Assesment of Pavement Damage From Bus Rapid Transit: A Case Study For The State of Nevada

1
Hajj, Batioja-Alvarez, Siddharthan
1 ASSESMENT OF PAVEMENT DAMAGE FROM BUS RAPID TRANSIT:

2 A Case Study for the State of Nevada
3
4
5
6 Authors:
7 Elie Y. Hajj 1
8 Dario Batioja-Alvarez 2
9 Raj Siddharthan 3
10
11
12 Submitted August 1, 2015
13 Revised November 12, 2015
14 Washington D.C.
15
16
17
18
19 Length of Paper:
20 Words 5,917
21 Tables (2) 500
22 Figures (5) 1,250
23 Total: 7,667
24
25 1. Assistant Professor, Pavements/Materials Program, Department of Civil Engineering,
26 University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, Ph.: (775) 784-1180, elieh@unr.edu
27 (Corresponding Author)
28
29 2. Graduate Research Assistant, Pavements/Materials Program, Department of Civil
30 Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, Ph.: (775) 784-1826,
31 dbatioja@unr.edu
32
33 3. Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, NV 89557, Ph.:
34 (775) 784-1411, siddhart@unr.edu
35
2
36 ABSTRACT
37 This study presents the determination of rutting and fatigue-based Load Equivalency
38 Factors (LEF) for the different Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) buses operating in Northern and
39 Southern Nevada. The methodology presented in this study was based on performance models
40 that have been calibrated to local material, traffic, and environmental conditions. To accomplish
41 the objectives of this study, pavement responses corresponding to all cases of bus loading and
42 climatic conditions were obtained using the 3-D Move software version 2.1. The critical
43 pavement responses were then used to estimate the LEFs for the various BRT vehicles.
44 In the assessment of pavement damage, simplified and extended methodologies were
45 developed. The interaction between pavement temperature and axle loading for both Northern
46 and Southern Nevada BRT buses was considered in the extended method, which considered
47 seasonal distributions of pavement temperature and bus passenger ridership to determine LEFs.
48 In the simplified method, pavement responses from a single combination of analysis temperature
49 with either the average ridership loading or GAWR (Gross Axle Weight rating) were considered.
50 Results showed that pavement damage from BRT buses in Nevada was significantly influenced
51 by the variability in climatic conditions and passenger ridership. From the two distress types
52 evaluated in this case study, fatigue-based LEFs were significantly higher that the rutting-based
53 LEFs. Thus, for a given pavement structure, more fatigue damage is anticipated under the
54 passage of a specific BRT bus.
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
3
75 INTRODUCTION
76 Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) systems have been shown to attract riders and provide clear
77 benefits to the public by improving mobility and the environment (1, 2). In highly populated
78 areas, BRT systems have seen a high demand. Consequently, they operate day and night;
79 sometimes exceeding axle load limits due to high passenger ridership. To allow the operation of
80 these vehicles, total vehicle weight or axle weight exception policies are often established by
81 transit and transportation authorities (3, 4). The contribution of overweight BRT buses to
82 pavement deterioration is influenced by many factors such as: the number of buses
83 operating on a specific route, the axle loading characteristics of the buses, and the existing
84 pavement condition (3). Transportation agencies should consider the extra pavement damage
85 exerted by overweight buses when assessing the design life of their road networks and for
86 estimating the associated cost of pavement maintenance from such vehicles.
87 Load Equivalency Factors (LEFs) are routinely employed to characterize the effects of
88 traffic on pavement structures. When using LEF, the pavement damage from different load and
89 wheel configurations are converted to the damage under an equivalent single axle standard load
90 (5). For example, in the ASSHTO 1993 guide, the traffic mix is transformed into an equivalent
91 single axle load (ESAL) through the use of LEFs. In recent years, the mechanistic-empirical
92 (ME) analysis has provided a more realistic and rational way to characterize pavement
93 deterioration from traffic and environmental factors. However, the accurate estimation of
94 pavement damage requires the use of ME performance models calibrated to local materials,
95 traffic, and environmental conditions (6, 7). For instance, the use of locally calibrated
96 performance models to the polymer-modified asphalt mixtures specified for Nevada pavements
97 is necessary in order to estimate pavement damage under BRT buses (6).
98 The overall objectives of this paper are: a) to determine the ME-based LEFs for the
99 different BRT buses operating in Northern and Southern Nevada locations; and b) to assess the
100 influence of the variation in both, pavement temperature and BRT axles’ loadings based on the
101 ridership data, on the LEF values. The methodology presented in this study is based on rutting
102 and fatigue performance models that have been calibrated to local conditions for the polymer-
103 modified asphalt mixtures typically used in Nevada. To accomplish the objectives of this study,
104 pavement responses corresponding to moving BRT buses and given climatic conditions were
105 obtained using the 3-D Move Analysis software version 2.1 (8). Taking advantage of the 3D-
106 Move capabilities relative to asphalt viscoelastic characterization, consideration of non-uniform
107 surface loading areas, and complex axle configuration (such as those encountered in BRT buses),
108 representative LEFs for specific BRT vehicles were determined.
109 To consider the interaction between pavement temperature and BRT axle in the
110 assessment of pavement damage, LEFs were calculated considering seasonal-hourly distributions
111 of pavement temperatures and axle loading due to passenger ridership. Multiple LEFs were
112 determined as a result of the various combinations of both factors. This study evaluated how the
113 ridership and pavement temperature variability influence the calculation of LEFs using ME
114 methodologies. In addition, LEFs were determined for axle loading representing the Gross Axle
115 Weight Rating (GAWR), and average (AVG) ridership in conjunction with the effective
116 pavement temperatures (Teff) for asphalt rutting and fatigue cracking.
117 BACKGROUND
118 Overweight buses operating on high frequency routes are known to contribute to the
119 overall pavement deterioration. In 2014, The American Public Transportation Association
120 (APTA) published a study that analyzed design and operational changes that have modified the
4
121 weight of buses (3). The study reported that transit systems are having difficulties in complying
122 with Federal and State axle weight policies given new environmental and passenger accessibility
123 regulations that resulted in the increase of bus curb weights. In addition, some bus models
124 exceed axle limits even without any passengers on board (3). Consequently, these vehicles are
125 allowed to operate under exemption policies. The State of Nevada specifies that the maximum
126 weight on any single and tandem axles do not exceed 20,000 and 34,000 pounds, respectively.
127 However, exemptions on these limitations are provided for public mass transportation vehicles
128 (4). For instance, the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) of Southern Nevada has a
129 waiver for the operation of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) on state owned local streets (5). Similarly,
130 the Northern Nevada RTC introduced in 2009 a BRT express service that also exceeded the State
131 imposed limits (9). When running at high ridership, some BRT buses’ single axle load can be
132 well above 20,000 lbs. While the benefits provided by BRT and other public transit systems are
133 not in discussion, the responsible transportation agencies should be aware and should be able to
134 evaluate the pavement damage exerted by these vehicles.
135 To evaluate the impact of traffic damage on pavement sections, empirical and
136 mechanistic-empirical (ME) deterioration models are often utilized; usually accounting for the
137 damage of a particular axle configuration compared to that of a standard one. A review of the
138 literature showed few recent studies that have estimated the impact of buses on pavements.
139 Many studies used empirical methodologies to account for damage. A project conducted in the
140 State of New Jersey in 2002 estimated the impact of buses on the local pavement network (10).
141 The study showed that buses can cause significant damage on pavements and the maintenance
142 costs associated to the buses in New Jersey account for about 2.4% of the overall maintenance
143 expenses. This study employed ESALs to measure the impact of buses on the pavement
144 infrastructure. In a different study, pavement damage from transit buses and motor coaches was
145 studied (11). The study estimated pavement damage in terms of ESALs weighted by Vehicle
146 Miles Travelled (VMT). The pavement damage from different buses was compared to the
147 damage exerted by a five-axle tractor semitrailer truck. It was found that overweight buses can
148 inflict 9 to 19 percent more damage than the used reference truck.
149 ME analysis is a rational way to characterize pavement deterioration. In ME analysis,
150 fundamental pavement responses at critical locations within the pavement structure are
151 determined for repeated traffic loading assuming, typically, a multilayer linear elastic approach.
152 The next step is to relate pavement responses to pavement performance (i.e., distresses) via
153 empirical models. ME models have been used recently to obtain load equivalencies. In 2010, a
154 ME-based methodology was developed to predict pavement deterioration and to estimate
155 damage costs for heavy vehicles in Texas (12). In this study a finite element software was
156 implemented to calculate pavement responses. The responses were used with distress models to
157 predict the pavement performance under a heavy vehicle which was then compared to the
158 pavement performance under a standard truck. In a similar study in Texas, a methodology to
159 determine load equivalencies for heavy axle configurations using ME procedures on flexible
160 pavements was undertaken (13). One of the objectives of this study was to develop load
161 equivalencies for Oversize-Overweight (OS-OW) vehicles based on equivalent damage. The
162 study used the AASHTOWare PavementME software to conduct the associated pavement
163 analysis. Equivalency factors corresponding to asphalt rutting, asphalt fatigue, and pavement
164 roughness for different axle types were developed. The total vehicle LEF was calculated as the
165 summation of the LEFs caused by each axle individually for each distress criteria.
5
166 Both ME studies mentioned in this section used nationally calibrated distress models in
167 their pavement analysis. While these studies offer valuable information, their direct
168 implementation to non-conventional asphalt mixtures, such as those constructed with polymer-
169 modified asphalt mixtures in Nevada is questionable and needs to be addressed.
170 To obtain reliable performance predictions, ME distress models need to be calibrated to
171 local materials, traffic, and climatic conditions (6, 7). As part of a separate research effort, the
172 asphalt rutting and bottom-up fatigue cracking distress models implemented in this study were
173 calibrated to Northern and Southern Nevada’s conditions for materials, traffic, and climate (6).
174 The pavement response evaluation should consider the moving nature of the loading, different
175 axle configurations including widebase tires, and asphalt layer temperatures. As noted before,
176 the pavement responses were determined using the 3D-Move Analysis software. Several research
177 studies have validated the use of 3D-Move by comparing 3D-Move calculated pavement
178 responses against responses measured in the field (14).
179 Pavement LEFs has been usually calculated for a single average loading and climatic
180 conditions. However, a rational methodology that accounts for the influence of moving loads
181 and the variability in both temperature and ridership needs to be explored. This study accounted
182 for the variability in the ridership and the fluctuation of temperature within a day and different
183 seasons of the year when calculating pavement damage and associated LEF values.
184 DATA REQUIREMENTS

