Implementation of Rolling Wheel Deflectometer (RWD) in PMS and Pavement Preservation

Mostafa A. Elseifi Ahmed M. Abdel-Khalek Karthik Dasari

Research Objectives
Conduct a detailed field evaluation of the RWD system in Louisiana Analyze collected RWD and FWD data to assess the structural conditions of the pavement network Develop a methodology to implement RWD data into existing pavement management system
2

Rolling Wheel Deflectometer

DeflectionMeasurement System

Cooling System SteelLoading Plates

53ft

Field Testing Plan

Testing program was conducted over two phases:
Phase I: RWD testing of the complete asphalt road network (about 1200 miles) in District 5 Phase II: Detailed RWD evaluation in District 5
16 test sites were tested using RWD FWD testing conducted within 24 hrs of RWD testing

Rolling Wheel Deflectometer

Phase I Network Testing

UNION

MOREHOUSE WEST CARROLL EAST CARROLL

LINCOLN

OUACHITA RICHLAND MADISON

JACKSON

Rolling Wheel Deflectometer

Phase II Research Sites

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Data Processing
Valid deflection measurements were averaged every 0.1 mile (average of 10,728 individual readings)
30
Averaging Interval 528 ft

25

20

33 ft

Standard deviation of means, mils

132 ft

4 An averaging length of 528 ft is recommended for PMS applications to reduce random error to approximately 1 mil

Deflection, mils

As averaging length decreases, deflection variability increases 15

10

0 6 6.5 7 7.5

0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Logmile

Interval length, ft

Deflection (mils) 15 20 25

10

Repeatability Analysis

2/27/2013

Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Mean

Station (mile)

Site 6 PCI = 99
9

5.013 5.088 5.163 5.238 5.313 5.388 5.463 5.538 5.613 5.688 5.763 5.838 5.913 5.988 6.063 6.138 6.213 6.288 6.363 6.438

Deflection (mils)
40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
Bridge

Repeatability Analysis

2/27/2013

Run 1 Run 3 Run 2 Mean

Station (mile)

Site 11 OCI = 57
Bridge

10

4.913 4.988 5.063 5.138 5.213 5.288 5.363 5.438 5.513 5.588 5.663 5.738 5.813 5.888 5.963 6.038 6.113 6.188 6.263 6.338

Repeatability Analysis
Test Speed (mph)

Repeatability of the measurements was acceptable with a COV ranging from 7 to 20% with an average of 15%.

Site ID

20 COV Average Deflection (%) (mils) 16.4 16

30

40

50

60

COV (%) 17 14 13 ----

Average COV (%)

15

[e] Site 5 (PCI = 98)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17.1 12.5 15.6 9.5 14.9 7.7 15.9 9.5 15.5 19.9 18.4 9.5 14.3 13.5 21.5

14 13 6 13 6 9 18 20 14 15 12 18 16 14 15

17 18 12 13 8 9 13 16 7 8 11 17 22 19 18 16 17 16 23 ---26 15 18 16 21 ---14 16 1711 (PCI ---[k] Site = 57)

---------15 9 13 20 13 ---------20 ---15 ----

---------------16 ----------------------------

16 13 8 14 7 13 20 17 16 19 18 18 19 15 16

Effect of Speed
The influence of the testing speed on the measured deflection was minimal

An ANOVA test was conducted between different speeds and revealed no statistical difference
25.00 20 mph 30 mph 40 mph 50 mph 60 mph

20.00

Avg. Deflection (mils)

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Site ID

Deflection (mils)
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 0.00

Site 1 Fair Site 2 Good

Comparison Between RWD and FWD Results

Logmile

Site 3 Very Good

RWD FWD

2.01 2.14 2.26 2.39 2.51 2.64 2.76 2.89 3.01 3.14 3.26 3.39 3.09 3.21 3.34 3.46 3.59 3.71 3.84 3.96 4.09 4.21 4.34 4.46 2.11 2.24 2.36 2.49 2.61 2.74 2.86 2.99 3.11 3.24 3.36

