jointed concrete pavement faulting collection and analysis ...3. lack of a standard reporting...
TRANSCRIPT
11
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Jointed Concrete Pavement Faulting Collection and Analysis Standards – Phase I
September 19, 2019
Shreenath Rao, PhD, PE
Pavement Evaluation Conference 2019Roanoke, VA
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Acknowledgement1. FHWA – Andy Mergenmeier2. SHA Panel – Cindy Smith, David Huft, Bouzid Choubane3. SHA Providing Information – Alabama, Florida, Kansas,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Washington
4. Vendors Providing Information – Ames Engineering Inc., Dynatest North America, Inc., International Cybernetics Corp. (ICC), Pathway Services Inc., and Pavemetrics
5. Team – ARA: Hyung Lee, Hesham Abdualla; Transtec: George Chang, David Merritt
2
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Phase I1. Task 1—Kickoff Meeting2. Task 2—Literature Review and Information Gathering
Subtask 2.1. Literature Review and Information GatheringSubtask 2.2 Development of New Definitions and Procedures
3. Task 3—Draft and Final Phase I Report and Phase II Work Plan
3
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Phase II4. Task 4—Pilot Projectso Definitionso Equipmento Certification and Verification Procedures and Protocolso Precision and Accuracyo Faulting Standards (AASHTO)
5. Task 5—Draft and Final Phase II Report
4
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Limitations of Current Practice1. Lack of a Standard Definition for Faulting
o Manual Distress Survey vs. Automated [2D (Line Laser, Point Laser) vs. 3D], Transverse Location(s), Longitudinal Location(s)
2. Uncertainties Associated with Different Methodso Method A, Method B
3. Lack of a Standard Reporting Protocolo Positive fault, negative fault, averages, joint detection
4. Lack of a Certification Process for Faulting
5
The objective of this project (Phase I and Phase II) is to address the shortcomings of current faulting practices and establish standards that will quantify the accuracy and precision requirements for faulting data collection and analysis to meet SHA requirements.
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 6
What is faulting?
What are the effects of faulting? How do agencies use and report faulting data?
How do agencies measure faulting?
What data standards are needed based on agencies use of faulting data?
What are the current definitions, standards, and protocols for collecting and analyzing faulting data?
Reporting
Decision Analysis
BACKGROUND
STRUCTURE
How do we define faulting? How should faulting be interpreted/analyzed?
How can we make faulting (the measurement) consistent and a true representation of faulting (the distress)?
How do we collect faulting data?What equipment should be used to collect faulting data on
a production basis? How do we verify the data quality?
How do we certify production faulting measurements?
What are the requirements for and how should measurements be evaluated to meet quality needs?
Data Analysis
Data Acquisition
Certification
What is the difference between faulting (the distress) and faulting (the measurement)?
What kind of reference test is appropriate for certification?
What are the requirements for the reference tests? What artifacts are needed to certify the measurements?
Reference Test
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 7
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 8
Faulting (the measurement) is a clearly-defined quantification of faulting (the distress) and requires definitions, procedures, and protocols for measuring (including verifying and certifying), analyzing, and reporting.
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 9
IRI Measurement
Traffic Direction
℄
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 10
Transverse Profile Measurement
Traffic Direction
℄
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 11
Faulting Measurement
Traffic Direction
℄
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 12
Faulting Measurement
Traffic Direction
℄
We are really interested in Z measurement…but which X and Y location(s) should we use?What impact does it have? How do we account for local texture?
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 13
-0.28
-0.26
-0.24
-0.22
-0.2
-0.18
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163
Elev
atio
n (in
.)
Longitudinal Distance (ft.)
3 in.
9 in.
Joint Location
Linear Regression
Lines
AASHTO R36 Method ADetect joint: Downward Spike, Step, Curled Edge4 ft linear regression, average elevation 3-9 in departure slab
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 14
-0.28
-0.26
-0.24
-0.22
-0.2
-0.18
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163
Elev
atio
n (in
.)
Longitudinal Distance (ft.)
9 in.
9 in.
Joint Location
Point P1
Point P1'
Point Pn
Point Pn'
AASHTO R36 Method B
12 in
12 in
Sensitivity Factor / Slope interative to identify joints3 to 9 in from joint only, paired difference
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Faulting Definition: Option 1
•Faulting is defined as the difference in average elevations across a transverse joint, measured within the outer wheelpath, in accordance with the following items.
