Road Materials and Pavement Design

ISSN: 1468-0629 (Print) 2164-7402 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/trmp20

Sensitivity of the mechanistic-empirical pavement

design guide to traffic inputs: a space-filling
approach

Armando Orobio & John P. Zaniewski

To cite this article: Armando Orobio & John P. Zaniewski (2013) Sensitivity of the mechanistic-
empirical pavement design guide to traffic inputs: a space-filling approach, Road Materials and
Pavement Design, 14:3, 735-746, DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2013.816248

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.816248

Published online: 08 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 196

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=trmp20
Road Materials and Pavement Design, 2013
Vol. 14, No. 3, 735–746, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2013.816248

Sensitivity of the mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide to traffic

inputs: a space-filling approach
Armando Orobioa * and John P. Zaniewskib
a School of Civil Engineering and Geomatics, University of Valle, Building 350, 2nd floor, street 13, No

100-00, Cali, Colombia; b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, West Virginia University,
PO Box 6103, Morgantown, WV 26506-6103, USA

The mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG) includes a software tool to per-
form the large number of calculations involved in the design of pavement structures. Large
number of input parameters from traffic, materials, and climate are required to use MEPDG.
Data collection to accomplish calibration and implementation of MEPDG may be done more
efficiently focusing on the most sensitive parameters. This research studies the sensitivity
of MEPDG to traffic input parameters on two flexible pavements using the techniques for
sensitivity of complex computer codes with Latin hypercube sampling, rank transformation,
standardised regression coefficients, and Gaussian stochastic models. The results showed that
roughness, rutting, and bottom-up cracking as predicted by MEPDG are sensitive to variations
of two-way average annual daily traffic (AADT), traffic growth, dual tyre spacing, percent
trucks in the design direction, percent of heavy vehicles, traffic wander, and percent of trucks
in design lane. Variations of operational speed, average axle width, and mean wheel location
showed no significant effects on the same MEPDG outputs. The results of the sensitivity were
used to define recommended hierarchical levels for traffic input.
Keywords: mechanistic-empirical; MEPDG; pavement design; pavement performance;
sensitivity analysis; traffic

1. Introduction
The mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG) constituted a major change in pave-
ment design methodologies. MEPDG integrates pavement response and performance models and
the capability to predict pavement distresses over the design life using complex computer soft-
ware. Initially, MEPDG models were calibrated using data from several databases, especially
from the national long-term pavement performance study which includes data from pavements
located throughout North America (ARA, Inc. ERES Consultants Division, 2004). Local cal-
ibration is needed to ensure that MEPDG accurately predicts pavement performance for local
conditions. Local calibration includes verification of the national calibration using a local valida-
tion database, and the adjustment of the input defaults and calibration coefficients. Data collection
for calibration is laborious due to the large number of input parameters required to use MEPDG.
A logical approach for calibration is to identify the most sensitive parameters to plan more effi-
ciently the data collection. The data collection can be focused on the most sensitive parameters.
Another characteristic of MEPDG is the hierarchical levels of input parameters. These levels
classify the designer’s knowledge of the input parameters or in other words, the designer’s effort
in the characterization of input parameters. The hierarchical levels 1, 2, and 3 have good, fair,

*Corresponding author. Emails: armando.orobio@correounivalle.edu.co; aorobioq@gmail.com

© 2013 Taylor & Francis

736 A. Orobio and J.P. Zaniewski

and poor knowledge, respectively. The most sensitive parameters would desirably require level
1 evaluation while the less sensitive parameters would require level 2 or 3.
The general approach followed in previous sensitivity studies of MEPDG has been the technique
of varying one parameter at a time while all others parameters are kept unchanged (Ceylan,
Coree, & Gopalakrishnan, 2006; Hall & Beam, 2005; Kim & Muthadi, 2006; Kim, Ceylan, &
Gopalakrishnan, 2007). A sensitivity study combined factorial experiments with one-at-a-time
experiments (Haider, Neeraj, & Karim, 2009). The limitation with these approaches is the large
number of runs required to perform a sensitivity analysis of MEPDG including several parameters.
Another study used Monte Carlo simulation and Pearson’s and Spearman’s coefficient to analyse
MEPDG sensitivity (Graves & Mahboub, 2006). Several studies have assessed the sensitivity of
MEPDG to traffic using different load spectra on several pavement structures to analyse MEPDG
outputs at the end of the design period or pavement life (Ahn, Kandala, Uzan, & El-Basyouny,
2011; Li, Pierce, Hallenbeck, & Uhlmeyer, 2009; Papagiannakis, Bracher, Li, & Jackson, 2006;
Timm, Bower, & Turochy, 2006).
MEPDG is a complex computer software, and therefore the approach used in this research
follows the techniques for computer experiments and sensitivity analysis of complex computer
codes. This research studied the sensitivity of MEPDG to traffic input parameters considering its
deterministic feature. Any time MEPDG is run with the same set of input parameters, the same
output is obtained, and thus there is no experimental error. It is doubtful that existing statistical
methodologies for analysis of physical experiments are appropriated for analysis of complex com-
puter codes (Sacks, Welch, Mitchell, & Wynn, 1989). Sensitivity of complex computer systems
required probabilistic analysis because of uncertainties in their input parameters (Wojtkiewicz,
Khazanovich, Gaurav, & Velasquez, 2010). The statistical approach followed in this study used
space-filling computer experiments with Latin hypercube sampling (LHS), and metamodelling
techniques using multiple regression with standardised regression coefficients (SRC) and Gaus-
sian stochastic processes to categorize the relative importance of traffic inputs in MEPDG on two
flexible pavement structures. The use of these techniques allows analysis of the entire space of
the input parameters. The sensitivity of each parameter was used to define hierarchical level for
the input parameters in the study.

2. Computer experiments and metamodelling

Complex systems and design procedures in engineering are usually coded in computer software.
Some engineering processes are so complex that exact representations of physical phenomena are
not possible. Besides the accuracy of the models, other sources of uncertainty may be present in
outputs from computer models. The data use for calibration of the models and the determination
of input values may involve uncertainty. Computer experiments are used to make inferences of
computers codes that are so complicated to manage or analyse. Computer experiments are used
to investigate the relationship of inputs and outputs of computer models. Sensitivity analyses
are used to rank the relative importance of different inputs values on the outputs from computer
models.
The goal of sampling in computer experiments is to spread the inputs data over the input space.
The design developed under this concept is called space-filling experiment design (Fang, Li,
& Sudjianto, 2006). LHS is a common space-filling method used for selecting input values to
perform sensitive analysis on complex computer codes. This method ensures that all areas of the
input space are represented by the input values and the input values are evenly spread out over the
input space of each parameter. LHS divides the input space of each input parameter into n equal
probability fractions and one input value is taken from each fraction, n is the number of runs for
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 737

the computer experiment. An input set, for a single computer run, is a random combination of an
input value from each input parameter. The LHS with n runs and d input variables, LHS(n, d),
is a n × d matrix in which each column is a random permutation of n = (1, 2, 3, . . ., n). It can be
generated from the following algorithm with two steps (Fang et al., 2006):

• Step 1 Independently take d permutations of πj (1), πj (2), . . ., πj (n) of the integers 1, 2, . . ., n

for j = 1, 2, . . ., d.
j
• Step 2 Take n × d uniform variates (random numbers between 0 and 1), Uk ∼ U (0, 1), k =
1, 2, . . . , n, and j = 1, 2, . . ., d, which are mutually independent. Let Xk = (xk1 , xk2 , . . . , xkd )
which elements are given by

j
j πj (k) − Uk
xk = , k = 1, 2, . . . , n; j = 1, 2, . . . , d. (1)
n

Then, Dn = {X1 , X2 , . . . , Xn } is a LHS of size n × d that is denoted as LHS(n, d).

