COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS...test wheel and will likewise decrease with a turn with the skew of the test tire. Research needs to be done to determine an allowable skew operation

Tech Subcommittee 5a Annual Meeting 2020 Page 1 of 17

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS

Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual Date August 4, 2020 Scheduled Time 2:00 – 4:00 PM Technical Subcommittee & Name 5a – Pavement Measurement and Performance Measures Chair Name and (State) John Donahue (MO) Vice Chair Name and (State) Scott George (AL) Research Liaison Name and (State) Curt Turgeon (MN)

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

John Donahue called the meeting to order and introduced his Vice Chair Scott George.

II. Roll Call of Voting Members

Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☒ John Donahue (Chair) MO ☒ Clark Morrison NC ☒ Scott George (Vice-Chair) AL ☐ Jeffrey Mann NM ☒ Jesus Sandoval-Gil AZ ☒ Russell Thielke NY ☐ Craig Wieden CO ☒ Patrick Bierl OH ☐ Leo Fontaine CT ☒ Heather Hall TN ☒ Bouzid Choubane FL ☒ Scott Nussbaum/ Bill

Lawrence to replace UT

☐ Peter Wu GA ☒ Robert Crandol VA ☒ LaDonna Rowden IL ☒ Kurt Williams/Proxy: Kim

Schofield WA

☒ Richard Barezinsky KS ☐ Paul Farley WV ☒ Sejal Barot MD ☒ Anne Holt ON ☒ John Staton MI ☐ ☒ Curt Turgeon MN ☐ ☐ James Williams MS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Quorum Rules Met? Annual Meeting: Simple majority of voting members (☒y/ ☐n)

A. Review of Membership (New members, exiting members, etc.)

Chair noted that the Subcommittee has 22 voting members since James Williams from Mississippi retired. He welcomed new members to join. (Email Chair and Casey Soneira with AASHTO to request membership).

III. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes

Arizona made a motion to approve the 2019 Annual meeting minutes, Florida seconded. No discussion and no dissent.

IV. Old Business


A. COMP Ballot Items COMP Ballot # Standard

Results (neg/affirm) Comments/Negatives Action

17 TP98-18 ‘Standard Method of Test for Determining the Influence of Road Surfaces on Vehicle Noise Using the Statistical Isolated Pass-By (SIP) Method’

0/45

Ballot passed for becoming full standard test method.

18 TP99-18 ‘Standard Method of Test for Determining the Influence of Road Surfaces on Traffic Noise Using the Continuous-Flow Traffic Time-Integrated (CTIM) Method’

0/45 Ballot passed for becoming full standard test method.

19 TPxxx-19 ‘Standard Method of Test for Continuous Measurement of Sideway-Force Friction Number for Highway Pavements’

2/43 KY, NV comments backing up negative votes primarily related to lack of tire standardization.

Decision was made to revise provisional standard and submit for June 2020 TS 5a ballot.

Moved both TP 98 and 99 to full standards, now T 389, T 390. New TP for ‘Sideways-Force Friction’ passed but with two negatives. Chair found KY negative persuasive and reballoted as Spring TS ballot - described later under New Business.

B. Concurrent Ballots Concurrent Ballot # Standard


15 R32-19 ‘’Standard Practice for Calibrating the Load Cell and Deflection Sensors for a Falling Weight Deflectometer’

0/45 Revisions to standard practice approved. Minor editorial changes made to published version based on comments.

16 R33-11 ‘Standard Practice for Calibrating the Reference Load Cell Used for Reference Calibrations for a Falling Weight Deflectometer’

0/45 Revisions to standard practice approved. Minor editorial changes made to published version based on comments.

Both R32 and R 33 passed COMP concurrent ballot unanimously, minor editorial changes. No further action needed.

C. TS Reconfirmation Ballots TS Reconfirmation. Ballot # Standard


1 T 256 ‘Standard Method of Test for Pavement Deflection Measurements’

0/19

Ballot passed for reconfirmation of standard.

2 T 360 ‘Standard Method of Test for Measurement of

0/19 Ballot passed for reconfirmation of standard.


Tire/Pavement Noise Using the On-Board Sound Intensity (OBSI) Method’

Both reconfirmation ballots passed unanimously. No further action needed.

V. New Business

A. June 2020 TS New Provisional Standard Ballots Chair noted that the new Provisionals all passed TS ballot but there were two negatives and a number of editorial comments.

Ballot item #1 had one negative vote from Ohio. Patrick Bierl noted that his counterparts are still reviewing- hoping to have the response tomorrow. Appears that the responses the Chair noted address their concerns- but he wanted to confirm. The TS had a discussion on how to proceed. Minnesota made a motion to move to COMP ballot subject to Ohio removing their negative and Alabama seconded. Ohio felt that was a good direction. No dissent. Motion passed.

TS New Standard Ballot #

Standard Results (neg/affirm)

Comments/Negatives Action

1 TPxxx-20 'Continuous Measurement of Sideway-Force Friction Number for Highway Pavements' Will go to COMP ballot if Ohio withdraws negative.

1/18 Section 11 REPORT Is it worth considering that the amount wear on the test tire could affect these results, and so may be worth recording in the report? (AL)

No change. This is pass/fail. The tire has wear holes that indicate to the user when the tire should be changed. Up to the time the hole(s) disappears, the tire is deemed adequate for testing.

Page 13 is left blank and this appears to be unintentional. (AL)

Agree. This page will be removed.

Appendix X1.7.1. bullet point 4 It might be beneficial to show the formula as an equation rather than in the paragraph. The formula can be written as such if necessary. (AL)

Agree. Formula added to bullet.

Recommend added text to Section 5.1 - The test wheel assembly is mounted on a frame within the wheelbase of the vehicle or as close as possible behind the rear axle. (AZ)

No change. This is not recommended because the side force imposed unto the chassis needs to be as close as possible to the center of gravity of the truck.

Section 5.3.1 – Recommend adding Speed and Target Flowrates for 40 mph and 55 mph. Section 9.2 lists 40 mph as the standard test speed. (AZ)

Agree. The target flowrate for 40 mph has been added.

Sub-Section 3.5 - How is the speed correction to 40 mph is computed or derived? (FL)

The Highways England report HE-DMRB-P CS 228 Revision 1 on skidding resistance prescribes and validates a speed correction method for this friction test.


Section 5 - Is this a standard test tire, readily available, or specialty tire? (FL)

This is not a standard tire that you can buy in any store, but it has been readily available worldwide for 40 years as a specialty tire. Both the equipment manufacturer and/or friction testing service provider can supply the tire.

Section 10 - Reference to MPD as well as Note 1 are not relevant herein. Except for the first sentence, I would suggest that Sub-Section 10.1 be removed in its entirety as irrelevant to the purpose of the subject standard. (FL)

Agree with removing mean profile depth (MPD) from the section.

Sub-Section 12.2 – I would suggest that the information in this Sub-Section be included as a Note as it is provided for information purposes only, concerns one specific device, and is based on a more that 10-year old trial. (FL)

No change. Despite the age of the report, the findings are still relevant.

3.2 which way is the angle. Figure 1 shows away from centerline (although the wheel is in the air), later, in Figure 3, shows toward the centerline. Does it matter? (KS)

Change made to clarify the tire is angled at 20 degrees pointing towards the center of the vehicle in the direction of travel.

5.2.2 Is it ambient temperature or temperature of the air in the tire? This won't matter some times, but would matter if the tire has been used for a while. This is also in 8.1. (KS)

Change made to clarify measured temperature is ambient.

5.3 should it just say potable water? Otherwise, how will we know if it meets the listed requirements? (KS)

No change made since the current description provides options for quality, which would include potable water.

Note 1 after 10.1 seems funny to have a "shall" in a note. (KS)

Agree. Change made to replace ‘shall’ with ‘may’.

11. I don't really understand why there is a field report and a summary report. Many of the items are the same in both places. Some of the added items for the summary report are likely important for analysis, but are not really part of the test in my opinion. Things like the pavement type, age, and traffic data are not going to be

This standard uses the same reporting format as ASTM E 274 for the locked wheel friction test.


known by the people doing the testing, so why are they part of the test? (KS) 5.2.1 - Why does the tire need to be marked with the rebound resilience? Are there multiple levels of rebound resilience, such that the wrong tire could be used? (MI)

They are marked after they are manufactured to ensure that they meet the required resilience and are not included in the remaining stock of tires.

5.2.4 - Specify method for measuring tire diameter and the tire pressure at which it should be measured. (MI)

Change made to eliminate measuring tire diameter and instead rely on wear indicator to determine when to replace tire.

9.1 - Grammatical error? "...prior to a test route." Perhaps it should be "...prior to testing a route." (MI)

Agree. Edit made.

9.2 & 9.3 - is there a minimum length for a single test? Is there a maximum length for a test so that the tire does not overheat? (MI)

There is no minimum length for a single test. Test tires do not overheat regardless of the length of the test. What should be observed before starting any test is the availability of remaining tire diameter based on the observation of the wear hole indicators.

10.1 - This is the first time MPD is mentioned. It should be defined somewhere. Are there equipment or other details that need to be specified regarding MPD? (MI)

Change made to remove mean profile depth (MPD) from the section.

10.2.3 - Would GPS data for test locations be an option? (MI)

Note 1 in Sec 10.1 already mentions GPS.

Sec 3.2 - The system can only work when running tangent as any turning of the vehicle changes the skid angle and thus changes the response. This should be noted in the standard. This is extremely important to recognize as the response will increase with increase of skew due to vehicle turning against the skew of the test wheel and will likewise decrease with a turn with the skew of the test tire. Research needs to be done to determine an allowable skew operation range like 20 degrees plus minus 1.5 degrees for example. (OH)

The footnote in Sec 9.3 (bottom of page 9) addresses this issue. In summary, TRRL Report 739 concluded changes in test angles have negligible to no measurable effect on the SFN. The footnote has been moved to Sec 3.2.


