SHRP2 R06(E)

Real-TimeSmoothness Measurements on

Portland Cement Concrete PavementsDuring Construction

AASHTO Subcommittee on Construction2010 Summer Meeting

Burlington, Vermont, 18 August 2010

Project Principals: Robert Otto Rasmussen, PhD, INCE, PE (TX) Steven M. Karamihas, MSME Helga N. Torres, MSE, PE (GA)

Senior Program Officer: James W. Bryant, Jr., PhD, PE

What not to expect from this project?A replacement for conventional profiling for Quality Assurance.

Technology that replaces better practices for constructing smoother pavements.

What can you expect from this project?Validation of innovative tools for evaluating concrete pavement smoothness in real time.

Tools that can be used for Quality Control.

Tools that can reduce must-grinds, and thus reduce project delays and claims.

Improved understanding about what construction artifacts can affect smoothness.

Immediately implementable results.

Project ObjectivesDemonstrate and evaluate real-time smoothness measuring technologies for concrete paving.

Develop draft specifications and construction guidance for use with these technologies.

Research Team

Construction Expertise

National CP Tech Center(Paul Wiegand)

Gary FickSabrina Garber

Smoothness Expertise

George ChangDave Merritt

Principal Investigators

Robert RasmussenSteven Karamihas

Project Coordinator

Helga Torres

State DOTAnd

Paving ContractorsTechnology

Vendors

Instrumentation, Measurements

Expertise

Rich SohaneyRobert Watson

Feedback“On the Fly Changes”

Real-Time Pavement Profile

Profile Characteristics

ŒŽ

Construction

Design

Materials Environment

Factors

Smoothness Statistics

IRI PIcalpro

Real-Time Profiler

Technology

ModelSpecifications

and Guidelines

Process

Profile CharacteristicsObjectionable Profile Characteristics

Localized Roughness

Repetitive Features

Curled and Warped Slabs

Joint effects

Texture effectsSome of these don’t happen “behind the

paver”!

Profile Characteristics

ΠDowel Basket Rebound

Concrete Loading

Ž Stringline Sag

Localized Roughness

Profile Characteristics

ŒŽ

Identifying Profile Characteristics

Cross-Correlation Profile Length (m)

Profile Length (m)

Pro

file

Ele

vatio

n (m

m)

Co

rre

latio

n

-1.0

-0.6

-0.2

0.2

0.6

1.0

HypothesizedProfile Segment

ProbablePaver Stops

Overall Research Approach

Phase I – Technology Review

Phase II – Technology Evaluation

Phase III – Technology Demonstration

Phase I – Technology ReviewTechnology Identification

6 Potential Real-Time Smoothness Measuring Systems

Evaluation Plan2 Systems Recommended for Evaluationin Phase IIRule Set / Technical RequirementsTest Section Identification

Real-Time Smoothness TechnologiesNot Ready/Declined Participation:

Dynamic Surface Profiler (Surface Systems & Instruments)

Auto Rod & Level Profiling Device (APR Consultants)

Vehicle Terrain Measurement System (Virginia Tech)

Sliding Profiler (TxDOT-UT Arlington-TTI)

Real-Time Smoothness TechnologiesNot Ready/Declined Participation:

Real-Time Smoothness Technologies

Device 1: GOMACO Smoothness Indicator (GSI)

Real-Time Smoothness Technologies

Device 2: Ames Engineering Real Time Profiler (RTP)

Phase II – Technology EvaluationVirtual Evaluation

Field Evaluation

Recommendations for Technology Refinement

Phase II: Virtual Evaluation

0.12 5

12 5

100.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Gain

Wavelength/Wheelbase

Wavelength Sensitivity

Roughness Indices

Vibration/Misalignment Sensitivity

Phase II: Field EvaluationI-75 Widening and Reconstruction

Adel, Georgia

May 6-12, 2010

CRCP

Real-time Smoothness MeasurementsGOMACO GSI (both GSI bridge and paver-mounted)

Ames Engineering RTP

Supplementary InstrumentationPaver Vibrations / Displacements

Thanks to GDOT and The Scruggs Company

for all of your help!!

Phase II: Field EvaluationReal-time Smoothness Measurements

Paver-mounted GSI and RTP

GSIRTP

Phase II: Field EvaluationReal-time Smoothness Measurements

GSI Machine

Phase II: Field EvaluationReal-time Smoothness Measurements

GSI Machine

Sensors

Phase II: Field EvaluationSupplementary Instrumentation

Paver/Sensor Vibrations / Displacements

Phase II: Field EvaluationPaving Process Documentation

Notes (800+), Photos, Video

In front of the spreader

In front of the paver

Behind the paver

Phase II: Field EvaluationIn front of the spreader

Phase II: Field EvaluationIn front of the paver

Phase II: Field EvaluationBehind the paver

Hardened Concrete Measurements

Reference MeasurementsSurPRO Profiler

High-speed Inertial Profiler (GDOT ICC)

Phase II: Technology EvaluationIdentify Construction Artifacts

Spectral Analysis

Cross-Correlation

Continuous IRI Reporting

Rough Trackline

Rough Trackline

508+50 509+00 509+50Distance (ft)

-600

-400

-200

0

200

400

600

Elevation (mils)

Rough Trackline: Roughness Profile

507+00 508+00 509+00 510+00 511+00Distance (ft)

0

50

100

150

Roughness Profile (in/mi)

Stringless Guidance SystemTotal Stations

Prisms

Stringless Guidance System

-200

0

200Elevation (mils)

491+50 492+00 492+50 493+00 493+50Distance (ft)

-200

0

200

at the pan

behind hand finishers

Stringless Guidance System

Stringless Guidance System

492+20 492+40 492+60 492+80 493+00 493+20

Distance (ft)

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Roughness Profile (in/mi)

at the pan

behind hand finishers

Reinforcement Rebound

Transverse Barsspaced 3 ft c-c

Reinforcement Rebound

493+50 493+60 493+70 493+80 493+90 494+00Distance (ft)

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40Elevation (mils) Every 3 feet

Pan Motion

Pan Motion

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Time (sec)

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

Vertical Acceleration (g)

Pan Motion

Phase III: Technology DemonstrationField Demonstrations

Around the country

Different contractors

Different paving equipment

Different types of concrete paving

Technology Evaluation

Draft Specifications and Guidelines

Project SchedulePhase I: Technology Review

COMPLETED in 2009

Phase II: Technology EvaluationField Testing COMPLETE: May 2010

Virtual Testing and Reporting Underway

Complete Fall 2010

Phase III: Technology DemonstrationField Demonstrations in 2011

Project Deliverables

Document field data and performance of existing devices

Draft Model Specifications

Draft Guidelines

Immediate Implementation!

Questions?