185 BRT Buses Information
186 This study uses a ME design procedure to calculate LEFs for three different BRT buses
187 (Figure 1): Double Decker, Irisbus, and New Flyer. The Double Decker and the Irisbus currently
188 operate in Las Vegas. The New Flyer bus operates in Reno and will be soon introduced to the
189 BRT system in Las Vegas. The Double Decker bus is a tri-axle high capacity double deck bus
190 designed to carry up to 120 people. This bus operates 24 hours a day, 7 days per week in
191 frequencies of 15 minutes during the day and 20 minutes throughout the night. The Irisbus is a
192 three-axle articulated vehicle manufactured in France. The Irisbus can carry up to 120
193 passengers and operates 15 hours per day. The New Flyer bus is also an articulated transit
194 vehicle manufactured in Canada and has a maximum capacity of over 110 passengers. Load and
195 axle specifications for the buses in question were obtained from the Nevada Department of
196 Transportation (NDOT) and from manufacturer’s specifications. Table 1 and figure 1 present the
197 schematics and axle configurations of the BRT buses. Average bus loads and GAWR loads,
198 which represent the maximum allowable weight that can be placed on an individual axle, are also
199 presented. It should be noted that the drive and rear axles on the Irisbus have widebase tires
200 which can be modeled in the 3D-Move Analysis software. A database for non-uniform contact
201 stress distributions of a variety of tire types including widebase tires under different inflation
202 pressure and over a wide range of tire loads is included in the 3D-Move software and has been
203 used in this study (15).
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
6
Double Decker Irisbus New Flyer
http://www.stripmap.org/public-transportation- http://www.transitunlimited.org/RTC_Transit_
in-las-vegas/ Strip_%26_Downtown_Express
212 FIGURE 1 BRT buses evaluated in this study.

