Practical Implementation of Automated Fault Measurement Based on Pavement Profiles

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 40
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Medicine, Science & Technology

Published:

Views: 0 | Pages: 40

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
International Symposium on Pavement Performance Trends, Advances, and Challenges December 5, 2011 Practical Implementation of Automated Fault Measurement Based on Pavement Profiles By George Chang, PhD,
Transcript
International Symposium on Pavement Performance Trends, Advances, and Challenges December 5, 2011 Practical Implementation of Automated Fault Measurement Based on Pavement Profiles By George Chang, PhD, PE, Transtec Group James Watkins, PE, MSDOT Bob Orthmeyer, PE, FHWA Acknowledgement FHWA Bob Orthmeyer MSDOT James Watkins, Cindy Smith, Grady Aultman, Alan Hatch, Alex Middleton, and Marta Charria FLDOT Abdenour Nazef, Alex Mraz, and etc. University of Michigan Steve Karamihas What is ProVAL AFM Automated Fault Measurement based on profile data FHWA HPMS requires joint fault data Implement revised AASHTO R36 Standard Practice for Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements High-speed Inertial Profiler Speed/Distance Measuring System Computer Height Sensor Accelerometer Pavement Profile Data Right Elevation Profile (mm) complete profile high-pass filtered (91 m) Distance (m) Convension of Faulting Traffic direction Positive Faulting Approach Slab Departure Slab Joint Negative Faulting Approach Slab Departure Slab Joint Challenges for AFM - Pavements Filled joints Closed joints Spalled joints Curl/warp features Cracks and other distresses/patches Joint spacing patterns Skewed joints Grade Courtesy of MSDOT Example of Spalled Joints Courtesy of MSDOT Example of Negative Faults Courtesy of MSDOT Example of Transverse Cracks Courtesy of MSDOT Challenges for AFM - Profiles Repeatability/accuracy Fault validation tests with physical devices Sampling intervals Laser foot prints Repeated profile runs DMI drifts Revised AASHTO R36-04 Feet Spacings for physical devices Automated procedure based on pavement profiles Validation devices for automated procedure Physical Fault Devices Georgia Fault Meter Courtesy of FLDOT Feet Spacings for Physical Devices Faultmeter A B Leg1 L1 Leg2 C D Approach Slab L2 L3 Leg3 Joint Departure Slab C, D = 3 to to 226 mm Profile Requirements Repeatability and Accuracy requirements (AASHTO R56) Fault validation with physical devices No additional pre-filtering Collect profiles at both wheel tracks Max sampling intervals Basic level: 1.5 (38 mm) Advanced level: 0.75 (19 mm) Candidate Field Validation Devices MS DOT Top View Handle Handle Side View Transducer Retractable wheel L1 L2 L3 A=18 B = 12 B1= 6 B2=6 Candidate Field Validation Devices FL DOT ProVAL AFM Multiple profiles Joint locations ID Edit joint locations Compute faults Individual faults and segment summary Joint ID Methods Downward Spike (FHWA Curl/Warp) Step(MSDOT) Curled-Edge Downward Spike Detection Anti-smoothing filtering Normalize the filtered profile (/RMS) Detect profile spikes (-4.0) Screen joint locations Step Detection Deduct profile elevations between consecutive data points Detect large step (0.08 in.) Screen joint locations Curled-Edge Detection Bandpass filtering Rolling straightedge simulation Detect high RSE (0.12 ) Screen joint locations Joint ID Methods Selection Downward Spike Detection Shorter sampling intervals Downward spikes present Step Detection Apparent faults present Curled-Edge Detection Noticeable slab curling and warping Joint ID Methods Selection Downward Spike Joint ID Methods Selection Step Joint ID Methods Selection Curled-Edge Fault Computation Crop a profile segment Separate profile slices Least-square fits Compute faults Profile Slices Slicing and Fitting Elevation (mm) mm Faulting mm 1219 mm Normalized Distance (m) Profile Fitted Shape-Approach Fitted Shape-Leave Fault Computation Elevation (mm) Faulting 150 mm mm 1219 mm Normalized Distance (m) Profile Fitted Shape-Approach Fitted Shape-Leave Faulting 150 mm 3 to to 226 mm Fault Computation (cont d) Faulting 150 mm 3 to to 226 mm Fault = Avg(Fault I = 1 to N) ProVAL AFM Inputs ProVAL AFM Joint ID ProVAL AFM Joint Faults ProVAL AFM Joint Faults ProVAL AFM Joint Faults Summary What s Next ProVAL AFM Revision March 2012 AASHTO R36-12 Revision : March/April 2012 Ballot : April/May 2012 New Standard: Summer 2012 Save Lives with ProVAL AFM Thank You! Dr. George Chang, PE Transtec Group USA
Recommended
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks
SAVE OUR EARTH

We need your sign to support Project to invent "SMART AND CONTROLLABLE REFLECTIVE BALLOONS" to cover the Sun and Save Our Earth.

More details...

Sign Now!

We are very appreciated for your Prompt Action!

x