DOC

PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE DATA ANALYSIS FORUM

By George Morgan,2014-01-20 02:41
12 views 0
PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE DATA ANALYSIS FORUM

    PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE DATA ANALYSIS FORUM

    Sponsored by the TRB Data Analysis Working Group

    Alex T. Visser, Chairman

    A. Robert Raab, TRB Senior Program Officer

    January 10, 2009

    Blue Room, Omni Shoreham Hotel, Washington, D.C.

0900 Call to Order

    0900-0930 Chairman’s Welcome

    Staff Report

    FORECASTING STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION 0930-1000

    Amy Simpson, Jonathan L. Groeger, and Bing Xu

    MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc., Beltsville, Maryland 1000-1015 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    1015-1030 Morning Break

    USEFULNESS OF NATIONAL AIRPORT PAVEMENT TEST FACILITY (NAPTF) DATABASE 1030-1100

    FOR UNDERSTANDING RIGID PAVEMENT BEHAVIOR AND JOINT RELATED

    DISTRESSES.

    Ashish Wadkar, Patrick Hoffman, Stephen Schwandt, Douglas Cleary, and Yusuf Mehta

    Rowan University, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Glassboro, New Jersey

    1100-1115 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    PAVEMENT RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE, FROM THEORY TO APPLICATION 1115-1145

    Edward Guo

    SRA International, Linwood, New Jersey

    1145-1200 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    1200-1330 Mid-Day Break

    STUDYING THE IMPACT OF DESIGN FEATURES ON PAVEMENT RESPONSE AND 1330-1400

    PERFORMANCE IN REHABILITATED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

    Manuel Ayres, Hamid Shirazi, Olga Selezneva, and Regis Carvalho

    Applied Research Associates Inc., Elkridge, Maryland 1400-1415 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    PAVEMENT PREDICTION MODELS FOR NJDOT 1415-1445

    Nicholas Vitillo

    Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey

    1445-1500 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    LOCAL CALIBRATION OF THE M-EPDG PERMANENT DEFORMATION PERFORMANCE 1500-1530

    MODEL FOR TEXAS

    Ambarish Banerjee, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 1530-1545 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    1545-1600 Afternoon Break

    EMPLOYING PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE DATA TO UPDATE INDOT PAVEMENT 1600-1630

    PRESERVATION PROGRAM

    Ghim Ping Ong

    1221, Tommy Nantung, Samy Noureldin, Kumares Sinha 12Purdue University, Indiana Department of Transportation, West Lafayette, Indiana

    1630-1645 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS AND CALIBRATION OF THE ALLIGATOR CRACKING MODEL IN 1645-1715

    THE MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL DESIGN GUIDE USING REGIONAL DATA.

    Vivek Jha and Yusuf Mehta

    Rowan University, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Glassboro, New Jersey

    1715-1730 Presenter’s Questions and General Discussion

    1730-1800 Steering Committee Meeting

    1800 Adjourn

    A NOTE ABOUT THE DAWG

The DAWG is an international forum for the discussion of methods of analysis of pavement performance data.

    Presentations at DAWG-sponsored forums address the technical interests of professionals engaged in

    highway research and engineering design, maintenance, and rehabilitation who are engaged in collecting,

    processing, and analyzing such data and developing insights into the behavior of pavements. Presentations

    offered by forum attendees (by prior arrangement) focus on work-in-progress concerning the development of

    techniques for extracting and analyzing data, and early results of recent applications of these techniques.

    Topics such as model building, sensitivity analysis, and development of transfer functions linking structural

    response to distress are especially popular and welcome.

A DAWG-sponsored forum has a minimum of formality to encourage open discussion among attendees and

    minimize the time between the presenters' preparation and dissemination of analytical results. The agenda is

    prepared in advance, based on responses to a call for abstracts. Abstracts are reviewed solely for conformity

    with DAWG guidelines, and as many as time permits are placed on the agenda. Presentations are not

    subjected to prior technical review. Copies of presentation materials are not distributed. Presentations are

    not published. Comments by forum attendees are not recorded.

