IRI Explorer User Manual

User’s Manual
User’s
Manual IRIexplorer.com
Table of Contents
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 2
USING THE IRI EXPLORER TOOL ................................................................................................. 4
USING THE TABS ................................................................................................................................... 5
SECTIONS TAB: .......................................................................................................................................................5
NETWORKS TAB: ...................................................................................................................................................8
OVERVIEW OF TRENDS: .................................................................................................................................... 10
PAVEMENT COMPARISON TAB:...................................................................................................................... 10
EMISSIONS ESTIMATOR TAB:.......................................................................................................................... 16
STATE DATA TAB: .............................................................................................................................................. 21
LIST OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS .............................................................................................. 22
LIST OF PAVEMENT TYPES .......................................................................................................... 22
HELPFUL REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 23
HYPERLINKS FROM THE ABOVE TEXT.................................................................................. 23
CONTACT US ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Background
What is IRI?
IRI, the International Roughness Index, is a scale for the roughness of a pavement
as it is experienced by a vehicle. It is calculated by measuring the vertical profile of a
road, then processing the profile through an algorithm that simulates the response of a
reference vehicle to the profile and accumulating the suspension movement of the
vehicle. The standard was developed by the World Bank in 1982, but it can be applied to
any profile data that meets certain quality requirements, regardless of when it was
collected. In fact, IRI was developed to give a basis for comparison of different profile
collection standards. The relevant standards in the United States are ASTM E1926 – 08
and E1364 – 95(2012).
Another way to think of IRI is as an approximate measure of ride quality (keeping
in mind that many other factors affect ride, i.e., suspension tuning, vehicle type, driving
style, etc.).
2
User’s
Why is IRI important?
IRI is a simple measure of the broad health of a roadway. Both fuel economy and
highway maintenance schedules are intricately tied to IRI. Though fuel efficiency is a
very complex subject, road surface conditions, from macrotexture to roughness are
responsible for changes in vehicle fuel efficiency of 10% or more, depending on a
large number of variables like vehicle speed, ambient air temperature, and many
more. A change in road roughness from “Good” to “Acceptable” (See the table of
FHWA IRI categories below) can decrease fuel efficiency by 6%. Passing the
“Acceptable” level is a trigger for roadway maintenance in many systems. An
excellent overview of the literature on the interplay between roadway conditions
and rolling resistance is here and at the FHWA’s Sustainable Pavements guide here.
Where does this data come from?
The data that you are querying with the IRI Explorer comes from the Federal
Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)
database. It is the repository for data from multiple pavement studies across the United
States and Canada. The LTPP site describes the data as follows:
The fundamental classes of study are the General Pavement Study (GPS) and the
Specific Pavement Studies (SPS). The combined GPS and SPS programs consist
of over 2,500 test sections located on in-service highways throughout North
America. The LTPP program monitors and collects pavement performance data
on all active sites. The collected data includes information on seven modules:
Inventory, Maintenance, Monitoring (Deflection, Distress, and Profile),
Rehabilitation, Materials Testing, Traffic, and Climatic.
The LTPP program was created in 1991, and inherited studies from the Strategic
Highway Research Program (SHRP) program, which was begun in 1986. More about the
data collection, specific studies and goals of the LTPP program can be found on the
FHWA Research and Technology website here.
What are the units for IRI?
IRI is typically measured in meters per kilometer (m/km) or in inches per mile
(in/mi). The IRI Explorer tool uses m/km. To convert to in/mi, multiply the m/km value
by 63.36. When looking for what is a “normal” range for IRI, a good place to start is the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) IRI categories:
Category IRI (in/mi) IRI (m/km)
Good < 95 < 1.5
Acceptable < 170 < 2.7
3
User’s
Using the IRI Explorer Tool
What is the IRI Explorer?
The LTPP database is a large, complex amalgamation of 20 years’ worth of
pavement studies. The IRI Explorer was created to allow anyone with an interest in
pavement performance or sustainability to query the LTPP data about the effect of
pavement selection on IRI, and to see the resulting analysis in an easy-to-read graph
while still employing statistical rigor on the backend. Additionally, the IRI Explorer
combines the LTPP data with an emissions estimator tool to find greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions during the use phase of a road (from IRI), as well as the construction phase.
What use is each tab designed for?