Metamodelling is used to study the sensitivity of the outputs form complex computer codes to
input values. The general idea of metamodelling is to replace the complex model for a model easy
to run or analyse. A practical technique is to fit the model inputs and outputs to a multiple linear
regression model with SRC. The advantage of this metamodel is that SRCs are a direct indicator of
the sensitivity of the associated input parameter. Parameters which produce lager effect have larger
SRC. The magnitude of the SRC can be used to rank the importance of the input parameters. The
sign of SRC is an indicator of the effect of increasing or decreasing the input values. A negative
SRC indicates that an increase in the input values would decrease the output and vice versa. The
contrary is true for positive SRC. The limitations of the multiple linear regressions metamodels
are poor fit and nonlinearities. Reliable results can only be obtained when the data present good fit
and reasonable linear trend. Rank transformation is a robust statistical technique which replaces
the data for their rank (Fang et al., 2006). It has been successfully used in sensitivity studies when
there is poor regression fit or evidence of collinearity or nonlinearity (Iman & Conover, 1979). It
also reduces the effects of extreme values (Helton & Iman, 1982). In rank transformation, both
inputs and outputs are rank transformed by replacing the smallest value of every independent and
dependent variable by 1, the next by 2, and so on until the highest term is replaced by n, where n
is the number of values. Then, standard regression analysis is performed on the transformed data
(Santner, Willliams, & Notz, 2003).
The evaluation of the effect of each input parameter is assessed with test of significance for
individual regression coefficients. For each individual regression coefficient, a null hypothesis
of that the regression coefficient is zero is evaluated against an alternative hypothesis of that
the regression coefficient is different from zero. The approach to assess the null hypothesis uses
the probability of the regression coefficient to be zero, P-value. If the P-value is smaller than the
chosen level of significance (α), the null hypothesis is rejected. Consequently, the independent
variable associated with the regression coefficient is significant in explaining the variability of
the dependent variable in the model (Montgomery, 2008).
Gaussian stochastic models (GSMs) are other metamodelling technique that has been broadly
used in computer experiments. GSM can model large number of parameters without limitations
with nonlinear trends. The inputs x and outputs y(x), also called design data, are fitted to the
following GSM (Welch et al., 1992):

y(x) = β + Z(x), (2)

738 A. Orobio and J.P. Zaniewski

where β is a regression constant and Z(x) is a random process that is assumed to have mean
zero and covariance between two input vectors x and x given by Equation (3). Where σ 2 is the
variance of stochastic process Z(x) and R(x,x ) is the correlation.

Cov(x, x ) = σ 2 R(x, x ), (3)


k

R(x, x ) = exp(−θj |xj − xj |pj ), (4)
j=1

where θj ≥ 0 and 0 < p ≤ 2 for p = 1 the product R(x, x ) is a linear correlation function, p = 2
gives differentiable correlation functions, k is the number of input parameters, and θj controls
the variability of the response; θ j increases when the variation is more local (Mrawira, Welch,
Schonlau, & Haas, 1999). The parameters β, θj, and σ 2 are computed by numerical estimation
of the maximum likelihood that is function of the design data and the correlation (Welch et al.,
1992). Several algorithms have been developed to perform the computer iteration to compute
these parameters (Mrawira, 1997).

3. Methodology of the sensitivity analysis

Computer experiments were used to analyse the sensitivity of MEPDG to traffic inputs. Two
flexible pavement structures were studied, Figure 1. Because this was a level 3 analysis, the
modulus of all asphalt mixes was estimated by the MEPDG predictive model. The sensitivity of
MEPDG predicted performance to traffic inputs was analysed for each structure with fixed material
properties and climate. The advantage of having these factors fixed is that only traffic effects are
captured in the sensitivity analysis. However, sensitivity results may vary for different climatic
conditions and materials. The analysis was performed for local conditions of West Virginia State
(USA). Nevertheless, the methodology presented can be used to analyse different conditions. The
input parameters and their ranges used in the study are shown in Table 1.
The main steps in the study were as follows:

(1) The analysis of traffic inputs to choose the parameters that were included in the study.
(2) Determination of the ranges of input values for each parameter (input space).
(3) LHS was used to sample the entire input space of all input parameters in the analysis. The
number of runs was defined as 10 times the number of input parameters. Hundred runs
were performed for each structure.
(4) The input values for every run selected in the LHS were used as input in MEPDG.
(5) Roughness (International Roughness Index – IRI), rutting, and button up cracking outputs
from MEPDG were analysed using the sensitive analysis techniques explained previously;
regression analyses with SRC, rank transformation was used in case of nonlinearities, and
GSM was used for verification of the rank transformation approach.