Sec 3.2 - A narrow smooth tire is going to be very sensitive to microtexture and very insensitive to macrotexture. This should be made clear somewhere in the standard. (OH)

The test tire is influenced by microtexture to a greater degree than macrotexture, but to assess the contribution of each is currently beyond the scope of this standard. The ribbed tire used in ASTM E 274 is influenced in the opposite way, yet no mention is made of this in the standard.

Sec 3.5 - Research needs to be done to prove that a speed correction is valid. Also, the stand should specify a standard test speed to use. We found in the locked wheel world that speed gradients are location dependent and in no way universal. (OH)

Change made to add a reference to the Highways England report HE-DMRB-P CS 228 Revision 1 on skidding resistance in Sec 9.2, which prescribes and validates a speed correction method for this friction test.

Sec 4.1 - The words “the microtexture of” should be added ahead of “pavement surfaces” to be more factual. This device is not sensitive to macrotexture unless there is such an abundance that it mechanically bites the test tire. This would add needed clarity to the standard. (OH)

See response to Sec 3.2 comment on microtexture.

Sec 5.2 - This is a very poor idea. Multiple users can standardize on different tire manufactures with potentially different properties. There must be one standard test tire so response of such device is reproducible. (OH)

Change made. The sentence ‘The user shall standardize on one tire supplier (and related tire properties)’ has been deleted. Instead, Sec 5.2.1 will state the tire must conform to the physical properties of Table 1.

Sec 5.3.1 - This suggests indirectly that there are two target test speeds but below there is a target test speed of 40 mph. The standard should list the target water flow at the target test speed. (OH)

Change made. The target flowrate for 40 mph has been added.

Sec 5.4 - The system needs to be able to capture skew of the host vehicle as it turns such that measures in turns can be marked and eliminated in post processing. (OH)

See response to Sec 3.2 comment about changing skid angles.

Table 2 - Is there a standard for the wheel itself? There should be and it should be included. Such a wheel needs to be noted and research done to ensure compliance of the

There is work going on in ASTM to develop a test standard for the tire on this device. When developed, AASHTO can adopt a harmonized standard. It would be a standalone


wheel does not alias response. (OH)

standard, similar to the ribbed and smooth tire standards, E 501 and E 524 respectively, for the E-274 locked wheel test.

Sec 9.2 - Just echoing previous comment. There needs to be standard test speed(s) with allowable variance. Speed gradients/equations will not suffice as these are location specific and depend the on characterization of the surface texture present. Then if multiple target test speeds are used, then thresholds of response are needed for each test speed for valid interpretation of response. This needs to be part of the standard. (OH)

Change made. Requirement added to standardize to 40 mph using speed correction factor method cited in reference HE-DMRB-P CS 228 Revision 1 on skidding resistance.

Sec 10.1 - This is the first time MPD is mentioned. How is it measured, how do we ensure it is measured at the same location of the wheel response, etc.? All of this needs to be detailed and specified. MPD is only an indication of macrotexture depth. It is not sufficient alone to characterize macrotexture as it relates to friction. (OH)

Change made. Mean profile depth (MPD) removed from the section.

Note 2 - Regarding the above note. The research behind this note must be cited at the very least. This note is not convincing to me as one who has operated side force CFME in the past. (OH)

Change made. Reference to TRRL Report 739 added.


2 MPxxx-20 'File Format of 2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional (2D/3D) Pavement Image Data' FL motioned and MN seconded to move the proposed provisional standard to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

0/19 These four documents are not referenced in the standard. Recommend creating a "References" section at the end of the standard and move these four items there. (AL)

• E2560-13 Standard Specification for Data Format for Pavement Profile.

• E2544-11a Standard Terminology for Three-Dimensional (3D) Imaging Systems.

• ISO/IEC 10918-5 (2013) Digital Compression and Coding of Continuous-tone Still Images: JPEG File Interchange Format.

• USDOT-FHWA Office of Highway Policy Information (2016) Highway Performance Monitoring System Field Manual.

Agree with comment. Four document listings transferred to a new ‘References’ section.

3 PPxxx-20 'Assessment of Static Performance in Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems' FL motioned and MN seconded to move the proposed provisional standard to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

0/19 C1.8.1. Change "represented" in the last sentence to "represent". (AL)

Agree. Edit made.

C2.8.1. Change "represented" to "represent" in the last sentence. (AL)

Agree. Edit made.

"TPP" should be defined in the scope, as in "used in transverse pavement profiling (TPP) system specifications." I struggled with the third P until I found it in 2.8.2, where the acronym is defined. (AL)

TPP is already defined in Section 1.1 of the Scope.

Section 2 Referenced Standards R010 is not in the document. Suggest this be moved to Section 12 References. BTW the first zero in this standard should be deleted. (AL)

Agree. Edit made.

4 PPxxx-20 'Assessment of Body Motion Cancellation in Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems' KS motioned and FL seconded to move the proposed provisional standard to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

1/18 (Negative withdrawn)


Agree. Edit made.

A.1.1.1 - is there a specific method for determining the flat plate's parallelism/flatness? (MI)

Change made. Two ISO standards, 3650 and 12781, for length and flatness standards, respectively, have been added as referenced documents.


Table 1 provides a number of physical parameter definitions and default values with the exception of cleat height. Any specific reason? Smith and Ferris (References 12.1) appear to use 2 in. nominal (~1 Â½" actual height) lumber for the cleat height. (FL)

Change made. Row added to Table 1 for cleat height and base board height default values.

They are referenced I the other documents. The data mapping or data registration is something that is being worked on by Virginia Tech as well a few other folks. By mapping data points to a geographic location it will allow us to identify the location of data it the roadway. By doing that it becomes exponentially easier to remove drift, identify the cause of body/suspension movements and remove them and to easily compare data from a current cycle to another. Without data mapping these other tasks become much more difficult to try to resolve. The cheap and dirty way of removing suspension errors is to look at he IMU or gyro data to get the orientation of the floor of the vehicle and compare it to the cross slope of the roadway and subtract the difference. (OH)

Ohio withdrew negative vote. The standard authors acknowledge the issue of data registration, that is being addressed through other research studies. There will be future opportunities to improve and refine this area of the standard as better information is available.

5 PPxxx-20 'Assessment of Navigation Drift Mitigation in transverse Pavement Profiling Systems' FL motioned and AL seconded to move the proposed provisional standard to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

0/19 I think there is a typo in Annex C, C1.3. The equation given doesn’t match the description, and I think the replacement should be H=h+U instead of H+h+u. (AL)

Agree. Edit made.


Agree. Edit made.

6 PPxxx-20 'Assessment of Highway Performance in Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems' FL motioned and IL seconded to move the proposed provisional standard to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

0/19 Section 3 Table1: the symbol Nr is not formatted consistently with the rest of the table. (AL)

Agree. Edit made.

Section 2 Referenced Standards R010 is not in the document. Suggest this be moved to Section 13 References. Same with PP069. BTW the first zero in these two standards should be deleted. (AL)

Agree. Edit made.

7 PPxxx-20 'Assessment of Ground Reference Data for Transverse Pavement

0/19 FL motioned and MN seconded. Move to COMP Ballot. No dissent.


Profiling System Assessment' KS motioned and FL seconded to move the proposed provisional standard to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

8 PPxxx-20 'Definitions of Terms Related to Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems and Ground Reference Equipment' IL motioned and FL seconded to move the proposed provisional standard to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

0/19 Location sensor definition: is "body fixed reference frame" the same as "body reference frame"? (MI)

Yes. Term changed to the latter in definition.

Should there be a definition for "inside lane edge" since there is one for outside lane edge? (MI)

No change. A definition for “inside lane edge” is not provided because this phrase is not referenced throughout any processing of transverse profiles. The provided definition for “Lane Center” addresses the idea of “inside lane edge” when there are and are not markings on the road surface.

Need to define WGS84 ellipsoid. (MI) Agree. Definition added.

Need to define what a "frame" is. (MI) Agree. Definition added.

Need to define what "orthogonal axes" is. (MI)

Agree. Definition added.

Need to define what "Universal Transverse Mercator" is. (MI)

Agree. Definition added.

Should gauge block be listed in the "Fabricated Surfaces" section? (MI)

Change made. ‘Gauge block’ definition title replaced with ‘Gauge Block Region’.


Sub-Section 2.4.2 - Can the type of filtering and / or smoothing applied (if any) be indicated? (FL)

No change made. Filtering or smoothing is a level of data processing that is usually proprietary, i.e. specific to a particular vendor.

Chair noted that all 8 standards will go to COMP ballot. 6 standards related to transverse profile, first 4 operational standards (like static and bounce test for Inertial profilers), one on ground reference equipment, and the last a list of definitions related to equipment.

B. June 2020 TS Standard Reconfirmation Ballots

TS Reconfirmation Ballot # Standard


1 M 331-17 'Smoothness of Pavement in Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Systems'

0/19

2 R 20-99 (2017) 'Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise'

1/18 The attachment consisted of only 2 pages. Does this mean that the subject standard consists mainly of a recommendation to use verbatim the referenced FHWA report for field measurement of highway noise levels? The negative vote is mainly to seek clarification. (FL)

Florida withdrew negative vote. Explanation was provided to Florida that the standard was indeed intended only to reference another document for the standard practice of measuring highway noise.

3 R 43-13 (2017) 'Quantifying Roughness of Pavements'

0/19 It is not clear as to why the referencing to other documents are not included. The following are examples of missing references (FL):

Section 1.3 - No reference to Standard Practice for Operating Inertial Profiling Systems AASHTO R 57.

Section 5.1.2 - No reference to the verification of calibration procedures given in AASHTO R 57 5.3.


TS Reconfirmation Ballot # Standard


Section 6 Data Collection - No reference to the collection procedures given in AASHTO R 57 6.1 and 6.2.

4 T 278-90 (2017) 'Surface Frictional Properties Using the British Pendulum Tester' NOTE: This standard has an ASTM equivalent – E303-93(2008). A recent thorough comparison of the two standards yielded no significant differences.

0/19

Chair reviewed the Reconfirmation ballot items. He noted that he checked into the FHWA report under Ballot Item #2. He noted that the report was old, but he confirmed that the FHWA report has not been updated and appears to still be valid and referenced by others.