213 TABLE 1 Axle and Loading Configurations of BRT Buses and Description of Evaluated
214 Pavement Structures
Axle and Loading Configurations
Bus Double Decker Irisbus Civis New Flyer
Axle Fronta Drive Rear Fronta Driveb Rearb Fronta Drive Rear
Axle Type Single Dual Single Single Single Single Single Dual Dual
Tire Inflation
120 85 110 130 130 130 120 120 120
(psi)
Mean Las
13,340 20,592 25,515
Axle Vegas
14,412 19,041 13,417 13,845 24,655 22,000
Load
Reno 11,750 15,010 24,990
(lbs.)
GAWR (lbs.) 15,653 20,944 14,330 16,094 28,660 25,574 14,780 24,250 27,760
Front-Drive Drive-Rear Front-Drive Drive-Rear Front-Drive Drive-Rear
Wheelbase, in.
294 58 211 266 224 293
Bus
Maximum 120 120 110
Capacity
Pavement Structures
Location Las Vegas, NV Reno, NV Thickness, in Property
Dynamic Dynamic
Asphalt Modulus of a Modulus of a
8 Viscoelastic
Concrete (AC) PG76-22NV PG64-28NV
Pavement Mixture Mixture
Layer Crushed
Aggregate E = 28,000 psi 10 Linear Elastic
Base (CAB)
Subgrade (SG) E = 15,000 psi Infinite Linear Elastic
a b
215 Steering axle; Widebase tires
7
216 Pavement Structures
217 The same pavement structure was used for both Northern and Sothern Nevada locations
218 along with representative layer properties for each of the locations (Table 1). The surface layer
219 consisted of a typical asphalt concrete (AC) layer with a PG64-28NV and a PG76-22NV
220 polymer-modified asphalt binder for Northern (i.e., Reno) and Southern (i.e., Las Vegas)
221 Nevada, respectively. Representative dynamic modulus values corresponding to the asphalt
222 mixtures used in Las Vegas and Reno locations were obtained from the NDOT materials
223 database (6) and used in 3D-Move for the calculation of pavement responses. The bus
224 operational speed for both locations was assumed to be 15 mph.
225 Pavement Temperature and Ridership Data
226 Air temperature and other climatic data corresponding to the Las Vegas McCarran
227 (23169) and Reno Tahoe (23185) Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) weather stations
228 were assembled for this study. Seasonal pavement temperature distributions were then estimated
229 using the Temperature Estimate Model for Pavement Structures (TEMPS) software (16). This model
230 uses hourly air temperature history along with wind speed, solar radiation, material properties (e.g.,
231 specific heat capacity, density), and pavement surface characteristics (e.g., emissivity, albedo) to
232 predict pavement temperature profiles at any location within the analyzed pavement structures. For
233 simplicity, the pavement temperature history at 0.25 in. below the pavement surface was
234 considered for the performance analysis.
235 The effective pavement temperatures (Teffs) for asphalt rutting and fatigue cracking were
236 also calculated for each location using the same climatic information. The Teff is based on the
237 concept of determining a single temperature at which an amount of a given distress would be
238 equivalent to that which would occur from the temperature fluctuation throughout the annual
239 cycle (17). Site-specific climatic characteristics, such as the mean annual air temperature
240 (MAAT), annual cumulative rainfall depth, and mean annual percent sunshine are used along
241 with a loading frequency to calculate Teffs. The pavement damage analysis in this study was
242 conducted using either the pavement temperature distribution or the calculated Teffs.
243 Because axle loading on buses directly depends on the number of passengers being
244 transported, ridership reports were used to calculate the total axle loads. An entire year, hour by
245 hour ridership report was obtained for the BRT buses operating in Las Vegas. On the other
246 hand, hourly average or typical hourly passenger ridership was available for the BRT bus in
247 Northern Nevada. To estimate axle loads, a weight of 150 lbs. per passenger was used, and then
248 the total load was distributed over the bus axles proportionally to the GAWR load carried by
249 each axle (10).
250 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