4. Results
IRI results are discussed in here as an example of the analyses. Table 2 shows the IRI regres-
sion coefficients and their standard errors (R2 = 0.89). Table 2 shows the standard regression
coefficients. The t-ratios are computed by dividing each coefficient by its standard error. The
input parameters are sorted from highest to lowest according to the absolute value of the t-ratios.
Some regression coefficients have a positive value indicating that as the parameters increase
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 739

Figure 1. Pavement structures.

Table 1. Input parameters and ranges.

Input parameter Unit Range

Two-way AADT (structure 1) – 10,000–40,000

Two-way AADT (structure 2) – 1000–4000
Per cent of heavy vehicles % 40–60
Per cent of trucks in design direction % 40–60
Per cent of trucks in the design lane % 70–95
Vehicle operational speed mph 40–70
Traffic growth factor (compound) % 1–8
Mean wheel location in. 5–36
Traffic wander standard deviation in. 7–13
Average axle width ft 8–10
Dual tyre spacing in. 5–24
Note: AADT, average annual daily traffic

the IRI increases. Other parameters have negative regression coefficients indicating that as the
parameters increase IRI decreases. Increasing dual tyre spacing, traffic wander, and operational
speed would lead to a lower IRI output from MEPDG. The contrary is also true for the other
740 A. Orobio and J.P. Zaniewski

Table 2. IRI regression coefficients for structure 1.

Parameter Coefficient Std error t Ratio Prob > |t|

Two-way ADAPT 3.019 0.155 19.43 <.0001∗

Traffic growth 1.834 0.157 11.66 <.0001∗
Dual tyre spacing −1.714 0.155 −11.04 <.0001∗
Per cent truck design direction 0.981 0.156 6.30 <.0001∗
Per cent heavy vehicles 0.802 0.155 5.16 <.0001∗
Traffic wander −0.768 0.156 −4.93 <.0001∗
Per cent truck design lane 0.723 0.156 4.64 <.0001∗
Operational speed −0.382 0.156 −2.45 0.0161∗
Average axle width 0.044 0.157 0.28 0.7806
Mean wheel location 0.024 0.159 0.15 0.8821

parameters in the table. Although these variables are beyond the control of pavement designers,
the significance demonstrates they should be careful in estimating these values for design.
The right column in Table 2 indicates P-values which are the lowest level of significance
that would lead to the rejection of the null hypothesis (Ho: βj = 0). The P-values indicate what
parameters are significant. Generally, P-values less than 0.05 are significant evidence that the
parameter’s coefficient is not zero. Parameters with a star are significant while the others are not
significant. Eight of the 10 inputs have a significant effect on the prediction of IRI.
As shown in Table 2, average axle width and mean wheel location do not significantly affect
the predicted IRI at a significance level α = 0.05. The practical interpretation of this is that the
input recommendation for level 3 can be used for these two parameters without affecting the
predicted IRI.
Although regression coefficients are indicators of the importance of each parameter, they are not
the best way to rank the parameters in order of importance because the parameters have different
magnitudes (units). The most reasonable way to do such classification is to use SRC. Table 3
displays the IRI SRC for all parameters. The SRCs are sorted from highest to lowest according to
their absolute values. Notice that the order of the input parameters remains the same as in Table 2.
From inspection of Table 3, it is possible to see what parameters have major effect on IRI and
the relative importance among them. The higher the absolute value of the SRC, the greater the
effect of the input parameters on IRI output from MEPDG. This finding is useful for planning
data collection for calibration process and in decision-making regarding what is the hierarchical
level for each parameter. As an example, an agency may choose AADT, traffic growth, dual tyre

Table 3. IRI SRC for structure 1.