C. June 2020 TS Standard Revision Ballots

TS Revisions Ballot # Standard


1 R 36-17 'Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements' See Attachment F.

0/19 Section 8.2/8.2.1. Is there a requirement for joint detection rate when using an automated algorithm by the 3D data provider? (FHWA)

No, neither Method A or B addresses detection rate.

Section 8.3.1 appears to identify the transverse location for the measurement to be made as 7 inches from the joint between the lane and the outside/right shoulder. Some pavements have a 14’ outside lane in lieu of 12’. What is the rational for the location being 7 inches from a shoulder joint? Should the wheel path be considered? (FHWA)

Change made. Measurement location changed to 7” from edge of lane marking for consistency in Section 8.3.1. Measurements in the wheelpath have a higher chance of being spalled, so the location is intended to be just to the outside of the wheelpath.

Section 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 defines an area to be assessed and the distance of that area (boxes P and Q) from the pavement lane slab joint. What is the rational for the box size and location, as well as the equation for "o"? Also, given that these areas/boxes start at nominally 60 mm from the joint, how do we account for spalls or other localized effects. In addition, can this methodology be applied to

The box size and location are meant to mimic the Georgia faultmeter locations. A single point is not adequate due to spalling considerations. Although not specifically noted, it is intended that the smoothing will eliminate or flag spalling. The equation for ‘o’ is to address skewed transverse joints. This has not been extensively




transverse cracks that are not necessarily as straight as a joint? (FHWA)

evaluated for transverse cracking.

Section 8.4. Is there a requirement for sampling density/rate in terms of number of points in the longitudinal and transverse directions within boxes P & Q? (FHWA)

The recommendation is 5 points.

Section 8.4 and 8.5. Since the method uses linear algebra to fit a plane (8.4), then uses linear algebra to note the elevation of the 10 points (P1 through P5 and Q1 through Q5) (8.5.1 and 8.5.2), and then uses linear algebra to calculate the average difference (8.5.3), why not just take averages of all elevations in Box P and subtracting from averages of all elevations in Box Q, to calculate the faulting. Wouldn’t that be a simpler approach? Is there a reason to fit a plane and calculate 5 elevation points from the fitted plane? (FHWA)

Calculating a plane is a form of area smoothing. which is somewhat of an averaging method. The intent of smoothing is to remove spalling or other smaller anomalies. This can be revised in the future based on the FHWA research, but the intent is to allow States begin implementation that would like to use 3D faulting now.

Figure 1, Note 2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 & Note 3 reference Section 0. Should this be Section 11? (AL)

Agree. Edits made.

5.3 check spelling of method. 8. (AL)

Agree. Edit made.

Recommend deleting 3D from the end of Method C. (AL)

Agree. Edit made.

Figure 3b. Should the size of Box P be shown in the figure? At first glance it appeared, to me, that the offset "o" was the distance between the two boxes and not the distance from the joint to the box. (AL)

Box size is shown in Figure 3b. Text describes the distance o.

Section 5.3 - Minor edit, "Mthod" should be "Method". (FL)

Agree. Edit made.

Sub-Section 8.3.1 - Any particular reason as to why is point A 178 mm from the right edge of the joint? Other methods in this specification (Manual, Method A, Method B) measure the fault in the outside wheel path. The center of outside wheel path would be about 940 mm (37 in.) away from the right edge of the joint given a 12 ft. lane width and the wheel path definitions given in Definitions for this specification. (FL)

See previous FHWA answer about changing to 7” from edge of lane marking instead of joint for consistency. Measurements in the wheelpath have a higher chance of being spalled, so the location is intended to be just to the outside of the wheelpath.




Sub-Section 8.3.2 - This standard describes fault measurement across a transverse joint or crack. What range of values for theta would be considered a transverse joint or crack? (FL)

Theta was included to address skewed joints. The range should be based on the skew of the constructed pavement.

Section 5.2.3 - There is a typo here, it should be Method C (see Section 8). (GA)

Editorial changes made.

Section 8.2.1- Since this section is dedicated to the new 3D Automatic Measurement Method, no need to mention "to locate joints manually " (leave it to other section for manual work. It is recommended this sentence be revised as follows: Locate joints by using an automatic algorithm provided by the 3D data provider. (GA)

No change. The option to locate joints manually was left in to flag and avoid measuring spalled areas; however, this may be removed in future with improved filtering.

There are several references that have been struck through and referred to Section 0. These need to be updated to the correct reference. (IL)

Agree. Edits made.

Section 5.3, Line 1: - delete the word "either". - change "Mthod" to Method". (IL)

Agree. Edits made.

Figure 3a: Should the dimension in the figure be changed to 7 inches since that is the primary unit? (IL)

Agree. Change made.

Section 8.4.1, Line 3: add a colon at the end of the last phrase. (IL)

Agree. Edit made.

Section 8.4.2, Line 1: add a colon at the end of the last phrase. (IL)

Agree. Edit made.

Figure 1, Note 2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and Note 3 - The reference to the previous Section 10.X should now be Section 11.X. Currently reads as Section 0. (KS)

Agree. Edits made.

5.3-Spelling of "Method" (KS) Agree. Edit made 6.2.3.1 - 50 m is 164 ft (KS) Agree. Edit made

7.2.5 - suggest not using the hyphen between the number and the UOM8. (KS)

Agree. Edits made.

4.2 - Repeat step 8.4.2 for box Q? Should be referencing 8.4.1. (KS)

Agree. Edit made.

Section 8 is all in SI units only. (KS) Agree. English units added.

I found the procedure to be somewhat confusing. Eg: Sec 8.3

Agree. Section 8.3 changed to ‘Use the sampling procedure




begins by talking about a box that is not previously referenced. Would make more sense if figure 3b was shown after or reference in 8.3 to explain generally what the next few steps are doing. Not seeing that until several steps is difficult to follow. (TN)

described below to identify the two boxes around point A used to sample range values:’

R 36 was also up for reconfirmation but was being revised so reconfirmation not needed. Chair noted there were a number of comments but no negatives. Editorial changes have been made. MN motioned and KS seconded to move the proposed changes to R 36 to COMP Ballot. No dissent.

D. Task Force Reports Task Force # Title Members Status/Update Dynamic Friction Tester

Standard Development Sejal Barot

Sejal- noted that TS 1c is the home for this TF and a more detailed report will be made tomorrow in TS 1c. Several standards are being worked on. She thanked Florida and NAPA for their efforts with the TF. Matt will go over in detail in TS 1c Wednesday afternoon.

E. Review of Stewardship List (Attachment B)

Chair shared the stewards spreadsheet. The TS is up to 27 standards, many on the same review cycle. 15 out of 27 under review for this coming year. Need new stewards for some of the standards. He noted that he would share the stewards list with the TS. Bob Orthmeyer from FHWA volunteered for R 54, R 56, R 57, R 43 and M 328 (via Q and A box). Griffin Sullivan and Heath Patterson from Mississippi requested to be copied on the list (via Q and A box).

F. Proposed New Standards 1. Pavement surface cracking index (Attachment C) –

Jerry Daleiden gave a presentation on the Standard Practice for Pavement Surface Cracking. He noted that ASTM has developed a standard for a universal crack indicator. PCSM varies from 1 to 10, have a conversion to go from 0 to 100, similar to PCI. Going to ASTM ballot by the end of Summer. It was noted that if it becomes an ASTM then AASHTO cannot adopt as a standard based on our MOU with ASTM. James Mack asked if this applies to concrete pavements, Jerry noted that it was just based on length and width of cracking so it did.

2. Proposed R 87 revisions (Attachment D) Chair noted that Amir provided him proposed revisions to R 87 based on NCHRP 20-07 (Task 411) project performed by Amy Simpson. Andy noted that the revisions have been looked at by the Pooled-fund study. It appears that the recommended revisions are taking advantage of modern data collection to measure profile. Andy felt that the revisions addresses many of the known issues, but it has not been tested/validated in the field. Does include data from the field, but it has not been implemented by others.


Some of the revisions are preferable to what is in the current standard. Chair noted the benefits of going to a concurrent ballot to get things moving for the standard. Motion made by MN to move to concurrent ballot, FL seconded to move R 87 revisions to concurrent ballot for the recommended NCHRP revisions. No discussion and no dissent.

G. NCHRP Issues – Amir Hanna shared a presentation on NCHRP projects related to the TS, the NCHRP Implementing Program and NCHRP 2022. New standards on inertial profilers coming. November 2, 2020 deadline for FY 2022 NCHRP problem statements. Questions: Amir noted that NCHRP 20-44 Implemention Support Program request can be made at any time, who can request is online (State DOTs, AASHTO Committees, NCHRP Project Panels). Funding varies, can go to up to several hundred thousand dollars.

H. Research Proposals - None submitted prior to the meeting. Jerry noted that 2 that were also sent to TS 5d may apply here too. Chair noted that those have been submitted to COMP and will be considered.

I. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings – Traditionally TS 5a has not held a mid-year meeting (MYM)- but this year will need to have a MYM based on all the ballots going to COMP this year. TS MYM will be between October 29th and Nov 16th.

VI. Open Discussion

None

VII. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 4:15pm


TS Meeting Summary

Meeting Summary Items Approved by the TS for Ballot (Include reconfirmations.)