251 Pavement Responses
252 The 3D-Move Analysis software was used to calculate the pavement responses under the
253 various BRT axles. In 3D-Move the continuum-based finite layer approach is used to evaluate
254 the response of a layered medium subjected to a moving surface load (15). The characterization
255 of the pavement system is conducted through a combination of viscoelastic and elastic horizontal
256 layers for the asphalt concrete and unbound layers, respectively. Once pavement responses were
257 calculated, they were used in the calibrated performance models to determine the number of load
258 repetitions to failure for the various distresses. The maximum vertical compressive strain, εr,
259 and the maximum tensile strain, εt, at the middle and bottom of the asphalt layer were used,
8
260 respectively. The determination of εr and εt allowed for the determination of LEFs using the
261 locally calibrated performance models. Two types of analyses, an extended and a simplified
262 analysis were implemented in this research study. In the case of the extended analysis, pavement
263 responses from multiple pavement analyses based on seasonal distributions of hourly pavement
264 temperatures at different levels of axle loading representing the variability in ridership were
265 considered for each BRT bus. In the simplified analysis, instead of using pavement temperature
266 and ridership history, pavement responses from a single combination of Teff analysis
267 temperature in conjunction with either the AVG or the GAWR axle loadings were used.
268 Additional descriptions of the two analyses along with the experimental plan are presented in the
269 subsequent sections.
270 Extended Analysis
271 The objective of the extended analysis was to capture the influence of the variation in both,
272 pavement temperature and BRT axles’ loadings based on the ridership data in the calculation of
273 LEFs. Multiple pavement analyses were needed to obtain the pavement responses required for
274 the performance models used in this study (i.e., rutting and fatigue models); one for each
275 combination of ridership loading and temperature. However, an hour by hour analysis would
276 require an extensive effort, which is not practical. Instead, normal distributions and the
277 cumulative difference delineation (CDD) method were implemented to determine representative
278 ranges for pavement temperature and ridership values (18). The step-by-step procedure to
279 determine the LEFs using the extended analysis can be summarized as follows.
280
281 Step 1: Pavement temperature history predictions and ridership distribution data for a single year
282 were divided into four seasons and grouped by hour. Figure 2 shows, as an example, the hourly
283 temperature and ridership yearly distributions for the Double Decker bus per season in Las
284 Vegas; in which the boxplots represent the expected range of pavement temperatures or
285 passengers per bus at each hour of the day. The subdivision of the annual distributions into
286 seasons allowed for the calculation of seasonal LEFs for each BRT bus.
287 The TEMPS estimated temperatures for the studied locations showed that pavement
288 temperatures smoothly fluctuates throughout the day, increasing in the afternoon hours and
289 decreasing as the evening approaches, with the hourly pavement temperature profiles resembling
290 normal probability distributions. On the other hand, it was noted that the ridership hourly
291 seasonal distributions appear consistent among seasons, but they presented a high variability and
292 did not follow a smooth trend as observed with the seasonal temperature profiles. Similar
293 analyses were performed for the remaining BRT buses. However, for brevity only the Double
294 Decker bus case is presented in this paper.
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
9
Pavement Temperature, °F Winter Winter

140
80
Passenger per Bus

120
70 100
80
60
60
50 40
20
40
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour Hour
Spring Spring
Pavement Temperature, °F
130 140
120 120
Passenger per Bus

110
100
100
90 80
80 60
70 40
60
20
50
40 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour Hour
Summer Summer
140 140
passenger per Bus
130 120
120 100
110 80
100 60
90 40
80 20
70 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour Hour
Fall Fall
130 140
Passengers per Bus
120 120
110
100 100
90 80
80 60
70
40
60
50 20
40 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour Hour
304 FIGURE 2 Pavement temperature at 0.25 in below the pavement surface and ridership
305 hourly seasonal profiles for the Double Decker bus in Las Vegas.
10
306 Step 2: Normal distributions were produced from the hourly seasonal pavement temperature
307 boxplots. Each distribution was divided into five segments containing 20% of the area under the
308 normal distribution curve. The percentiles corresponding to the mid-point of the area segments
309 (10th, 30th, 50th, 70th, and 90th) were calculated. Thus, five temperatures were obtained and used
310 to represent each hour. Due to the high variability within the ridership data profiles, they were
311 not represented by normal distributions. Instead, the median and the corresponding 25th and 75th
312 percentiles were used to represent the ridership spectra. Figure 3 shows both profiles
313 superimposed where the dash-continuous lines represent the five temperature percentiles and the
314 vertical segments indicate the hourly ridership ranges.
Winter Spring
120 80 110 110
Passengers per Bus
100
Passengers per Bus