Parameters Coefficient SRC

Two-way AADT 3.02 0.69
Traffic growth 1.83 0.42
Dual tyre spacing −1.71 −0.39
Per cent truck design direction 0.98 0.22
Per cent heavy vehicles 0.80 0.18
Traffic wander −0.77 −0.17
Per cent truck design lane 0.72 0.16
Operational speed −0.38 −0.09
Average axle width 0.04 0.01
Mean wheel location 0.02 0.01
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 741

spacing, per cent of heavy vehicles, traffic wander, and per cent of trucks in the design lane to
have level 1, operational speed to have level 2, average axle width and mean wheel location to
have level 3.
In general, MEPDG outputs in this study correlate well to traffic input parameters. The good
regression models explain much of the variation of the MEPDG outputs in response to their
inputs. However, nonlinearities were found for bottom-up cracking in structure 1 and for IRI and
bottom-up cracking in structure 2. Rank transformations removed nonlinearities and improved the
multiple correlation coefficients, R2 . Summaries of SRC of IRI, rutting, and bottom-up cracking
are presented in Figures 2 and 3 for structures 1 and 2, respectively. Dark bars represent IRI, grey
bars represent rutting, and white bars represent bottom-up cracking. A star by a parameter’s bar
indicates significant effect on MEPDG output at a level of significance of 0.05. Some SRCs have
positive value indicating that as the parameter increases the predicted MEPDG output increases.
Other parameters have negative regression coefficients indicating that as the parameter increases
the predicted MEPDG output decreases.
The SRCs for IRI and rutting in structure 1 were similar as shown in Figure 2. The similarity
does not appear in structure 2 as seen from Figure 3. The MEPDG procedure for predicting
IRI dependents on bottom-up cracking, rutting, and site factor. Site factor was constant for this
computer experiment, little bottom-up cracking was predicted for structure 1, and hence the
similarities in IRI and rutting results in structures 1 are expected.
The analysis of structure 1 reveals that two-way AADT, traffic growth, and dual tyre spacing
have the highest effects on all distresses. Per cent of truck in the design direction, per cent of
heavy vehicles, and per cent of trucks in the design lane are significant effects for all distresses
with positive SRC. Traffic wander and operational speed are significant for all distresses with
negative SRC. Average axle width and mean wheel location are not significant. The practical
interpretation of this is that these parameters may be given level three values without affecting
the MEPDG output.

Figure 2. SRC of structure 1.

742 A. Orobio and J.P. Zaniewski

Figure 3. SRC of structure 2.

The largest effects on all distress in structure 2 are due to two-way AADT and dual tyre spacing.
Although, traffic growth was also significant, it was not among the largest effects in structure 2.
Similar to structure 1, per cent of truck in the design direction, per cent of heavy vehicles, and
per cent of trucks in the design lane have significant effects for all distresses in structure 2 with
positive SRC. Traffic wander was significant with negative SRC for all distresses. Operational
speed, average axle width, and mean wheel location were not significant in structure 2. Operational
speed has significant effect for any distresses in structure 1 but is not significant for all distresses
in structure 2. In general, mean wheel location and average axle width are not significant for all
distresses.
For both structures, the signs of the SRC are the same for all significant effects for all distresses.
Two-way AADT, traffic growth, per cent of trucks in design direction, per cent of heavy vehicles,
and per cent of trucks in the design lane have positive SRC for all distresses in both structures.
Dual tyre spacing, traffic wander, and operational speed have negative SRC for all distresses
in both structures. Some differences in sign of SRC were found between structures on average
axle width and mean wheel location but the magnitude of the SRC of these parameters is very
small (close to zero) and they do not affect significantly neither of the MEPDG outputs in the
study.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 compare SRC of both structures for IRI, rutting, and bottom-up cracking,
respectively. Parameters on the right side of the figure have positive SRC and parameters at the left
side have negative SRC. A star by a parameter’s bar indicates significant effect on MEPDG output
at significance level of 0.05. Dark bars represent structure 1 and light bars represent structure 2.
The signs of SRC show consistency among all three figures. All individual significant parameters
have the same sign of SRC in all distresses on both structures. The SRC of average axle width
had different signs for IRI between structures but this is negligible because this parameter was
not significant and presented very small value of SRC.
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 743

Figure 4. IRI SRC.