DAWG-sponsored forums are held twice each year: immediately preceding the TRB Annual Meeting in

    Washington DC in January, and approximately at the midyear at another location. The midyear meeting is

    usually held in conjunction with a major highway pavement conference where it is expected that many

    attendees will also be interested in participating in a DAWG forum. If requested by the organizers, the DAWG

    will arrange and conduct a formal paper session conforming to all the policies and procedures of the

    conference.

As a TRB committee, the DAWG has appointed members who serve as a steering committee to guide the

    planning of future meetings. However, DAWG forums are open to everyone interested in the subjects to be

    discussed, and all attendees enjoy equal status. There is no registration requirement or fee required to attend

    meetings, but advance notice of the intent to attend a particular forum is recommended and appreciated.

Inquiries are welcome from those interested in adding their names to the DAWG's mailing list, and those

    wishing to submit abstracts of presentations for consideration for presentation at a particular forum. Inquiries

    and abstracts should be directed to:

    Dr. A. Robert Raab

    Transportation Research Board

    500 Fifth Street NW

    Washington, DC 20001

    Telephone: 202-334-2569

    Fax: 202-334-3471

    Email: rraab@nas.edu

    TRB’s DATA ANALYSIS WORKING GROUP (“the DAWG”)

    PRESENTATION ABSTRACT FORM

TITLE OF PRESENTATION:

ABSTRACT:

    Guidelines:

    ? Any person who wishes to brief the DAWG on the status of his/her unfinished

    and unpublished work is invited to submit an abstract.

    ? Each abstract must contain a small set of questions on issues being

    considered by the submitter in the further development of his/her project.

    ? Each briefing will be followed by a period devoted to consideration of the

    presenter's questions and requests for advice.

    ? Briefings should focus on techniques for extracting, processing, and

    analyzing pavement performance data, as well as preliminary results of

    applications of these techniques.

    ( Note: Please delete the guidelines and use this space for your abstract. )

PRESENTER'S QUESTIONS: I would like to receive comments, suggestions, and feedback from the

    meeting's attendees on the following matters:

1-

2-

3-

PRESENTER'S STATEMENT: This work is still in progress, and has not been submitted for presentation or

    publication at another meeting.

Name

    Mailing Address

Telephone

    Fax

    E-Mail

    Completed forms should be sent to:

    A. Robert Raab, PhD, PE, FASCE

    Senior Program Officer, TRB

    Email: rraab@nas.edu

FORECASTING STRUCTURAL DETERIORATION

Amy Simpson, Jonathan L. Groeger, and Bing Xu

    MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc.

    12104 Indian Creek Court, Suite A

    Beltsville, MD 20705

    Tel.: (214)303-0106, Fax: (301) 210-5032, E-Mail : alsimpson@mactec.com

ABSTRACT:

    Pavement management systems are used by state and local roadway authorities to identify roadways requiring immediate improvement and used to identify future budget requirements. The forecasted budget requirements are based on current and forecasted distress occurrences.

    Many of these same agencies use falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing as part of the evaluation process. This testing is primarily used to identify roadways suffering from lack of structural integrity. A great deal of effort has been expended to identify means for processing the vast amount of data that may be collected on a roadway network. For instance, researchers at the University of Washington have developed a means for evaluating structural integrity based on the area of the deflection basin. However, these FWD data are rarely used in planning. Very little research has been performed in evaluating how the FWD response changes over time.

    This presentation focuses on the incorporation of FWD data into a decision matrix for network level PMS planning. Four interstate pavement types were selected (AC, Composite, JCP, and CRCP) as a pilot study. Structural capacity was included as an input to the treatment selection process. A background on the approach to this effort and the resulting decision tress will be presented.

PRESENTERS’ QUESTIONS: We would like to receive comments, suggestions, and feedback from the

    meeting's attendees on the following matters:

    1- What evaluation methods are being used in identifying structural integrity in a roadway network?

2- Is anyone using these data as part of the budget planning process? And if so, how?

PRESENTERS’ STATEMENT: This work is still in progress, and has not been submitted for presentation or

    publication at another meeting.

USEFULNESS OF NATIONAL AIRPORT PAVEMENT TEST FACILITY (NAPTF) DATABASE FOR

    UNDERSTANDING RIGID PAVEMENT BEHAVIOR AND JOINT RELATED DISTRESSES.

