TRANSPORTATION
RESEARCH
CIRCULAR

Number E-C004, February 1999

REPORT ON APT DATA SURVEY

JUNE 1998
Fred Hugo, André de Fortier Smit, and Paige Warren
Center for Transportation Research
University of Texas at Austin, Texas

In January 1997 the Task Force Committee on Full-Scale Accelerated Pavement Testing (APT), Group 2, Section B, A2B52 (hereinafter Committee), determined to achieve greater compatibility between the results obtained from various APT studies. Dr. Frederick Hugo, P.E., collected data from the various APT users in preparation for a debate on the issue. This effort was to build on a forum discussion held on July 9, 1996, at the CSIR Conference Center in Pretoria, South Africa. Members of the South African Heavy Vehicle Simulator, the Texas Mobile Loading Simulator, the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Technical Research Centre in Finland, and The Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute in Sweden attended this meeting. Other attendees included delegates from the National and Provincial South African Departments of Transport, the South African roads industry, some international pavement engineering specialists, and the chairman of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Committee on APT. Notes on the aforementioned proceedings, drafted by Frederik Christoffel Rust and Wynand Jacobus van der Merwe Steyn, were used as a basis for the preparation of this document. The authors acknowledge this previous work and point out that this text was used whenever it was appropriate and feasible, in the interest of achieving the greatest degree of support with the cooperative effort.

In fall 1997 two separate surveys were distributed to each member of the Committee: a general survey that attempted to determine and summarize the current procedures followed with regard to APT programs--especially with regard to the data collection procedures of these programs; and a second survey (in Excel format) that detailed the APT program itself. This survey collected such data as loading, instrumentation, and test pavement dimensions.

We distinguish between the types of information collected. While it is unlikely and may even be undesirable that the APT programs themselves are standardized, it is necessary to know the details of the programs to understand the results obtained by the programs.

In summary, the objectives of the surveys were (a) to describe APT programs and (b) to report on the data collection methods of these programs.

This document summarizes nine APT programs and the data collection efforts of these programs. The particular programs were chosen for presentation in this document because detailed surveys were completed or published documents were available. The programs chosen are thought to provide a reasonable overview of not only the standard data collection practices but also the gaps in these standards. The programs are as follows:

This report identifies data that are being, or need to be, recorded in APT programs. It also addresses gaps in the survey itself with the inclusion of comments by survey respondents and the authors. Readers should therefore be aware that some issues need further attention. These will probably be considered by the Committee and APT respondents in due course.

PART 1. SURVEY RESULTS

1.1 APT Programs and Related Loading Logs

Tables 1.1 and 1.2 present the APT information gathered from the surveys. The aspects of the APT programs presented are not likely to be standardized. For example, it is probably not feasible to try to standardize loading. However, it is feasible to standardize the data concerning loading.

TABLE 1.1 Physical Configuration and Loading Log
APT
Program
Test
Section
(m x m)
Reference Grid Wheel
System
Suspension Tire
.. Pressure
(kPa)
TxMLS 12 x 3 1.5 m x 1.5 m over entire section 6 bogies, 12 axles
dual tires
hydraulically/mechanically loaded
air spring, multileaf spring 690
SA HVS 8 x 1 0.5 m x 1.0 m
over entire
section
half axle
single or dual tires
hydraulically loaded
none 500-690
1450 on
airfields
CALHVS 8 x 1 0.5 m x 1.0 m
over entire
section
half axle
single or dual tire hydraulically loaded
none 690
CRREL 6 x 0.9
(6 windows)
  single axle
dual wheel
none 690
LINTRACK 16 x 4 0.4 m x 0.6 m
blocks over
section
10.8 x 2.4 m
free rolling
single or dual tire
hydraulically loaded
none 500-1100
ALF/AUSTR 12 x 1.4   half axle
single or dual wheel
gravity loaded
airbag 690
(can be varied)
RTM 9 x 2.5   single or dual wheel   500-800
LCPC Circular 40 m in diameter 8 m measured at the outer edge of the radius single or tandem axle
single or dual wheel
pneumatic Up to 850
CEDEX 20 x 8 1 m x 1.25 m half axle on wishbone with dual tires pneumatic 830

 