Figure 5. Rutting SRC.

The comparison between structures showed that the effect of traffic parameters on MEPDG
predicted IRI, rutting, and bottom-up cracking has some differences. For all distresses, the highest
effect in structure 1 is due to two-way AADT while the highest effect in structure 2 is due to dual
744 A. Orobio and J.P. Zaniewski

Figure 6. Bottom-up cracking SRC.

Table 4. Recommended hierarchical levels for traffic inputs.

Parameters IRI Rutting Cracking Overall

Structure 1
Two-way AADT 1 1 1 1
Traffic growth 1 1 1 1
Dual tyre spacing 1 1 1 1
Per cent truck design direction 1 1 1 1
Per cent heavy vehicles 1 1 1 1
Traffic wander 1 1 1 1
Per cent truck design lane 1 1 1 1
Operational speed 2 2 2 2
Average axle width 3 3 3 3
Mean wheel location 3 3 3 3
Structure 2
Two-way AADT 1 1 1 1
Traffic growth 1 1 1 1
Dual tyre spacing 1 1 1 1
Per cent truck design direction 1 1 1 1
Per cent heavy vehicles 1 1 1 1
Traffic wander 1 1 1 1
Per cent truck design lane 2 1 2 1
Operational speed 3 3 3 3
Average axle width 3 3 3 3
Mean wheel location 3 3 3 3
 Road Materials and Pavement Design 745

tyre spacing. The effect of traffic growth was considerably larger in structure 1 than in structure
2, and structure 2 was much more sensitive to dual tyre spacing than in structure 1. Additionally,
operational speed was significant in structure 1 but it was not significant in structure 2.

4.1. Recommended hierarchical levels for traffic input parameters

The hierarchical levels can be assessed using the P-values from the regression model (Orobio,
2010). Highly significant parameters were assigned to hierarchical level 1, P-value < 0.0001.
Significant parameters were assigned to hierarchical level 2, 0.0001 < P-value < 0.05. No sig-
nificant parameters were assigned to hierarchical level 3, P-value > 0.05. Since P-values are the
probability of the regression coefficient to be zero, they are a measure of the parameter’s effect on
MEPDG outputs. It is recommended to combine this criterion with actual data for each specific
case to choose final hierarchical levels (Orobio & Zaniewski, 2011).
Table 4 presents the assigned hierarchical levels for traffic parameters for both structures. The
hierarchical levels were assigned for each parameter and distress. The overall hierarchical levels
were defined as the highest level from all distresses.

5. Conclusions
This study showed that sensitivity analyses of MEPDG may follow experimental design for
computer experiments. The methodology used in this study showed that the combination of LHS,
multiple regression with SRC, and GSM is suitable to identify the effects of the traffic input
parameters on MEPDG outputs.
Although, this paper dealt only with sensitivity to traffic parameters, the methodology used
in this study may be used in other sensitivity studies with different experimental settings. This
methodology provides several advantages; the analysis can be done over a large number of param-
eters with practical number of runs, the SRC offer the ability to compare the relative importance
among parameters and the effect of increasing or decreasing input values, and the P-values may
be used to assess the hierarchical level of input parameters.
The largest effects of inputs on MEPDG predicted roughness, rutting, and bottom-up cracking
are due to two-way AADT, dual tyre spacing, and traffic growth. Although these variables are
beyond the control of pavement designers, the significance demonstrates they should be carefully
estimated. Average axle width and mean wheel location do not significantly affect the predicted
distresses from MEPDG. The practical interpretation of this is that the input recommendation for
level 3 can be used for these two parameters without affecting MEPDG predicted performance.

