RPUG 2020 Detailed Program

Session 1.1: Road Profile Measurement & Interpretation 101 by Steve Karamihas, UMTRI

Session 1.2: Tire/Pavement Friction & Grip 101 by Brian L. Schleppi, Ohio DOT

Session 2.1: Tire/Pavement Noise 101 by Ronald Kennedy, CenTiRe

Noise from vehicles driving on our roadways can be an irritant to those living and working near the roads, as well as those inside the vehicles. Tire/pavement noise is a major contributor to this sound. This session will provide a brief overview of what this noise is, how it is measured in the context of the tire/pavement system, and the mechanisms generating the noise. We’ll also address things that can be done to alleviate the noise levels (beyond adding sound walls).

Session 2.2: Splash, Spray & Hydroplaning 101 by Gerardo Flintsch, Virginia Tech

Session 2.3: Vehicle Rolling Resistance 101 by Richard Wix, ARRB

Session 3.1: Moderation by Colin McClenahen, PennDOT

Session 3.11: Illinois Test Track for Research and Certification by John Senger, ILDOT

The Illinois Department of Transportation is designing and building a new Research and Certification track. This facility will host profiler certification, skid trailer correlation pads, falling weight deflectometer correlation sites, ground penetrating radar verification sites, among other research ideas. The track will consist of 3 lanes of pavement at 0.75 miles long. There will be one lane of continuously reinforced concrete pavement, one lane of hot-mix asphalt, and one lane of jointed plain concrete pavement. This facility will be closed to the public as to better maintain smoothness and other on-going research.

Session 3.12: Profiler Roundup data at MnROAD: Cross correlation and expected IRI error by Steve Karamihas, UMTRI

Session 3.13: SHRP2 R06(E): Real-Time Smoothness Update by Dave Merritt, Transtec Group

FHWA has recently started another Task Order to continue RTS demonstration around the country. There is also a potential upcoming study to be funded by NRRA on asphalt real time smoothness (ARTS).

Session 3.2: Moderation by Dave Huft, SDDOT

Session 3.21: Design vs. Real-World Smoothness by Steve Karamihas and Richard Wix, UMTRI and ARRB

Session 3.22: ProVAL : Upcoming Improved and New Features by George Chang, Transtec Group

There are some upcoming ProVAL improved and new features that have been approved by the TPF-5(345), but not yet funded. The presentation will provide further details on those ProVAL enhancements and their expected benefits to the profiling community. We will also open the discussions for the audience to contribute their suggestions.

Session 3.23: Smoothness Specs – Lessons-Learn: Panel Discussion by Jacob Blanchard (INDOT), John Senger (ILDOT), James Greene (FLDOT), Steve Hale (NVDOT), INDOT, ILDOT, FLDOT, NVDOT

INDOT and ILDOT are transitioning to IRI-based smoothness specification. Instead of reinventing the wheels, both DOTs have consulted with other DOTs who have been through this process. NVDOT would also share their experiences since they moved to IR specs. FLDOT would also share their experiences in certifying highspeed inertial profilers at a state level.

Session 4.1: Moderation by Steve Hale, NVDOT

Session 4.11: Multi-Object and Real-Time Processing of Pavement Surface Distresses with Sub-mm 3D Data in the AI Environment by Kelvin C.P. Wang, Oklahoma State University and WayLink Systems Corporation

This presentation details new work by the team led by the author on the development of fully automated survey technologies for cracking, and other pavement distresses. Pavement distress surveys were mostly manual driven, expensive, and prone to errors. It is common for pavement engineers not to place too much confidence in collected distress data without thorough and expensive QA process. Recent Deep-Learning based AI solutions are finally capable of offering truly automated and consistent results on cracking for engineering practices. This presentation illustrates the design and field test of multi-distress survey technology that is onboard data acquisition vehicle for real-time processing. Currently such distresses in the real-time technology include cracking, rutting, sealed cracking, potholes, and patching. It has been demonstrated that all these distress features are being processed at good levels of consistency and repeatability in real-time at speed of 60MPH. Post-processing of the same distresses has exceeded the processing speed of 100MPH. High-performance GPU and high-core-count CPU form the processing platform for this real-time system in a single computer, which also hosts the entire data acquisition for the data vehicle. The research team had demonstrated a 2D based real-time system about 20 years ago, which played a fundamental role in designing and implementing this new multi-object real-time system.

Session 4.12: IDOT’s Journey from Manually Rated Roads to the Automated Data Collection and Automated rating world by Bill Vavrik and Joe Stefanski, ARA

The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is undertaking a phased approach to addressing their desire to add automation to their current manual pavement condition rating system. IDOT hired Applied Research Associates (ARA) to investigate incorporating automated distress ratings derived from three-dimensional laser data into their existing manual survey system, Condition Rating Survey (CRS), for full-depth asphaltic pavements (type 550/560). ARA evaluated the viability of using an automated process to generate CRS ratings by processing Pavemetrics laser crack measurement system (LCMS) data for 474 routes covering 2,841 lane miles within Illinois. Data was first processed using Pavemetrics software and then assigned CRS ratings with ARA’s software. The automated ratings were then compared to IDOT’s rating of the same roads, both for adjusting the automated processing model and for correlation evaluation.

