how construction history may enhance a pavement...

How construction history may enhance a pavement management system

Monday, April 9, 20202:00-3:30 PM ET

Livetweet@NASEMTRB #TRBWebinar

The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and

requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program.

Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A

certificate of completion will be issued to participants that have registered

and attended the entire session. As such, it does not include content that

may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.

Learning Objectives

At the end of this webinar, you will be able to:

• Provide examples to assist agencies with integrating pavement construction history into a pavement management system

• Illustrate different ways to capture maintenance and construction history data

• Demonstrate why construction history is critically important to pavement management

PDH Certificate Information• This webinar is valued at 1.5 Professional Development

Hours (PDH)• Instructions on retrieving your certificate will be found in

your webinar reminder and follow-up emails• You must register and attend as an individual to receive a

PDH certificate• Certificates of Completion will be issued only to individuals

who register for and attend the entire webinar session –this includes Q&A

• TRB will report your hours within one week• Questions? Contact Reggie Gillum at [email protected]

Using Construction and Maintenance History in a Pavement Management System:

Washington State DOT Experience

David R. Luhr, PhD PEretired, Washington State DOT

Construction & Maintenance data provide essential information regarding the history of the pavement asset.

- What type of pavement structure?- What type of materials?- What is pavement foundation/base/subbase?- When was original construction, or reconstruction, (and cost)?- When were surface renewals/rehabs (and costs)?- When was maintenance performed (and costs)?

All of these factors affect the evaluation of pavement performance over time.

Why are Construction & Maintenance Data Important for Pavement Management?

- Washington State Pavement Management System (WSPMS) has detailed database that has been consistent since 1970s

- Continued development of improved methods to collect and import data

- Ability to merge data from different sources

- Use of robust Location Referencing System (LRS)

How Has WSDOT Accomplished This?

Location ReferencingSRMP(State Route Mile Post)–physical referenceARM (Adjustable Route Mile)–changes over time

WSPMS Data Sources

PINWIN

PhaseTEIS Version and $

CPMS/TEIS

ConfigurationContractTraffic

LocationClassification

Roadway Data Mart

DistressSensorImagery

P1 Prioritization Info

WSPMS Data Store

User Defined SegmentsCommentsP1 Plans

Cores

WSPMS Users

Extra Contract DatesContract Costs

Construction Data Mart

InspectionsRepairs

Maintenance(HATS)

WSPMS Data Sources for Construction and Maintenance

ConfigurationContractTraffic

LocationClassification

Roadway Data Mart

Extra Contract DatesContract Costs

Construction Data Mart

InspectionsRepairs

Maintenance(HATS)

WSDOT Pavement Network18,500 Lane-Miles, $15 B Replacement Cost

Asphalt 49%Chip

Seal38%

Concrete13%

Statewide Lane Miles

Cost-Effectiveness of Flexible Pavement Treatments

Treatment Added Life(Years)

Typical Construction Cost ($/lane-

mile)

Typical AnnualCost ($/lane-

mile/year)

Maintenance/Preservation

2 – 4 years $5,000 $1,500

Chip Seal Resurfacing

7 – 10 years $45,000 $7,000

AsphaltResurfacing

11 – 18 years $250,000 $19,000

Pavement Variability

• Value from Pavement Management comes from making good decisions.

• In order to make good decisions for the future, we need valuable information of how pavements performed in the past (to help us learn from our data).

• Construction and maintenance data are difficult to acquire, but necessary to understand the performance of the past.

Conclusions

Pavement As-Built Data Management at Caltrans

Zhongren Wang, PhD, PE, TEChief, Office of Pavement Management

Pavement Program, Division of Maintenance, California Department of Transportation

April 9, 2020

Outline

As-built data introduction

As-built data governance Definition,

QC/QA,

Storage, and

Dissemination

Data mining

Summary

2TRB Webinar on As-Built Data

Pavement As-Built Data Sources

Databases Construction database

Office of Engineer’s database

Project development database—PRSM

California Transportation Commission (CTC) update

Types of funding programs SHOPP (state highway operation and protection program)—Non-Capacity Adding

STIP (State Transportation Improvement Program) —Capacity Adding

State-force—maintenance

Director Order (DO)—emergency projects


As-Built Data Fields in PaveM


As-Built Maintenance Process


Manual Data Entry

QC/QA outside of PaveM

Uploading into PaveM and QC/QA again

Segmentation, Modeling, Validation, and Mining

Dissemination: H-Chart


https://www.agileassets.com/case-studies/streamlining-pavement-project-reviews-through-visualization/

https://www.agileassets.com/case-studies/streamlining-pavement-project-reviews-through-visualization/

Interactive Maps


http://svgcesridvweb.ct.dot.ca.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=94523d70e96f4ab7bc732370cc27305c.