TABLE 1.2 Physical Configuration and Loading Log Continued
APT
Program
Load
(kN)
Speed
(km/h)
Speed Variability During
Trafficking
Lateral Wander
TxMLS 75
(25% overload option)
12-20 +/- 1.5 km/h 1.04 m/wheel set
stepped 75-mm intervals
SA HVS 20-200 14   1.5 m stepped
100-mm intervals
CALHVS 40-100 10   1.0 m stepped
40 mm intervals
CRREL 41-205 creep to 13   1 m
LINTRACK 15-100 up to 20   1.5 m normal distribution stepped
10-mm intervals
ALF/AUSTR 40-100 up to 20   1 m or 1.4 m
(normal distribution pattern)
RTM 20-60 18    
LCPC 40-140 30-100   1 m for dual wheel
0.75 m for single wide wheels
CEDEX 64 30-45
50 (max)
Constant within 1% 1.3 m

1.2 Structural Integrity Testing, Response, and Instrumentation

The survey results presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2 indicate general trends regarding instrumentation and testing.

TABLE 2.1 Structural Integrity Testing, Response, and Instrumentation

APT Program FWD RSD Benkelman
Beam
MDD Strain Gauges Pressure Cells
TxMLS
X
   
Xa
Xd
Xd
SA HVS
X
X
 
Xb
X
 
CALHVS
X
X
 
Xc
X
 
CRREL        
X
 
LINTRACK
X
     
X
X
ALF/AUSTR
X
 
X
 
X
X
RTM
X
     
X
 
LCPC
Xf
 
X
Xe
X
X
CEDEX
X
X
X
Xe
X
X

a. Three depths.

b Up to six depths.

c Up to seven depths.

d Only with specially prepared test sections.

e Measures surface relative to another depth.

f Supplemented by Dynaplaque falling weight on an array of springs.

FWD: falling weight deflectometer; RSD: road surface deflectometer (quasi-electronic Benkelman beam); MDD: multidepth deflectometer.

TABLE 2.2 Structural Integrity Testing, Response, and Instrumentation Continued

APT Program SASW SPA GPR DCP WIMS

TxMLS

X

X

X

X

X

SA HVS

 

 

 

X

 

CALHVS

 

 

 

 

 

CRREL

 

 

 

 

 

LINTRACK

 

 

 

 

 

ALF/AUSTR

 

 

 

 

 

RTM

 

 

 

 

 

LCPC

 

 

 

 

 

CEDEX

 

 

X

 

X

SASW: spectral analysis of surface waves; SPA: seismic pavement analyser; GPR: ground penetrating radar; DCP: dynamic cone penetrometer; WIMS: weigh-in-motion systems.

1.3 Pavement Surveillance Log

This section includes information gathered regarding rutting and cracking.

1.3.1 Deformation

A variety of profilometers are used to measure both transverse and longitudinal deformation, as shown in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 Profilometers

APT Program

Type of Profilometer

Resolution (mm)

TxMLS

infrared (specially constructed)

0.2

SA HVS

laser

0.05

CALHVS

laser

0.05

CRREL

laser

0.05

LINTRACK

sliding straight edge

0.1

ALF/AUSTR

dipstick

0.1

RTM

digital (specially constructed)

 

LCPC

laser

 

CEDEX

laser

 

1.3.1.1 Transverse Profiles   For transverse profiles, the most common spacing between data points is 9 to 10 mm and the most common spacing between profiles is 0.5 m. In Texas, where longitudinal profiles are measured, the transverse profile is taken at 1.5-m intervals. LCPC take 5 profiles per section at 5-m intervals along the outside edge of the trafficked circle. CEDEX have various parameters used to calculate the deterioration and rate of deterioration during testing.

1.3.1.2 Longitudinal Profiles There is insufficient information regarding longitudinal profiles. The TxMLS collects data at 150-mm intervals and uses these data to calculate a pseudo PSI-value. CEDEX uses intervals of 1 m. The spacing between data points, as well as the locations of the profile measurements of various programs, needs to be examined.

1.3.2 Cracking

Only the TxMLS and LINTRACK programs report on attempts to determine the severity of the cracking by categorizing the cracks by width. The TxMLS program proposes the use of the categories < 1 mm, 1-3 mm, 3-6 mm, and > 6 mm; LINTRACK uses the categories < 3 mm, 3-20 mm, and > 20 mm. LINTRACK also records cracks in terms of depth: < 2 mm, 2–10 mm, or > 10 mm.

In addition, only the TxMLS, SA HVS, CRREL, and ALF/AUSTR reported determining (by visual inspection) and recording bleeding and raveling. Table 4 summarizes the APT program information regarding crack measurement.