Ashish Wadkar, Patrick Hoffman, Stephen Schwandt, Douglas Cleary, and Yusuf Mehta

    Rowan University, Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

    Rowan Hall, 201 Mullica Hill Road

    Glassboro, New Jersey 08028

    Tel.: 856-256-5327, Fax: 856-256-5242, E-mail: mehta@rowan.edu

ABSTRACT:

    Comprehensive data is available on internet concerning the full scale tests conducted at FAA’s National Airport Pavement Test Facility (NAPTF). The data comprises descriptions of construction phases for rigid pavement test items constructed over varying strengths of subgrade. The trafficking data and the mechanical response of test pavement in the form of electronic response measurement and cracking history are accessible from the internet.

    The purpose of this paper is to present the practicality of this data to understand the different cracking pattern of tests items constructed over a broad range of strength of subgrades. A set of instrumentation at the NAPTF consists of static sensors measuring temperature, moisture, and humidity on an hourly basis. Another set consists of dynamic sensors including concrete strain gauges installed at various locations in the test pavements to capture strain history. The sensors provide meaningful results as per previous studies. The time history of a sensor when a vehicle is moving on or near the sensor can be compared to results from analysis using 2D finite element methods. The NAPTF test vehicle simulates realistic aircraft wander by varying lateral position of the carriages. The dynamic sensors are triggered by these vehicular moments.

    The study will thus specifically look at strain gauge histories and also enhance the understanding of load transfer efficiency (LTE) utilizing commonly used and recently developed LTE models. This mechanistic modeling and full scale tests data can subsequently be used to explain the pattern of cracks of concrete slabs over varying stiffness of subgrade. The mechanistic modeling will also assist in evaluation of effects of joint efficiency on pavement critical responses and joint related distresses. The proposed study will eventually lead to the determination of appropriate procedures in construction and maintenance to minimize negative effects of joints during airport concrete pavement construction.

PRESENTERS’ QUESTIONS: We would like to receive comments, suggestions, and feedback from the

    meeting's attendees on the following matters:

    1- Do any of the meeting attendees have experience with other dataset that can be useful to evaluate long-term degradation of thicker pavement under heavy traffic loads with varying strength of subgrades?

    2- What other datasets can be effective in determining the joint transfer efficiency and degradation of pavement structure on performance level?

    3- What are the more effective means of using multiple sensors data within a pass to determine accurate properties of slab?

PRESENTERS’ STATEMENT: This work is still in progress, and has not been submitted for presentation or

    publication at another meeting.

PAVEMENT RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE, FROM THEORY TO APPLICATION

Edward Guo

    SRA International

    1201 New Road, Suite 242

    Linwood, NJ 08221

    Tel.: +1 (609) 601-6800, ext. 120, Fax: +1 (609) 601-6803, Email: Edward_guo@sra.com

ABSTRACT:

The major differences between pavement response and performance are discussed, from definition,

    derivation, expression, evaluation to application. The criteria for evaluating the accuracy of their results are also significantly different. Though the relationship between the two exist, it is hard to replace one by the other. Therefore, the pavement response and performance should be investigated separately and independently.

    Pavement performance has been recognized as the most important information for pavement design and field

    practice. Therefore, most full scale tests and field tests have been planned focusing on obtaining the

    pavement performance rather than response related information. And the pavement response related

    information reported in publications is limited.

In past ten years, many reliable pavement response tests were planned and conducted at the FAA’s National

    Airport Pavement Test Facility. However, applications of using the data are still very limited. A few examples are presented to show their possible impact on mechanistic analysis and practical applications.

    1. Residual stress measured in concrete slabs and its possible impact to pavement evaluation;

    2. Measurements of load induced strength of a PCC pavement.

    3. Measured “fatigue” behavior of a PCC pavement and its possible impact on failure model used for

    design

PRESENTER'S QUESTIONS:

    1. What is definition of “pavement strength”? Does the critical stress calculated and used in any design

    specifications satisfy the definition of “pavement strength”?

    2. What is the definition of “load induced stress” and “total stress” in a PCC pavement? Is there any

    difference between the two in contribution of cracking a PCC pavement? Can we conditionally use one to

    replace the other? What would be the conditions?

3. Has the measurement technique been available to measure the total stress, or the total stress related

    strain in a PCC pavement?

