.5
7.6

14.09
18.23

3.02
7.55

11
26

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.49
14.59

TableD15A2ASFModel,HighVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

DE

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
2.95
3.01
3.08
2.72
2.97
2.85
3.01
2.39

SDT(%)
8.59
58.12
9.46
32.45
2.24
29.34
20.74
26.83

P(%)
14.49
0.78
0.37
8.4
20.4
6.47
4.45
11.11

SDP(%)
17
1.5
11
3.1
11
11
16
38

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
2.2
26.18

Page99

TableD16A2ASFModel,LowVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
3
3.06
3.13
2.76
3.02
2.9
3.06
2.43

SDT(%)
8.74
59.1
9.62
33
2.28
29.82
21.09
27.28

P(%)
14.73
0.79
0.38
8.54
20.75
6.58
4.52
11.3

SDP(%)

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
17.08
2.23
17.53
1.51
10.74
3.17
11.15
11.3
16
39.03

TableD17A2ASFModel,MediumVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
5.13
5.23
5.34
4.71
5.15
4.94
5.22
4.15

SDT(%)
14.91
100.86
16.41
56.32
3.89
50.9
35.99
46.56

P(%)
25.14
1.35
0.65
14.58
35.41
11.24
7.71
19.28

SDP(%)

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
29.15
3.81
41.71
2.58
18.33
5.42
19.03
19.3
27.3
66.61

TableD18A2ASFModel,HighVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
7.83
7.99
8.15
7.2
7.87
7.55
7.97
6.33

SDT(%)
22.77
154.02
25.06
86.01
5.94
77.72
54.96
71.1

P(%)
38.39
2.07
0.99
22.26
54.07
17.16
11.78
29.44

SDP(%)

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
44.51
5.82
79.87
3.95
28
8.27
29.06
29.5
41.69
101.7

Page100

TableD19B1IMAModel,LowVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
0.61
0.62
0.64
0.56
0.62
0.59
0.62
0.49

SDT(%)
1.78
12.04
1.96
6.72
0.46
6.07
4.3
5.56

P(%)

SDP(%)

3
0.16
0.08
1.74
4.23
1.34
0.92
2.3

3.48
0.31
2.19
0.65
2.27
2.31
3.26
7.95

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
0.45
3.61

TableD20B1IMAModel,MediumVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.02
1.04
1.06
0.94
1.03
0.98
1.04
0.83

SDT(%)

P(%)

2.97
20.08
3.27
11.21
0.77
10.13
7.16
9.27

5
0.27
0.13
2.9
7.05
2.24
1.54
3.84

SDP(%)
5.8
0.51
3.65
1.08
3.79
3.85
5.43
13.26

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
0.76
7.63

TableD21B1IMAModel,HighVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
1.5
1.53
1.57
1.38
1.51
1.45
1.53
1.22

SDT(%)
4.37
29.58
4.81
16.52
1.14
14.93
10.56
13.66

P(%)
7.37
0.4
0.19
4.27
10.38
3.3
2.26
5.65

SDP(%)
8.55
0.76
5.38
1.59
5.58
5.67
8.01
19.54

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.12
13.44

Page101

TableD22B1IMAModel,LowVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
0.92
0.94
0.96
0.85
0.92
0.89
0.94
0.74

SDT(%)
2.7
18
2.9
10
0.7
9.1
6.5
8

P(%)
4.51
0.24
0.12
2.61
6.35
2.02
1.38
3.46

SDP(%)
5.2
0.5
3.3
1
3.4
3.5
4.9
12

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
0.68
5.77

TableD23B1IMAModel,MediumVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.57
1.6
1.63
1.44
1.58
1.51
1.6
1.27

SDT(%)
4.6
31
5
17
1.2
16
11
14

P(%)
7.69
0.41
0.2
4.46
10.83
3.44
2.36
5.9

SDP(%)
8.9
0.8
5.6
1.7
5.8
5.9
8.4
20

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.17
12.92

TableD24B1IMAModel,HighVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
2.37
2.42
2.47
2.18
2.38
2.29
2.41
1.92

SDT(%)
6.9
47
7.6
26
1.8
24
17
22

P(%)
11.63
0.63
0.3
6.74
16.37
5.2
3.57
8.91

SDP(%)
13
1.2
8.5
2.5
8.8
8.9
13
31

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.76
23.71

Page102

TableD25B1IMAModel,LowVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.37
1.4
1.43
1.26
1.38
1.32
1.4
1.11

