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

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