4. How to take advantage of the “total stress” information for pavement research when it is available?

PRESENTER'S STATEMENT

    This is not a description of work from a single project. Rather, this presentation summarizes several ongoing projects having been done at the FAA’s National Airport Pavement Test Facility in previous years. They are still in progress for verifications and applications. The major objective is to answer a question: What the critical stress is when a crack is initiated in a concrete pavement? None of existing mechanistic models can prove the reliability of their results. Therefore, we rely on full scale measurements and the combination of mechanistic analysis and the measurements. We were bothered by some pending problems, including fuzzy

    understanding on some fundamental concepts in our research. Therefore, the author intends to take

    advantage of DAWG to hear comments from other participants on some of our existing results and advice for

    our future research.

Stage results on residual stress measurements in beams have been published in July and August, 2008 in

    two international conferences. The test for single slab was completed three months ago but results have

    never published. The test for multiple slab tests will be done in the near future. No paper has been published by us on the pavement mechanism due to strength failure and “fatigue” failure.

STUDYING THE IMPACT OF DESIGN FEATURES ON PAVEMENT RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE IN

    REHABILITATED FLEXIBLE PAVEMENTS

Manuel Ayres, Hamid Shirazi, Olga Selezneva, and Regis Carvalho

    Applied Research Associates Inc.

    7184 Troy Hill Drive, Suite N

    Elkridge, Maryland 21075

    Tel.: 410-540-9949; Fax: 410-540-9288; E-mail: oselezneva@ara.com

ABSTRACT:

    The performance of a rehabilitated pavement section depends on the site conditions (climate, foundation and traffic), design (structure and rehabilitation measures), and construction features. This research effort focuses on the need to determine how design and construction features impact pavement response and performance, and identify their importance on the prediction of future pavement performance. LTPP SPS-5 and SPS-6 data provide the necessary information to evaluate the effects of design and construction features on response and performance of rehabilitated pavement structures. This presentation will focus on the Phase I results that included assessment of available data and development of data analysis methodologies to address the study objectives. Statistical methods to evaluate the data and an approach to normalize traffic conditions will be presented. Once completed, this research will provide information on the relationship between pavement response and performance, guidance for identifying appropriate features and rehabilitation techniques for different pavement types and environmental conditions, as well as recommendations for improving data collection activities. The early analyses results obtained in Phase I of this study will help to determine the causes of distress, and to formulate models predicting performance of rehabilitated pavements. Preventive maintenance is also an important characteristic of an effective pavement rehabilitation program. Data from preventive pavement maintenance LTPP SPS-3 and SPS-4 experiments have been evaluated to determine the effectiveness of these types of alternative and their relationship with pavement performance. Preliminary findings suggest that it is possible to determine some significant differences between treatment techniques with respect to pavement performance and treatment timing for future maintenance needs.

PRESENTERS’ QUESTIONS: We would like to receive comments, suggestions, and feedback from the

    meeting's attendees on the following matters:

1- Approach to evaluate pavement performance and response

2- Approach to normalize traffic conditions and making the data comparable

3- Statistical methodologies proposed for the study

PRESENTERS’ STATEMENT: This work is still in progress, and has not been submitted for presentation or

    publication at another meeting.

PAVEMENT PREDICTION MODELS FOR NJDOT

Nicholas Vitillo

    Rutgers University

    Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation

    100 Brett Road

    Piscataway, NJ 08854-8014

    Tel.: 732-445-0759, x111; Fax: 732-445-3325; E-Mail: nvitillo@rci.rutgers.edu

ABSTRACT:

    Rutgers University Pavement Resource Program was asked to perform analyses to update the pavement IRI and Surface Distress Index prediction models for use in NJDOT PMS Budget Analyses. The NJDOT PMS uses default prediction models to predict the condition of the State highway network pavements to identify when a pavement will be in need of repair based on IRI or SDI condition parameters.

    The analyses were performed using actual IRI and SDI data from projects constructed in 1999. These pavements were the first pavements measured with the Department's new profiler using an IRI pavement index.

    The analyses showed that while the current default IRI performance curves predicts that the pavements would reach the IRI trigger of 170 inch/mile in 9 years (for a mill 2"/overlay 2" treatment), the actual IRI data indicated that the pavement would not reach the trigger for more than 20 years.