SDT(%)
3.99
27.01
4.4
15.08
1.04
13.63
9.64
12.47

P(%)
6.73
0.36
0.17
3.9
9.48
3.01
2.07
5.16

SDP(%)
7.81
0.69
4.91
1.45
5.1
5.8
7.31
17.8

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.02
10.41

TableD26B1IMAModel,MediumVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
2.53
2.58
2.63
2.32
2.54
2.44
2.57
2.04

SDT(%)
7.35
49.74
8.09
27.77
1.92
25.1
17.75
22.96

P(%)
12.4
0.67
0.32
7.19
17.46
5.54
3.8
9.51

SDP(%)
14.4
1.27
9.04
2.67
9.38
9.53
13.5
32.9

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.88
27.4

TableD27B1IMAModel,HighVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
4.16
4.24
4.33
3.82
4.18
4.01
4.24
3.36

SDT(%)
12.1
81.82
13.31
45.69
3.15
41.29
29.2
37.77

P(%)
20.39
1.1
0.53
11.82
28.72
9.12
6.26
15.64

SDP(%)
23.6
2.1
14.9
4.39
15.4
15.7
22.1
54

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
3.09
55.71

Page103

TableD28B2MESModel,LowVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
0.69
0.71
0.72
0.64
0.7
0.67
0.7
0.56

SDT(%)
2.01
13.61
2.21
7.6
0.52
6.87
4.86
6.28

P(%)

SDP(%)

3.39
0.18
0.09
1.97
4.78
1.52
1.04
2.6

3.93
0.35
2.47
0.73
2.57
2.61
3.68
8.99

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
0.51
3.73

TableD29B2MESModel,MediumVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.15
1.17
1.2
1.06
1.15
1.11
1.17
0.93

SDT(%)

P(%)

3.34
22.6
3.68
12.62
0.87
11.4
8.07
10.43

5.63
0.3
0.15
3.27
7.93
2.52
1.73
4.32

SDP(%)
6.53
0.58
4.11
1.21
4.26
4.33
6.12
14.93

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
0.85
7.94

TableD30B2MESModel,HighVariability,2030
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
1.68
1.72
1.75
1.55
1.69
1.62
1.71
1.36

SDT(%)
4.9
33.12
5.39
18.5
1.28
16.71
11.82
15.29

P(%)
8.26
0.44
0.21
4.79
11.63
3.69
2.53
6.33

SDP(%)
9.57
0.85
6.02
1.78
6.25
6.35
8.96
21.87

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.25
14.03

Page104

TableD31B2MESModel,LowVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.07
1.09
1.11
0.98
1.08
1.03
1.09
0.87

SDT(%)
3.11
21.04
3.42
11.75
0.81
10.62
7.51
9.71

P(%)
5.25
0.28
0.14
3.04
7.39
2.34
1.61
4.02

SDP(%)
6.08
0.54
3.82
1.13
3.97
4.03
5.7
13.9

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
0.8
6.12

TableD32B2MESModel,MediumVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.81
1.85
1.89
1.67
1.82
1.75
1.85
1.47

SDT(%)
5.27
35.68
5.81
19.92
1.38
18
12.73
16.47

P(%)
8.89
0.48
0.23
5.16
12.52
3.97
2.73
6.82

SDP(%)
10.31
0.91
6.48
1.92
6.73
6.84
9.66
23.56

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.35
13.82

TableD33B2MESModel,HighVariability,2050
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
2.73
2.78
2.84
2.51
2.74
2.63
2.78
2.21

SDT(%)
7.93
53.63
8.73
29.95
2.07
27.06
19.14
24.76

P(%)
13.37
0.72
0.34
7.75
18.83
5.97
4.1
10.25

SDP(%)
15.5
1.37
9.75
2.88
10.12
10.28
14.52
35.42

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
2.03
25.41

TableD34B2MESModel,LowVariability,2100
UDUTCFinalReport

Page105

Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
1.98
2.02
2.06
1.82
1.99
1.91
2.01
1.6

SDT(%)
5.75
38.88
6.33
21.71
1.5
19.62
13.87
17.95

P(%)
9.69
0.52
0.25
5.62
13.65
4.33
2.97
7.43

SDP(%)
11.23
1
7.07
2.09
7.33
7.45
10.52
25.67

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
1.47
12.88

TableD35B2MESModel,MediumVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

T(C)
3.49
3.56
3.64
3.21
3.51
3.37
3.56
2.83

SDT(%)
10.16
68.73
11.18
38.38
2.65
34.68
24.53
31.73

P(%)
17.13
0.92
0.44
9.93
24.13
7.66
5.26
13.14

SDP(%)
19.86
1.76
12.49
3.69
12.97
13.17
18.6
45.39

Global
T(C)
2.6

Global
SLR(cm)
32.68

TableD36B2MESModel,HighVariability,2100
Grid

Season

CT&NJ

Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter

DE

UDUTCFinalReport

T(C)
5.54
5.65
5.77
5.1
5.57
5.34
5.64
4.48

SDT(%)
16.12
109.02
17.74
60.88
4.2
55.01
38.91
50.33

P(%)
27.18
1.46
0.7
15.75
38.27
12.15
8.34
20.84

SDP(%)
31.51
2.79
19.82
5.85
20.57
20.9
29.51
72

Global Global
T(C) SLR(cm)
4.12
65.15

Page106

APPENDIXEPavementPerformanceComparisonResults:Beforeand
AfterClimateChange
ThisAppendixincludesfiguresrepresentingforthedifferentscenariosfor:

JPCP
o ChangeinIRI,fatigueandtransversecrackingfordifferent

Analysisyears(2030,2050,2100)FigureE.1

Emissionmodels(A1BAIM,A2ASF,B1IMA,B2MESFigureE2,

Climatechangevariability(low,medium,high)FigureE3

o ValidationofcalibrationcoefficientsFigureE4

CRCP
o ChangeinIRIandpunchouts,

Analysisyears(2030,2050,2100)FigureE.5

Emissionmodels(A1BAIM,A2ASF,B1IMA,B2MESFigureE6,

Climatechangevariability(low,medium,high)FigureE7

o ValidationofcalibrationcoefficientsFigureE8

AC
o ChangeinIRI,totalrutting,topdowncrackingandbottomupcracking,

Analysisyears(2030,2050,2100)FigureE.9

Emissionmodels(A1BAIM,A2ASF,B1IMA,B2MESFigureE10,

Climatechangevariability(low,medium,high)FigureE11

o ValidationofcalibrationcoefficientsFigueE12

UDUTCFinalReport

Page107

2
0

IRIChange(%)

10

15

20

15

20

4
6
8

2030

10

2050

12

2100

14

Age(years)

FaultingChange(%)

0
0

10

5
2030
10

2050
2100

15
20

Age(years)

TansverseCrackingChange(%)

120
100

2030

80

2050

60

2100

40
20
0
0
20

10
Age(years)

15

20

FigureE.1JPCP:Analysisyearcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page108

2
0

IRIChange(%)

10

15

20

15

20

15

20

4
6
A1BAIM

A2ASF

10

B1IMA

12

B2MES

14

Age(years)

FaultingChange(%)

0
0

10

5
10
A1BAIM

15

A2ASF
20

B1IMA
B2MES

25

Age(years)

TransverseCrackingChange(%)

160
140

A1BAIM

120

A2ASF

100

B1IMA

80

B2MES

60
40
20
0
20

10
Age(years)

FigureE.2JPCP:Emissionmodelcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page109

2
0

IRIChange(%)

10

15

20

15

20

15

20

4
6
8

Low

10

Medium

12

High

14

Age(years)

FaultingChange(%)

0
0

10

5
10
Low
15

Medium
High

20

Age(years)

TransverseCrackingChange(%)

120
100
Low
80

Medium

60

High

40
20
0
0
20

10
Age(years)

FigureE.3JPCP:Climatechangevariabilitylevelcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)
UDUTCFinalReport

Page110

0.06

PredictedFaulting(in.)

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
After
Calibration
Before
Calibration

0.01
0
0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

FaultingwhenConsideringClimateChange(in.)

