Click here to load reader

Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Monday, October 21, · PDF file Linda Pierce Principal Investigator. Nick Weitzel Staff Engineer. Project Panel • Bouzid Choubane, FLDOT •

  • View
    0

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Automated Pavement Condition Surveys Monday, October 21, · PDF file Linda Pierce Principal...

  • Automated Pavement Condition Surveys

    Monday, October 21, 2019 2:00-3:30 PM ET

    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

  • The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and

    requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program.

    Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A

    certificate of completion will be issued to participants that have registered

    and attended the entire session. As such, it does not include content that

    may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.

  • Purpose

    Provide a summary of the findings from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)’s Synthesis 531 Automated Pavement Condition Surveys

    Learning Objectives At the end of this webinar, you will be able to: • Describe how agencies conduct and ensure data quality for

    automated pavement condition surveys

    http://www.trb.org/nchrp/nchrp.aspx http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/179365.aspx

  • Transportation Research Board Webinar October 21, 2019

    Automated Pavement Condition Surveys

    NCHRP Project 20-05, Topic 49-15 NCHRP Synthesis 531

    Linda Pierce NCE

    Spokane, Washington

  • Purpose

    Summarize highway agency practice with semi- and fully automated pavement condition surveys and data quality

    management plans

  • Outline

    • Introduction & scope • Literature review summary • Survey results summary • Summary of agency data

    quality management plans • Concluding remarks • Questions

  • Learning Objective

    Better understanding of how highway agencies conduct & ensure data quality for automated pavement

    conditions surveys

  • Introduction

    Jo Allen Gause Senior Program Manager

    NCHRP

    Linda Pierce Principal Investigator

    Nick Weitzel Staff Engineer

    Project Panel • Bouzid Choubane, FLDOT • Dulce Rufino Feldman,

    Caltrans • Tom Kazmierowski, Golder

    & Associates • Michael Mariotti, NYSDOT • Magdy Mikhail, AgileAssets • John Senger, ILDOT • James Tsai, Georgia Tech • Andy Mergenmeier, FHWA • Larry Wiser, FHWA

  • Scope

    • Document agency practices, challenges, & successes related to: - Condition type - Technologies - Data processing - Data quality

    management - Data utilization

    Literature Review

    Agency Survey

    Case Examples

    Synthesis

  • Literature Review Results

  • Previous Synthesis Studies

    5% 0% 0% 23%

    82%

    23% 0%

    33%

    91% 82%

    41%

    59%

    0%

    20%

    40%

    60%

    80%

    100%

    IRI Rutting Faulting Distress

    PE RC

    EN T

    O F

    AG EN

    CI ES

    1986 1991 2004

  • Survey Types

    • 2D - Area scan (lighting

    requirements) - Line scan (w/o

    lighting influence) - Human rater or

    analysis software

    • 3D - 2D intensity (reflected

    light, e.g., stripping, cracking, aggregate)

    - 3D range (elevation, e.g., cracking, potholes, spalling)

    - Analysis software

  • Data Quality Management Plans (23 CFP Part 490)

    • Equipment calibration & certification - IRI - Cracking percent - Rutting - Faulting

    • Certification process for persons performing manual data collection

    • Quality control before & periodically during data collection

    • Data sampling, review & checking processes

    • Error resolution procedures & data acceptance criteria

  • Agency Survey Results

    (not all results are presented)

  • Data Collection Methods

    • Fully automated (16) • Fully & semi-

    automated (21) • Manual & automated

    (6) • Manual (6) • Nearly 90% use

    automated pavement condition surveys

    Total responses = 57

  • Full vs Semi

    26

    18

    8

    24 23

    11

    0

    5

    10

    15

    20

    25

    30

    Asphalt (50 reponses)

    JPCP (41 responses)

    CRCP (19 responses)

    N O

    . O F

    AG EN

    CI ES

    PAVEMENT TYPE

    Fully automated

    Semi- and Fully Automated

  • Experience

    • > 10 years (22) • 5 to 10 years (16) • 1 to 4 years (9)

    Total responses = 47

  • Asphalt

    Condition Fully Automated Semi-

    Automated Manual Total No.