Session 4.13: Updating a State Pavement Condition Framework Using Relative Performance Targets by Alex Bernier, UConn

After more than a decade of rapid technological advances in pavement data collection technology, the existing system for state pavement condition indexing in Connecticut was in need of an upgrade. Researchers at the University of Connecticut performed an extensive literature review resulting in two main takeaways (1) MAP-21/HPMS thresholds would not work across a state network with lower functional class roadways, and (2) no state or group of states holds a solution that could be readily applied outside of their state at this time. This review ultimately lead researchers to develop a new framework sensitive across the entire network. A broad sensitivity analysis on multiple years of automatically collected distress survey data across the state network was performed. During this analysis, it became clear that it was necessary to divide the data by functional class into different groups for roughness, and pavement type for cracking models. Ultimately the researchers established relative performance criteria for each distress model based on the data subsets with the assumptions (1) the average performance is the expected performance, and (2) confidence bands of the performance will narrow as this methodology is employed permitting improved sensitivity for problematic sections. The framework (dubbed the Pavement Performance Index or PPI) uses a scale of 1 to 20, where for any given distress, the PPI corresponds with forecasted years of service remaining until rehabilitation. This window of 0 to 20 permits agency personnel to focus on the window for preservation while quickly flagging pavements with little to no functional life based on the observed distresses and can be programed for more substantial treatments. Besides the benefits described above, this methodology could be easily adapted by other entities with minimal effort.

Session 4.2: Moderation by Bouzid Choubane, FLDOT

Session 4.21: FHWA DQMP Document of Successful Practices by George Chang, Amanda Gilliland, Transtec Group

FHWA has produced the DQMP Document of Successful Practices based on the reviews of 50 State DQMPs and findings/new draft AASHTO standards from recently completed studies and on-going studies under TPF-5(299)/(399). This document is intended to be a living documents as a resources for DOTs to improve their DQMPs and their own needs. This presentation will cover the main contents and usage of this document.

Session 4.22: HPMS Updates by Robert Rozycki, FHWA

The HPMS program includes various pavement-related data items for a variety of purposes including TPM. A description of the requirements and data items will be presented along with general reporting statistics.

Session 4.23: DQMP and HPMS – Panel Discussion by Thomas Van, Andy Mergenmeier, Bob Orthmeyer, Robert Rozycki, Scott Mathison, FHWA, DOTs, and industry

This panel discussion will cover performance measures, guidelines, pavement data quality Acceptance , deadlines, and reporting requirements.

Session 5.1: Moderation by Kevin McGhee, VADOT

Session 5.11: Utilizing Highway Network Wide Localized Roughness Analysis by Brian L. Schleppi, Ohio DOT

Localized roughness analysis is frequently used on construction projects with International Roughness Index (IRI) smoothness specifications. Localized roughness tolerances are established and such analysis is performed (via ProVAL software) to ensure there are no localized roughness hotspots on the project or if so, they are corrected to within tolerance. This presentation will review in detail what localized roughness really is and how it is calculated, how we worked with our vendor to develop a network level localized roughness report (verified by ProVAL software). Further, you will learn how the OH DOT took the data from the report complete with both linear and spatial reference data and leveraged it in web maps via Geographic Information System (GIS) tools for decision making and plans to address the poorest locations of localized roughness across our state.

Session 5.12: 3D Technologies for Longitudinal Profile Measurements: challenges and solutions to certification by John Laurent, Pavemetrics

DOTs and consultants have purchased 3-D profiling systems are facing some challenges for the AASHTO R56 certification process such as system error sources that are not familiar to the industry. This presentation will cover the 3-D profiling technology and examples of 3-D profiling certification.

Session 5.13: Transverse Pavement Profiles for Rutting Measurements: Training and Implementation of Five New AASHTO specifications by John Ferris, Road Scholar Solutions

There are five Transverse Pavement Profiles (TPP) related AASHTO standards., products from the TPF-5(299) TPP study, are being balloted to be provision AASHTO standards. The next steps are how to assist and train DOTs to understand and implement those standards. There is one on-going FHWA PSC workshops project to provide such efforts and there will be another upcoming FHWA technical assistance program is on the horizon.

Session 5.2: Moderation by John Andrews, Powel Enterprises

Session 5.21: Continuous Friction Measurements and Managements by Ryland Potter, WDM

There is a large body of research and practice underpinning data collection and quality assurance standards for pavement surface properties. As states begin evaluating the potential benefits of shifting from spot-based friction measurement to continuous friction measurement, greater familiarity with how accepted friction measurement quality assurance practices can be adapted and added to is increasingly important. Quality assurance is the cornerstone of continuous friction measurement and, by extension, the pavement friction management programs that continuous friction measurement facilitates. This presentation will highlight quality assurance practices – including setting testing standards, developing quality control plans, and establishing equipment calibration and equipment validation protocols – that ensure high-quality, accurate, repeatable, and reproducible continuous friction data. Specifically, the presentation will describe (1) Critical testing parameters, such as speed and temperature, (2) Equipment checks and calibration, including purpose and acceptance criteria, (3) Equipment validation protocols that ensure data conform to standards of accuracy, repeatability, and bias, and further demonstrate any changes in equipment performance since previous data gathering exercises, and (4) Quality control plan components and overall management of the quality assurance process from concept through implementation. The presentation will draw on practices common among countries where continuous friction measurement is well-established, as well as emerging practices among US states.

Session 5.22: Outcomes of NCHRP 15-55 Hydroplaning by Gerardo Flintsch, Virginia Tech

Session 5.23: Highway Speed Macrotexture Measurement: Spot vs Line Laser by Charles Holzschuher, FLDOT

This presentation will cover highway speed macrotexture data collection utilizing both point and line laser data. This information is used in network level surveys relating wet-pavement safety and drainage (macrotexture) to friction values. Discussion will dive into the pros and cons of both laser types including surface types, validation, and precision.