• The outer wheelpath for faulting is defined as the area within 15 in. to 45 in. from the lane center (i.e., center of wheelpath is 30 in. from the lane center and the width of wheelpath is 30 in.), regardless of the lane width.
15
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 16
Proposed Definition: Option 1
30 in.
30 in.
Direction of Traffic
Outer Wheel Path
Shoulder
Lane Center
Lan
e W
idth
= L
L / 2
L / 2
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Faulting Definition: Option 1
•Faulting is defined as the difference in average elevations across a transverse joint, measured within the outer wheelpath, in accordance with the following items.
• Faulting is calculated from a “Representative Longitudinal Profile” of the outer wheelpath.
17
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 18
Proposed Definition: Option 1
Wheel Path
Shoulder
Wheel Path Center
Joint
Average Elevation
3D Elevation Points
2D Laser Path with Wander
Representative Longitudinal Profile
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Faulting Definition: Option 1•Faulting is defined as the difference in average elevations across a transverse joint, measured within the outer wheelpath, in accordance with the following items.
• From the representative longitudinal profile, the average elevations before and after the joint are calculated using an Enhanced Cumulative Difference Approach (ECDA).
• The minimum longitudinal distance for calculating the average elevations before and after the joint is 5 in.
• Potential effect of spalling and/or wide joint opening detected by the ECDA algorithm is to be excluded from faulting calculation.
19
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 20
Proposed Definition: Option 1
LTPP Section 04-0215. Joint at Station 324.6 ft.
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
320 322 324 326 328 330
Ele
vatio
n (in
.)
Station (ft)
Raw Elevation DataDelineated Sections
No Faulting
Joint with Potential Issues
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 21
Proposed Definition: Option 1
LTPP Section 27-4040. Joint at Station 30.3 ft.
-0.60
-0.50
-0.40
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.0025 27 29 31 33 35
Ele
vatio
n (in
.)
Station (ft)
Raw Elevation DataDelineated Sections
Less than +0.001 in. Faulting
Joint
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 22
Proposed Definition: Option 1
LTPP Section 04-0215. Joint at Station 204.3 ft.
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00200 202 204 206 208 210
Ele
vatio
n (in
.)
Station (ft)
Raw Elevation DataDelineated Sections
+0.004 in. Faulting
Joint with Potential Issues
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 23
Proposed Definition: Option 1
-0.08-0.06-0.04-0.020.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.14
3 5 7 9 11 13
Ele
vatio
n (in
.)
Station (ft)
Raw Elevation DataDelineated Sections
+0.02 in. Faulting
Joint
LTPP Section 04-0215. Joint at Station 8.5 ft.
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 24
Proposed Definition: Option 1
LTPP Section 27-4040. Joint at Station 301.8 ft.
-0.40
-0.35
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
297 299 301 303 305 307
Ele
vatio
n (in
.)
Station (ft)
Raw Elevation DataDelineated Sections
+0.11 in. Faulting
Joint with Potential Issues
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 25
Proposed Definition: Option 1
LTPP Section 27-4040. Joint at Station 439.0 ft.
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
434 436 438 440 442 444
Ele
vatio
n (in
.)
Station (ft)
Raw Elevation DataDelineated Sections
+0.18 in. Faulting
Joint with Potential Issues
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Faulting Definition: Option 2•Faulting is defined as the difference in average elevations across a transverse joint, measured within the outer wheelpath, in accordance with the following items. • Option 2 is a simplified version of Option 1.• Rather than use ECDA, from the representative longitudinal
profile, the average elevations before and after the joint are calculated using all elevations between the joint and X in. from the joint.
• The minimum longitudinal distance for calculating the average elevations before and after the joint is 5 in.
• The vendor or equipment manufacturer will be responsible to demonstrate ability to remove elevations corresponding to spalls and wide joint openings, which shall excluded from faulting calculation.
26
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Faulting Definition: Option 3
•Faulting is defined as the difference in elevations of projected/existing planes of approach slab and departure slab surfaces across a transverse joint or crack along the outside wheelpath. The representative longitudinal profile shall be used for this projection. Faulting shall be measured as a mean value of the differences of the above mentioned metrics between 0 in. to 9 in. offset from the center of a joint/crack in the traffic direction with a minimum of 10 equally-spaced projected elevation points.