70 90
80 90
60 60 70
40 70
50 50
20
0 40 30 50
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour Hour
Summer Fall
120 140 120 110
Passengers per Bus
130 100
Passengers per Bus
100 100
120 90
80 80
110 80
60 60
100 70
40 40 60
90
20 80 20 50
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
Hour Hour
315 FIGURE 3 Seasonal profiles after descriptive statistical analysis. (Dashed lines from
316 bottom to top represent hourly 10th, 30th, 50th, 70th, and 90th pavement temperature
317 percentiles; vertical lines represent the 25th and 75th ridership percentiles)
318 Step 3: The CDD analysis was used to determine representative ranges for pavement
319 temperature and ridership values based on the homogeneity of temperature and ridership data for
320 24 hours of the day (horizontal axis in figures 2 and 3). This approach is typically used in
321 pavement design to mathematically divide responses or measurements into smaller and more
322 manageable sets of values; all based on the between-unit variability (18). When considering
323 each of the five temperatures and the three ridership percentiles, presented in figure 3, the
324 approach revealed variation in pavement temperature and ridership responses, and found range
325 of boundary points at which the cumulative mean of the responses were considerably different.
326 The boundaries were determined by calculating the difference between the total area developed
327 from the overall range of values and average areas of the response curve at any distance. It was
328 found that temperature profiles for a given day in a season can be divided into four periods,
11
329 representing the morning, afternoon, evening and night temperatures. In the case of the ridership,
330 profiles shown in figure 3 were represented by two values, one representing the morning and one
331 for the combined afternoon and evening. As a result, the 24 hours were represented using only a
332 set of three mathematically representative temperatures and two ridership values for each axle of
333 a given BRT bus. Accordingly, the experimental plan shown in Table 2 was generated for the
334 Double Decker bus. In this case, a total of 240 pavement analyses (60 for each season) were
335 undertaken for the determination of the seasonal LEFs of the various Double Decker bus axles.
336 Similar experimental plans were developed for the other evaluated BRT buses and an overall
337 total of 2,880 pavement analyses were completed for the extended analysis in this study.
338
339 TABLE 2 Double Decker Experimental Plan
Analysis Period
Period 1: Period 2: Period 3:
Analysis Pav. Period 4: Night
Axles Season Morning Afternoon Evening
Method Temp
Axle Loads due to Ridership
25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th 25th 50th 75th
Front, 10th
Winter
Drive, 30th
Extended Spring 15 Different 15 Different 15 Different 15 Different
and 50th
Analysis Summer Combinations Combinations Combinations Combinations
Rear 70th
Fall
Axles
90th
Front,
1 Combination (Average Ridership Loading)
Drive, Rutting, and
Simplified
and Fatigue Effective
Analysis
Rear Temperatures 1 Combination (GAWR)
Axles
340
341 Simplified Analysis
342 As mentioned before, the simplified analysis consisted of obtaining the pavement
343 responses for Teff under the BRT axles loaded to either the AVG or the GAWR loading level.
344 Equations 1 and 2 were used to calculate rutting and fatigue Teff, respectively (17). The
345 calculated Rutting Teff values of 110°F and 97°F were found for Las Vegas and Reno,
346 respectively. Likewise, the calculated fatigue Teff for Las Vegas and Reno were 97°F and 69°F,
347 respectively. The experimental plan for the determination of LEFs in accordance with the
348 simplified analysis is presented in Table 2.
349 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓_𝑅𝑢𝑡 = 14.62 − 3.361𝐿𝑛(𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞) − 10.940 (𝑧) + 1.121 (𝑀𝐴𝐴𝑇) + 1.718 (𝜎𝑀𝐴𝐴𝑇) −
350 0.431(𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑) + 0.333(𝑆𝑢𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒) + 0.08 (𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑛) (1)
351 𝑇𝑒𝑓𝑓_𝐹𝑎𝑡 = −13.95 − 2.332(𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞)0.5 + 1.006 (𝑀𝐴𝐴𝑇) + 0.876(𝜎𝑀𝐴𝐴𝑇) − 1.186(𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑑) +
352 0.549(𝑆𝑢𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑒) + 0.071 (𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑛) (2)
353 Where,
354 z = critical depth, inch
355 Freq = loading frequency, Hz
356 MAAT = mean annual air temperature, °F
357 σMMAT = standard deviation of the mean monthly air temperature
358 Rain = annual cumulative rainfall depth, inches
359 Sunshine = mean annual percentage sunshine (%)
360 Wind = mean annual wind speed (mph)
12
361 Performance Models
362 Once determined (either following the extended or simplified analysis procedure), the
363 critical pavement responses were used in the locally calibrated rutting and fatigue performance
364 models shown in Equations 3 and 4, respectively, so that the number of load repetitions to failure
365 can be calculated (6, 19).
366
𝜀𝑝
367 = 𝐵𝑟1 10𝑘1𝐵𝑟1 𝑇 𝑘2𝐵𝑟2 𝑁𝑟 𝑘3𝐵𝑟3 (3)
𝜀𝑟
368
369 Where,
370 𝜀𝑝 = plastic strain (in/in): 0.25 inches is used in this study in all cases
371 𝜀𝑟 = resilient strain (in/in)
372 T = layer temperature (°F)
373 𝑁𝑟 = Number of load repetitions to rutting failure
374 𝐾1 , 𝐾2 , 𝐾3 , = −2.9708, 1.7435, 0.3547 (Las Vegas); -3.2605, 2.0055, 0.3161 (Reno)
375 𝐵𝑟1 , 𝐵𝑟2 , 𝐵𝑟3 = 0.10451, 1.0, 1.0 (Las Vegas); 0.16981, 1.0, 0.9 (Reno)
376
1 𝑘2 𝐵𝑓2 1 𝑘3 𝐵𝑓3
377 𝑁𝑓 = 𝐵𝑓1 𝐾1 (𝜀 ) (𝐸 ) (4)
𝑡
378
379 Where,
380 𝑁𝑓 = Number of load repetitions to fatigue failure
381 𝜀𝑡 = tensile strain (in/in)
382 𝐾1 , 𝐾2 , 𝐾3 , = 214.18, 5.0284, 2.3072 (Las Vegas); 30.08, 5.0537, 2.8904 (Reno)
383 𝐵𝑟1 , 𝐵𝑟2 , 𝐵𝑟3 = 0.005, 1.0, 1.0 (Las Vegas); 50, 1.0, 1.0 (Reno)
384
385 The LEFs for each of the BRT axles were determined using the mathematical expression
386 shown in equation 5, in which 𝑁18 represents the number of repetitions to rutting or fatigue
387 failure due to the 18-kip standard axle (single axle dual tires), and 𝑁𝐵 represents the number of
388 repetitions to rutting or fatigue failure due to the actual bus axle. A rut depth of 0.5 inch was
389 used as the rutting failure criterion for the asphalt concrete (AC) layer. The combined BRT bus
390 LEF is obtained by adding the LEFs of all the axles in a bus:
391
𝑁18
392 𝐿𝐸𝐹 = (5)
𝑁𝐵
393 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

394 The individual axle LEFs and the combined LEF for each of the BRT buses were
395 calculated using the extended and simplified analysis methods described above based on rutting
396 and fatigue cracking distresses. Figures 4(a) and 4(b) summarize the calculated LEFs for all four
397 BRT buses analyzed in this study along with the individual LEFs for the steering, drive, and rear
398 axles. The LEFs based on the extended analysis are presented for each of the four seasons. On
399 the other hand, the calculated LEFs based on the simplified method are shown for the GAWR
400 and AVG axle loadings.
13
20
Rutting Steering Drive Rear
16
12
LEF
8
5.43 4.95 4.42 5.78
4.33 3.94 3.86 4.11 3.78 4.71 4.31 4.37 4.46 4.41 4.06 4.73 4.19 4.06 3.71 4.03 4.17 4.01
4 3.14 3.73
0
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
GAWR
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
GAWR
AVG
GAWR
Winter
AVG
Winter
AVG
GAWR
Winter
AVG
Winter
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Simp. Extended Simp. Extended Simp. Extended Simp. Extended
Double Decker (LV) Irisbus (LV) New Flyer (LV) New Flyer (Reno)
(a)
20
17.82 Fatigue Steering Drive Rear
16 14.97 14.32
12 10.34 11.61
LEF
10.13 10.98
9.63 9.06 9.28
8.92
7.55 7.87 7.59 8.60 8.02
8 6.73 7.02
5.85
5.04 5.32 5.10 5.33
4.14
4
0
Spring
GAWR
Spring
Spring
Spring
GAWR
AVG
Summer
AVG
Summer
GAWR
AVG
Summer
GAWR
AVG
Summer
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Fall
Fall
Fall
Fall
Simp. Extended Simp. Extended Simp. Extended Simp. Extended
Double Decker (LV) Irisbus (LV) New Flyer (LV) New Flyer (Reno)
(b)
18 60%
Percent Contribution to
Combined BRT LEF
16 50%
14 40%
12 30%
Fatigue LEF
10 20%
Double Decker
8 10%
6 Irisbus (LV)
New Flyer (LV)
0%
4
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
2 New Flyer (Reno)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Rutting LEF Steering Drive Axle Rear Axle
Axle
(c) (d)
401 FIGURE 4 LEFs results (a) based on rutting; (b) based on fatigue cracking; (c) rutting vs.
402 fatigue; and (d) percent contribution to combined LEF (GAWR denotes Gross Axle Weight
403 Rating loads; AVG denotes Average ridership axle loads; Error bars represent the mean
404 plus or minus one standard deviation)
14
405 In general, the results showed that fatigue LEFs were consistently higher than those
406 calculated for rutting. Figure 4(c) shows the LEFs based on rutting versus the LEFs based on
407 fatigue. It is clear that in most cases the fatigue LEFs are more than twice the rutting LEFs. The
408 difference between both LEFs is even greater when the simplified GAWR LEFs was considered.
409 Consequently, for a given pavement structure, fatigue damage is anticipated to be predominant
410 under the passage of a specific BRT bus.
411 For the BRT buses operating in Las Vegas, the Double Decker and the Irisbus exhibited
412 the lowest and highest LEFs, respectively. When comparing the Irisbus to the New Flyer in Las
413 Vegas, the latter one exhibited lower rutting and fatigue based LEFs. As presented before, the
414 Irisbus has widebase tires on the drive and rear axles while the New Flyer bus has single axles
415 dual tire configuration. When considering the New Flyer (Reno) LEFs, they are generally lower
416 than those determined for the Irisbus and New Flyer in Las Vegas. This is mainly due to the
417 lower axle ridership loading and the different climatic conditions experienced in Reno.
418 Contribution of Various Axles to Pavement Damage
419 Figure 4 (d) summarizes the average percent contribution of the individual axles to the
420 combined bus LEFs. For the various evaluated BRT buses, the steering axles carried nearly 30%
421 of the total bus load. However, these axles significantly contributed to the combined bus LEF.
422 For instance, in the case of rutting LEFs, the contribution of the steering axle was nearing 40%
423 of the BRT combined LEF. The contribution of the drive axles to the combined bus LEFs was in
424 average lower than the steering axles. This is mainly attributed to the fact that in the Double
425 Decker and New Flyer buses the drive axles had dual tires compared to the steering axle which
426 consisted of a single axle single tire. The rear axles also presented an important contribution to
427 the combined LEFs. For example, the heaviest axle on the New Flyer bus was the rear axle,
428 with nearly 45% of the bus load which led to higher LEF values. Also, the contribution of rear
429 axles to the combined fatigue LEFs was higher than for the combined rutting LEFs as seen in
430 figure 4(d). It is clear that the differences on axle loading configurations among the buses
431 influenced their contribution to the combined bus LEF. When considering similar configurations
432 heavier axles presented a higher contribution to the overall bus LEF.
433 Climatic Effects on Load Equivalency Factors
434 When determining seasonal LEFs using the extended analysis, different levels of
435 temperature and ridership were included in the calculation. As indicated before, passenger
436 ridership values reported by the transit agencies were generally consistent among the four
437 seasons. However, when accounting for seasonal variations in the extended analysis, not only
438 were the high temperatures that are mainly experienced in the afternoon implemented, but low
439 pavement temperatures generally corresponding to the morning and evening periods were
440 considered in the analysis as well. These lower temperatures were consistently lower than the
441 effective ones used in the simplified method for both locations. Thus when taking into
442 consideration the entire range of temperatures, lower seasonal LEFs were obtained when
443 compared to those based on Teffs in the simplified method.
444 Summer rutting LEFs were generally higher than those determined for the winter
445 months. In contrast, the rutting LEFs determined for fall and spring showed similar values. This
446 is mainly due to similar ridership and climatic conditions presented in both seasons. When