The Section Tab is for looking at the IRI performance of a single pavement
section over time. The Network Tab is best for examining the performance of broad
categories of pavement types within a regionalized network. Users looking to compare
two pavement types will want to go to the Pavement Comparison Tab. This tab also has
many filters to let the user select pavements by sub-type, kESALs, climate region, admin
region, state, LTPP study, and functional road class. The Emissions Estimator Tab is for
estimating the equivalent CO2 emissions of a roadway over the life of that roadway,
including construction events. Users looking for a discussion of some of the interesting
trends seen in the LTPP database can read up on the Overview of Trends page. The State
Data Tab houses pavement data gathered by certain individual states. Access to this data
is limited to users who are part of the agencies that funded the data inclusion.
What are some things to keep in mind when using the IRI Explorer?
Generalizability: Caution must be exercised when generalizing the results of
LTPP data analysis. The choice of the data subset can lead to different answers to the
same question. For example, an analysis of performance of AC sections in the North
Atlantic region, for a GPS subset, and for the entire LTPP dataset produce different
trends. Similarly, analysis of the initial IRI performance for AC on treated or untreated
bases is different depending on whether the test dataset is used, or the entire LTPP dataset
is used. Beware of confirmation bias!
The results of performance analysis have very narrow applicability to the context
of the dataset used. On the same note, when a particular trend is repeatedly and
consistently observed across multiple contexts, its scope of application becomes broader
and therefore more general.
4
User’s
No Free Lunch: When broad trends can be observed across multiple datasets
they often highlight trade-offs in performance. For example, there is evidence of tradeoffs
between initial roughness (favoring AC) and the rate of change of roughness over time
(favoring CRCP). Identifying such trade-offs should be the objective of analyzing
historical datasets as they help decision-makers develop deeper insights regarding their
networks and maximize the level of service they can provide. It also veers the
conversation away from biasing the pavement selection process by presenting a partial
view of the data analysis.
Context is King: The above two points segue into the third and final takeaway,
which emphasizes the need for context-sensitive decision-making. Analysis of LTPP data
to support decision-making should be encouraged; however, data subsets for analysis
should be constructed to accurately reflect the context (location, use, functional class) of
the decision question. As a corollary, the results of the analysis should narrowly apply to
the scope of the decision question at hand and not be generalized to apply to other
decisions.
Using the Tabs

Sections Tab:
This tab is for looking at the performance of a particular section of pavement over
time. To find a section, first select a state, then scroll though the SHRP ID sections.
Shown below is a selection in Colorado:
Once a section is selected, it will bring up a graph, information box, map, and
table.
The graph shows the IRI readings over time (the black line), and the timing of any
construction events (vertical blue lines). Each point on the IRI line is the average of the
readings from a profile measurement event. Variance in the readings is shown by error
bars on the point. Hovering over the point with your mouse will bring up a tooltip box
listing the variance and average values for that point. The table below the graph lists layer
types and thicknesses for the selected section. A menu to print the graph or save it in a
number of image formats is accessed by clicking the three bars in the upper right of the
graph.
5
User’s
6
User’s
Information about each construction event is given

in the Detail box, as well as the loading and
functional class of the roadway. Occasionally, the
data recorded in the LTPP database is incomplete.
If an event is shown as “unknown”, the type of
work done on the section was not recorded in the
LTPP database.
Similarly, the Opened value will read as