TABLE 4 Crack Measurement

APT Program Method of Data Collection Record Length of Cracks
(m/m2)
Record % Cracked
by Grid Size
(mm x mm)

TxMLS

visual inspection, trace, digitize

X

100 x 100

SA HVS

trace, photograph, digitize

X

50 x 50

CALHVS

trace, photograph, digitize

X

*

CRREL

trace, photograph, digitize

X

50 x 50

LINTRACK

visual inspection

X

100 x 100

ALF/AUSTR

trace, photograph, digitize

X

 

RTM

visual inspection

 

 

LCPC

visual inspection

Xa

*

CEDEX

visual inspection,
photograph, digitize

Xb

250 x 250

*Program indicates recording percent cracked but grid size information was not available.

a Also measure severity and extent. Extent = cracked length/total length.

b Also measure the extent and gravity (different weights as a function of the type of crack) of cracking.

1.4 Weather

Table 5 lists the programs that report collecting pavement temperatures at various depths, depending on the pavement structure. The programs also report collecting air temperature as well as rainfall when appropriate (some testing facilities are located indoors and some have climate control capabilities). The time interval at which this information is collected varies considerably, as shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5 Climatic Data Collection Time Intervals

APT Program

Collection Time Intervals

Pavement Temperature

Air Temperature

Rainfall

TxMLS

15 min

15 min

daily (also NCDC data)

SA HVS

 

 

 

CALHVSa

1 h during operation

 

daily (NWS data)

CRREL

1 h

1 h

indoor

LINTRACK

 

 

covered during testing

ALF/AUSTR

15 min

daily (max and min)

daily

RTM

daily

 

 

LCPC

1 h

1 h

1 h

CEDEX

min 3 times per day

3 times per day

sheltered

a Currently indoors only.

NCDC: National Climatic Data Center Service; NWS: National Weather Service.

PART 2. STANDARD VARIABLES TO BE RECORDED BY APT PROGRAMS

A thorough record of the logistical data recorded during APT is essential for relating the test results to climatic regions, seasons, actual traffic, and environmental changes. The following data should be recorded during testing.

2.1 General Information: Physical Configuration and Logistical Data

  • Names of the staff involved in the test;
  • Road number or location description (where tests are conducted on existing highways);
  • Position on the road (in terms of distance beacons or other relevant parameters that are permanent features used in a geographic information system);
  • Lane identification (inner/outer wheel track of slow/fast lane);
  • Dimensions of the test section (length and width);
  • Longitudinal and transverse crossfall or gradient;
  • APT machine used (in terms of type of machine and serial number, if relevant);
  • Start and finish dates;
  • Type of trafficking mode used (e.g., uni-directional/bi-directional, channelized/wandering), together with details of the settings for obtaining the specific mode (where applicable);
  • Trafficking speed and variability during trafficking;
  • Trafficking cycles per day (e.g., 12-h trafficking with 12-h resting periods);
  • Trafficking cycles per week (e.g., 5 days of trafficking with 2-day stoppages);
  • Trafficking wheel load and tire inflation pressure;
  • Measurement wheel load and tire inflation pressure (if not equal to trafficking wheel load);
  • Wheel speed during measurements;
  • Stoppages for repair or major maintenance;
  • Tire type used (e.g., single/dual cross-ply/radial, automobile/aircraft);
  • Contact stress pattern (if available);
  • Pavement structure;
  • Depth of water table and its variation during the test(s) with a description of methodology used;
  • Material classification data as obtained through laboratory tests for the entire relevant pavement layers;
  • Instruments used, and reference to their description and specification for use;
  • Layout of positions on or in the pavement where instruments are placed;
  • Environmental conditions (e.g., heated or cooled, water artificially applied or dry-tested), including pavement environmental parameters during the test (e.g., layer temperature and moisture content);
  • Test program used;
  • Extraordinary circumstances that might affect the outcome of the test;
  • General weather conditions; and
  • Number of load applications to date.

2.2 Surface Deflection Data

Surface deflection basins should be recorded at selected positions (transverse or longitudinal) on the test section with either a road surface deflectometer or a falling weight deflectometer, or both. In addition to the "general" data discussed above, the following should be recorded:

  • Instrument used, with reference to description and specification for use;
  • Resolution of the instrument used;
  • Positional relation between the load applied and the measuring point;
  • Units in which the measurement was made;
  • Distance between points on the deflection bowl;
  • Test wheel load, tire inflation pressure, and temperature at which the measurement was made;
  • Positions at which the measurements were made;
  • Number of repetitions of the same measurement, and
  • Total number of measurements on the test section.