    The LTPP data for NJ's SPS 5 (14 years) and SPS 9A (6 years) test sites were used to validate the new performance curves. This analysis also predicted much greater life than the original 9 years.

    The issue with the analyses from both the NJDOT and LTPP data is that neither dataset ever reaches the 170 inch/mile trigger. Both data sets were extrapolated based on the equations developed from the data to reach the trigger.

    NJ would like to find an IRI dataset that has between 20 and 30 years of IRI data to get a better estimate of when a pavement would reach NJ's trigger of 170 inch/mile.

    Longterm IRI Prediction

    250

    200

    150IRI

    100

    50

    0

    05101520253035404550

    Age

    Average 502-559Trigger IRI30 yr 20 yr 40 yr 25 yr Pred IRIPred IRIPred IRIPred IRI

    PRESENTER'S QUESTIONS: I would like to receive comments, suggestions, and feedback from the meeting's attendees on the following matters:

1- NJ would like to find an IRI dataset that has between 20 and 30 years of IRI data to get a better estimate of

    when a pavement would reach NJ's trigger of 170 inch/mile.

2- The new PMS that is being developed in NJ will also include preventive maintenance treatments. NJ would

    like to get the best estimate available for how long these treatments last, what constitutes failure of these

    treatments and what level of index reset is used to adjust pavement indices.

    PRESENTER'S STATEMENT: This work is still in progress, and has not been submitted for presentation or publication at another meeting.

    LOCAL CALIBRATION OF THE M-EPDG PERMANENT DEFORMATION PERFORMANCE MODEL FOR

    TEXAS

     thAmbarish Banerjee Street Apt # L Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering Austin, Texas 78703 The University of Texas at Austin Tel.: 512-507-8605, E-Mail: ambarish03@yahoo.com 1622 West 6

    ABSTRACT:

    The permanent deformation performance models used in the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), developed under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 1-37A and 1-40D), have been calibrated using sections spread throughout the U.S. Hence, it is necessary to calibrate these models for specific states and regional conditions because of the differences in terms of materials, environmental conditions and construction practices. In general, a pavement design based on the nationally calibrated MEPDG will result in either an overestimate or an underestimate of the pavement layer thicknesses because of systematic errors (biases) due to local differences. This deficiency calls for a local calibration of the permanent deformation performance model in the design guide so that it can be used to design pavements at a regional level. Indeed, the same apply to all performance models embedded into the MEPDG. However, due to data availability, this study only addressed the rutting models.

    The calibration procedure that has been taken up as part of this study is more like running a joint minimization routine with the whole spectrum of sections that represent a particular region in Texas. Typically, Texas can be divided into five climatic regions. So the approach was to select a certain number of sections from each of these geographical regions so that differences between these regions are captured. The next step in the calibration methodology was running the ME Pavement Design Guide with several trial combinations of the calibration coefficients for the permanent deformation transfer function until the difference between the predictions from the MEPDG and the in-field observations for the rut depth are reduced to a minimum. While trying to obtain these calibration coefficients, instead of focusing on one section at a time, the idea was more on trying to obtain a set of calibration coefficients that would jointly minimize the error term (difference of predicted and observed rut depths) for the group of sections that represent one of the five geographical region in Texas. Thus a set of calibration coefficients were obtained for each of the five different geographical regions in Texas.

PRESENTER'S QUESTIONS: I would like to receive comments, suggestions, and feedback from the

    meeting's attendees on the following matters:

    1- Is there some kind of dependency of these bias correction factors on certain mix properties?

    2- How are others running the calibration for the permanent deformation performance model in the MEPDG? Are they trying to calibrate all the bias correction factors in the transfer functions or they are assuming that some of the calibration coefficients need not be calibrated since they don’t change much from site to site (Like we assumed that Beta2 need not be calibrated to local conditions since it’s a laboratory determined

    parameter)?

    3- Thirdly, where are others getting their data from on climate, structure, materials, traffic and performance for calibrating the performance models in the design guide?

    4- Lastly, are others trying to come up with calibration coefficients that are consistent with a Level 1 or a Level 2 or a Level 3 design input? At the same time, the local calibration coefficients that are being determined

    are they good for a specific site or a specific region or an entire state?

PRESENTER'S STATEMENT: This work is still in progress, and has not been submitted for presentation or

    publication at another meeting.

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com