An Overview of Mn/DOT s Pavement Condition Rating Procedures and Indices (September 2015)

Similar documents
An Overview of Mn/DOT s Pavement Condition Rating Procedures and Indices (March 27, 2003)

Driving Indiana s Economic Growth

Non-State Federal Aid Highways. Pavement Condition Ratings. H e r k i m e r a n d O n e i d a C o u n t i e s

Use of Performance Metrics on The Pennsylvania Turnpike. Pamela Hatalowich, Penn Turnpike Commission Paul Wilke, Applied Research Associates, Inc.

Performance of Ultra-Thin Bounded Wearing Course (UTBWC) Surface Treatment on US-169 Princeton, Minnesota. Transportation Research

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

State of Nevada Department of Transportation Materials Division

VDOT s Pavement Management Program. Presented by: Tanveer Chowdhury Maintenance Division, VDOT March 05, 2010

Pavement and Asset Management from a City s Perspective Mike Rief, PE, DBIA and Andrea Azary, EIT. February 12, 2015

2017 Pavement Management Services Pavement Condition Report Salt Lake City, UT

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Condition of Texas Pavements

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. Condition of Texas Pavements

PM2 Pavement SOP Overview. RPUG 2017 Denver, CO November 15, 2017

Accuracy and Precision of High-Speed Field Measurements of Pavement Surface Rutting and Cracking

MnROAD Mainline IRI Data and Lane Ride Quality MnROAD Lessons Learned December 2006

Smoothing Out the Bumpy Road Ahead

Road Surface Characteristics and Accidents. Mike Mamlouk, Ph.D., P.E. Arizona State University

Multi-Function Vehicle

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIDE QUALITY SPECIFICATION AND CASE STUDIES

Appendix B Existing ADOT Data Parameters

Utah Department of Transportation Division of Asset Management taking care of what we have

(PLANT MIXED ASPHALT PAVEMENT (MSCR)). REVISED 02/03/17 DO NOT REMOVE THIS. IT NEEDS TO STAY IN FOR THE CONTRACTORS.

Purpose and Need Report. Appendix B. Purpose and Need Report

IMPACT OF UTILITY TRENCHING AND APPURTENANCES ON PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE IN OTTAWA-CARLETON. Stephen Q. S. Lee, P. Eng. Senior Pavement Engineer

PENNDOT HPMS DATA COLLECTION GUIDE. Bureau of Planning and Research Transportation Planning Division April 2016 (Updated March 2018)

I-64 BATTLEFIELD BLVD: PERFORMANCE MEETS EXPECTATION

PENNDOT HPMS DATA COLLECTION GUIDE

Five Years Later. Illinois Asphalt Pavement Association Annual Meeting March 9, William J. Pine, P.E. Emulsicoat, Inc. / Heritage Research

City of West Des Moines PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Real-Time Smoothness Measurements on Concrete Pavements During Construction

land transport road assets

Pavement Evaluation of the Nairobi Eastern By-Pass Road

Tex-1001-S, Operating Inertial Profilers and Evaluating Pavement Profiles. Chapter 10 Special Procedures. Overview

50 Year Roads: Don't Accept Anything Less

Paul Huston, P.E., Design-Build Coordinator Chuck Gonderinger, HDR Engineering. Minnesota Department of Transportation (the Department)

Department of Internal Affairs Mandatory Non-Financial Performance Measures 2013 Roads and Footpaths

Chapter 3 Tex-1001-S, Operating Inertial Profilers and Evaluating Pavement Profiles

Road Condition Statistics: Notes and definitions

Phase I-II of the Minnesota Highway Safety Manual Calibration. 1. Scope of Calibration

land transport road assets

North Dakota Department of Transportation. Certification Renewal Program Flexible Pavement Smoothness Tolerance

Design of Turn Lane Guidelines

ADOT Maintenance Data Collection Guide

RURAL HIGHWAY SHOULDERS THAT ACCOMMODATE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN USE (TxDOT Project ) June 7, Presented by: Karen Dixon, Ph.D., P.E.