zeroes if the database does not include information
about when the road was first created. Finally, if
there are no correct mapping coordinates in the
database, the map will show 0.00°, 0.00° latitude
and longitude (a point in the Gulf of Guinea).
7
User’s
Networks Tab:
This tab shows every pavement section within approximately 200 miles of a
central point (shown on the map as a red marker). Note that not all sections within the
LTPP database have mapping coordinates, and therefore don’t appear in this tab. The
graph shows the IRI readings vs. time for every section in the network, initially. In the
network information table, pavement types can be toggled to be the only ones shown by
selecting “toggle others” to the left of the pavement type name as shown below.
Alternately, individual pavement types can be toggled on or off by clicking directly on
the name. Also, clicking on a section in the network graph, or the name of the section in
the section lists below the graph will take you from the Network Tab directly to the
Section Tab graph and information on the section you selected. As in the Section Tab, the
Network graph may be printed or saved to a number of image formats by clicking the
three bars in the upper right of the graph to access the Print/Save menu.
8
User’s
9
User’s
Overview of Trends:
This tab is an overview of some interesting trends revealed through the analysis of
the LTPP database. Anyone using the IRI Explorer in their decision-making process
should read the “In Summary” section at the bottom of the page to get a summary of the
engineering trade-offs inherent in pavement selection and to understand the context of the
data.
Interested parties looking for more reports from the IRI Explorer can read the
paper published at the Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Symposium. Additional findings
are published in the Transportation Research Board’s proceedings. Full references for
these papers can be found in the “Useful References” section at the end of this document.
Pavement Comparison Tab:

This tab allows users to compare two pavement types and graph the results.
Pavement types can be further limited by pavement sub-types, climate region, admin
region, state, kESAL range, LTPP study, and the functional class of the roads.
10
User’s
How to perform a custom query:
1. Select one or more pavements from both the First and Second Pavement Types.
Multiple selections may be made within any selection box on this site by holding
down the Control (Ctrl) key while clicking (or the ⌘ key for Mac users). A full
list of abbreviations and acronyms is available at the end of the document.
Alternately, you may select only a First Pavement Type if you rather see a single
pavement’s results and not a comparison.
2. You may limit your comparison types by any of the criteria explained below.
Choose your limiting criteria by toggling the checkbox to the upper left of the
selection box. CAUTION: Keep an eye on the “First Type” and “Second Type”
numbers in the upper right of the screen. This tells you the number of roads in the
LTPP database that meet the selections you make. Too low a number will result in
a statistically invalid comparison.
a. Pavement Subtype: The initial pavement type selection dictates what

subtypes will be available. One pavement may have a subtype selected
without needing a subtype selection for the other pavement. Remember to
toggle the checkbox to the upper left of the subtype selection box to have
the filter included in the final results. Looking for a subtype that’s not in
the list? It may be that the database did not have enough valid samples to
warrant its inclusion on the list. A full list of subtypes is available at the
end of this document.
b. Climate Region: The U.S. is broken into four broad environmental zones
or climate types in the FHWA database. A map showing the region
breakdown is at the FHWA website here.
c. Admin Region: The U.S. is broken into four administrative regions in the
FHWA database. A map showing the region breakdown is at the FHWA
website here.
d. State: Select single or multiple states. Not all states have enough sections
in them to make meaningful comparisons. Keep an eye on the sample
sizes in the upper right of the page.
e. kESAL Range: kESALs, or 1,000 equivalent single-axle loads, are used as
a standardized measure of the loads passing over a roadway. Selecting a
higher kESAL range will choose pavements subjected to higher loads, and
therefore under greater stress. Some initial values of 250 and 750 are in
the minimum and maximum value entry boxes. These have no effect on
the graph produced unless the checkbox for “Limit to kESAL Range” is
selected.
11
User’s
f. LTPP Study: Individual or multiple studies within the LTPP database may
be queried (hold the Control key while clicking or the ⌘ key for Mac
users for multiple selections). GPS are general studies, while SPS studies
addressed more specific issues. Detailed descriptions of the individual
studies are available at the LTPP GPS site here and SPS site here.
g. Functional Road Class: Road classes are split into three main groups:
Arterial, those roads with the fastest through routes and limited access;
Collector, those feeding into arterial roadways; Local roads, those having
slower traffic and high accessibility. The full FHWA guidelines for
functional road classifications are here.
3. Click on “Generate Graph”.
The Comparison Graph:

The graph and corresponding table displays information about the initial IRI,
change in IRI, average time to first intervention (TTFI), and whether the two pavements
being compared are statistically different in each of the three variables. Additionally,
toggling the “Show Advanced Plot” box will add a cumulative distribution to the graph of
the times to first intervention.
The initial IRI distributions are shown as box and whisker plots. The average
initial value for all the pavement sections in the dataset you have selected is shown as a
dot and reported in the accompanying table. The median is shown as a line, while the box
shows the bottom and top quartile values. The whiskers show the minimum and
maximum initial IRI values of the selected set. So, a compact box-and-whisker plot
12
User’s
shows that the data has little variance, while a sprawling plot indicates that the initial IRI
values show high variance. High variance makes it difficult to tell if two values, say the
average initial IRI values of two pavement types, are statistically different. Also, if the
number of samples in the data set is low, it can also make comparisons difficult.
Statistical significance is determined using Welch's two-tailed t-test for

equivalence of the mean of two populations. If the test fails that means there isn't
sufficient evidence in the selected set to say that either pavement outperformed the other
for that metric. Values that pass the test (statistically considered different) are bolded in
the accompanying table.
Additionally, the superior result is presented with a green background, while the
inferior performance will have a red background. The number of samples is in each
pavement type selection is also given (shown by N = some
13
User’s
number). For additional background on Welch’s t-test, go here. If you are in need of a
refresher on statistics, Khan Academy has several good videos, beginning with boxplots,
here. For those wanting more in-depth discussion of statistics, MathWorld is an excellent
resource, here.
The average rate of change of IRI is the average of the slopes of each pavement
section making up the dataset. That is, for each section included in the overall dataset you
have selected, a slope from the initial IRI to the IRI at first intervention is calculated. The
average of all these slopes is plotted as the y-value in the graph, against the x-value of the
average TTFI. Again, the Welch’s two-tailed t-test is employed to see if the slope or
TTFI values for the two pavements are statistically different.
Clicking on the “Show Advanced Plot” box will add a cumulative distribution to
the graph. The cumulative distribution of the first intervention times is included to show
the spread of the data, much like the box-and-whisker plots show the distribution for
initial IRI. The axis for the distribution is on the right side of the graph, and data is given
in percentage of sections rehabilitated. Not all sections in the given data set have been
rehabilitated, but only those that have had a construction event are included in the
calculation of the percentage of sections rehabilitated, so that every distribution ends at
100% rehabilitated. Notice that the number of samples available for statistical analysis is
smaller, too (N= some number in the information table) Looking at the example graph we
see first interventions for the two pavements vary from 1.5 to 16 years. Such variance
reminds us to use caution when definitively saying one pavement is better than another
without consulting the statistical analysis in the accompanying table.
14
User’s
The cumulative distribution is a helpful tool for asset management; An especially

