ROAD PROFILE USERS GROUP AUSTIN, TEXAS

1
ROAD PROFILE USERS GROUP AUSTIN, TEXAS
AASHTO JOINT TASK FORCE ON PAVEMENTS AASHTO
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS
2
AASHTO VISION STATEMENT

• AASHTO will be the voice for transportation and a
  catalyst for institutional and technical
  excellence.

3
AASHTO MISSION STATEMENT

• AASHTO's mission is to advocate transportation
  policies, provide technical services, demonstrate
  the contributions of transportation and
  facilitate institutional change.

4
AASHTO GOALS

• Advocate Transportation
• Provide Technical Services
• Demonstrate the Contributions of Transportation
• Facilitate Institutional Change

5
AASHTO JTFP

• 1993 Meeting
• FHWA Contract TRDI
• JTFP Establishes Protocol Committee
• FHWA Supports Travel 1995 (?)

6
AASHTO ProtocolsbyCarl Bertrand, TxDOT

• 11th Annual Road Profilers Users Group Meeting
  1999

7
PROVISIONAL PROTOCOLS(Were being Re-Balloted)

• Quantifying Roughness on Pavements (AASHTO
  PP37-99)
• Determining Max. Rut Depth in ACP (AASHTO
  PP38-99)
• Estimating Faulting of Concrete Pavements
  (AASHTO PP39-99)

8
National RT Partnership ForumInfrastructure
Renewal (1999)

• Business Needs for
• Pavement Engineering

9
AASHTO Joint Task Force on PavementsOct 1-3,
2000Irvine, California

• Business Needs For Pavement Engineering

10
12th AASHTO ProtocolsbyKen Fults, TxDOT

• 12th Annual Road Profilers Users Group Meeting
  2000

11
PROTOCOLS

• Pavement Roughness PP37-00
• Rut Depth PP 38-00
• Faulting PP 39-00
• Cracking in AC Surface PP 44-00
• Has not passed AASHTO balloting

12
AASHTO Provisional Standards for Measuring
Pavement Condition

• A Roadmap for
• Quality Data Collection

OCTOBER 30, 2000
13
What We Agreed On

• Standards can improve quality of data collection
• We need QA/QC and validation/certification
  procedures
• Vendors
• Willing to assist in the implementation
• Will work with AASHTO Joint Task Force to improve
  Standards
• Cost savings are possible with full implementation

14
Action Plan

• Priority 1 QC/QA and certification for
  roughness
• Priority 2 Refine cracking standard to allow
  adoption by AASHTO
• Priority 3 Rut depth definition and resolution
• Priority 4 Faulting definition and resolution
• Priority 5 QC/QA and certification for other
  Standards

15
Funding

• NCHRP 20-7
• FHWA may fund QC/QA work

16
NCHRP WORKSHOP

• NCHRP 20-51(01)
• August 25-28, 2001
• Irvine, California
• REPORT PENDING

17
FHWA SMOOTHNESS ETG

• Mark Swanlund, FHWA
• David Law, FHWA
• Laurin Lineman, Fed Lands
• Bruce Wasill, Fed Lands
• Starr Kohn, Consultant
• Dan Frentress Gerald Voigt ACPA

18
FHWA SMOOTHNESS ETG

• John Andrews, Maryland DOT
• Steve Karamihas, Univ. of Michigan
• Kevin McGehee, Virginia DOT
• Jim Delton, Arizona DOT
• Emmanuel Fernando, TTI
• Kent Hanson, NAPA
• Ken Fults, Ex TxDOT

19

• EQUIP SPEC, MP 11-03
• INTERIAL PROFILER CERTIFICATION, PP 49-03
• INTERIAL PROFILER OPERATION, PP 50-03
• INTERIAL PROFILER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATION, PP
  51-03

20
AASHTO SOM

• MP11-03 Vote 49/1
• PP49-03 Vote 47/3
• PP50-03 Vote 46/3
• PP51-03 Vote 45/5

21
AASHTO SOM MeetingAugust, 2003 Maryland

• All Negatives voted non-persuasive or withdrawn
• All Comments Addressed by Editorial or voted
  non-persuasive
• All Protocols approved by AASHTO

22
AASHTO-AGC-ARTBATASK FORCE 45

• Develop AASHTO Standards, Equipment Certification
  Programs, QA/QC Procedures for Condition Data
  Collection and Reporting.
• Chair Parker Williams, State Highway
  Administrator for Maryland DOT

23
Development of the 2002 Guide for the Design of
New and Rehabilitated Pavements
Principal Investigator John P. Hallin
CO-PI Kenneth McGhee
Flexible Pavement Matthew W. Witczak
Rigid Pavement Michael I. Darter
24
Objective

• Develop and deliver the 2002 Guide for design
  of new and rehabilitated pavement structures
• Based on mechanistic-empirical principals
• Accompanied by the necessary computational
  software

25
Scope of 2002 Guide

• Procedures for pavement design/analysis
• Procedures for evaluating existing pavements
• Recommendations on rehabilitation treatments,
  subdrainage, and foundation improvements

26
Scope of 2002 Guide

• Procedures for LCCA, reliability, and traffic
  analysis
• Procedures for calibrating for local conditions
• Guidance for developing agency-specific
  procedures/catalogs

27
Smoothness Prediction

• IRI is predicted over time as a function of the
  key distress types predicted by the analysis
  procedure

28
IRI Models for Original HMA Pave

• Unbound Aggregate Bases and Subbases
• IRI IRIo 0.03670(SF)eage/20 -1
  0.00325(FC) 0.4092(COVRD/100) 0.00106(TC)
  0.00704(BC) 0.00156(SLCNWPMH)
• SF Site factor
• eage/20-1 Age factor
• FC Fatigue cracking
• RD Rut Depth
• SDRD Standard deviation of rut depth
• TC Length of transverse cracking
• BC Area of block cracking
• SLCNWPMH Length of sealed longitudinal cracks
  outside wheel path

29
IRI Models for HMA Overlays

• HMA Overlays Placed on Flexible Pavements
• IRI IRIO 0.04283Ln(Age1) 0.00880(FC)
• 0.00129(TCMH) 2.9065(BCH)
  8.7702(PH)
• 0.00100(SLCNWP)
• Ln(Age1) Age factor
• HMA Overlays Placed on Rigid Pavements
• IRI IRIO 0.02069(RD) 8.396 1/(TCSMH1)
• 13.122(PMH)