LATERAL VARIATION in PAVEMENT SMOOTHNESS. December, 2002

Airfield Pavement Smoothness Airport Pavement Workshop. Michael Gerardi APR Consultants

CHAPTER 1 STANDARD PRACTICES

FYG Backing for Work Zone Signs

On The Relationship Between Missing Shoulder Ballast and Development of Track Geometry Defects

MNDOT PAVEMENT DESIGN MANUAL

Pavement Quality Indicators

OPERATING INERTIAL PROFILERS AND EVALUATING PAVEMENT PROFILES

Pavement Management Program

Analysis of Run-Off-Road Crashes in Relation to Roadway Features and Driver Behavior

Capacity and Level of Service LOS

Southeaster Pavement Preservation Partnership 2010 Update Welcome to Tennessee. Michael J. Doran, P.E. Maintenance Division

Pavement Markings (1 of 3)

ENGINEER S PRELIMINARY REPORT. for the #######-###### COLLISION

BUILDING CHINARAP. Zhang Tiejun Research Institute of Highway (RIOH) Beijing, China

European Road Profile Users Group Copenhagen September2013. Harmonization in pavement smoothness rating of new and old pavements

3-13 UFC - GENERAL PROVISIONS AND GEOMETRIC DESIGN FOR ROADS, STREETS, WALKS, AND OPEN

INFLUENCE OF PAVEMENT DISTRESS ON TRAVEL TIME

Vertical Alignment. Concepts of design & guidelines Computing elevations along vertical curves Designing vertical curves

ATT-59, Part I. ATT-59/99, SMOOTHNESS OF PAVEMENTS Part I, Manual Profilograph. b) Determining the Profile Index from profilograms

Traffic Accident Data Processing

Driveway Design Criteria

CITY OF KASSON TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES KASSON SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

DEVELOPMENT OF A PAVEMENT REHABILITATION STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL ROADS IN QUEENSLAND

Le Sueur County, MN Tuesday, December 13, 2016 Board Meeting

Traffic Parameter Methods for Surrogate Safety Comparative Study of Three Non-Intrusive Sensor Technologies

REAL WORLD PAVEMENT PRESERVATION SOLUTIONS

Kentucky s Surface Transportation System

Chapter 5 DATA COLLECTION FOR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY STUDIES

Evaluation of the Wisconsin DOT Walking Profiler

Measuring the Surface Evenness of Cycle Paths

Public Opinion, Traffic Performance, the Environment, and Safety After Construction of Double-Lane Roundabouts

CORE MPO Non-motorized Transportation Plan. Appendix D

ASSESSMENT OF RUT DEPTH MEASUREMENT ACCURACY OF POINT-BASED RUT BAR SYSTEMS USING EMERGING 3D LINE LASER IMAGING TECHNOLOGY

RAILWAY LEVEL CROSSING CHECKLIST Road Safety Review of Railway Crossings

2018 ROAD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM

BTW Lesson 5. Traffic Flow

TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT STUDY

Speed Data Analysis. Monk Fryston Parish Council. Traffic Speed data Statistical Analysis 30th. November 2017 to 6th December 2017.

ENGINEERING DRIVER SAFETY INTO PAVEMENT PRESERVATION

Geometric and Trafc Conditions Summary

DISTRIBUTION: Electronic Recipients List TRANSMITTAL LETTER NO. (13-01) MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. MANUAL: Road Design English Manual

Item 585 Ride Quality for Pavement Surfaces

Integrating Safety into the Transportation Decision Making Process

Unit 7 Speed, Travel Time and Delay Studies

Basic Idea MEANS TO REDUCE OPERATING SPEEDS ON CURVES. Objectives. Review of Literature. CE 635 Highway Safety Spring 09

POTHOLES IN EDMONTON. Updated: April 4, 2013

Relationship Between Missing Ballast and Development of Track Geometry Defects

Subject: Use of Pull-off Areas in Work Zones Page: 1 of 13. Brief Description: Guidance for the use and placement of pull-off area in work zones.

Safety Assessment of Installing Traffic Signals at High-Speed Expressway Intersections

PAVEMENT FUNCTIONAL SURFACE CHARACTERISTICS

STATIC AND DYNAMIC EVALUATION OF THE DRIVER SPEED PERCEPTION AND SELECTION PROCESS

Small Area Study U.S. Route 220 and VA Route 615 Intersection. Bath County, Virginia

FREEWAY WORK ZONE SPEED MODEL DOCUMENTATION

Addressing Deficiencies HCM Bike Level of Service Model for Arterial Roadways

Roadway Design Manual

Transcription:

An Overview of Mn/DOT s Pavement Condition Rating Procedures and Indices (September 2015) Equipment Mn/DOT currently collects pavement condition data using a Pathway Services, Inc. Digital Inspection Vehicle (DIV) as shown in Figure 1. There are three lasers mounted across the front bumper, one in each wheel path and one in the center (Figure 2). In addition, there are two lasers used for rut measurements (Figure 3) and for collecting 3-dimensional images of the pavement surface (Figure 4) mounted on the rear of the vehicle. The front lasers measure the pavement s longitudinal profile, used to calculate roughness. They take a measurement approximately every 1/8-inch as the van travels down the roadway at highway speed. The cameras are used to capture the pavement distress (cracking, patching, etc.), right-of-way images, and help assess the overall condition of the shoulders. Figure 1. Mn/DOT's Pathway Services, Inc. Digital Inspection Vehicle (DIV) Each year, the DIV is driven over the entire 14,000-mile trunk highway system, in both directions. Digital images, pavement roughness and pavement distress are collected. This data is used to Page 1 of 9

compare the performance of different roadways, pavement designs and for project planning and programming. Figure 2. Close-up of lasers used to measure roughness & faulting. Figure 3. Close-up of 3D-Rut Measurement Lasers. Page 2 of 9