27
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Faulting Definition: Option 3
28
Side View
76mm
226mm1219mm
*Not to scale
Projected linefrom the approach slab
Measurement of Positive Fault with Down Grade
1219mm
Average of 10+ points
Measurementrange
Center of joint/crack width
Traffic Direction
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 29
-0.28
-0.26
-0.24
-0.22
-0.2
-0.18
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163
Elev
atio
n (in
.)
Longitudinal Distance (ft.)
3 in.
9 in.
Joint Location
Linear Regression
Lines
AASHTO R36 Method ADetect joint: Downward Spike, Step, Curled Edge4 ft linear regression, average elevation 3-9 in departure slab
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary 30
Curling Artifact
Fault or No Fault?
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Discussion Items•Transverse Location: Wheel path width• LTPP asphalt pavement: 30 in. wide and centered 35 in. from
lane longitudinal centerline.• LTPP manual faulting measurement: 12 and 30 in. from
edge/lane stripe.• HPMS manual asphalt pavement: 39 in. wide and centered
35 in. from lane longitudinal centerline.
•Transverse Location: Wheel path (inner/outer)• Both• Outer Only
31
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Discussion Items•Transverse Location: Defining Centerline / Reference Edge• 3D can do off edge or lane stripe• 2D HSIP may not and may need a retrofit to detect edge or
lane stripe
Faulting Measurement: Equipment / Data Resolution• 3D Laser / Camera• 2D HSIP (Account for texture effects)• Manual
32
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Reporting•Basic Information• Section identification• Date and time of data collection• Operator(s)• Device(s)• Total length of the data collection section
•AFM Method Used for Analysis• Method for joint detection (if we go with the multiple option
approach)• Method for faulting calculation (if we go with the multiple option
approach)• Other inputs needed for joint detection or fault calculation (e.g.,
User inputted typical slab length, lane width, etc.)
33
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Reporting•AFM Results• Joint/transverse crack locations• Positive and negative faulting at all transverse joints and transverse cracks• Maximum value of positive and negative faulting for joints• Maximum value of positive and negative faulting for transverse cracks• Separate averages of positive and negative faulting for all joints in the test
section• Separate averages of positive and negative faulting for all transverse cracks
in the test section• Overall average faulting for all joints in the test section• Overall average faulting for all transverse cracks in the test section• Overall average of absolute faulting for all joints in the test section• Overall average of absolute faulting for all cracks in the test section• Total number of detected joints• Total number of detected transverse cracks
34
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Certification
35
Reference TestsMeasurement SpecsCertification Artifacts
Reference Measurements
Production TestsMeasurement SpecsCertification Artifacts
Production Equipment Measurements
Precision Precision
Accuracy
Statistical Comparison
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Certification•Consistent with Transverse Profile Project• Build upon relevant standards developed under TPP• Method for computing faulting using longitudinal profile• Detailed specifications not included for equipment or
software used to make the calculations• Any approach that can be adequately validated to meet the
functionality is considered acceptable• Goal is to achieve a significant level of standardization for
consistent faulting computation
36
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Certification•Consistent with Transverse Profile Project• Range of conditions to be measured (texture, fault
magnitude, joint damage, transverse crack)• Assess x, y, z data quality (elevation)o Artifacts to simulate faulting
• Assess fault algorithmo Statistical comparison with reference measurement
• Assess Joint Detection Rate (JDR)o Need to meet minimum JDR
37
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Certification•Consistent with Transverse Profile Project• 3D Systems: Body Motion Cancelation, Drift Mitigation,
Dynamic Performance, Static Performanceo Review closely to assess application to faulting
• Reference Tests Using Artifacts
38
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Phase II Pilot Projects• Development, refinement, and validation of the proposed
definitions and methods to quantify faulting at each joint/transverse crack, and
• Development and refinement of certification and verification tests and standards.
39
www.ara.com
INNOVATIVE SOLUTIONS TO COMPLEX PROBLEMS
© 2019 Applied Research Associates, Inc. • ARA Proprietary
Thank You
• Comments / FeedbackoMergenmeier, Andy (FHWA) [email protected] Rao ARA/TRANS [email protected] Chang [email protected]
40