References
Ahn, S., Kandala, S., Uzan, J., & El-Basyouny, M. (2011). Impact of traffic data on the pavement distress
predictions using the mechanistic empirical pavement design guide. Road Materials and Pavement
Design, 12(1), 195–216.
ARA, Inc. ERES Consultants Division. (2004). Guide for mechanistic-empirical design of new and rehabil-
itated pavement structures (Research report, NCHRP Project 1-37A). Washington, DC: Transportation
Research Board of the National Academies.
Ceylan, H., Coree, B. J., & Gopalakrishnan, K. (2006). Strategic plan for implementing mechanistic-
empirical pavement design guide in iowa. Paper presented at the 2006 TRB 85th Annual Meeting.
Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Fang, K. T., Li, R., & Sudjianto, A. (2006). Design and modelling for computer experiments. Boca Raton,
FL: Taylor & Francis Group.
746 A. Orobio and J.P. Zaniewski

Graves, R. C., & Mahboub, K. C. (2006). Part 2: flexible pavements: pilot study in sampling-based sensitivity
analysis of NCHRP design guide for flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, 1947(1), 123–135.
Haider, W. S., Neeraj, B., & Karim, C. (2009). Simplified approach for quantifying effect of significant
input variables and designing rigid pavements using M-E PDG. CD-ROM (pp. 25). Washington, DC:
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies.
Hall, K. D., & Beam, S. (2005). Estimating the sensitivity of design input variables for rigid pavement
analysis with a mechanistic-empirical design guide. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 1919(1), 65–73.
Helton, J. C., & Iman, R. L. (1982). Sensitivity analysis of a model for the environmental movement of
radionuclides. Health Physics, 42(5), 565–584.
Iman, R. L., & Conover, W. J. (1979). The use of the rank transform in regression. Technometrics, 21(4),
499–509.
Kim, S., Ceylan, H., & Gopalakrishnan, K. (2007). Effect of ME design guide inputs on flexible pavement
performance predictions. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 8(3), 375–397.
Kim, Y. R., & Muthadi, N. R. (2006). Implementation plan for the new mechanistic–empirical pavement
design guide (NCDOT Final Report). Raleigh: North Carolina State University.
Li, J., Pierce L. M., Hallenbeck M. E., & Uhlmeyer, J. (2009). Sensitivity of axle load spectra in the
mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide for Washington state. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2093(1), 50–56.
Montgomery, D. C. (2008). Design and analysis of experiments. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.
Mrawira, D. (1997). Streamlining the world bank’s highway design and maintenance standards model
(HDM-III) for network level application (PhD dissertation). University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Canada.
Mrawira, D., Welch, W., Schonlau, M., & Haas, R. (1999). Sensitivity analysis of computer models: World
bank HDM-III model. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 125(5), 421–428.
Orobio, A. (2010). Sensitivity analysis of flexible pavement performance parameters in the mechanistic-
empirical design guide (PhD dissertation). West Virginia University, Morgantown.
Orobio, A., & Zaniewski, J. P. (2011). Sampling-based sensitivity analysis of the mechanistic-empirical
pavement design guide applied to material inputs. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, 2226(1), 85–93.
Papagiannakis, A. T., Bracher, M., Li, J., & Jackson, N. (2006). Sensitivity of NCHRP 1-37A pavement
design to traffic input. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1945(1), 49–55.
Sacks, J., Welch, W. J., Mitchell, T. J., & Wynn, H. P. (1989). Design and analysis of computer experiments.
Statistical Science, 4(4), 409–423.
Santner, T. J., Willliams, B. J., & Notz, W. I. (2003). The design and analysis of computer experiments. New
York: Springer.
Timm, D. H., Bower, J. M., & Turochy, R. E. (2006). Effect of load spectra on mechanistic-empirical
flexible pavement design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, 1947(1), 146–154.
Welch, W. J., Buck, R. J., Sacks, J., Wynn, H. P., Mitchell, T. J., & Max, M. D. (1992). Screening, predicting,
and computer experiments. Technometrics, 34(1), 15–25.
Wojtkiewicz, S. F., Khazanovich, L., Gaurav, G., & Velasquez, R. (2010). Probabilistic numerical simulation
of pavement performance using MEPDG. Road Materials and Pavement Design, 11(2), 291–306.