Figure 4. Close-up of 3D camera used to record pavement distress. Pavement Condition Indices Mn/DOT uses three indices to report and quantify pavement condition. One index represents pavement roughness, one represents pavement distress and one the overall condition of the pavement. These indices, listed in Table 1, are used to quantify the present condition of the pavement and predict future condition, both of which are needed for project planning and programming. For each index, a higher value means better pavement condition. The indices are reported to the tenths place. Table 1. Mn/DOT Pavement Condition Indices Index Name Pavement Attribute Measured by Index Rating Scale Ride Quality Index (RQI) Surface Rating (SR) Pavement Quality Index (PQI) Pavement Roughness 0.0-5.0 Pavement Distress 0.0-4.0 Overall Pavement Quality 0.0-4.5 Page 3 of 9

The PQI is calculated from the RQI and SR as follows: PQI ( RQI)( SR) Condition Rating samples are taken and reported at the following locations: Where there is a change in surface type (bituminous or concrete). Where there is a change in the number of lanes. At each Mile. All other points determined by the District. Examples are changes in surface age, base type, traffic volume and research sections. Pavement Roughness Pavement roughness, or ride quality, is quantified by the serviceability-performance concept developed at the AASHO Road Test in 1957. The serviceability of a pavement is expressed in terms of the Present Serviceability Rating, or PSR. The PSR is a reflection of the seat-of-thepants feeling the average citizen gets as he or she travels down the roadway. Mn/DOT refers to the present serviceability rating as the Ride Quality Index, or RQI. The first step in determining the RQI is to calculate the International Roughness Index, or IRI, from the pavement profile measured by the front lasers on the van. This international standard simulates a standard vehicle traveling down the roadway and is equal to the total anticipated vertical movement of this vehicle accumulated over the length of the section. The IRI is typically reported in units of inches/mile (vertical inches of movement per mile traveled). If a pavement were perfectly smooth, the IRI would be zero (i.e. no vertical movement of the vehicle). In the real world, however, roughness in the form of dips and bumps exist and vertical movement of vehicles occurs. As a result, the IRI is always greater than zero. The higher the IRI is, the rougher the roadway. Many states use the IRI as their sole measure of roughness. However, in Minnesota the IRI is converted to RQI so that our customer s opinions can be taken into account. Without this step, there would be no basis for determining what IRI level people feel is unacceptable. We use the laser readings in the left wheel-path of the van to calculate the IRI. It is felt that since the left wheelpath is where the driver sits it correlates better to what he or she feels. To convert IRI to RQI, a correlation needs to be developed. This is done using a rating panel. A rating panel involves driving people over sections of pavement and getting their opinion as to how well it rides. When last done in 1997, 32 citizens were asked to rate over 120 test sections. The sections included all pavement types, a wide variety of roughness conditions and were 0.25 miles long. Panelists were instructed to disregard grade, alignment, pavement surface condition, right-ofway, shoulders, ditch conditions and all other factors not directly related to the ride of the pavement. Page 4 of 9

Each rater assigned a numerical value between zero and five to each segment based on the following scale: Table 2. RQI Categories and Ranges Numerical Rating Verbal Rating 4.1-5.0 Very Good 3.1-4.0 Good 2.1-3.0 Fair 1.1-2.0 Poor 0.0-1.0 Very Poor The raters ask themselves, How would I like to ride on a road just like this section all day long? First they decide what qualitative rating to give the ride, ranging from Very Good to Very Poor. They then refine the corresponding numerical range by rating to one-tenth of a point. For example, a roadway considered Good and approaching Very Good might be given a rating of 3.8 or 3.9. Panelists are first driven over a practice course to allow them to become acquainted with the system. As they practice rating the segments they are told afterwards what experienced raters had rated the same segment, thus they get a feel for what a pavement with a RQI of 3.0, 2.4, 4.0, etc. feels like. The results of all the ratings for each test section are compiled, a mean and standard deviation are calculated and then a search for outliers is made and if necessary, an adjusted mean is calculated. The mean or adjusted mean for each section is the panel s RQI for that section. Using regression analysis, the panel s RQI is correlated to the measured IRI. Separate curves are established for bituminous and concrete pavements. As a result of this correlation, the ride measured by the lasers can be used to estimate how a panel of citizens would rate the pavement. The correlation is valid as long as the public s perception of smooth and rough roads does not change appreciably. Page 5 of 9

