Skip to contentU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration
Asset Management | Bridge Technology | Operations | Pavement
FHWA > Asset Management > Evaluation of Highway Performance Measures for a Multi-State Corridor - A Pilot Study

Evaluation of Highway Performance Measures for a Multi-State Corridor - A Pilot Study

Table of Contents

Pilot Study cover: Evaluation of Highway Performance Measures for a Multi-State Corridor - A Pilot Study.

Presented by

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

FHWA-HIF-10-015

Foreword

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names may appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.
FHWA-HIF-10-015
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle

Evaluation of Highway Performance Measures for a Multi-State Corridor - A Pilot Study

5. Report Date
March 2010
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
William L. Giuffre
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
100 CambridgePark Drive, Suite 400
Cambridge, MA 02140

10. Work Unit No.
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-06-D-00004
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration
Office of Asset Management
U.S. Department of Transportation
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SW, E-86-205
Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report
October 2009-March 2010

14. Sponsoring Agency Code  
15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA COTM: Stephen Gaj, Office of Asset Management

16. Abstract

Determining an appropriate set of performance measures to use for managing the nation's highway network is a vital component of the work to preserve our existing transportation infrastructure. Recent research, such as National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-74 describing an asset management framework for the Interstate Highway System (IHS), has highlighted the importance of establishing a consistent set of performance measures for communicating physical conditions of our roads, bridges, and other highway assets.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Asset Management developed this project to analyze bridge and pavement data across a multi-state corridor, evaluate the quality of existing performance measures, and recommend additional measures as well as further avenues of research in this area. A key deliverable involved using the Integrated Corridor Analysis Tool (ICAT), previously developed by the I-95 Corridor Coalition, as a platform to display bridge and pavement performance data. ICAT provides a map-based application, accessible via the Internet, that allows users to view, analyze, and compare performance data along an entire corridor or at a specific location.

This project provides a statistical analysis of bridge and pavement data received from Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. This analysis included looking at individual values as well as comparing values both within a state and across states.

17. Key Words

Interstate 95, bridge, pavement, statistical analysis, performance measure, Integrated Corridor Analysis Tool

18. Distribution Statement
No Restrictions.
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No of Pages
84
22. Price
N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized

Metric Conversion Factors
(International System of Units)

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
LENGTH
in inches 25.4 millimeters mm
ft feet 0.305 meters m
yd yards 0.914 meters m
mi miles 1.61 kilometers km
AREA
in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2
ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2
yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2
ac acres 0.405 hectares ha
mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2
VOLUME
fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL
gal gallons 3.785 liters L
ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3
yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3
MASS
oz ounces 28.35 grams g
lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg
T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t")
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
oF Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8
Celsius oC
ILLUMINATION
fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx
fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
lbf poundforce   4.45   newtons N
lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL
LENGTH
mm millimeters 0.039 inches in
m meters 3.28 feet ft
m meters 1.09 yards yd
km kilometers 0.621 miles mi
AREA
mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2
m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2
m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2
ha hectares 2.47 acres ac
km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2
VOLUME
mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz
L liters 0.264 gallons gal
m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3
m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3
MASS
g grams 0.035 ounces oz
kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb
Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T
TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
oC Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit °F
ILLUMINATION
lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc
cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl
FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf
kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

Executive Summary

Determining an appropriate set of performance measures to use for managing the nation's highway network is a vital component of the work to preserve our existing transportation infrastructure. Recent research, such as National Cooperative Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-74 describing an asset management framework for the Interstate Highway System (IHS), has highlighted the importance of establishing a consistent set of performance measures for communicating physical conditions of our roads, bridges, and other highway assets.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Asset Management developed this project to analyze bridge and pavement data across a multi-state corridor, evaluate the quality of existing performance measures, and recommend additional measures as well as further avenues of research in this area. A key deliverable involved using the Integrated Corridor Analysis Tool (ICAT), previously developed by the I-95 Corridor Coalition, as a platform to display bridge and pavement performance data. ICAT provides a map-based application, accessible via the Internet, that allows users to view, analyze, and compare performance data along an entire corridor or at a specific location.

For this project, Cambridge Systematics (CS) performed a statistical analysis of bridge and pavement data received from Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. This analysis included looking at individual values as well as comparing values both within a state and across states. CS concluded that:

  • International Roughness Index (IRI) does not provide adequate information to judge overall pavement condition;
  • Composite measures of pavement condition (i.e., measures that combine multiple distress readings into a single number) are better than individual measurements but still may not correlate well with structural adequacy; and
  • Sufficiency rating and health index both provide adequate, albeit slightly different, measures of the condition of a bridge.

Based on the analysis and conclusions, CS recommended that FHWA:

  • Modify the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) to obtain element data from states and use these data to calculate bridge health index on a national level;
  • Develop one or more health index calculations for pavement using Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) 2010+ data elements;
  • Test sample road sections to determine whether a relationship exists between pavement health indexes and actual road condition and use this information to develop a true measure of structural adequacy for pavement; and
  • Define models of roadway functional obsolescence and public importance that are simple to use and interpret.
Next >>
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
Updated: 06/18/2012