Standard Designation Summary of Changes Proposed Ballot Type

New TPxxx-20 'Continuous Measurement of Sideway-Force Friction Number for Highway Pavements' ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

New MPxxx-20 'File Format of 2-Dimensional and 3-Dimensional (2D/3D) Pavement Image Data' ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

New PPxxx-20

'Assessment of Static Performance in Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems'

☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

New PPxxx-20

'Assessment of Body Motion Cancellation in Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems'


New PPxxx-20 'Assessment of Navigation Drift Mitigation in transverse Pavement Profiling Systems' ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

New PPxxx-20

'Assessment of Highway Performance in Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems'


New PPxxx-20 'Assessment of Ground Reference Data for Transverse Pavement Profiling System Assessment' ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

New PPxxx-20 'Definitions of Terms Related to Transverse Pavement Profiling Systems and Ground Reference Equipment' ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

R 36-17 'Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements', Add Method C. ☐TS ☒COMP ☐CONCURRENT

R 87 Revisions based on NCHRP 20-07 (Task 411) ☐TS ☐COMP ☒CONCURRENT

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT

New Task Forces Formed Task Force Name Summary of Task TF Member Names and (States) NONE

Research Proposals (Include number/title/states interested.) Submitted in TS 5d

Other Action Items Chair will share Steward list with TS. Include Griffin Sullivan and Heath Patterson from Mississippi DOT. Chair to follow up with Ohio on withdrawing their negative for the new Sideways-Force Friction standard.

ATTACHMENT A

Tech Subcommittee 5d Annual Meeting 2019 Page 1 of 5

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS

Meeting (Annual or Mid-Year) Annual Date August 7, 2019 Scheduled Time 3:15 – 5:00 PM Technical Subcommittee & Name 5a – Pavement Measurement and Performance Measures Chair Name and (State) John Donahue (MO) Vice Chair Name and (State) Scott George (AL) Research Liaison Name and (State) Curt Turgeon (MN)

I. Introduction and Housekeeping

II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

III. Roll Call of Voting Members

Present Member Name State Present Member Name State ☒ John Donahue (Chair) MO ☒ Clark Morrison NC ☒ Scott George (Vice-Chair) AL ☒ Jeffrey Mann NM ☒ Jesus Sandoval-Gil –Scott

Weinland AZ ☒ Russell Thielke NY

☒ Craig Widen CO ☒ Patrick Bierl – Eric Biehl OH ☐ Leo Fontaine CT ☒ Heather Hall- Mark Woods –

will take over for Heather. TN

☒ Bouzid Choubane FL ☒ Scott Nussbaum UT ☒ Peter Wu – Ian Rish GA ☒ Robert Crandol VA ☒ LaDonna Rowden IL ☐ Kurt Williams WA ☒ Richard Barezinsky – Justin

Hansen KS ☐ Paul Farley WV

☒ Sejal Barot MD ☐ Lane Becca ON ☒ John Staton - Michael Eacker MI ☐ ☒ Curt Turgeon MN ☐ ☒ James Williams - Griffin Sullivan MS ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Quorum Rules Met? Annual Meeting: Simple majority of voting members (☒y/ ☐n) | Mid-Year Meeting: Voting members present (☐y/ ☐n)

A. Review of Membership (New members, exiting members, etc.)

IV. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes

FL moves to accept the minutes. CO Second. Discussion- none. Called to question. All were in favor. Motion carried.

See Attachment A.

V. Old Business


A. COMP Ballot Items COMP Ballot # Standard


20 R 32 0/37 Illinois commented that the revised description for ‘calibration’ in Note 19 of Section 13.1.1 should be identical to the one in Section 13.1, since both refer to the same thing.

The descriptions should be the same, so the following editorial change was made to Note 19 under Sec 13.1.1: Note 1 —This rotation procedure is different from the relative calibration procedure done for a an annual reference calibration.

Ballot passed for revised standard.

21 R 41 0/37 Standard was discontinued.

B. Technical Subcommittee Ballots TS Ballot # Standard


C. Reconfirmation Ballots Reconf. Ballot # Standard


1 R 33 0/17 Ontario commented that the ‘Y-estimate’ expression used in Sec 8.2.3 and 9.2.3 is not a typical statistic term. The nature of this term should be more accurately defined in the standard. The expression may reworded as “The standard error of the estimate for the load shall be …..” or simply “The standard error of the estimate shall be …..”. Colorado commented that In Note 2 for 8.1.3, it appears that only dial indicators can be used. Should we allow digital indicators?

What is termed as the ‘Y-estimate’ is actually the estimate for the load, which is more accurate and understandable language so the following editorial change was made to Sec 8.2.3 and Sec 9.2.3 – “The standard error of the Y-estimate estimate for the load shall be no more than …..”. Generally, users of the standard should not be confused to think the term ‘dial’ precludes reading a digital display, but to eliminate any misinterpretation the term will be deleted. The following editorial change will be made to Sec 8.1.3 – “The testing machine’s dial’s indicated load should return to zero”.

Since both changes made were editorial in nature, the ballot passed


for reconfirmation without further need for a COMP ballot.

2 T 282 0/17 Ballot passed for reconfirmation.

D. Task Force Reports Task Force # Title Members Status/Update Dynamic Friction Tester

Standard Development Sejal Barot Worked on setting up specification for bounded and

unbounded aggregate. Precision study was conducted between MDSHA and NCAT. Results of the COMP survey were also reviewed. Two specifications were drafted and are ready for ballot. These draft standards were reviewed in Tech SC 1c.

FL, WV, Friction testing with evaluating crash risk. Reviewed AASHTO’s guide and have recommendations. The recommendations will be submitted.

VI. New Business

A. New TS Ballots 1. ‘Continuous Measurement of Sideway-Force Friction Number for Highway Pavements’ Ballot went out in the past month. It did pass. 17/2 – MO, MD had negatives. Negatives and comments will be addressed. MN made a motion put it on the COMP committee ballot; FL seconded the motion. Discussion- None. Called to question. All were in favor. Motion carried to put it on the COMP committee ballot.

B. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year The two TPs above are used in a supplementary role for T360. Both TPs are at the end of their provisional lives. In discussion with industry professionals, some additional work needs to be done, including creating the precision and bias statements, but the TPs have been usable in their current form for traffic noise specialists. The question was raised whether or not to get new TPXX’s for these practices or ballot them as is for full standard status. The TS 5a preference was to ballot them as is.

1. TP98-18 ‘Standard Method of Test for Determining the Influence of Road Surfaces on Vehicle Noise Using the Statistical Isolated Pass-By (SIP) Method’ MN motions to make these full standards. FL seconds. Discussion: none. Called to question: all were in favor. Motion carried to make TP98 a full standard. MN made a motion put it on the COMP committee ballot; AL seconded the motion. Discussion: none. Called to question: all were in favor. Motion carried to put it on the COMP committee ballot.

1. TP99-18 ‘Standard Method of Test for Determining the Influence of Road Surfaces on Traffic Noise Using the Continuous-Flow Traffic Time-Integrated (CTIM) Method’ FL motions to make these full standards. GA seconds. Discussion: none, Called to question. All were in favor. Motion carries and TP99 will be moved to ballot as a full standard. AL made a motion put it on the COMP committee ballot; MN seconded the motion. Discussion: none. Called to question: all were in favor. Motion carried to put it on the COMP committee ballot. 2. T360-16 ‘Measurement of Tire/Pavement Noise using the On-Board Intensity (OBSI) Method’ FL made a motion to reconfirm; CO seconded the motion. Discussion: none. Called to question: all were in favor. Motion carried to reconfirm.


3. T256-01 (2016) ‘Standard Method of Test for Pavement Deflection Measurements’ This was sent to the FWD UG for review, but no revisions were suggested. AASHTO re:source (Uherek) also forwarded the information to other industry members and did not receive any additional feedback. UT made a motion to reconfirm; FL seconded the motion. Discussion: none. Called to question: all were in favor. Motion carried to reconfirm. 4. R32 and R33 revisions – Greg Uherek: R32 contains protocol to evaluate FWD Calibration Centers. These need to be updated. Worked with Cornell in revising software. Software was based on Windows XP and the platform is antiquated. Looking to bring the software up to Windows 10. Once software is built, centers will be able to download newest software. Also needed to revise the standard to be brought up to speed with AASHTO Form and Style. R33 need additional work in bringing it up to date similar with R32.

As work continued revisions have come from the members and the FWDUG Meeting. MN made a motion to move R32 and R33 to concurrent ballot; CO seconded the motion. Discussion: none. Called to question: all were in favor. Motion carried to put it on the concurrent ballot.

C. Review of Stewardship List

D. Proposed New Standards 1. Transverse profile standards - Andy Mergenmeier 2. Pavement surface 3D data format standards - Andy Mergenmeier 3. New method C for R 36 faulting standard (Attachment B) – Georgene Geary – Gave presentation

on the new method. Discussion occurred. This will be sent out as part of a new ballot item for the next technical subcommittee ballot. Georgene will prepare the ballot.

E. AASHTO ‘Guide for Pavement Friction’ revisions - Andy Mergenmeier

F. NCHRP Issues – Amir Hanna - Update was given on NCHRP Items. 1-60, 10-19, 10-25 and 10-26. See handout for exact information. Problem statements are due Nov. 1st, 2019.

G. Research Proposals H. Correspondence, Calls, Meetings: FWDUG meeting is in Atlanta, GA on Sept. 8th

VII. Open Discussion

VIII. Adjourn

TS Meeting Summary


Meeting Summary Items Approved by the TS for Ballot (Include reconfirmations.)

Standard Designation Summary of Changes Proposed Ballot Type

☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT




☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT ☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT



☐TS ☐COMP ☐CONCURRENT New Task Forces Formed Task Force Name Summary of Task TF Member Names and (States)

Research Proposals (Include number/title/states interested.)

