TRANSPORTATION |
Number E-C004, February 1999 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
||
SA HVS |
|
|
|
|
||
CALHVS |
|
|
|
|
||
CRREL |
|
|||||
LINTRACK |
|
|
|
|||
ALF/AUSTR |
|
|
|
|
||
RTM |
|
|
||||
LCPC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CEDEX |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
1.3.1.2 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
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
2.8 Weather
The following weather data should be recorded:
2.9 Laboratory Testing
In characterizing the properties of the pavement materials, the following standard laboratory tests are typically performed and recorded:
Seals
Asphalt (asphaltic mix)
Granular materials
Material classification
Soils
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.
SURVEY RESPONDENTS INCLUDED IN THE REPORT
OTHER RESPONDENTS FROM WHOM INFORMATION WAS ALSO OBTAINED
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES