2016 swift conference captg workshop€¦ · note: astm d5340 recommends a min. of 10% of the...
TRANSCRIPT
2016 SWIFT Conference‐CAPTG Workshop
AUTOMATED PAVEMENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT USING LASER CRACK MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (LCMS) AT TORONTO PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
September 2016Presented by: • Kevin Chee, P.Eng., Senior Engineer, Airside Civil – Airside and Infrastructure Engineering, Greater Toronto Airports Authority
• Jessica A. Hernandez, M.Sc., P.Eng., Director, Soil & Material Engineering – GTA Office, Englobe Corp.
THE ASSISTANCE OF CHRIS STEWART (GTAA), MICHAEL MACKAY (ENGLOBE) AND MICHEL PARENT (ENGLOBE) IS GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED
Toronto Pearson: Current Airfield Map
Toronto Pearson: Site Map
•1867 hectares
4
Toronto Pearson: Site Map
5
•DVP past Bathurst St.
•Front St. to St. Clair Ave.
Size compared to Downtown Toronto
6
Toronto Pearson –Canada’s Largest Airport
• 2015 Passenger Volume: 41 Million PAX.• Ranking in North America: 2nd busiest airport(in terms of international passengers, 25 Million PAX.)
• Total airside paved areas: approx. 5,838,000 m2 (concrete and asphalt)
• # of aircraft movements: approx. 443,000 annually• # of aircraft movements daily: over 1200 • Cargo processed: over 500,000 tonnes• Jobs created: over 40,000
7
Toronto Pearson –Runway Movements in 2015
RWY 06L-24R 2,956m (9,697 ft)
RWY 06R-24L 2,743 m (9,000 ft)
Terminal 1
Terminal 3
45,535 movementson 06R‐24L
2nd busiest airportin North America
8,208 movementson 15R‐33L
179,011 movementson 06L‐24R
15,953 movementson 15L‐33R
194,646 movementson 05‐23
RWY 05-23 3,389 m (11,120 ft)
RW
Y 15
R-3
3L
2,7
70 m
(9,0
88 ft
)
RW
Y 1
5L-3
3R
3,3
68 m
(11,
050
ft)
8
Toronto Pearson –Forecast Traffic Statistics in 2033
9
Challenges to Reduce Closure Duration to Accommodate Increased Traffic
• Maximizing work performed at night time and off‐peak hours to minimize Runway downtime
• Reducing closure duration by using state of the art technology for construction/investigation work such as high speed Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS)for pavement condition survey
• Maximizing pavement life through better pavement design and longer pavement life
10
Overview
Overview
This presentation will focus on the pros and cons of the pavement condition assessment method using high speed Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS) versus Traditional Visual Inspection System
12
Background Information
In 2000 with the assistance of Englobe, GTAA installed and implemented the PAVER™ PMS. This included dividing the TPIA pavement network into branches and sections, then populating the GTAA PAVER™ database with available construction history information, and maintenance and rehabilitation information from GTAA records. Pavement condition surveys of the airside pavements were carried out in accordance with ASTM D5340 procedures in order to determine the condition (Pavement Condition Index) of the TPIA airside facilities, and airside pavement network as a whole. The PAVER™ PMS was then used to prioritize pavement maintenance and rehabilitation needs (and budgets) in order to preserve and improve the airside pavement condition.
13
Background Information
Subsequently, in 2006 to 2009, in 2010 to 2012 and then again in 2013 to 2015, Englobe was retained by GTAA to carry out pavement condition surveys and update the pavement management system database for the airside pavement network.
In order to meet the increased traffic at Pearson and to minimize the closure requirement on the runways, the last pavement inspections of the runways were completed by using a high speed Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS) and validated by the Traditional Visual Inspection method.
14
Detailed Pavement ConditionSurveys
Database
Analysis Module(PAVER™)
PREDICTIVE MODEL
Prioritization
RestorationProgram
(theoretical)
Pavement StructuralHistory
Inventory
RestorationProgram(actual)
OperationalRestrictions &Constraints
Background Information
Feedback Loop
Technical Inputs
Output
Non AnalyticalInputs
Updates to Database
Output
Update
*FAMS – Facility Asset Management System
Pavement MaintenanceRequirements into
(FAMS*)
FieldVerification
AvailableFunding(Budget)
Typical Branch and Section layouts
16
Runways:
Taxiways:
Network Level Inspection Frequency and Size of Sample Unit per Section
AC PCC
Frequency Sample Size Frequency Sample Size
Runway CentrePortion, 30m 30% 450 + 180 m2 30% 20 + 8 slabs
Runway OuterPortion, 15m 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs
Taxiway(Main) 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs
Taxiway(Shoulder) 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs
Apron 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs
Roadway 20% 225 + 90 m2 20% 20 + 8 slabs
17
Note: ASTM D5340 recommends a min. of 10% of the sample units to be inspected at the Network Level
What does Engineering want to achieve from the PMS?