Other Action Items

AASHTO DESIGNATION STANDARD TITLE

M 261-96 (2009) (E 501-94 (2000)) Standard Tire for Pavement Frictional-Property Tests

M 286-96 (2009) (E 524-88 (2000)) p p

Pavement Frictional-Property Tests

T 242-96 (2009)(E 274-97)Frictional Properties of Paved Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire

T 256-01 (2011) Pavement Deflection Measurements

T 278-90(2012)(E 303-93(2008))Surface Frictional Properties Using the British Pendulum Tester

T 279-18 (D 3319-11(2017))Accelerated Polishing of Aggregates Using the British Wheel

T 282-01(2010) (E 556-95(2000))Calibrating a Wheel Force or Torque Transducer Using a Calibration Platform (User Level)

T 317-04 (2009)Prediction of Asphalt-Bound Pavement Layer Temperatures

R 20-99 (2012) Procedures for Measuring Highway Noise

R 32-09Calibrating the Load Cell and Deflection Sensors for a Falling Weight Deflectometer

R 33-03 (2008)Calibrating the Reference Load Cell Used for Reference Calibrations for Falling Weight Deflectometer

R40-10 Measuring Pavement Profile Using a Rod and LevelR 43M/R 43-07 Quantifying Roughness of PavementsR 48-10 (deleted per 2018 meeting/ballot) Determining Rut Depth in PavementsR 36-12 Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements

R 37-04 (2009)Application of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to Highways

R 55-10 (deleted per 2018 meeting/ballot) Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement SurfaceR 56-10 Certification of Inertial Profiling Systems

R 57-10Operating Inertial Profilers and Evaluating Pavement Profiles

R 54-10Pavement Ride Quality When Measured Using Inertial Profiling Systems

M 328-10 Standard Equipment Specification for Inertial Profiler

M 331-13Smoothness of Pavement in Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Systems

T 360Measurement of Tire/Pavement Noise Using the On-Board Sound Intensity (OBSI) Method

R 88-18Collecting the Transverse Pavement Profile (formerly PP 70)

AASHTO COMP TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTE 5a, Pavement Me

R 87-18

Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross-Slope from Collected Transverse Profiles (formerly PP 69)

R 86-18Collecting Images of Pavement Surfaces for Distress Detection (formerly PP 68)

R 85-18

Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surfaces from Collected Images Utilizing Automated Methods (formerly PP 67)

TP98-18Determining the Influence of Road Surfaces on Vehicle Noise using the Statistical Isolated Pass-by (SIP) Method

TP99-13

Determining the Influence of Road Surfaces on Traffic Noise Using the Continuous-Flow Traffic Time-Integrated Method (CTIM)

STANDARD STEWARDS

AL

NY, AL

NY, re:source

WV, MD

WV, MI

MN, TX, MI

NY, ON, FHWA (Weaver)

FHWA (Mark Ferroni)

NM

TN

MS, FHWA (??)

FL, FHWA (Orthmeyer), ALMD

WA, Ontario, FHWA (Mergenmeier)

FL, FHWA (Yu), TX

MDWV, FHWA (??)

WV, FHWA (??)

WA, FHWA (Swanlund)

TN, FHWA (??)

FHWA (Walker, Wiser both at TFHRC)

MN

AL

easurement and Performance Measures

AL, MS, FHWA (Mergenmeier)

MD, MS, FHWA (Mergenmeier)

MD, MS, FHWA (Mergenmeier)

FHWA (Orthmeyer), AZ

FHWA (Orthmeyer), CO

ATTACHMENT C

Standard Practice for Generating Pavement Surface Cracking Indices From Digital Images1

This standard is issued under the fixed designation; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.

1. Scope 1.1 This practice covers the quantification of pavement

surface cracking from digital images of the pavement surface. 1.2 The intent is to minimize human intervention in the process of

generating these cracking indices. 1.3 The cracking indices are unitless. 1.4 This standard does not purport to address all of the safety

concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety, health, and environmental practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use. Specific precautionary statements are given in Section 6.

1.5 This international standard was developed in accordance with internationally recognized principles on standardization established in the Decision on Principles for the Development of International Standards, Guides and Recommendations issued by the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee.

2. Terminology

2.1 Definitions of Terms Specific to This Standard:

1 This practice is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee E17 on Vehicle - Pavement Systems and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E17.42 on Pavement Management and Data Needs.

2 The boldface numbers in parentheses refer to the list of references at the end of this standard.

2.1.1 asphalt concrete (AC) surface—aggregate mixture with

an asphalt cement binder. This term also refers to surfaces constructed of coal tars and natural tars for purposes of this practice.

2.1.2 crack—a fissure of the pavement material at the surface. For measurement purposes, a crack is defined (and measured) as a pattern of pixels from the image that extends a minimum of 0.3m (1ft) in length. The pixel pattern may be missing some pixels but at least 80% of the pixels should positively indicate the limits to be included in the count. For discussion purposes references to “a crack” may be a singular line or a pattern of multiple interconnected cracks.

2.1.3 crack extent—the area of the pavement surface affected by the cracking as determined by the perimeter of the crack (expressed as a percent of the total lane area included in the pavement image frame).

2.1.4 crack intensity—the total length of cracks within the area defining the extent (expressed as m/m2 or ft/ft2).

2.1.5 crack length—the distance from one end of the crack to the other, a minimum of 0.3m (1ft) in length.

2.1.6 crack orientation—the angular measurement between the direction of travel and a line drawn between the end of the crack.

2.1.7 crack pattern—a grouping of multiple interconnected cracks.

2.1.8 crack position—the distance of the crack from the shoulder edge of the pavement.

2.1.9 crack width—the average gap between the two edges of a crack within the image frame being processed (a minimum of 1mm (0.04 in.)).

2.1.10 inside wheel-path—a longitudinal strip of pavement 0.75 m (30 in.) wide and centered 0.875 m (34 in.) from the centerline of the lane.

2.1.11 measurement zone—one of the five strips of pavement created by the wheel-paths and the areas between and outside the wheel-paths.

2.1.12 outside wheel-path—a longitudinal strip of pavement 0.75 m (30 in.) wide and centered 0.875 m (34 in.) from the shoulder edge of the lane.

2.1.13 pavement branch—a branch is an identifiable part of the pavement network that is a single entity and has a distinct function. For example, each roadway or parking area is a

http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/E17.htm

http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/SUBCOMMIT/E1742.htm

ATTACHMENT C

separate branch. 2.1.14 pavement su r face cracking index (PSCI)—a

numerical rating of the pavement c racking that ranges from 0 to 100 with 0 being the worst possible condition and 100 being the best possible condition.

2.1.15 pavement section—a contiguous pavement area having uniform construction, maintenance, usage history, and condition. A section should have the same traffic volume and load intensity.

2.1.16 portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement— aggregate mixture with portland cement binder including nonreinforced and reinforced jointed pavement.

ATTACHMENT C

3. Summary of Practice 3.1 The pavement is divided into branches that are divided

into sections. Images o f each sec t io n a re p rocessed to ident i fy and record the p resence o f c racks . For each crack (or crack pattern) the extent, intensity, and width are recorded to enable calculation of the PSCI. To support interpretation of the cracking data orientation, position, and type are also recorded. The types of cracking are described in Appendix X1 (for Asphalt Concrete Surfaced Pavements) and Appendix X2 (for Concrete Surfaced Pavements).

4. Significance and Use

4.1 The PSCI is a numerical indicator that rates the surface condition of the pavement. The PSCI provides a measure of the cracking observed from images of the pavement surface. It provides a quantitative and rational basis for rating pavement surface cracking to aid in determining maintenance and repair needs and priorities. Continuous monitoring of the PSCI is used to establish feedback on pavement performance for validation or improvement of current pavement design and maintenance procedures.

5. Apparatus

5.1 V e h i c l e ( t h a t m e e t s A S T M 1 6 5 6 ) 6. Hazards

6.1 Traffic is a hazard in any pavement condition survey. 7. Calculation of PSCI

7.1 PSCI = extent X intensity X crack width (dimensionless).

7.2 The PSCI uses the openness or aperture size of the pavement surfacing caused by cracking as the objective function. This is a measure of the surface integrity due to cracking that relates to the area that could potentially admit surface water.

7.3 It also relates to the loss of horizontal tensile integrity at the surface because that is proportional to the total length of cracks (extent X intensity) and to interparticle load transfer, which is related in part to crack width.

7.4 It is, however, a purely physical dimensional measure and has no prior dependency on cause or type of cracking.

7.5 Any evaluation of the cause of the cracking, or of its impact on pavement performance, would be made independently together with other factors relevant to the particular purpose, as elaborated later.

8. Reporting Procedure 8.1 Record Extent, Intensity, width, PSCI, orientation, position and type for each crack identified.

8.2 Identify branches of the pavement with different uses such as roadways and parking on the network layout plan. 8.3 Divide each branch into sections based on the pavements design, construction history, traffic, and condition.

8.4 Divide each section into longitudinal zones across the pavement:

8.4.1 Zone 1 is between the inside wheel-path and the adjacent lane edge.

8.4.2 Zone 2 is the inside wheel-path.

8.4.3 Zone 3 is the space between wheel-paths.

8.4.4 Zone 4 is the outside wheel-path.

8.4.5 Zone 5 is between the outside wheel-path and the shoulder/lane edge.

8.5 For each Zone, summarize the PSCI for each type of crack within the section.

APPENDIXES

X1. CRACKS IN ASPHALT PAVEMENTS

ALLIGATOR CRACKING (FATIGUE) X1.1 Alligator or fatigue cracking is a series of interconnecting cracks caused by fatigue failure of the asphalt concrete surface under repeated traffic loading. Cracking begins at the bottom of the asphalt surface, or stabilized base, where tensile stress and strain are highest under a wheel load. The cracks propagate to the surface initially as a series of parallel longitudinal cracks. After repeated traffic loading, the cracks connect, forming many-sided, sharp-angled pieces that develop a pattern resembling chicken wire or the skin of an alligator. The pieces are generally less than 0.5 m (1.5 ft) on the longest side. Alligator cracking occurs only in areas subjected to repeated traffic loading, such as wheel paths. Pattern-type cracking that occurs over an entire area not subjected to loading is called “block cracking,” which is not a load-associated distress.

BLOCK CRACKING

X1.2 Block cracks are interconnected cracks that divide the pavement into approximately rectangular pieces. The blocks may range in size from approximately 0.3 by 0.3 m (1 by 1 ft) to 3 by 3 m (10 by 10 ft). Block cracking is caused mainly by shrinkage of the asphalt concrete and daily temperature cycling, which results in daily stress/strain cycling. It is not load associated. Block cracking usually indicates that the asphalt has hardened significantly. Block cracking normally occurs over a large portion of the pavement area, but sometimes will occur only in nontraffic areas. This type of distress differs from alligator cracking in that alligator cracks form smaller, many-sided pieces with sharp angles. Also, unlike block cracks, alligator cracks are caused by repeated traffic loadings, and therefore, are found only in traffic areas, that is, wheel paths.