447 considering the fatigue criteria, with only the exception of the Double Decker steering and rear
448 axles, higher LEFs were obtained during the spring and fall seasons, when intermediate
449 temperatures are experienced. One of the objectives of this study was to evaluate the interaction
15
450 between seasonal pavement temperatures and axle loading in the calculation of load equivalency
451 factors. It is apparent that pavement temperature variability within a single day and among
452 seasons do influence pavement damage. As expected, the highest and the lowest rutting LEFs
453 were obtained during the summer and winter, respectively, for all BRT buses and all axle types.
454 On the other hand, higher fatigue LEFs were generally obtained for fall and spring seasons.
455 Effects of GAWR Axle Loads
456 Results from the simplified analysis showed that the calculated rutting and fatigue LEFs
457 for GAWR loading were consistently higher than for any other condition. This condition
458 represents the pass of a BRT vehicle at an overloaded condition and at a representative
459 temperature. Ridership reports show several periods in which the number of passengers per
460 vehicle is at or near the BRT bus capacity. However seldom do the BRT buses go over their
461 capacity. If BRT buses are operated at a GAWR and when pavement temperatures are near the
462 effective temperatures, they would exert significantly high rutting and fatigue damage compared
463 to other conditions.
464 It is noteworthy to mention the difference between the calculated GAWR LEFs between
465 the Las Vegas and the Reno New Flyer BRT. When using the simplified method, the same axle
466 and loading configurations were implemented. The difference between these two cases is the
467 asphalt mixture and the analysis effective temperatures. While both effective temperatures for
468 Reno are lower than those for Las Vegas, lower rutting and higher fatigue LEFs were obtained
469 for the Las Vegas location.
470 Impact of Tire Inflation Pressure on Load Equivalency factors
471 It is known that tire inflation pressure influences pavement responses, and consequently,
472 load equivalencies. For example, the Double Decker and the New Flyer drive axles have similar
473 characteristics. However, they present different tire inflation pressures of 85 and 120 psi,
474 respectively. When comparing the pavement damage exerted by the two axles, given similar
475 loading characteristics, the axle containing tires with an inflation pressure of 120 psi exerted
476 more pavement damage. This is observed when LEFs results from the Double Decker GAWR
477 drive axle and the New Flyer LV AVG drive axle were compared. Both axles had similar weight
478 with the same number of tires, however, the LEF from the Double Decker axle was significantly
479 lower than the LEF of the New Flyer from Las Vegas.
480 Comparative ESALs Analysis
481 The daily frequencies of the BRT buses in conjunction with the calculated LEFs were
482 employed to determine the number of ESALs that BRT buses would produce in a 10-year period.
483 Figure 5 presents the number of ESALs using extended and simplified analysis based on both
484 rutting and fatigue LEFs. From the simplified method, the GAWR and the AVG equivalencies
485 were used in the calculation of ESALs. On the other hand, the AVG seasonal LEFs were
486 calculated from the seasonal LEFs determined using the extended methodology and were then
487 employed in the calculation of ESALs. Because fatigue LEFs are generally higher than the
488 rutting ones, they produced a higher number of ESALs after the 10-year period. It is also clear
489 that rutting LEFs from extended and simplified methods produced a similar number of ESALs
490 for a specific bus. Figure 5 also indicates that all BRT buses in Las Vegas would result in
491 number of ESALs ranging from 1.01 to 1.36 million when rutting LEFs were used. When
492 rutting LEFs are used in Reno, the number of ESALs would be around half of those in Las
493 Vegas. If instead, fatigue LEFs were used in Reno, the estimated ESALs would double.
16
494 ESALs represent a measure of the pavement damage applied by traffic. Using this
495 concept, LEFs could be used as a limiting tool to reduce the amount of pavement damage and to
496 increase the lifetime of the pavement network. Often, restrictions on axle weights and vehicle
497 gross weight are used for this purpose. However, LEFs which are influenced by the number of
498 passengers and climatic conditions are better predictors of damage. Furthermore, the number of
499 passengers and bus frequency restrictions could be applied when ridership and climatic
500 conditions cause the most damage to the pavement structure. For example, restrictions could be
501 applied when rutting and fatigue damage potential is the highest. However, restriction actions
502 need to be cognizant to avoid logistical and management challenges to the responsible transit
503 agencies (3).
504
5.0
4.29
4.5
4.0 3.61
3.25
Millions of ESALs
3.5
2.80
3.0 2.37 2.39
2.5 2.02 2.18 2.02
2.0 1.36
1.24 1.17 1.31 1.13 1.19
1.5 1.06 1.06 1.01 0.99
1.0 0.40 0.28 0.41 0.28 0.36
0.5
0.0
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Fatigue
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
Rutting
GAWR AVG AVG GAWR AVG AVG GAWR AVG AVG GAWR AVG AVG
Simp. Ext. Simp. Ext. Simp. Ext. Simp. Ext.
Double Decker (LV) Iris Bus (LV) New Flyer (LV) New Flyer (Reno)
505
506 FIGURE 5 Estimated ESALs after 10 years for various BRT buses.
507 CONCLUSSIONS
508 This study evaluated the impact of BRT buses operating in Northern and Southern
509 Nevada on asphalt pavement using extended and simplified methodologies. Both methods
510 modeled all axles present in the buses and obtained pavement responses from the 3D-Move
511 Analysis software. The critical responses were then used to compare the performance of the
512 BRT bus axles with that of a standard axle trough the implementation of calibrated performance