http://svgcesridvweb.ct.dot.ca.gov/arcgis/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=94523d70e96f4ab7bc732370cc27305c

Interactive Maps




1983-2017 35-year Studied


Treatment Frequency1983-2017 35-Year History


Top 10 >85% lane miles

35-Year Lane Miles (PCC)


35-Year Lane Miles (AC)


Network IRI Performance


Lane Miles: AC vs. PCC


Asphalt

Treatment

Strategy and

Budget Group

AC Lane

Miles

Asphalt

Pavement

Coverage

Ratio

PCC

Lane

Miles

Concrete

Pavement

Coverage

Ratio

Both AC

and PCC

Lane Miles

Both AC and

PCC

Coverage

Ratio

Preventive

Maintenance 45268 3.5% 112 0.0% 45380 2.6%

Corrective

Maintenance 45555 3.5% 14801 3.3% 60356 3.4%

CAPM 31425 2.4% 20096 4.4% 51521 2.9%

Rehab 36865 2.8% 22027 4.8% 58892 3.4%

Grand Total 159114 12.3% 57036 12.5% 216150 12.4%

Costs: AC vs. PCC


Treatment and Budget

Category

Total Costs,

million $

Unit Cost,

$/Lane Mile

Total Costs,

million $

Unit Cost,

$/Lane Mile

PM $ 2,858 $ 63,137 $ 10 $85,000

CM $ 11,370 $ 249,584 $ 559 $37,776

HM $ 14,228 $ 156,655 $ 569 $38,131

CAPM $ 10,994 $ 349,860 $ 4,463 $222,082

Rehab $ 23,721 $ 643,450 $ 28,442 $1,291,236

SHOPP $ 34,715 $ 508,349 $ 32,905 $781,165

Grand Total $ 48,943 $ 307,597 $ 33,474 $586,886

HM:SHOPP Ratio 29:71 2:98

CAPM:Rehab Ratio 32:68 14:86

PCC PavementAC Pavement

Treatment and Budget

Category

Total Costs,

million $

Unit Cost,

$/Lane Mile

Total Costs,

million $

Unit Cost,

$/Lane Mile

PM $ 2,858 $ 63,137 $ 10 $85,000

CM $ 11,370 $ 249,584 $ 559 $37,776

HM $ 14,228 $ 156,655 $ 569 $38,131

CAPM $ 10,994 $ 349,860 $ 4,463 $222,082

Rehab $ 23,721 $ 643,450 $ 28,442 $1,291,236

SHOPP $ 34,715 $ 508,349 $ 32,905 $781,165

Grand Total $ 48,943 $ 307,597 $ 33,474 $586,886

HM:SHOPP Ratio 29:71 2:98

CAPM:Rehab Ratio 32:68 14:86

PCC PavementAC Pavement

Summary

Manual data entry to maintain and QC/QA in CA PaveM

Interactive maps help better visualize and disseminate data

Data mining shows the top 10 treatments over the past 35 years. Chip seal is #1.

AC and PCC show similar network coverage ratio as 12.3% per year

PCC is almost twice as expensive to upkeep


Kansas DOT Experience Integrating Pavement

Construction History into PMSApril 9, 2020 – webinar

Rick Miller

Photo from Dustrol, Inc.

Illustrate capturing construction and maintenance history data

• Completed Rehab Forms (CRF) – the Kansas method including • Missing history (short and long)• Accuracy and granularity

• location• action• timing

• And through all of these I will talk about how much more you could do if your needs warrant it (aka the gap between project delivery and Asset Management data needs)

PMS needs for Construction History Data

• Action (1 ½” Overlay)• Materials (BM-1T)• On route (U-75)

• from (cmp 12.5)• to (cmp 21.3)

• Open to traffic date (8/30/2018)

CRF Sample 1 – A host project

CRF

Sam

ple2

Wha

t goe

s whe

re

CRF

Sam

ple

3 –

Mor

e W

hat

List of Planned Projects

Convert to Planned Action,

Location, and MOYYYY

Field Entry of Completed Rehab

Form Updating and Adding Date

Receipt of CRF and check against original planned

data

Store updated project data in

appropriate PMS records

The spiral of C&M project data and PMS

Simple process that meets PMS needs

• Apply location to nominally 1 mile segments, so close is good• Apply actions to 1 mile segments so predominant is enough• Some materials info• Date Open to Unrestricted Traffic

• The reports are completed by Field Inspectors, so it is coming from very close to the job

A few weaknesses

• Field Folks are sometimes reluctant to correct us• Sometimes struggle with action codes (so many)• Sometimes don’t report exceptions (C&G, different original surface,…)• Sometimes don’t add projects we missed