Deflection (mils)
50.00
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 60.00 70.00

0.00

Site 8 Fair

RWD FWD

Site 9 Very Good

Logmile

Site 10 Poor

3.220 3.420 3.620 3.820 4.020 4.220 4.420 4.620 4.820 5.020 5.220 5.420 9.700 9.900 10.100 10.300 10.500 10.700 10.900 11.100 11.300 11.500 11.700 11.900 3.113 3.238 3.363 3.488 3.613 3.738 3.863 3.988 4.113 4.238 4.363 4.488

FWD vs. RWD

Site ID Average FWD (mils) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 24.83 9.58 6.76 7.44 6.51 8.97 1.66 10.88 4.99 14.58 26.83 11.58 4.41 8.34 12.02 37.72
2/27/2013

Average RWD (mils) 18.20 15.79 11.78 15.62 9.50 14.99 7.75 15.48 8.34 14.01 19.89 18.41 9.51 14.37 13.54 21.55

Pearson Correlation 0.13 0.65 0.78 0.22 0.41 0.66 0.15 0.59 0.20 0.44 0.38 0.44 0.22 0.14 0.35 0.06

P-value

Decision

< 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.19 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.003 < 0.0001

Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal Not Equal
15

SN Prediction Approach
A regression model to predict SN from RWD data Develop a tool to predict pavement overall condition (i.e., functional and structural) based on RWD deflection measurements and PMS data regularly collected in Louisiana

16

APPROACH 1: PREDICTIVE MODEL FOR SN

17

RWD Index (RI)

Pavement structural capacity and integrity relates to:
Deflection magnitude Avg. RWD for each project Variability and scattering of deflection SDRWD RI = average deflection (Avg. RWD) x standard deviation (SDRWD)

Define the RWD Index (RI):

The RI was calculated for each site

18

SN from RWD
Model to predict SN from RWD Data:
SN eff
0.81 150 . 69 * RI 6.37 23.52 * RWD 0.24 1.39 * ln( SD) RI 19.04

RI= RWD Index (mils2); SD = standard deviation of RWD deflection (mils); and RWD = average RWD deflection (mils).
19

Model Calibration and Validation

Model was developed and calibrated based on the research sites Model was validated based on 52 sections with FWD and RWD data Use of the model at the network level is appropriate
8.00 7.00 6.00 SN-RWD 5.00 SN-RWD 4.00 3.00 2.00 R = 0.7687 1.00 0.00 0.00

8.00
7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 SN-FWD 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 0.00 0.00

R = 0.7469

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00 5.00 SN-FWD

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

APPROACH 2: GRAPHICAL METHOD TO PREDICT OVERALL CONDITION OF PAVEMENTS

21

Analysis
Pavements were categorized into three groups:
Thin pavements 0 to 3 inches Medium pavements 3 to 6 inches Thick pavements greater than 6 inches

Pavement were categorized according to SN, IRI and PCI:

Good Fair Poor

Condition-Based Categorization
Structural Number Range Condition Thin Poor Medium Thick PCI for all IRI for all pavements pavements

<1 12

<2 24

<3 35

< 64 64 - 84

> 200 120-200

Good
Excellent

>2
38

>4
102

>5
84

> 85
----

< 120
----

No. of Sections

Pavement Assessment Model

If SN < 1.0, Condition is Poor

If PCI < 45, Condition is Poor

Example: SN = 2.0 IRI = 180 and PCI = 75 Overall Condition: Fair

If IRI > 260, Condition is Poor

Thin pavement

GIS Map: SN Model

SN prediction model was applied to 220 sections tested in District 5 using RWD.

Good

Fair

Poor

25

GIS Maps

PCI

SN Model

IRI

26

Summary
Repeatability of RWD measurements was acceptable - average COV at all test speeds of 15% RWD deflection measurements were in general agreement with FWD deflections measurements A model was developed to estimate pavement SN based on RWD deflection data

Whats Next?
Extend testing to other districts
Validate and update the developed models based on independent data:
From other states? From another district?

Evaluate effect of speeds in summer months

28

QUESTIONS