useful way to read the graph is “At year 11, about 75% of Pavement 2 sections have been
rehabilitated”. This helps budget for such maintenance.
Clicking on “Print Summary” will bring up a pop-up print dialogue to print a tidy,
single page output of the graph and information table. Clicking on “Download Data” will
bring up a pop-up dialogue to download a .zip file containing four files (two files if only
one pavement was selected and no comparison performed). For each pavement, there will
be one file containing section metadata, like climate readings and pavement sub-types,
and one file containing the measured IRI values. All files within the .zip folder will be in
.csv format, which is compatible with many spreadsheet programs like Excel. Whether
you are printing or downloading data, make sure that pop-ups are enabled on the site.
This is done through your browser, typically under the “Options” or “Preferences” menu
of your browser.
15
User’s
Emissions Estimator Tab:
Use this form to construct and benchmark greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over
a pavement’s life cycle. It is an application of the Project Emissions Estimator (PE-2),
with the additional consideration of the impact of IRI change on use phase emissions. For
a full write up of the methodology involved, visit the PE-2 site here, or read the paper
published in the Journal of Construction Management Engineering (full reference at the
end of this document).
Life cycles are defined in terms of construction events, with the initial job
occurring in Year 1. This sets the roadway construction type and the associated work
zone emissions. Add interventions by entering the type of job duration of work, and year
the intervention occurs. Iterate until the life cycle of the road is complete. The outputs are
a graph showing GHG emissions over time (in metric tons of equivalent CO2), and a table
listing the data used to create the graph.
For example, the life cycle of a typical asphalt roadway would begin with an
HMA Reconstruct in year 1. First, general roadway information must be established, as
shown in the image below. Then enter the initial construction information, also shown
below. Notice that the initial job selection changes the job types available. Job types are
split into R1-Major Reconstruction, R2-Minor Reconstruction, M1-Major Rehabilitation,
and M2-Minor Rehabilitation.
Create the initial CO2 emissions graph by clicking “Add Intervention”. Take care
to click only once, or the tool will assume that two construction events have happened
that year.
16
User’s
The initial graph shows a
single vertical line. This line accounts
for the emissions from both
construction and use phase for that
year. Note that emissions are
measured in metric tons of equivalent
CO2. The emissions graph may be
printed or saved to a number of image
formats by clicking the three bars in
the upper right of the graph to access
the Print/Save menu.
The accompanying table lists
the data used for the graph. It lists the
year, duration, and type of each
construction event, the emissions (in
metric tons of equivalent CO2) from
that construction, as well as the emissions from the use phase. The cumulative emissions
column is a running tally of the total emissions associated with the roadway.
Note that construction event choices are currently limited to the reconstruction,
rehabilitation, and maintenance job types investigated by researchers at Michigan
Technological University (MTU).
17
User’s
The graph becomes more interesting when
additional construction events are entered.
For example, let’s say our roadway needs
some upkeep in Year 5. Select M2,
Overband Crack Seal and Microsurface,
Year 5, and a duration of 22 days.
The graph now updates to show the
accumulation of emissions over time. The
slope of the line shows the use-phase
emissions per year, which are a function of
IRI and traffic. A vertical jump at Year 5
shows the one time addition of emissions
from the maintenance event. The number in
the upper corner for annualized emissions is also updated. Notice that this goes down, as
the input from the initial construction events is spread out over more years.
18
User’s
The table is also updated. Notice that the use-phase emissions are slowly
increasing; this is due to the rise in IRI over time.
To complete our example life cycle, add another maintenance event and a final
reconstruct, as shown below. Remember to click “Add Intervention” after entering the
information for each construction event.
19
User’s
The Emissions Graph and Data Table are now updated to show 15 years of use
phase emissions, along with the four construction events entered.
20
User’s
State Data Tab:

The State Data Tab houses pavement data gathered by certain individual states.
Access to this data is currently limited to users who are part of the agencies that funded
the data inclusion. If you are interested in being able to use the site’s tools on your state’s
data, you can learn more at our website, lifecyclesolutionsgroup.com.
21
User’s
List of Terms and Acronyms
AC Asphalt Concrete
CRCP Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement
DOT Department of Transportation
Equivalent CO2 The summarized impact of all greenhouse gasses, expressed as the amount of CO 2 that
would have the same impact.
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GPS General Pavement Study (an LTPP designation)
JPCP Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement
JRCP Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement
IRI International Roughness Index
kESAL 1,000 Equivalent Single Axle Loads (typically used as a measure of the loads passing
over a roadway) Learn more here.
LTPP Long Term Pavement Performance
PE-2 Project Emission Estimator
SPS Specific Pavement Study (an LTPP designation)
SHRP Strategic Highway Research Program
TTFI Time to First Intervention; The time (in years) before the first rehabilitation is performed
on a pavement section.
List of Pavement Types