• Short• Maintenance• Fubar

Other users of C&M data from PMSConstruction and Maintenance HistoryCounty 4, US-281, CMP 1.310 – 5.816 Actions view of Pavement Sandwich• Action 3 – KA-3829-01 2016

• Mod. Slurry Seal 0.4• Action 2 – K – 9772-01 2005

• OL 1 BM1T• SR 1

• Action 1 – K -3377-02 1996• HMA/S 1.5 BM2A• HMA/B 6.5 BM2C

• Action 0 – Major Grading 1996Major Grading 1996

HMA/B 6.5” BM2C 1996

HMA/S 1.5 BM2A 1996

Surface Recycle 1.0 2005HMA 1.0 BM1T 2005

MSS 0.4 2016

Other users of C&M data from PMS

Construction and Maintenance History Layers view of Pavement Sandwich• Action 3 – KA-3829-01 2016

• Mod. Slurry Seal 0.4• Action 2 – K – 9772-01 2005

• SR 1• OL 1 BM1T

• Action 1 – K -3377-02 1996• HMA/S 1.5 BM2A• HMA/B 6.5 BM2C

• Action 0 – Major Grading 1996Major Grading 1996

HMA/B 6.5 BM2C 1996

HMA/S 0.5 BM2A 1996

Surface Recycle (BM2A) 1.0 2005HMA 1.0 BM1T 2005

MSS 0.4 2016

Other users of C&M data from PMS

Actions view of Pavement Sandwich Layers view of Pavement Sandwich

Major Grading 1996

HMA/B 6.5 BM2C 1996

HMA/S 0.5 BM2A 1996

Surface Recycle (BM2A) 1.0 2005HMA 1.0 BM1T 2005

MSS 0.4 2016

Major Grading 1996

HMA/B 6.5” BM2C 1996

HMA/S 1.5 BM2A 1996

Surface Recycle 1.0 2005HMA 1.0 BM1T 2005

Last Slide….

• KDOT’s Completed Rehab Form has collected C&M data for years• What, Where, and When are generally known for highway pavement

actions over that 30+ year period• While the CRF meets our needs, we are expanding it for PMS and

other users• Integrating Systems might help fill the gaps, but it isn’t easy (but we

can start)

Use of Historic Paving Data City and County of Denver

PerspectivePat Kennedy, PE Engineering ManagerDenver Department of Transportation and Infrastructure

General Uses

Historic recordCost/benefit analysisTreatment lifeNetwork condition trendTreatment ResetsDeterioration models

Treatment Resets

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20

Pave

men

t Con

ditio

n In

dex

Pavement Age (years)

PCI Reset

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20

Pave

men

t Con

ditio

n In

dex


PCI Reset

Treatment Resets

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35

Appa

rent

Age

PCI

Inverse Deterioration Curve

Treatment Resets

Actual PCI Þ Apparent AgeTreatment Year Þ Actual AgeDelta Þ Starting Age Þ Reset PCI

2017 PCI 78 Þ App Age 5 yrsTreatment Year 2014 Þ Act Age 3 yrs5 – 3 = 2 yr DeltaReset PCI 92

02468

101214161820

100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35

Appa

rent

Age

PCI

Inverse Deterioration Curve

0102030405060708090

100

0 5 10 15 20

PCI


PCI

Treatment ResetsAction Class 2010 Reset 2019 reset

2" M&O ART 92 933" M&O ART 93 94

SMA M&O ART 95 95M&O COL 93 89M&O LOC 94 91HIPR ART 91 91HIPR COL 92 92HIPR LOC 93 92

Chip Seal ART -- --Chip Seal COL 88 --Chip Seal LOC 88 82

Deterioration Model

Can we validate the existing deterioration models in the asset management system?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Cond

ition

Inde

x

Age

Typical Deterioration Curve

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Cond

ition

Inde

x

Age

Typical Deterioration Curve

Deterioration Model-Local

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 5 10 15 20 25

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25


0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Deterioration Models

Deterioration Model-Arterial

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Conclusions

• Many uses for historic data• The two examples shown highlight how Denver has used

historic data to validate our Asset Management • Gives Denver confidence in the predictive models we use for

long range planning and programing

Today’s Panelists• Linda Pierce, [email protected]• David Luhr,

[email protected]• Zhongren Wang,

[email protected]• Rick Miller, [email protected]• Pat Kennedy,

[email protected]

Get Involved with TRB• Getting involved is free!• Join a Standing Committee

(http://bit.ly/TRBstandingcommittee)• Become a Friend of a Committee

(http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees)– Networking opportunities– May provide a path to become a

Standing Committee member• Sponsoring Committee: AFD10• For more information: www.mytrb.org

– Create your account– Update your profile

@NASEMTRB

@NASEMTRB

Transportation Research Board

#TRB100

how construction history may enhance a pavement...

Documents