    Responses IRI 55 0 0 55 Rutting 53 0 3 56 Longitudinal cracking 33 9 9 51 Transverse cracking 32 13 10 55 Cross slope 30 0 1 31 Alligator cracking 29 15 10 54 Edge cracking 19 10 4 33 Texture 19 1 2 22 Block cracking 16 11 7 34 Reflection cracking 16 7 4 27 Potholes 14 13 9 36 Raveling 14 11 10 35 Patching 10 15 11 36 Bleeding 10 9 9 28

    Total responses = 57

  • Jointed Plain Concrete (JPC)

    Condition Fully Automated Semi-

    Automated Manual Total No. of Responses

    IRI 44 0 0 44 Faulting 37 3 2 42 Cross slope 20 1 1 22 Longitudinal cracking 20 13 7 40 Transverse cracking 16 17 6 39 Texture 12 1 2 15 Patching 8 14 7 29 Corner cracking 7 16 7 30 Spalling 7 15 8 30 Joint seal damage 6 7 7 20 Lane/shoulder drop off 6 4 5 15 Durability 4 9 6 19 Map cracking 4 7 2 13 Blowups 2 6 3 11

    Total responses = 44

  • Continuously Reinforced Concrete

    Condition Fully Automated Semi-

    Automated Manual Total No. of Responses

    IRI 19 0 0 19 Cross slope 9 0 0 9 Longitudinal cracking 8 7 2 17 Transverse cracking 6 6 1 13 Texture 6 0 1 7 Punchout 5 8 1 14 Lane/shoulder drop off 5 1 2 8 Spalling 3 4 1 8 Patching 3 7 2 12 Durability 3 3 2 8 Scaling 1 1 1 3 Map cracking 1 3 0 4 Polished aggregate 0 2 1 3 Blowups 0 4 2 6

    Total responses = 19

  • Frequency of Collection

    1

    1

    1

    5

    6

    9

    10

    13

    22

    23

    40

    44

    0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

    Interstate every 2 years

    Non-NHS every 4 years

    Off Highway System NHS every 3 or more years

    Canadian provincial highways every 2 years

    Canadian provincial highways annually

    NHS every 2 years

    Off Highway System NHS every 2 years

    Off Highway System NHS annually

    Non-NHS every 2 years

    Non-NHS annually

    NHS annually

    Interstate annually

    NO. OF AGENCIES

    Total responses = 56

  • Quality Management Plans

    WA

    OR

    CA

    MT

    ID

    NV

    AZ

    UT

    WY

    CO

    NM

    TX

    OK

    KS

    NE

    SD

    ND

    MN

    IA

    MO

    AR

    LA

    MS AL

    GA

    FL

    SC TN

    NC

    IL

    WI MI

    OH IN

    KY

    WV VA

    PA

    NY

    ME

    VT NH

    NJ DE

    MD

    MA

    CT

    RI

    AK

    HI Data Quality Plan Received

    • Alberta • British Columbia • Saskatchewan • Quebec

    Total responses = 29 US 4 CA

  • Data Quality Process

    Flintsch and McGhee 2009, as adapted by Shekharan et al. 2007

  • Standards & Protocols

    Category Standard / Protocol No. of

    Agencies Condition manual

    HPMS Field 24 Agency Manuals 14 LTPP 6

    Profile equipment

    AASHTO R 56 22 AASHTO M 328 18 AASHTO R 57 17

    Faulting AASHTO R 36 18 Roughness AASHTO R 43 17

    ASTM E1926 4 AASHTO PP 37 2 ASTM E1489 1

    Category Standard / Protocol No. of

    Agencies Measuring profile

    AASHTO PP 70 16 ASTM E950 15 ASTM E1656 4

    Rutting AASHTO R 48 12 ASTM E1703 3 AASHTO PP 38 2 AASHTO PP 69 13

    Asphalt cracking

    AASHTO R 55 8 AASHTO PP 67 6

    Images AASHTO PP 68 6

    Total responses = 57

  • DQMP Distress Types

    Distress Type No. of Agencies Longitudinal cracking 19 Transverse cracking 19 Alligator cracking 18 Percent cracking (HPMS) 15 Patching 12 Block cracking 9 Pothole 8 Raveling 8 Bleeding 8 Miscellaneous cracking 5 Edge cracking 5 Longitudinal joint cracking 5

    Asphalt (25 responses) Distress Type No. of Agencies Cracked slabs (HPMS) 11 Transverse cracking 11 Longitudinal cracking 11 Patching 10 Joint spalling 9 Corner cracking 8 Multiple cracking 8

    JPCP (17 responses)

    Distress Type No. of Agencies Longitudinal cracking 5 Punchouts 5 Patching 5

    CRCP (6 responses)

  • Rater Training

    • California - 1 week training - Minimize

    discrepancies • New Hampshire

    - 15 certification sections

    - Personnel required to rate to satisfactory level

    • Pennsylvania - Vendor train all raters - Evaluate 6 calibration

    sites - Meet agency accuracy

    & repeatability requirements

    • Texas - Surface distress rating

    class - Written test

    certification

  • Quality Control

    • Activities conducted by data collection team, for example: -Data completeness - Location information - Linear reference system - Speed -Data -Geometry -Condition & distress

    22 agency requirements

    summarized in Synthesis

Search related