2.3 Elastic Transient Deflection and Permanent Deformation Data

Elastic transient deflection and permanent deformation can be measured at predetermined depths by using linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) instruments (e.g., a device such as the multidepth deflectometer. The following should be recorded:

  • Number and geometric positions of the LVDTs;
  • Depths at which LVDTs were installed;
  • Resolution of the LVDTs;
  • Positional relation between the load applied and the measuring point;
  • Units in which the measurement was made;
  • Distance between points on the deflection bowl;
  • Test wheel load, tire pressure, and temperature at which the measurement was made;
  • Geometric positions at which measurements were made;
  • Number of repetitions of the same measurement;
  • Total number of measurements on the test section;
  • Response measurements in terms of strains or loads (stresses where possible or applicable); and
  • Any movement relative to a permanent immovable fixed benchmark, such as a permanent anchor buried 4 m deep.

2.4 Strain Gauges and Load Cells

Strain gauges and load cells can be used to measure pavement response under traffic loading. These may be installed during or after construction of the pavement. These devices are usually installed for special test sections and are generally not used for testing of in-service highways, with the exception of weigh-in-motion devices, which may be installed postconstruction. Response-measuring devices, such as strain gauges on axles, may also be installed on the APT machinery. The following should be recorded:

  • Number and geometric positions of the response-measuring device(s);
  • Depths at which response-measuring devices were installed;
  • Positional relation between the load applied and the measuring point;
  • Three-dimensional orientation of the installed device;
  • Resolution of the device;
  • Units in which the measurement was made;
  • Test wheel load, tire pressure, and temperature at which the measurement was made;
  • Geometric positions at which the measurements were made;
  • Number of repetitions of the same measurement; and
  • Total number of measurements on the test section.

2.5 Visual Information During Testing

The recording of visual information (degree and extent) is essential for obtaining the maximum benefit from APT. It may include some or all of the following:

  • Transverse rutting;
  • Longitudinal deformation;
  • Surface crack growth;
  • Bleeding of the surface;
  • Raveling;
  • Pumping;
  • Potholing; and
  • Surface wear.

Photographs may also be taken from preset fixed positions. The surface distress (cracking, bleeding, etc.) can be digitized to allow ease of data processing and exchange.

2.6 Surface Rutting Data (Transverse Profiles)

A cross section of surface rutting should be recorded at selected positions on the test section. The distance between readings on the cross section should be short enough to capture critical changes in the profile (less than 10 mm). The following should be recorded:

  • Instrument used, with reference to description (infrared, laser, dipstick, other) and specification for use;
  • Resolution of the instrument;
  • Units in which the measurement was made;
  • Distance between points on the cross-profile;
  • Positions at which the measurements were made;
  • Number of repetitions of the same measurement or the closure error if a topographic survey is used; and
  • Total number of measurements on the test section.

2.7 Longitudinal Profile (Serviceability)

A longitudinal section in the wheelpath should be recorded at selected positions on the test section. The distance between readings on the longitudinal section should be short enough to capture critical changes (normally 150 mm). The following should be recorded:

  • Instrument used, with reference to description (infrared, laser, dipstick, other) and specification for use;
  • Resolution of the instrument;
  • Units in which the measurement was made;
  • Distance between points on the longitudinal profile;
  • Positions at which the measurements were made;
  • Number of repetitions of the same measurement or the closure error if a topographic survey is used; and
  • Total number of measurements on the test section.

2.8 Weather

The following weather data should be recorded:

  • Ambient air temperature (every 15 min or other appropriate time intervals);
  • Test-section temperature, measured by using thermocouples (every 15 min or other appropriate time intervals); and
  • Rainfall (daily).