Ride Quality Index (RQI) IRI -vs- RQI 5.0 Bituminous Concrete 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 IRI (inches/mile) Figure 5. Graph for converting IRI to RQI (based on the 1997 rating panel) The current equations for converting from IRI to RQI are shown below: Bituminous Pavements: RQI 5.697 (2.104)( RQI 5.697 (0.264)( IRI), IRI = International Roughness Index (m/km) IRI), IRI = International Roughness Index (inches/mile) Concrete Pavements: RQI 6.634 (2.813)( RQI 6.634 (0.353)( IRI), IRI = International Roughness Index (m/km) IRI), IRI = International Roughness Index (inches/mile) Pavement Distress Pavement distresses are those defects visible on the pavement surface. They are symptoms, indicating some problem or phenomenon of pavement deterioration such as cracks, patches and ruts. The type and severity of distress a pavement has can provide great insight into what it s future maintenance and/or rehabilitation needs will be. Mn/DOT uses the Surface Rating, or SR, to quantify pavement distress. The SR was formerly based on the type and amount of distress measured by two raters driving along the shoulder of the road at 5 10 mph. Currently, the task is done by technicians using computer workstations, as shown in Figure 6, in the Pavement Management Unit of the Office of Materials located in Maplewood, MN. Page 6 of 9

Figure 6. Digital Image Workstation The workstations allow the operators to view and analyze the digital images captured by the van. The van captures four images that are shown on four monitors simultaneously. There is a front, side and two down views which help the operator determine the type and severity of each defect. On divided roads, each direction is treated as a separate road and rated separately. This is necessary because the type, age and rehabilitation history may vary from one side of a divided road to another causing a difference in pavement performance. The software assists in the calculation of the quantity of distress. The benefits of this system include: The entire system is rated by only two people; resulting in better consistency. The ratings are done in the comfort and safety of the office. There is a record of the pavement condition allowing users to review sections of pavement for historical purposes and/or errors. The one disadvantage is that because the video only provides a 2-dimensional view, some distress types are more difficult to see when viewing the images as compared to physically being able to look at the road. This is especially true in the case of raveling and weathering. The defects monitored by Mn/DOT and included in the calculation of SR are shown in Table 3. Page 7 of 9

Table 3. Pavement Distress Types Used to Determine the Surface Rating (SR) Bituminous Surfaced Pavement Jointed Concrete Pavement Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) Transverse Cracking Transverse Joint Spalling Patch Deterioration Low Severity Low Severity Localized Distress Medium Severity High Severity D-Cracking High Severity Longitudinal Joint Spalling Transverse Cracking Longitudinal Cracking Low Severity Low Severity High Severity Medium Severity Faulted Joints High Severity Cracked Panels Longitudinal Joint Distress Broken Panels Low Severity Faulted Panels Medium Severity Overlaid Panels High Severity Patched Panels Multiple Cracking D-Cracked Panels Alligator Cracking Rutting Raveling & Weathering Patching Because of the time involved determining the SR, Mn/DOT does not conduct continuous distress surveys. Instead, the first 500-feet of each mile and section is rated (10% sample). On undivided roadways, only the outside lane in the increasing direction (north or east) is rated when the SR is measured. On divided routes, the outside lane in both directions is rated. The percentage of each distress in the 500-foot sample is determined and multiplied by a weighting factor to give a weighted percentage. The weighting factors are higher for higher severity levels of the same distress and higher for distress types that indicate more serious problems exist in the roadway such as alligator cracking and broken panels. Once all of the weighted percentages are calculated, they are summed to give the Total Weighted Distress or TWD. The SR is calculated from the TWD using the following equation or by using Figure 7. SR e ( 1.386(0.045)( TWD)) Page 8 of 9

Surface Rating (SR) 4.5 Total Weighted DIstress (TWD) -vs- Surface Rating (SR) 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Total Weighted Distress (TWD) Figure 7. Chart for Converting TWD to SR. Details of how to conduct a condition survey and calculate the SR are contained in the Mn/DOT Distress Identification Manual, available from the Pavement Management Office website: http://www.mrr.dot.state.mn.us/pavement/pvmtmgmt/pavemgmt.asp For further information, contact: David Janisch Pavement Management Engineer Office of Materials and Road Research 1400 Gervais Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 (651) 366-5567 dave.janisch@dot.state.mn.us Page 9 of 9