Pay Factor Analysis for Highway Pavements through Percentage of Material within Specification Limits and Monte Carlo Simulation

Abstract

Many state highway agencies (SHAs) have adopted pay adjustment provisions in their acceptance plans for construction and materials. In these payment adjustment acceptance plans, the percentage of material within specification limits (PWL) has been selected as the quality measure to relate production quality to pay factors, and pay equations are used to determine a pay factor for a lot based on PWL. Various pay equations have been proposed by the highway community for adoption in SHAs’ specifications. However, the effectiveness of these pay equations has not been fully evaluated. Another issue concerning the pay adjustment acceptance plans is the risk associated with single and multiple pay factors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of different pay equations commonly used by SHAs and the risks associated with pay adjustment acceptance plans. This was achieved by developing operating characteristic curves associated with various pay factors and expected pay curves and Monte Carlo simulation for assessing the effects in the long run. The methodology suggested in this paper is transferable elsewhere where similar materials and specifications are used for the acceptance of pavements.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Burati

Weed

Hughes

Hill

Optimal Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications. Report FHWA-RD-02-095. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2017.

Hughes

C. S.

Moulthron

J. S.

Tayabji

Weed

R. M.

Burati

J. L.

Guidelines for Quality-Related Pay Adjustment Factors for Pavements. National Cooperative Highway Research Program 10-79. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011.

Burati

Risks with Multiple Pay Factor Acceptance Plans. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2005. 1907: 97–42.

Burati

Weed

Hughes

Hill

Evaluation of Procedures for Quality Assurance Specifications. Report FHWA-HRT-04-046. Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 2004.

Weed

R. M.

Quality Assurance Software for the Personal Computer. Publication No. FHWA–SA–96–026. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1996.

Transportation Research Circular No. E-C235: Glossary of Highway Quality Assurance Terms . Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2018.

Standard Practice for Definition of Terms Related to Quality and Statistics as Used in Highway Construction. AASHTO Designation R 10-06. In Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, Part I Specifications, 33rd ed. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2018.

Karimi

Goulias

Schwartz

Risk and Expected Pay Factor Analysis for Assessing Gap and Dense-Graded Superpave Mixture Specification. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2015, pp. 69–79.

Zhao

Goulias

Evaluation of Acceptance Risks through Percent within Limit for Highway Materials and Pavement Construction. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981211006436

10.

Goulias

Schwartz

Karimi

Hughes

Increasing Durability of Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements Designed with the Superpave System. Research Report MD-SP708B4E. Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration, Office of Materials and Technology, Hanover, 2009.

11.

Villiers

Mehta

Lopp

Tia

Roque

Evaluation of Percent-within-Limits- Construction Specification Parameters. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2003, pp. 221–228.