English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The MEPDG(Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide) developed based on the AASHTO Design Guide helps engineers find optimal alternatives by using traffic volume, climate, material property, and pavement structure as its input parameters. However, because technical problems were found in the MEPDG, efforts to improve the program by settling the problems have been continued. Meanwhile, another mechanistic-empirical design program has been developed by the KPRP(Korea Pavement Research Program) in Korea. To develop and improve the Korean design program reasonably, it is necessary to analyze the MEPDG and then compare programs each other. For concrete pavement, fatigue cracking is predicted by using very complicated logic different from other performance indicators. Therefore, in this paper, transfer functions of the fatigue cracking used in the version of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.1 of the MEPDG were analyzed. Sensitivity of the input parameters to the cumulative fatigue damage was compared to each other by the MEPDG version and KPRP.

Comparative Analysis in Sensitivity of Cumulative Fatigue Damage of Mechanistic-Empirical Concrete Pavement Design Programs