Keeping our partners informed on the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program
|This newsletter is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information|
|Federal Highway Administration > Publications > LTPP Newsletter > Volume 5, Issue 2|
|Newsletter Home | Current Issue | Previous Issues | Search LTPP Newsletter|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-09-043
Volume 5, Issue 2 Spring 2009
PDF Version (68 kb)
LTPP is Moving Forward with the Collection of Traffic Data
While the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program takes pride in the quantity and quality of the data available in the pavement performance database, there are some data that are lacking. LTPP has identified approximately 88 General and Specific Pavement Studies (SPS) test sites where there is very little or no monitored traffic data. With the support and help from our State partners, LTPP is taking action to fill in this gap.
The test sections identified have many years of distress and other performance data, but no traffic data. Very limited data analyses can be performed on these test sites without traffic data. It should be noted that this data collection activity is not part of the SPS Traffic Data Collection Pooled Fund Study. The intent of this new data collection activity is to provide minimum classification data for the nearly 88 LTPP sites where there is no or very limited traffic data in order for those sites to be used for future data analyses.
LTPP’s priority is to provide complete datasets for as many LTPP test sites as possible within currently available program resources. Therefore, the program office has committed to collect 1-week of continuous classification data using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Monitoring Guide classification scheme (13-bin).
The response from our State partners to collect this data has been very positive and many of them have been volunteering to use their own resources to collect the necessary data. A few sites will be collected by a FHWA contractor because some States simply do not have the resources to collect the data. It is anticipated that the data will be collected by early summer so that it may be available in the next release of the LTPP pavement performance database.
For more detailed information on collection of the missing traffic data or other LTPP traffic data collection activities, contact Deborah Walker at firstname.lastname@example.org or (202) 493-3068.
LTPP Customer Usage Statistics
LTPP distributes its data, documents, and products to customers through two venues: the LTPP Customer Support Service Center (CSSC) email@example.com and LTPP Products Online www.ltpp-products.com. The CSSC has received 5,353 requests since its establishment in 1997. Figure 1 shows the distribution of those requests by year between 1997 and March 31, 2009.
Figure 1. Distribution of LTPP CSSC requests between 1997 and March 31, 2009.
Figure 2 shows the breakdown of the 5,353 customer requests by request type. Each category is defined as follows:
Figure 2. Customer requests by request type.
Figure 3 shows the breakdown of the 5,353 customer requests by agency. The categories are defined as follows:
Figure 3. Customer requests by Agency.
The distribution of the 5,353 customer requests by geographic region is presented in Figure 4. North American (United States and Canada) customers dominate with almost 90 percent of requests, followed by Asian and South Pacific countries, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa.
Figure 4. Customer requests by geographic region.
Since it was first launched, the usage statistics of LTPP Database Online between January 2006 and March 2009 are listed in the following table.
LTPP Database Tips
Periodically, LTPP shares database tips to give its users a better understanding of the data and how to use the database. This issue gives users tips to consider when comparing Photographic Distress Data (PADIAS) to Manual Distress Data (MDS).
Comparing Photographic and Manual Distress Data
In using PADIAS distress data the following tips should be considered:
It should be emphasized that in most cases, PADIAS and MDS distress data are comparable. Variability studies have shown that there is no statistical difference between the two data collection methods.
Watch for more database tips in upcoming issues.
Relationships Between Laboratory-Measured and Field-Derived Properties of Pavement Layers
The FHWA recently awarded a contract to Cornell University entitled Relationships Between Laboratory-Measured and Field-Derived Properties of Pavement Layers.
The purpose of this project is to use LTPP data to conduct systematic research for developing a fundamental understanding of the factors underlying observed differences between laboratory-measured and field-derived properties of pavement layers. Ultimately, this work will support the development of improved methods and/or relationships that will allow laboratory- and field-based methods of material characterization to be used interchangeably for design and performance analyses.
The performance period of this contract is 30 months and work will be done in two phases. Phase 1 activities will explain and define in mechanistic terms the fundamental material properties as measured in the field versus the fundamental material properties as measured in the laboratory. The results from this phase will determine the specific activities that will be performed in Phase 2.
For more information about this study, contact Jane Jiang at: firstname.lastname@example.org or (202) 493-3149.
LTPP Manual for Profile Measurements and Processing, FHWA-HRT-08-056
Topics: research, infrastructure, pavements and materials
Keywords: research, infrastructure, pavements, LTPP, Long-Term Pavement Performance
TRT Terms: U.S. transportation, ground transportation, highway transportation, research, planning and design, design, serviceability, serviceability of specific facilities or equipment, pavement performance