LONGITUDINAL AND TRANSVERSE CRACKING

X1.3 Longitudinal cracks are predominantly parallel to the pavement’s centerline or laydown direction (where the angle of the overall crack relative to the centerline never exceeds 45 degrees). They may be caused by:

X1.3.1 A poorly constructed paving lane joint. X1.3.2 Shrinkage of the AC surface due to low temperatures or hardening of the asphalt, or daily temperature cycling, or both. X1.4 Transverse cracks extend across the pavement at

approximately right angles to the pavement centerline or direction of laydown (where the angle of the overall crack relative to the pavement centerline is between 45 degrees and 135 degrees). These types of cracks are not usually load associated.

X2. DISTRESS IN JOINTED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS

CORNER BREAK

X2.1 A corner break is a crack that intersects the joints at a distance less than or equal to one-half the slab length on adjacent sides

of the corner of a slab, measured from the corner of the slab. For example, a slab measuring 3.5 by 6.0 m (11.5 by 20.0 ft) that has a crack 1.5 m (5 ft) on one side and 3.5 m (11.5 ft) on the other side is not considered a corner break; it is a diagonal crack. However, a crack that intersects 0.5 m (4 ft) on one side and 2.5 m (8 ft) on the other is considered a corner break. A corner break differs from a corner spall in that the crack extends vertically through the entire slab thickness, whereas a corner spall intersects the joint at an angle. For the purposes of automated detection, if either side of the “corner break” is less than 0.3 m (1 foot) this should be treated as a spall.

Load repetition combined with loss of support and curling stresses usually cause corner breaks.

DIVIDED SLAB

X2.2 Slab is divided by cracks into four or more pieces due to overloading or inadequate support, or both. If all pieces or cracks are contained within a corner break, the distress is categorized as a severe corner break.

LINEAR CRACKING (Longitudinal, Transverse, and Diagonal Cracks)

X2.3 These cracks, which divide the slab into two or three pieces, usually are caused by a combination of repeated traffic

loading, thermal gradient curling, and repeated moisture loading. (Slabs divided into four or more pieces are counted as divided slabs.) Hairline cracks that are only a few feet long and do not extend across the entire slab, are not counted.

REFERENCES (1) PAVER Asphalt Distress Manual, US Army Construction Engineering

Laboratories, TR 97/104, June 1997. (2) PAVER Asphalt Distress Manual, US Army Construction Engineering

Laboratories, TR 97/105, June 1997. (3) Carey, W.N., Jr. and Irick, P.E., “The Pavement Serviceability- Performance Concept,” HRB Bulletin 250, 1960.

(4) Paterson, W. D., “Proposal of Universal Cracking Indicator for Pavements,” Transportation Research Record 1455, Washington, DC, 1994, pp. 69-75

NCRP Project 20-07(411) Final Report January 31, 2020

ATTACHMENT D

PROPOSED REVISED PRACTICE


1

Proposed Revised Practice for Determining Pavement Deformation Parameters and Cross Slope from Collected Transverse Profiles

Revision to AASHTO R87-18

Disclaimer: These proposed changes to AASHTO Standard Practice R 87 are the recommendation of the research team for NCHRP Project 20-07(411) at Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc. These changes have not been approved by NCHRP or any AASHTO committee nor formally accepted for AASHTO specifications.

1. SCOPE

1.1 This practice presents a method for deriving transverse profile pavement surface deformation parameters such as rut depth and cross slope in pavement surfaces utilizing a transverse profile. Detailed specifications are not included for equipment or software used to make the calculations. According to this standard, any approach that can be adequately validated to meet the functionality stipulated herein is considered acceptable. The goal is to achieve a significant level of standardization that will contribute to the production of consistent pavement condition estimates without unduly restricting innovative methods.

1.2 The data will typically be processed utilizing a collection of algorithms in a computer.

1.3 This practice does not purport to address all of the safety concerns, if any, associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations related to and prior to its use.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1 AASHTO Standard • R88 Collecting the Transverse Pavement Profile

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1 Definitions

3.1.1 Cross slope – the average transverse slope of the pavement surface expressed in percent.

3.1.2 Inside wheel path – a longitudinal strip of pavement 1.0 m (39 inches) wide and centered 0.875 m (35 inches) to the left of the centerline of the lane in the direction of travel.


2

3.1.3 Lane – the traveled surface between the inside edge of the left pavement marking and the outside lane edge or, in the absence of markings, an equivalent portion of the pavement surface.

3.1.4 Lane center – a location halfway between the inside edges of the pavement edge markings. If no markings are present, a location 22 percent of the total pavement width from the pavement middle on two-lane roads and a location at the middle of the road on one-lane roads.

3.1.5 Outside lane edge – a line 100 mm (4 inches) beyond the outside limit of the edge pavement marking. In the absence of an edge pavement marking, it is a user-defined distance from the left edge marking or pavement centerline.

3.1.6 Outside wheel path – a longitudinal strip of pavement 1.0 m (39 inches) wide and centered 0.875 m (35 inches) to the right of the centerline of the lane in the direction of travel.

3.1.7 Rut – a longitudinal depression in the wheel path of the pavement surface with a depth of at least 2 mm (0.080 inch). (Removed “a width of at least 0.3 m (1.0 ft), and with a longitudinal length of at least 30 m (100 ft))

3.1.8 Summary section – a longitudinal length of a pavement lane over which the data statistics are reported.

3.1.9 Transverse profile – the vertical deviations of the pavement surface from a level reference perpendicular to the lane travel direction.

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE

4.1 The method presents a set of procedures to calculate several measures of permanent deformation related to the transverse profile rut depth and cross slope from transverse profile data. The adoption of these procedures will promote greater consistency in interpretation and reporting of these data.

4.2 This method reflects a balance between extreme calculation complexity and resultant accuracy. It is not expected to give the correct values for each individual deformation condition but to provide data that, taken in aggregate, will provide an accurate picture of the deformation involved. Likewise, There may be unusual transverse contours that will not calculate correctly. It is expected, however, that their occurrence will be minimal.

5. DATA COLLECTION

5.1 Typically, The transverse profile is to be collected according to R 88. Other collection protocols may be followed if the data requirements of R 88 are met or exceeded.


3

5.2 In order to estimate the cross slope, the data collection unit shall incorporate positioning sensors such as may be obtained from an inertial measurement unit (IMU), that corrects for measurement vehicle movement so as to provide an accurate measurement of the actual differences in elevations of the pavement surface relative to the starting point of the measurement of each transverse elevation profile at the outside pavement edge.

6. DATA REDUCTION

6.1 All calculations are made for each transverse profile reported. For network-level data, the processed profiles should not be more than 3 m (10 ft) apart, and for project-level, no farther than 0.5 m (1.5 ft).

6.2 A system shall be established to determine the start and end points of each transverse profile to avoid irregular surface elevation features not common to the general profile within the travel lane. The intended purpose of the standard practice is to avoid bumps and depressions at the ends of the transverse profile measurements that do not result from tire wear or vehicle loading. Data outside of the begin and end limits shall be excluded from further analysis. In order to be sure that the appropriate data have been truncated from the transverse profile, a visual review of the lane designation may be required.

6.3 The transverse profile elevations shall be filtered to attenuate spikes and smooth surface texture features. As a minimum, a 50-mm (2-inch) moving average filter that ramps up at the start and ramps down at the end of the transverse profile measurement filtering process shall be used, so that all points within the transverse profile are assigned a filtered elevation. The resultant filtered profiles are used for all subsequent calculations. Note: A 0.305-m (1-ft) moving average in the longitudinal direction at each measurement offset elevation location may be desirable where the distance between transverse measurement locations is less than 0.15 m (0.5 ft).

6.4 The profile shall be shifted such that the elevation of the starting point of the transverse profile is 0.

6.5 Establish the Cross Slope: (Complete revision to this process)

6.5.1 Cross slope should only be computed if an IMU or equivalent is used during data collection to accurately capture the elevations of the pavement surface relative to the beginning elevation point in the transverse profile.

6.5.2 Perform a linear regression through the filtered transverse profile elevations.

6.5.3 The cross slope is the slope of the regression line through the filtered transverse profiles multiplied by 100. This parameter is called the full lane-width average cross slope.


4

6.5.4 It may be helpful to calculate the cross slope for each half of the lane and the center third in addition to the slope for the full lane width.

6.5.5 Additional approaches for the calculation of cross slope that may be useful for evaluating cross slope associated with the transverse profile include calculating the slope between the first and last data point in the transverse profile and the slope between the data points in the centers of the two wheelpaths.

(Eliminated “Calculate percent deformation” instructions – prior 6.5 section)

6.6 Calculate Rut Depth: (Complete revision of this calculation approach including elimination of the identification of the five key zones, normal rut depth calculation, center and rut depth calculation)

6.6.1 Normalize the transverse profile to remove any existing slope such that the slope represented by the first and last point of the filtered transverse profile is 0.

6.6.2 Determine the rut depth of the each wheelpath.

6.6.2.1 Start at one edge of the transverse profile moving toward the center of the lane as represented within the transverse profile.

6.6.2.2 Place one end of a virtual 1.8-m straightedge on the first point of the profile toward the edge of the lane.

6.6.2.3 Calculate the slope between the first point and each successive point up through the end of the straightedge. The second end of the straightedge is placed at the point with which the maximum slope is observed, as illustrated by Figure 1. If this point is directly adjacent to the first point, then proceed to step 6.6.2.8.

Figure 1. Illustration of straightedge placement

6.6.2.4 At each point between the first and last point of the surface straightedge that falls within the defined wheelpath, to calculate the depression depth under the surface


5

straightedge, establish a line parallel to the straightedge slope and extending the width of the ruler toward the center of the transverse profile. See steps 1 and 2 of Figure 2. The ruler width shall be 19 mm (0.75 inch) to capture damage within the pavement structure. Note: A 75-mm (3-inch) may provide a better estimate of water retention that impacts tires.