To effectively manage airside pavements in the most cost effective way over the projected life expectancy of the asset
To minimize operational downtime resulting from unplanned maintenance activities
To maximize the life expectancy of the pavement asset
To spend money wisely and where it is most critically needed through prioritization
How do we determine what needs to be done first?!A. Impact of Failure
Priorities are set from high to low in the following order:1. Runways2. Deicing Pads3. Taxiways4. Aprons5. Airside Roads
Priorities are further subdivided based on how critical the surface is to the FLOW of aircraft between Terminal and Runway ends (and deicing facility)
B. Likelihood of Failure
Priorities are based on the following criteria:1. Pavement Condition Index (PCI)2. Foreign Object Damage (FOD) potential3. Structural Condition Index (SCI)4. Pavement Roughness5. Field Validation
Prioritization
Prioritization of the Airside Pavement Restoration Program is determined based on “Impact of Failure” versus “Likelihood of Failure”. Projects are prioritized as L (green), M (yellow) or H (red). (Low, Moderate or High)
Review the Impact and Likelihood of Failure
1
1 2 3 4 5
3
2
4
5
Likelihood of Failure
Impact of Failure
Low
Low High
High
1
1 2 3 4 5
3
2
4
5
Likelihood of Failure
Impact of Failure
Low
Low High
High
L
M
H
21Pavements should be managed, not simply maintained!
Critical Pavement Condition
75% of Pavement Life
40%
D
rop
in
Qua
lity
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
Source: Paver™
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
AT THE BEST TIME
WITH THE BEST METHODS
WITH THE BEST COST/BENEFIT (LCC) RATIO
PAVEMENT REHABILITATION IS REQUIRED WHEN SATISFACTORY FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED THROUGH SYSTEMATIC PRESERVATION STRATEGIES AND/OR THE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE IS NOT ADEQUATE
WITHOUT PMSPA
VEM
ENT
CO
ND
ITIO
N I
ND
EX
WITH PMS
Years
100%
0%0
LIFESPAN OF PAVEMENT, YEARS
INTERVENTION LEVEL
22
GOODGOOD
VERY POOR
SATISFACTORY
FAIR
POOR
FAIR
POORSERIOUS
FAILED
DISTRESS QUANTITY
DISTRESS TYPE
PCI
DISTRESS SEVERITY
STANDARD PCIRATING SCALE
CUSTOM PCIRATING SCALE
100
85
70
55
40
25
10
0
100
70
55
0SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PAVER™ is state-of-the-art technology in Pavement Management
PAVER™ INSTALLED AT TORONTO PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BY ENGLOBE IN 2000
PAVER ™ (version 7.0)
23
24
TPIA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
ADEQUATE
MARGINAL
UNSATISFACTORY
25
Pavement Condition Surveys
ASTM D6433 Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys
The traditional pavement condition surveys are carried out ‘manually’, with all of the observable distresses within each sample unit identified by experienced pavement
engineers/technicians and the inspection results recorded directly into the database using tablets
ASTM D5340 Standard Test Method for Airport
Pavement Condition Index Surveys
26
Airside Pavement Assessment Ratings
RATING CATEGORY PCI FOD SCI Adequate (Green)
71 - 100 0 - 45 -
Marginal (Yellow)
56 - 70 46 - 60 -
Unsatisfactory (Red)
0 - 55 61 - 100 ≤ 80
The FOD Index is calculated using the PAVERTM software considering the PCI survey data for distresses that potentially contribute to FOD.
The Structural Condition Index (SCI) is calculated from the field distress condition survey data using the FAA criteria. The SCI is defined as the structural component of the PCI.
27
High‐Capacity Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing
HWD load/deflection testing to assess the structural adequacy of the airside pavements in areas where major load related distresses or load transfer
problems at joints are observed
28
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
The runway pavement condition surveys were carried out using Englobe’sstate-of-the-art pavement image collection system in conjunction with PAVER™
ImageInspector™
29
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
30
The runway inspections were completed by one driver and one operator using Englobe’s multifunction vehicle (LCMS)
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
Front Cameracontext view, 2D images
GPS Receiver withInertial Platform
LCMS(cracking, rutting and
macrotexture, 3D images)
Profilometer(IRI) DMI
Back Camerapavement view, 2D images
31
4 m
2.2 m
2 m
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis LCMS data collection parameters (resolution and depth range) were adjusted to
complete inspections at a maximum of 80 km/hr., covering the entire runway pavement surface in less than 4 hours (closure window)
SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS
32
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS
SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS
33
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS
34
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis During the inspections, one technician (driver) mainly drives the vehicle and
ensure transversal runs are properly aligned whereas a second technician (operator) manages all on-board systems (inertial profiler, LCMS, video
system, GPS and DMI)
35
The Data Collection Interface presents the GIS layout (shapefile) of the pavement to be surveyed along with a GPS trace of the vehicle.
The interface allows initializing, monitoring all systems and viewing the conventional 2D video images in real-time
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
36
Since the LCMS 3D images cover 4 m wide and some data overlap is required, 17 runs (3.5 m apart) were required to cover an entire 61 m wide runway.
