PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ Yes, needed information for pavement rehab■ This specifically addresses some in-situ testing and analysis that I find to be the weak point of the ME design■ May be more difficult to be a successful project than time or budget would indicate.■ Probably too much $ for a project that only develops a roadmap to address perceived shortcomings in MEPDG.■ Darein hasn't determined how other research will be incorporated into the MEPDG■ Focus of development of MEPDG was on new pavements, not overlay design; therefore, this is a much needed study.Other■ [Rating: 2.5] A needed assessment of the rehabilitation measures and methodologies in the M-E PDG. However, asproposed this is a fishing expedition.■ [Rating: 4]■ This project is related to SHRP 2 R23 Using the Existing Pavement in Place and Achieving long life. This project hasdone some preliminary evaluation of the MEPDG for select renewal strategies.Item #34:C-11Determining the Validity of Network PavementCondition Data(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 1 2 4 2 7RAC 2 3 1 8 8 18 9Standing Committee on Research■ The need for such a study may be aparent, but it might be better performed initially as a synthesis where the currentpractices of the state DOTs are compiled to see what is needed nationally.■ Caltrans is working on an automated distress condition project; this proposed research will compliment the Caltranseffort that is already underway. Validating data is an important part of Quality Assessment.■ Ongoing issue - results could provide significant benefit.■ [Rating: 2] The narrowly focused topic is just one aspect of a comprehensive quality management of pavement conditiondata. Should be part of the auditing process in a quality assurance procedure and is part of the quality managementprocess. Past and on-going efforts in this area - NCHRP Project 20-5 Synthesis Topic 39-01 "Quality Management ofPavement Condition Data Collection" and recently completed but to be published "Integrating Condition MeasurementVariability In Network Pavement Management."Research Advisory Committee■ This may be good for some States but for Ohio we have already incorporated edit checks and procedures for ensuringgood data collection. We are also involved with pooled fund studies that have helped us do quality control checks on ourdata.■ The proposal emphasizes IRI measurements, but AASHTO guidelines already exist for certifying roughness datacollection. Recommend that the problem statement instead emphasize rutting and cracking measurements, which havefewer guidelines available.■ This is critical to validate the statewide pavement condition data prior to any use of these criteria as performancemeasures. FHWA should be concerned and should be performing these validations and quality assurances on its own■ SHA Submission (Operations)■ State DOTs would welcome this. Many of us have home-grown QA procedures, but some guidelines would be handy.IV-21