6.6.2.5 Identify if any point on the transverse profile falls above the imaginary ruler. If this is the case, raise the ruler until the width rests on top of all points in the transverse profile at that location with the width still parallel to the straightedge. See steps 3 and 4 of Figure 2.

Figure 2. Ruler placement for rut depth calculation

6.6.2.6 The rut depth at this location is the maximum distance from the bottom edge of the ruler to the bottom of the surface straightedge. If the calculated rut depth is less than 2 mm (0.08 inch), the rut depth is recorded as 0.

6.6.2.7 The rut depth for this straightedge position is the maximum of the rut depths for each point between the two locations where the straightedge sits.


6

6.6.2.8 Move the first point of the straightedge to the next location in the transverse profile and repeat steps 6.6.2.3 to 6.6.2.7.

6.6.2.9 The rut depth for the wheelpath is the maximum of each of the values resulting from step 6.6.2.7 for a wheelpath.

6.6.2.10 Repeat steps 6.6.2.1 through 6.6.2.9 starting at the other edge of the transverse profile to calculate the rut depth of the other wheelpath.

(eliminated Calculation of Rut Cross-Sectional Area and Calculate Potential Water Entrapment Depth sections)

7. DATA REPORTING

7.1 Each summary section shall have reported:

7.1.1 The average cross slope in percent.

7.1.2 The average rut depth for each wheelpath in millimeters (inches).

7.1.3 The maximum rut depth for each wheelpath in millimeters (inches). Note: The agency may desire to record the maximum rut depth that meets a minimum distance based upon the use of the collected data.

7.1.4 The standard deviation of rut depth for each wheelpath in millimeters (inches).

7.2 For network-level collection, each section summary shall be reported over 160.9 m (528 ft).

7.3 For project-level collection, each section summary shall be reported over 2 m (7 ft).

8. DATA INTERPRETATION

8.1 The agency is free to utilize the reported data as best fits its pavement management needs.

8.2 Agencies are alerted that dividing the scalar depth and percentage indexes into level categories or bins can result in erratic results. When values are near the bin limits, natural variation in data will cause dramatic shifts in results. However, such converting can be useful for general comparison to previously collected data in which bin limits were used.

9. SYSTEM VALIDATION

9.1 The process of checking the performance of the analysis process is left to the agency. Generally, the agency should follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for verifying its performance. Multiple transverse profile that reflect the conditions encountered in the


7

real data collection world should be considered as part of any program. These should include the profiles collected as part of the equipment verification process. The following considerations should be included in any program:

9.1.1 Multiple transverse profiles that reflect the conditions encountered in the real data collection world. These should include the profiles collected as part of the equipment verification process.

9.1.2 It is planned that a standard set of profiles will eventually be developed to verify the performance and highlight the limitations of the processing method.

10. KEYWORDS

10.1 Asphalt pavement surface: automated data collection; concrete pavement surface; cross slope; pavement management; rut; rut depth; transverse profile.

11. REFERENCES

11.1 ASTM E1656/E1656M, Standard Guide for Classification of Automated Pavement Condition Survey Equipment.

11.2 ASTM E1703/E1703M, Standard Test Method for Measuring Rut Depth of Pavement Surfaces Using a Straightedge

Attachment E

AASHTO Electronic Balloting System Ballot Detail Report

Ballot Detail

TS 5a Provisional Standards Ballot - June 2020

Item Number: 1

Description: 'Continuous Measurement of Sideway-Force Friction Number for Highway Pavements'

This provisional standard was in the last TS 5a concurrent ballot. It received affirmative votes from all but two DOTs, NV and KY. The issues with NV were resolved, but not with KY. This version of the standard has been revised to address the remaining concerns from KY, primarily with regards to the tire selection and size.

Decisions: Affirmative: 18 of 23 Negative: 1 of 23 No Vote: 4 of 23

Agency (Individual Name) Comments Decision Response Attachment

Missouri Department of Transportation (Brett Steven Trautman) ([email protected])

Recommend an affirmative vote.

Alabama Department of Transportation (Steven Ingram) ([email protected])

confirm

Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Kansas Department of Transportation (Richard A Barezinsky) ([email protected])

3.2 which way is the angle. Figure 1 shows away from centerline (although the wheel is in the air), later, in Figure 3, shows toward the centerline. Does it matter?

Response: “…and angled at 20 degrees (pointing towards the center of the vehicle) to the direction of travel of the vehicle.” John, I made change in the standard

5.2.2 Is it ambient temperature or temperature of

Affirmative

the air in the tire? This won't matter some times, but would matter if the tire has been used for a while. This is also in 8.1.

Response: Inflate the tire to a pressure of 350 ±20 kPa (50 psi ±3 psi) when measured at 20°C (68°F) ambient air temperature. John, change made in standard

5.3 should it just say potable water? Otherwise, how will we know if it meets the listed requirements?

Response: no change, potable water meets critieria. Current description provides options.

note 1 after 10.1 seems funny to have a "shall" in a note.

Response: Note modified, removed shall; John change made in standard 11. I don't really understand why there is a field report and a summary report. Many of the items are the same in both places. Some of the added items for the summary report are likely important for analysis, but are not really part of the test in my opinion. Things like the pavement type, age, and traffic data are not going to be known by the people doing the testing, so why are they part of the test? Response: John, this is essentially what T 274 has, suggest no change

Virginia Department of Transportation (Robert Wilson Crandol) ([email protected])

Affirmative

New York State Department of Transportation (Russell Thielke) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Alabama Department of Transportation (Scott W. George) ([email protected])

Section 11 REPORT It is worth considering that the amount wear on the test tire could affect these results, and so may be worth recording in the report? Response: no change, the tire has wear holes that indicate to the user when the tire should be changed to maintain the tire properties for the test which is appropriate for the test. Page 13 is left blank and this appears to be unintentional.

Affirmative

Appendix X1.7.1. bullet point 4 It might be beneficial to show the formula as an equation rather than in the paragraph. The formula can be written as such if necessary. Response: John, I gave it an attempt in the standard

Washington State Department of Transportation (Kurt R Williams) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Utah Department of Transportation (L. Scott Nussbaum) ([email protected])

We don't expect to use this standard soon. Affirmative

Illinois Department of Transportation (LaDonna R. Rowden) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Arizona Department of Transportation (Jesus A Sandoval-Gil) ([email protected])

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Recommend added text to Section 5.1 - The test wheel assembly is mounted on a frame within the wheelbase of the vehicle or as close as possible behind the rear axle.

Response: No change. This is not recommended because the side force imposed unto the chassis needs to be as close as possible to the center of gravity of the truck.

Section 5.3.1 – Recommend adding Speed and Target Flowrates for 40 mph and 55 mph. Section 9.2 lists 40 mph as the standard test speed.

Response: the target flowrate for 40 mph has been added.

Affirmative

Missouri Department of Transportation (John P Donahue) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Michigan Department of Transportation (John F Staton) ([email protected])

------------------------------------------------------------------- Affirmative Suggestions for improvement:

Affirmative

5.2.1 - Why does the tire need to be marked with the rebound resilience? Are there multiple levels of rebound resilience, such that the wrong tire could be used? Response: No change. They are marked after they are manufactured to ensure that they meet the required resilience and are not included in the available stock of tires to be used afterwards. 5.2.4 - Specify method for measuring tire diameter and the tire pressure at which it should be measured. Response: John, see change in the standard 9.1 - Grammatical error? "...prior to a test route." Perhaps it should be "...prior to testing a route." Response: John, see change in the standard 9.2 - Confusing sentence: "The test speed is not....need to be adjusted." Suggest "The testing speed may not be the speed at which results are reported. The results at the testing speed, in this case, will need to be adjusted to the reporting speed." Response: John, see changes made in the standard 9.2 & 9.3 - is there a minimum length for a single test? Is there a maximum length for a test so that the tire does not overheat? Response: No change. There is no minimum length for a single test. Test tires do not overheat regardless of the length of the test. What should be observed before starting any test is the availability of remaining tire diameter based on the observation of the wear holes. 10.1 - This is the first time MPD is mentioned. It should be defined somewhere. Are there equipment or other details that need to be specified regarding MPD? Response: John, Change made in standard. MPD deleted. 10.2.3 - Would GPS data for test locations be an option? Response: No change. Note 1 already mentions GPS

New Mexico Department of Transportation (Jeffrey S Mann) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Tennessee Department of Transportation (Heather P Hall) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Anne Holt) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Florida Department of Transportation (Bouzid Choubane) ([email protected])

Affirmative with comments:

• Sub-Section 3.5 - How is the speed

correction to 40 mph is computed or derived? Response: John, see change in standard

• Section 5 - Is this a standard test tire, readily available, or specialty tire?

Response: This is not a standard tire that you can buy in any store, but it is a readily available specialty tire that has been used worldwide for 40 years. Available from equipment manufacturer and/or friction testing service provider. • Section 10 - Reference to MPD as

well as Note 1 are not relevant herein. Except for the first sentence, I would suggest that Sub-Section 10.1 be removed in its entirety as irrelevant to the purpose of the subject standard. Response: John, see change in standard

• Sub-Section 12.2 – I would suggest that the information in this Sub-Section be included as a Note as it is provided for information purposes only, concerns one specific device, and is based on a more that 10-year old trial. Response: John, suggest no change – many standards have info that is this age and older

Affirmative

North Carolina Department of Transportation (Clark Stephen Morrison) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Colorado Department of Transportation (Craig Wieden) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Minnesota Department of Transportation (Curt M Turgeon) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Ohio Department of Transportation (Patrick Bierl) ([email protected])

Sec 3.2 - The system can only work when running tangent as any turning of the vehicle changes the sked angle and thus changes the response. This should be noted in the standard. This is extremely important to recognize as the response will increase with increase of skew due to vehicle turning against the skew of the test wheel and will likewise decrease with a turn with the skew of the test tire. Research needs to be done to determine an allowable skew operation range like 20 degrees plus minus 1.5 degrees for example. Sec 3.2 - A narrow smooth tire is going to be very sensitive to microtexture and very insensitive to macrotexture. This should be made clear somewhere in the standard. Sec 3.5 - Research needs to be done to prove that a speed correction is valid. Also, the stand should specify a standard test speed to use. We found in the locked wheel world that speed gradients are location dependent and in no way universal. Sec 4.1 - The words “the microtexture of” should be added ahead of “pavement surfaces” to be more factual. This device is not sensitive to macrotexture unless there is such an abundance that it mechanically bites the test tire. This would add needed clarity to the standard. Sec 5.2 - This is a very poor idea. Multiple users can standardize on different tire manufactures with potentially different properties. There must be one standard test tire so response of such device is reproducible. Sec 5.3.1 - This suggests indirectly that there are two target test speeds but below there is a target test speed of 40 mph. The standard should list the target water flow at the target test speed.