513 models. The subdivision of the annual distributions into seasons allowed for the calculation of
514 seasonal LEFs for each BRT bus. Combined bus LEFs were obtained by summing the individual
515 bus axles’ LEFs. The interaction between pavement temperatures and axle loading due to
516 ridership changes during different periods of the year was evaluated. LEFs for seasonal, AVG
517 ridership and GAWR with overweight conditions were calculated. From the results of this study,
518 the following can be summarized:
519 1. Steering axles on the BRT buses can significantly contribute to pavement damage. When
520 running with high number of passengers, the LEFs from the steering axles can be close to
521 50% of the entire combined BRT bus LEF.
522 2. BRT buses can significantly contribute to the deterioration of asphalt pavements; more
523 importantly when they run at overweight conditions irrespective of the time of the year.
17
524 Significantly higher LEFs were obtained when BRT buses run on axle loadings close to the
525 GAWR or overweight conditions.
526 3. Fatigue cracking was the most dominant distress at both Northern and Southern Nevada
527 locations. For a given pavement structure, more fatigue damage is anticipated under the
528 passage of a specific BRT bus.
529 REFERENCES
530 1. Cervero, R. Bus Rapid Transit: An Efficient and Competitive Mode of Public Transport.
531 Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 2013.
532 2. Carrigan, A., King, R., Velasquez, J., M., Raifman M., and N. Duduta, Social, Environmental
533 and Economic Impacts of BRT Systems. World Resources Institute.
534 http://www.wricities.org/sites/default/files/Social-Environmental-Economic-Impacts-BRT-
535 Bus-Rapid-Transit-EMBARQ.pdf, Accessed July 28, 2015.
536 3. MORR Transportation Consulting Ltd. An Analysis of Transit Bus Axle Weight Issues.
537 American Public Transportation Association,
538 http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications /Documents/An-Analysis-of-Transit-
539 Bus-Axle-Weight-Issues-TCRP-J11-T20.pdf, 2014. Accessed Jun 1, 2015.
540 4. State of Nevada. Nevada Traffic Laws for Weight and Traffic Loads. Chapter 484D -
541 Equipment, Inspections and Size, Weight and Load of Vehicles.
542 http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-484D.html#NRS484DSec635, Accessed March 5,
543 2014.
544 5. Huang, Y. H. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J., 2004.
545 6. Hajj, E., Sebaaly, P., and P. Nabham, Manual for Designing Flexible Pavements in Nevada
546 Using AASHTOWare Pavement-ME Design Draft Final Report, Nevada Department of
547 Transportation, July 2015.
548 7. Souliman, M. I., Mamlouk, M. S. , El-Basyouny, M. M., and C., E. Zapata, Calibration of the
549 AASHTO MEPDG for flexible pavement for Arizona conditions. In Transportation
550 Research Board 89th Annual Meeting (No. 10-1817), 2010
551 8. ARC, 3D-Move Analysis software (version 2.1), Asphalt Research Consortium, June 2013
552 9. Kim, E. J., Darido, G., Schneck, D., Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) BRT,
553 FTVA-VA-26-7222-2005-.2, Regional Transportation Commission, U.S. Department of
554 Transportation, 2005.
555 10. Boile, M., Narayanan, P., and K. Ozbay. Impact of Buses on Highway Infrastructure Case
556 Study for New Jersey State, In Transportation Research Board, No. 184, Transportation
557 Reseach Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 32-40.
558 11. Fekpe, E., Pavement Damage from Transit Buses and Motor Coaches, http://road-transport-
559 technology.org/Proceedings, 2002
560 12. Tirado, C., C. Carrasco, J.M. Mares, N. Gharaibeh, S. Nazarian, and J. Bendaña. Process to
561 Estimate Permit Cost from Movement of Heavy Trucks on Flexible Pavements. In
562 Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2154,
563 Transportation Reseach Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 187-
564 196.
565 13. Baneerjee, A., Prozzi, J., and P. Buddhavarapu, Framework for Determining Load
566 Equivalencies with DARWIn-ME. In Transportation Research Board: Journal of the
567 Transportation Research Board, No 2368, Transportation Reseach Board of the National
568 Academies, Washington, D.C., 2013, pp. 36-44
18
569 14. Siddharthan, R., V. Krishnamenon, N. El-Mously, and P., E. Sebaaly. Validation of a
570 Pavement Response Model Using Full-Scale Field Tests, Journal of Pavement Engineering,
571 Vol. 3 (2) 2002, pp. 85–93.
572 15. Siddharthan, R., V., Yao, J., and P.,E. Sebaaly, “Pavement Strain from Moving Dynamic 3D
573 Load Distribution,” In American Society of Civil Engineers: Journal of Transportation
574 Engineering, 124(6) ASCE, 1998, pp. 557–566.
575 16. ARC, TEMPS Software (version 0.0.1) , Asphalt Research Consortium, December, 2013
576 17. NCHRP Report 704: A: A Performance-Related Specification for Hot-Mix Asphalt. TRB
577 National Research Council, Washington D.C., 2011.
578 18. AASHTO, AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of
579 State Highway and Officials, Washington, D.C., 1993
580 19. ARA, Inc., ERES Consultants Division. Guide for Mechanistic– Empirical Design of New
581 and Rehabilitated Pavement Structures. Final report, NCHRP Project 1-37A. Transportation
582 Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004

Assesment of Pavement Damage From Bus Rapid Transit: A Case Study For The State of Nevada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Assesment of Pavement Damage From Bus Rapid Transit: A Case Study For The State of Nevada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Hajj, Batioja-Alvarez, Siddharthan

1 ASSESMENT OF PAVEMENT DAMAGE FROM BUS RAPID TRANSIT:

184 DATA REQUIREMENTS

212 FIGURE 1 BRT buses evaluated in this study.

250 ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Pavement Temperature, °F Winter Winter

Passenger per Bus

Passenger per Bus

Passengers per Bus

Passengers per Bus

393 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

2 New Flyer (Reno)

You might also like