1 / 17

California Profilograph

Moving to International Roughness Index Measured By Inertial Profilers for Acceptance of New Asphalt Construction in Ontario. By John A. Blair, Bituminous Engineer Kai K. Tam, Head Bituminous Section Ministry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) CUPGA November, 2009. California Profilograph.

ford
Download Presentation

California Profilograph

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Moving to International Roughness Index Measured By Inertial Profilers for Acceptance of New Asphalt Construction in Ontario By John A.Blair, Bituminous EngineerKai K. Tam, HeadBituminous SectionMinistry of Transportation of Ontario (MTO) CUPGA November, 2009

  2. California Profilograph

  3. MTO’s Network Level Monitoring • Currently based on IRI, as measured by an Automated Road Analyzer (or Aran).

  4. Issues With Existing System • Smoothness acceptance for new asphalt pavements is based on PI but network level measurements based on IRI. • California Profilographs: • - Take measurements at 3 to 5 km/hr (i.e. require traffic protection); • - Measure one wheelpath at a time; • - On the road for long periods of time (i.e. leads to safety concerns).

  5. Investigation Main Objectives • Determine if Inertial Profilers can produce measurements comparable to California Profilographs; • Implement for acceptance of new HMA pavements, if is it found that: • IRI can be used to replace PI; and • Inertial profilers can replace scallops with some other attribute (i.e. “localized roughness”).

  6. Some Issues Involved Laser Sensors Footprint: • Most inertial profilers use single dot laser sensors. • Single dot lasers have accuracy/repeatability issues on open-graded mixes; • New multiple laser arrays have been developed (Rolines use 100 laser dots, triods use 3 laser dots). Software – Data Analysis: • Each manufacturer currently use their own software & methods of data filtering to calculate & report IRI. • New software program called ProVAL® is now available.

  7. ProVAL® • Developed by the Transtec Group in Texas. • Can be downloaded free of charge from: www.RoadProfile.com • Benefits of ProVAL® include: • - Accepts raw data files from various profilers and simulates different indices (IRI, PI, RN etc.) • - Produces more consistent results.

  8. Investigation Conducted 1) Measured several pavement sections to compare inertial profilers equipped with laser arrays and profilographs; • Processed raw data files through ProVAL® to determine: • IRI & “Localized Roughness”; and • Correlation between IRI generated from the laser arrays and PI reported by the operators of the profilographs. 3) Determined “equivalent” acceptance limits for: • IRI to replace PI; and • Localized roughness to replace scallops.

  9. Data Analysis and Reporting - IRI vs PI • Raw data files from the laser arrays ran through ProVAL® using its “Ride Stats at Intervals” option to determine IRI. • The combined average IRI determined from the laser arrays was plotted against the combined average PI reported by the operators of the profilographs.

  10. IRI by Laser Arrays Versus PI(0) by Profilographs Bonus Full Pay Rejectable Price Reduced Average IRI by Laser Arrays (m/km) Equivalent IRI Limits Current PI Acceptance Limits Average PI(0) By Profilographs (mm/km)

  11. Acceptance Limits for PI and IRI (Asphalt Only) * Using ProVAL’s ® “Ride Stats at Intervals” Option

  12. Data Analysis and Reporting - Localized Roughness vs. Scallops • Ran raw data files through ProVAL® using: - “Localized Roughness (i.e Tex-1001-s)” option; and - Several different threshold limits were assumed. • Used an iterative process to determine limits for localized roughness that was determined to be most “Equivalent” to the limits for MTO’s 3 acceptance categories for scallops.

  13. Acceptance Limits for Scallops and Localized Roughness (Asphalt Only) * Using ProVAL’s ® “Localized Roughness (Tex-1001-s)” Option 13

  14. Inertial Profiler Requirements (1) • Laser Sensors (dual sensors at 2 m spacing) • Footprint: ≥ 70 mm width • Sampling Rate: ≥ 3 kHz • Sampling Interval: ≤ 25.4 mm • Resolution: ≤ 0.05 mm • 2) Accelerometers • Range: ± 2 g to ± 3 g (assuming 1 g gravity bias is accounted for) • Accuracy: ≤ 0.010 g (including all relevant factors e.g. bias and scale, thermal sensitivity, non-linearity, noise etc.) 14

  15. Inertial Profiler Requirements (2) • Carrier • Dedicated vehicle • Speed: ≥ 60 km/hr • Offset Device: • Projected laser dot, video camera etc. to maintain ± 150 mm offset • GPS with 1 m accuracy • Flashing light (for safety purposes) • 4) Software • Auto start/stop (to detect roadside markers) • Audible warning when sensors cease functioning or are out of acceptable range. 15

  16. IRI-Profiler Based Implementation • Developed Non-Standard Special Provision (i.e. NSSP) for acceptance based on inertial profilers. • Developed equipment requirements and procedure for determining IRI and localized roughness based on raw data files obtained from inertial profilers. • Currently Implementing an IRI-based specification for new asphalt paving work. 16

  17. QUESTIONS?

More Related