ID: Description 22: CRCP Over Bituminous Treated Base
1: AC with Granular Base 23: JPCP Over Non-Bituminous Treated Base
2: AC with Bituminous Treated Base 24: JRCP Over Non-Bituminous Treated Base
3: AC Overlay on AC Pavement 25: CRCP Over Non-Bituminous Treated Base
4: JPCP Overlay on AC Pavement 28: AC Overlay on JPCP Pavement
5: JRCP Overlay on AC Pavement 29: AC Overlay on JRCP Pavement
6: CRCP Overlay on AC Pavement 30: AC Overlay on CRCP Pavement
7: AC with Non-Bituminous Treated Base 31: JPCP Overlay on JPCP Pavement
10: Other 32: JRCP Overlay on JPCP Pavement
11: JPCP — Placed Directly on Untreated 33: JPCP Overlay on JRCP Pavement
Subgrade 34: JRCP Overlay on JRCP Pavement
12: JRCP — Placed Directly on Untreated 35: JPCP Overlay on CRCP Pavement
Subgrade 36: JRCP Overlay on CRCP Pavement
13: CRCP — Placed Directly on Untreated 37: CRCP Overlay on CRCP Pavement
Subgrade 38: CRCP Overlay on JPCP Pavement
14: JPCP — Placed Directly on Treated Subgrade 39: CRCP Overlay on JRCP Pavement
15: JRCP — Placed Directly on Treated Subgrade 40: Prestressed Concrete Pavement
16: CRCP — Placed Directly on Treated Subgrade 49: Other
17: JPCP — Over Unbound Base 51: JPCP with Asphalt Concrete Wearing Surface
18: JRCP — Over Unbound Base 52: JRCP with Asphalt Concrete Wearing Surface
19: CRCP — Over Unbound Base 53: CRCP with Asphalt Concrete Wearing Surface
20: JPCP Over Bituminous Treated Base 59: Other
21: JRCP Over Bituminous Treated Base
22
User’s
Helpful References
World Bank site for IRI:
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/1986/01/439713/international-road-
roughness-experiment-irre-establishing-correlation-calibration-standard-measurements
LTPP database:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/programs/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/
Published Papers:
Ciavola, B. & A. Mukherjee (2014). Assessing the Role of Pavement Roughness
in Estimating Use-Phase Emissions. In Papers from the International
Symposium on Pavement Life Cycle Analysis 2014, Harvey, Jullien, & Jones
(eds.), Davis, CA. pp. 201–14.
Ciavola, B. & A. Mukherjee (2015) Empirical Assessment of Pavement
Roughness to Estimate Pavement Life-Cycle Use-Phase Emissions.
Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research
Board, Jan. 11–15, Washington, DC.
Cass, D. & A. Mukherjee (2011). Calculation of Greenhouse-Gas Emissions for
Highway Construction Operations by Using a Hybrid Life-Cycle Assessment
Approach: Case Study for Pavement Operations. J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
137(11):1015–1025. DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000349
Hyperlinks from the above text

Literature review of effects of roadway conditions on rolling resistance:
http://www.ncat.us/files/reports/2014/rep14-07.pdf
FHWA Sustainable Pavement Technical Working Group guide:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/sustainability/ref_doc.cfm
LTPP Climate Region map:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/pavements/pccp/05068/005.cfm
LTPP Admin Region Map:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/programs/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/collect.cfm
All about kESALs:
http://www.pavementinteractive.org/article/equivalent-single-axle-load/
Functional Road Classifications:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/statewide/related/highway_functional_class
ifications/section00.cfm
23
User’s
LTPP GPS site:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/programs/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/gps.cfm
LTPP SPS site:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/research/tfhrc/programs/infrastructure/pavements/ltpp/sps.cfm
Welch’s t-test:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welch%27s_t_test
Statistics refreshers:
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/probability/descriptive-statistics/box-and-whisker-
plots/v/reading-box-and-whisker-plots
In-depth statistics:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DistributionFunction.html
PE-2 site:
http://www.construction.mtu.edu:8000/cass_reports/webpage/index.html
Contact Us
The IRI Explorer was created and is maintained by Life Cycle Solutions LLC. If you
have questions, comments, or concerns about the site, feel free to visit our site,
www.lifecyclesolutionsgroup.com, or email us at lkmiller@mtu.edu or
btciavol@mtu.edu.
24

IRI Explorer User Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRI Explorer User Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

User’s Manual

What use is each tab designed for?

Using the Tabs

Information about each construction event is given

Similarly, the Opened value will read as

Pavement Comparison Tab:

a. Pavement Subtype: The initial pavement type selection dictates what

3. Click on “Generate Graph”.

The Comparison Graph:

Statistical significance is determined using Welch's two-tailed t-test for

The cumulative distribution is a helpful tool for asset management; An especially

State Data Tab:

List of Pavement Types

Hyperlinks from the above text

You might also like