Suggested Citation:
Guada, Irwin M., James Signore, Rongzong Wu, Lorina Popescu, John T. Harvey (2010) Rehabilitation Design for 06-KIN-198, PM 9.2/17.9 Using Caltrans ME Design Tools: Findings and Recommendations. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-10-36

In 2008, the Caltrans Division of Pavement Management, Office of Pavement Engineering selected three pavement rehabilitation projects for use as case studies in rehabilitation design using Mechanistic-Empirical (ME) design procedures, with each case study’s completion resulting in a technical memorandum that describes the work and analyses performed. This memorandum covers a site near Lemoore, CA, designated 06-KIN-198, PM 9.2/17.9, and it outlines the procedures and findings of each step of the design and analysis, from pre-site visit work to the site investigation to the rehabilitation design recommendations, based upon both current R-value and ME design procedures. The work was performed by the University of California Pavement Research Center (UCPRC) as part of Partnered Pavement Research Center Strategic Plan Element 3.4, in conjunction with Caltrans District and Headquarters staff.

The goal of the three case studies is to use current rehabilitation investigation techniques—including deflection testing, material sampling, and Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) testing—to provide inputs for two newly developed ME design and analysis software programs, CalBack and CalME, and associated testing and analysis procedures developed jointly by the UCPRC and Caltrans. Specifically, CalBack uses Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) data to backcalculate layer stiffnesses; CalME generates performance estimates of cracking and rutting based on ME damage models that integrate traffic, climate, layer type, and backcalculated stiffnesses. CalME can also produce designs using the Caltrans R-value and CT 356 procedures, which were performed as part of the work reported here for comparison purposes.

The objectives of each case study are:

1. To refine pre-field and in-field information gathering methods and office design and analysis techniques with the new software in order to identify changes needed for implementation by Caltrans.

2. To produce alternative designs for consideration by Caltrans.

Work conducted for each of these case studies consisted of a review of existing project documentation, field site and material evaluation, and development of new design and rehabilitation options.

Three pavements were used as case studies:

• 02-PLU-36, PM 6.3/13.9 (in and near Chester)

• 01-LAK-53, PM 3.1/7.4 (near Clearlake)

• 06-KIN-198, PM 9.2/17.9 (near Lemoore)