Images were captured at 5 m intervals longitudinally
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
Runway 06L-24R (December 2014)
37
The GPS track of the vehicle (one dot per every
5 m travelled) was monitored in real-time to
ensure that the transversal runs are
properly aligned. In order to achieve this,
predefined survey lines were added to the runway
shapefile
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
Runway 15L-33R (December 2014)
38
The Runway PCI inspection data analyses were performed using the
ImageInspector™ software developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers team who also developed PAVER™. This
software, compatible with PAVER™, was designed to perform ASTM D5340
(Airport) or D6433 (Road) PCI inspections viewing multi-function vehicle images at
the office, instead of performing a traditional visual inspection on the field
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
39
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
40
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
An experienced technician selects which sample units are to be inspected (1/3 of the entire surface) and proceeds with the PCI inspection for a particular section
41
An example of a LCMS Range image showing sealed cracks and open cracks (Hairline: blue, Low Severity: Green, Medium Severity: Orange and High Severity: Red). The
information provided by the LCMS crack detection helps the technician to confirm the exact crack type (Alligator, Block, Joint Reflection, Longitudinal & Transverse, and
Slippage) and the severity taking the FOD potential into consideration
Runway 15L-33R (December 2014)
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
42 Runway 15L-33R (December 2014)
LCMS Intensity Image: shows surface contrast such as sealed cracks, pavement markings, patching, inset lights, maintenance access holes and
catchbasins
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
43 Runway 15L-33R (December 2014)
2D color context view from
conventional video camera
44 Runway 15L-33R (December 2014)
List Selector
ImageInspector™ Edit Inspection Tools
LCMS Range image with superimposed cracks detected by LCMS and final distresses from
technician analysis
45
A manual visual inspection was also
performed on the field in order to complete and validate the distresses identified though Image
Inspector
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
46
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
80
7074
72
96
82
69
7674
96
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Runway 05-23 Runway 06L- 24R Runway 06R-24L Runway 15L-33R Runway 15R-33L
Pave
men
t Con
ditio
n In
dex
(PC
I)
Automated Survey Manual Visual Verification
47
TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis
RUNWAY 06L‐24RAutomated Survey : December 2014Manual Visual Verification: May 2015
PCI FOD SCI PCI FOD-M SCI06L24R 06L24R-B1 66 34 100 64 36 7706L24R 06L24R-B2 69 31 100 65 35 8806L24R 06L24R-B3 77 23 100 76 24 10006L24R 06L24R-B4 74 26 100 69 31 8706L24R 06L24R-B5 70 30 99 71 29 10006L24R 06L24R-B6 73 27 100 74 26 10006L24R 06L24R-B7 59 41 99 58 42 10006L24R 06L24R-B8 59 41 100 56 44 8806L24R 06L24R-B9 80 20 100 85 15 100
Branch ID Section ID Automated Survey Manual Visual Verification
48
Findings and Conclusions [1]
An automated survey methodology (LCMS acquisition parameters, survey location and alignment using GPS) was developed. This methodology allows to inspect a runway (61 m wide) in a short period of time (approximately 2 to 3 hours);
The impact to TPIA Operations (closures) is minimized, however this automated pavement inspection methodology still requires a lot of ‘office’ analysis, along with a calibration/verification by manual inspection;
The methodology presented was used for asphalt concrete surfaced pavements only. Concrete pavements can not be analyzed with the ImageInspector™ software yet. More research is required in this area;
49
Findings and Conclusions [2]Cracking (using LCMS algorithms)
1 mm cracks: most cracks were not detected;2 mm cracks: some cracks were detected, detection rate varied based on surface texture;3 mm cracks and over: most were detected;Sealed cracks: less than 50 percent were automatically detected;Crack Type (alligator, block, joint reflection, longitudinal and transverse and slippage cracking) were not identified automatically by LCMS as per ASTM Standard. This task was completed by pavement technician in the office.
Crack Severity is measured by LCMS based on the “Full width at half Maximum” technique (crack width at mid-depth). This severity does not necessarily match the ASTM D5340 Standard (which also take FOD potential into consideration). A calibration would be necessary to obtain a better match between LCMS crack severity and manual visual inspection severity. Also care must be taken for opened sealed cracks that are recorded by LCMS as some of them might need to be re-rated as medium due to the crack sealant quality.
50
Findings and Conclusions [3]Rutting is measured using LCMS libraries over the survey runs in the central portion of the runway (traffic area). A rutting table is computed which allow the technician to easily identify this distress within ImageInspector™;Other Distresses:
Other distresses are identified (in the office) using conventional video and LCMS images. Some distresses are very obvious and easy to identify (patching, bleeding, jet blast erosion, oil spillage), however, others (corrugation, depression, polished aggregate, ravelling, shoving, swelling, weathering) are challenging especially if their severity is low;Weathering was difficult to identify and classify by simple looking at the LCMSimages;
Future R&D could lead to automatic identification of these other distresses. For instance the combination of roughness, ravelling and macrotexture data could be used to identify some of these distresses and their severity as per ASTM D5340.
2016 SWIFT Conference‐CAPTG WorkshopTHANK YOU!