Negative

Sec 5.4 - The system needs to be able to capture skew of the host vehicle as it turns such that measures in turns can be marked and eliminated in post processing.

Table 2 - Is there a standard for the wheel itself? There should be and it should be included. Such a wheel needs to be noted and research done to ensure compliance of the wheel does not alias response.

Sec 9.2 - Just echoing previous comment. There needs to be standard test speed(s) with allowable variance. Speed gradients/equations will not suffice as these are location specific and depend the on characterization of the surface texture present. Then if multiple target test speeds are used, then thresholds of response are needed for each test speed for valid interpretation of response. This needs to be part of the standard.

Sec 10.1 - This is the first time MPD is mentioned. How is it measured, how do we ensure it is measured at the same location of the wheel response, etc.? All of this needs to be detailed and specified. MPD is only an indication of macrotexture depth. It is not sufficient alone to characterize macrotexture as it relates to friction.

Note 2 - Regarding the above note. The research behind this note must be cited at the very least. This note is not convincing to me as one who has operated side force CFME in the past.

West Virginia Department of Transportation (Paul M Farley) ([email protected])

No Vote

Connecticut Department of Transportation (Leo Louis Fontaine) ([email protected])

No Vote

Maryland Department of Transportation (Sejal Barot) ([email protected])

No Vote

Mississippi Department of Transportation (James A. Williams,III) ([email protected])

No Vote

Attachment F

AASHTO Electronic Balloting System Ballot Detail Report

Ballot Detail

Ballot Name: TS 5a Revised Standard Ballot - June 2020

Ballot Manager: John P Donahue

Ballot Start Date: 6/23/2020

Ballot Due Date: 7/14/2020

TS 5a Revised Standard Ballot - June 2020

Item Number: 1

Description: R 36-17 'Evaluating Faulting of Concrete Pavements'

Decisions: Affirmative: 19 of 22 Negative: 0 of 22 No Vote: 3 of 22

Agency (Individual Name) Comments Decision Response Attachment

Missouri Department of Transportation (Brett Steven Trautman) ([email protected])

Recommend an affirmative vote.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Casey Soneira) ([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (Andy J Mergenmeier) ([email protected])

Section 8.2/8.2.1. Is there a requirement for joint detection rate when using an automated algorithm by the 3D data provider? Section 8.3.1 appears to identify the transverse location for the measurement to be made as 7 inches from the joint between the lane and the outside/right

shoulder. Some pavements have a 14â€™ outside lane in lieu of 12â€™. What is the rational for the location being 7 inches from a shoulder joint? Should the wheel path be considered? Section 8.3.2 and 8.3.3 defines an area to be assessed and the distance of that area (boxes P and Q) from the pavement lane slab joint. What is the rational for the box size and location, as well as the equation for "o"? Also, given that these areas/boxes start at nominally 60 mm from the joint, how do we account for spalls or other localized effects. In addition, can this methodology be applied to transverse cracks that are not necessarily as straight as a joint? Section 8.4. Is there a requirement for sampling density/rate in terms of number of points in the longitudinal and transverse directions within boxes P & Q? Section 8.4 and 8.5. Since the method uses linear algebra to fit a plane (8.4), then uses linear algebra to note the elevation of the 10 points (P1 through P5 and Q1 through Q5) (8.5.1 and 8.5.2), and then uses linear algebra to calculate the average difference (8.5.3), why not just take averages of all elevations in Box P and subtracting from averages of all elevations in Box Q, to calculate the faulting. Wouldnâ€™t that be a simpler approach? Is there a reason to fit a plane and calculate

5 elevation points from the fitted plane? TPF-5(299) has a study ongoing to assess existing fault definitions for application in automated pavement surface measurement systems (e.g. 2D longitudinal profiler and 3D systems) and if appropriate develop a new/revised definition for fault measurement. Key attributes being investigated that affect the measurement of faulting with current fault definitions are curling, warping, localized joint damage, pavement surface texture, grade, appropriate transverse location for measurement, and appropriate longitudinal location for measurement. The project also includes development of certification and verification procedures to ensure faulting data quality. It is expected the fault measurement definition will be recommended in 2022.

GGfGA Engineering, LLC (Georgene M Geary) ([email protected])

Georgia Department of Transportation (J. T. Rabun) ([email protected])

Connecticut Department of Transportation (James P. Connery) ([email protected])

Fugro Consultants, Inc. (Jerome Francis Daleiden) ([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (Katherine Petros) ([email protected])

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (Katheryn Malusky) ([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Maria Knake) ([email protected])

AASHTO Consultants (Mark Edward Felag) ([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (Mark Swanlund) ([email protected])

National Center for Asphalt Technology at Auburn University (Michael Alan Heitzman) ([email protected])

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Stephen Lee) ([email protected])

Alabama Department of Transportation (Steven Ingram) ([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Steven Lenker) ([email protected])

Federal Highway Administration (Tim Aschenbrener) ([email protected])

Florida Department of Transportation (Timothy J. Ruelke) ([email protected])

AASHTO re:source (Tracy Barnhart) ([email protected])

Georgia Department of Transportation (Peter Wu) ([email protected])

Section 5.2.3 - There is a typo here, it should be Method C (see Section 8). Section 8.2.1- Since this section is dedicated to the new 3D Automatic Measurement Method, no need to mention "to locate

Affirmative

joints manually " (leave it to other section for manual work. It is recommended this sentence be revised as follows: Locate joints by using an automatic algorithm provided by the 3D data provider.

Kansas Department of Transportation (Richard A Barezinsky) ([email protected])

Figure 1, Note 2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 and Note 3 - The reference to the previous Section 10.X should now be Section 11.X. Currently reads as Section 0. 5.3-Spelling of "Method" 6.2.3.1 - 50 m is 164 ft 7.2.5 - suggest not using the hyphen between the number and the UOM 8.4.2 - Repeat step 8.4.2 for box Q? Should be referencing 8.4.1. 8.3.1 - Section 8 is all in SI units only. Remove "7 inches" to keep it consistent in this section

Affirmative

Virginia Department of Transportation (Robert Wilson Crandol) ([email protected])

Affirmative

New York State Department of Transportation (Russell Thielke) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Alabama Department of Transportation (Scott W. George) ([email protected])

Figure 1, Note 2, 6.2.1, 6.2.2, 6.2.3 & Note 3 reference Section 0. Should this be Section 11? 5.3 check spelling of method. 8. Recommend deleting 3D from the end of Method C. Figure 3b. Should the size of Box P be shown in the figure? At first glance it appeared, to me, that the offset "o" was the distance between the two boxes and not the distance from the joint to the box.

Affirmative

Ohio Department of Transportation (Patrick Bierl) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Washington State Department of Transportation (Kurt R Williams) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Utah Department of Transportation (L. Scott Nussbaum) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Illinois Department of Transportation (LaDonna R. Rowden) ([email protected])

- There are several references that have been struckthrough and referred to Section 0. These need to be updated to the correct reference. - Section 5.3, Line 1: - delete the word "either". - change "Mthod" to "Method". - Figure 3a: Should the dimension in the figure be changed to 7 inches since that is the primary unit? - Section 8.4.1, Line 3: add a colon at the end of the last phrase. - Section 8.4.2, Line 1: add a colon at the end of the last phrase.

Affirmative

Arizona Department of Transportation (Jesus A Sandoval-Gil) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Missouri Department of Transportation (John P Donahue) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Michigan Department of Transportation (John F Staton) ([email protected])

Affirmative

New Mexico Department of Transportation (Jeffrey S Mann) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Tennessee Department of Transportation (Heather P Hall) ([email protected])

I found the procedure to be somewhat confusing. eg 8.3 begins by talking about a box that is not previously referenced. Would make more sense if figure 3b was shown after or reference in 8.3 to explain generally what the next few steps are doing. Not seeing that until several steps is difficult to follow.

Affirmative

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation (Anne Holt) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Florida Department of Transportation (Bouzid Choubane) ([email protected])

Affirmative with comments

Section 5.3 - Minor edit, "Mthod" should be "Method".

Sub-Section 8.3.1 - Any particular reason as to why is point A 178 mm from the right edge of the joint? Other methods in this specification (Manual, Method A, Method B) measure the fault in the outside wheel path. The center of outside wheel path would be about 940 mm (37 in.) away from the right edge of the joint given a 12 ft. lane width and the wheel path definitions given in Definitions for this specification.

Sub-Section 8.3.2 - This standard describes fault measurement across a

Affirmative

transverse joint or crack. What range of values for Î¸ would be considered a transverse joint or crack?

North Carolina Department of Transportation (Clark Stephen Morrison) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Colorado Department of Transportation (Craig Wieden) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Minnesota Department of Transportation (Curt M Turgeon) ([email protected])

Affirmative

Connecticut Department of Transportation (Leo Louis Fontaine) ([email protected])

No Vote

West Virginia Department of Transportation (Paul M Farley) ([email protected])

No Vote

Maryland Department of Transportation (Sejal Barot) ([email protected])

No Vote

Date: 7/15/2020

Documents

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS AND PAVEMENTS...test wheel and will likewise decrease with a turn with the skew of the test tire. Research needs to be done to determine an allowable skew operation