14
AfterCalibration
Predicted%SlabCracked

12
Before
Calibration

10
8
6
4
2
0

2
4
6
8
10
12
%SlabCrackedwhenConsideringClimateChange

14

FigureE.4JPCP:Validationofthecalibrationcoefficients

UDUTCFinalReport

Page111

0.2
0.1

IRIChange(%)

0.0
0.1

10

15

20

15

20

0.2
0.3
2030

0.4

2050

0.5

2100

0.6

Age(years)

PunchoutChange(%)

2
0
0

10

2
2030

2050
6
2100
8

Age(years)

FigureE.5CRCP:Analysisyearcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page112

0.3
0.2
FIRIChange(%)

0.1

A1BAIM

A2ASF

B1IMA

B2MES

0.0
0.1 0

10

15

20

15

20

0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6

Age(years)

PunchoutChange(%)

2
0
0

10

2
A1BAIM
4

A2ASF
B1IMA

B2MES
8

Age(years)

FigureE.6CRCP:Emissionmodelcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page113

0.2
0.1

IRIChange(%)

0.0
0.1

10

15

20

15

20

0.2
0.3
0.4

Low

0.5

Medium

0.6

High

Age(years)

3.0
2.0
PunchoutChange(%)

1.0
0.0
1.0 0

10

2.0
3.0

Low

4.0

Medium

5.0

High

6.0
7.0

Age(years)

FigureE.7CRCP:Climatechangevariabilitylevelcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page114

10
PredictedPunchout(#/mi.)

9
8
7
6
5
4
After
Calibration
Before
Calibration

3
2
1
0
0

10

PunchoutwhenConsideringClimateChange(#/mi.)

FigureE.8CRCP:Validationofthecalibrationcoefficients

UDUTCFinalReport

Page115

1.6
2030

1.4

2050

1.2
IRIChange(%)

1.0

2100

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2

16

10
Age(years)

15

20

10
Age(years)

15

20

2030

TotalRuttingChange(%)

14
2050

12

2100

10
8
6
4
2
0
2

TopDownCrackingChange(%)

12
10
8
2050

2100

4
2
0
2

10

15

20

4
6

UDUTCFinalReport

2030

Age(years)

Page116

BottomUpCrackingChange(%)

80
70
60

2030

50
2050

40

2100

30
20
10
0
10

10
Age(years)

15

20

Figure E.9 AC: Analysis year comparisons (to the 2010 baseline design)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page117

1.8

A1BAIM

1.6

A2ASF

1.4

B1IMA

IRIChange(%)

1.2

B2MES

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2 0
18

10
Age(years)

15

20

10
Age(years)

15

20

A1BAIM

16
TotalRuttingChange(%)

A2ASF

14

B1IMA

12

B2MES

10
8
6
4
2
0
2 0

TopDownCrackingChange(%)

20

A2ASF
10

B1IMA
B2MES

5
0
0

10

15

20

5
10

UDUTCFinalReport

A1BAIM

15

Age(years)

Page118

BottomUpCrackingChange(%)

90
80

A1BAIM

70

A2ASF

60

B1IMA

50

B2MES

40
30
20
10
0
10 0

10
Age(years)

15

20

FigureE.10AC:Emissionmodelcomparisons(tothe2010baselinedesign)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page119

IRIChange(%)

1.6
1.4

Low

1.2

Medium

1.0

High

0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.2

16

10
Age(years)

15

20

10
Age(years)

15

20

15

20

Low

14
TotalRuttingChange(%)

Medium

12

High

10
8
6
4
2
0
2

TopDownCrackingChange(%)

12
10
8

Medium

High

4
2
0
2

10

4
6

UDUTCFinalReport

Low

Age(years)

Page120

BottomUpCrackingChange(%)

80
70
60

Low

50

Medium

40

High

30
20
10
0
10

10
Age(years)

15

20

Figure E.11 AC: Climate change variability level comparisons (to the 2010 baseline design)

UDUTCFinalReport

Page121

0.9

PredictedRuttting(in.)

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

After
Calibration
Before
Calibration

0.2
0.1
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

RuttingwhenConsideringClimateChange(in.)

PredictedBottomUpCracking(%)

25
After
Calibration
Before
Calibration

20
15
10
5
0
0

10

15

20

25

%BottomUpCrackingwhenConsideringClimateChange

UDUTCFinalReport

Page122

PredictedTopDownCracking(ft/mi.)

3500
After
Calibration
Before
Calibration

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

TopDownCrackingwhenConsideringClimateChange(ft/mi.)

FigureE.12AC:Validationofthecalibrationcoefficients

UDUTCFinalReport

Page123