2.9 Laboratory Testing

In characterizing the properties of the pavement materials, the following standard laboratory tests are typically performed and recorded:

Seals

  • Aggregate hardness
  • Binder type
  • Aging index
  • Description of the seal type and general condition

Asphalt (asphaltic mix)

  • Grading
  • Binder type and content
  • Volumetric properties
  • Indirect tensile strength
  • Resilient modulus
  • Dynamic creep modulus
  • Superpave tests, such as dynamic shear rheometer, simple shear, frequency sweep, etc.
  • Fatigue testing of beams or briquettes

Granular materials

  • Grading
  • Atterberg limits
  • Cohesion and internal friction (where applicable)
  • CBR

Material classification

  • Resilient modulus
  • Moisture/density relationship
  • Cemented materials
  • Unconfined compression strength (UCS)
  • Material classification
  • Type and content of stabilizer

Soils

  • Grading
  • Atterberg limits
  • Cohesion and internal friction
  • CBR

PART 3. VARIABLES OR ITEMS NOT COVERED IN THE SURVEY

The foregoing information needs to be reviewed and further critiqued by the Committee, APT respondents, and users. In addition the following items need further attention. Some items are simply requests for more information about APT programs and their data collection methods. Other items address the scope of this standardization effort.

  • In measuring rutting, the length of the straight edge with which the ruts are being either measured or calculated needs to be ascertained. For example, the TxMLS uses the transverse profilometer data to calculate rut depth. Data covering a 1.2-m section is used to calculate the rut depth (or the raised upheaval) for each wheel path. The survey did not provide this important information.
  • One survey respondent suggested gathering more information about the database structures. He suggests obtaining the following information: (a) whether the database management is manual or computerized; (b) if computerized, then what type of system (MAC, PC, other); and (c) the name of the computer software. The Committee needs to establish whether and to what extent the standardization effort will include database management.
  • Details regarding the diagnostic trenching procedures and the data collection efforts should be provided.
  • Details regarding testing of concrete pavements still need to be provided.
  • Details regarding longitudinal profiles still need to be provided. The spacing between data points, as well as the locations of the profile measurements of various programs, needs to be examined.
  • The importance of material testing and characterization cannot be overemphasized. APT users need to understand the important link between these and performance under APT trafficking.

 

SURVEY RESPONDENTS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT

  1. Australian Accelerated Loading Facility (ALF/AUSTR), Jim Johnson-Clarke
  2. Californian Heavy Vehicle Simulator (CALHVS), Carl Monismith
  3. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), Vincent Janoo
  4. Danish Road Testing Machine (RTM), Per Ullidtz
  5. Dutch Linear Tracking Apparatus (LINTRACK), André Molenaar
  6. Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussees, Bouguenais, France (LCPC), Jean-Francois Corté
  7. South African Heavy Vehicle Simulator (SA HVS), Chris Rust
  8. Spanish Centro De Estudios De Carreteras test facility (CEDEX), Aurelio Ruiz
  9. Texas Mobile Load Simulator (TxMLS), Fred Hugo

 

OTHER RESPONDENTS FROM WHOM INFORMATION WAS ALSO OBTAINED

  • Federal Highway Administration (LTPP), Cheryl Richter
  • Institute for Recyclable Materials Louisiana (IRM), John Metcalf
  • Minnesota Department of Transportation, (MnRoad), George Cochran
  • Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT), Matti Huhtala

 

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

  • Groenendijk, J., et al., Results of the LINTRACK Performance Tests on a Full-Depth Asphalt Pavement, Paper 970393 for 1997 Annual TRB Meeting, January 1997.
  • Dynatest Consulting, Inc., University of California Berkeley, Division of Roads and Transport Technology CSIR, Test Plan for CALHVSI, University of California, Berkeley, May 1995.
  • Hannon, J., et al., Test Plan for CALHVS1, University of California, Berkeley, May 1995.
  • Harvey, J., et al., CAL/APT Program: Test Results from Accelerated Pavement Test on Pavement Structure Containing Asphalt-Treated Permeable Base (ATPB)-Section 500RF, University of California, Berkeley, January 1997.
  • Hines, M., Evaluation and Analysis of LCPC Test Results, Preprint from the Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists, Boston, MA, March 1998.
  • Hugo, F., N. K. James Lee, Tom Scullion, Kenneth Fults, and Tony Visser, A Rational Evaluation of Pavement Performance Using the Texas Mobile Simulator (TxMLS), Volume 3, Proceedings from the Eighth International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Seattle, WA, August 10-14, 1997.
  • Hugo, F., Texas Mobile Load Simulator Test Plan, Research Report 1978-1, Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin, February 1996.
  • Rust, F. C., and v. d. M. Steyn, W. J., Proposed Guidelines for the Standardization of Accelerated Pavement Testing (APT) Programs, Draft Document, January 1997.
  • Van Dausen, D. A., et al., Mn/ROAD Testing Protocols, Report No. 97-22, Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN, February 1997.

Return to TRB Online Publications
TRB Home Page | NRC Home Page