Performance Specifications for Rapid Highway Renewal (2014) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 82-103
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 82... ...
82 A p p e n d i x d Bridges Badie, S
|
From page 83... ...
83 Tadros, M
|
From page 84... ...
84 With the increasing agenda for sustainability, the United Kingdom is attempting to move away from the empirical design of pavement foundations to develop a performance-specification approach that facilitates analytical design. The measurement of the subgrade performance parameters of resilient modulus and resistance to permanent deformation is required for analytical design.
|
From page 85... ...
85 speed of roller passes, potential corrective actions for noncompliant areas)
|
From page 86... ...
86 "(A) Perform analyses, prepare design, and construct the Project to limit the longitudinal and transverse settlement of the roadway, structures, embankments, and other Project facilities as specified in Part 9 Warranty Provisions; and (B)
|
From page 87... ...
87 Evans, L., M
|
From page 88... ...
88 The appendix of this report provides a guidance performance-related specification for jointed plain concrete pavement which is based on the methodology described in the report (only for Level 1 and Level 2 PRS)
|
From page 89... ...
89 increase or decrease in future LCCs expected to be incurred by the Department over the analysis life of the project." The AQCs selected by the Indiana DOT (INDOT) for this PRS are flexural strength (a 28-day equivalent of the measured 7-day strength)
|
From page 90... ...
90 during and shortly after construction, and the potential deductions associated with each. While the deductions (penalties)
|
From page 91... ...
91 fatigue cracking (both bottom-up and top-down) , thermal cracking, and smoothness (International Roughness Index)
|
From page 92... ...
92 models developed are for permanent deformation (rutting) and fatigue cracking.
|
From page 93... ...
93 mixture, and finished surface properties. The key aspect of this specification is that it does not prescribe the mixture and construction requirements; rather, it requires the contractor to develop the mixture (meeting certain performance requirements)
|
From page 94... ...
94 the initial 5-year warranty period and any additional warranty period for the following distresses: smoothness (IRI) , rutting, cracking, raveling and popout areas, potholes, depressions and shoving, and roadway settlement (near to and away from abutments)
|
From page 95... ...
95 surface defects, and miscellaneous distresses. For flexible pavements, threshold distress levels, extent, and corrective actions (during the warranty period)
|
From page 96... ...
96 Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5 Weaver Bundle 306.
|
From page 97... ...
97 Lee, D.-E., and D Arditi.
|
From page 98... ...
98 44 Politically unacceptable social consequences of large region-wide contracts; 44 Perceived threat of job losses in the road authority; and 44 Greater potential financial implications of contract failure. Shuler, S., T
|
From page 99... ...
99 • Statistical analysis showed very little evidence of contractor bias in test results. (Only in the case of plant voids was a statistically different result obtained.)
|
From page 100... ...
100 PBC" and "only those producers who are confident in calculating the subjective risks and reward structures would be willing to accept a PBC project." Interestingly, J
|
From page 101... ...
101 (Smith, G
|
From page 102... ...
102 warranty contractors is significantly different than in the United States." However, the report does not make clear what those differences are and how they manifest themselves in written contracts. Subramanian, R., and F
|
From page 103... ...
103 The scope of the analysis in this study is limited to short-term performance warranties in which a contractor performs only preventive maintenance, not rehabilitation, for the most vulnerable -- burn-in -- phase of pavement life cycle. The authors' basis for the modeling presented in this paper is that, from the state agency's point of view, the objective is to find an upper bound on the risk costs that contractors would be allowed to include in a bid in addition to their nonwarranty bid.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.