Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home   |   Pavements Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-RD-01-169
Date: October 2005

Rehabilitation of Jointed Portland Cement Concrete Pavements: SPS-6, Initial Evaluation and Analysis

Chapter 4. MONITORING FREQUENCY

The frequency of the collection of monitoring data at each site is critical to identifying the unique performance trends specific to a particular rehabilitation alternative. For each monitoring type, the frequency of the collection of monitoring data is evaluated below, including pre- and post-monitoring collection and long-term testing after rehabilitation.

DATA COLLECTION DIRECTIVES

During the lives of these pavement sections, multiple directives have been issued regarding the testing frequency for each type of monitoring data collected. These directives are rules published by the FHWA-LTPP Division to ensure that consistent data are collected, monitored, and stored. Some of these directives slightly adjusted the testing intervals during the life of the program. All of the known directives as of the time of this report that reference the SPS-6 data collection monitoring frequency are listed in table 18. This table also identifies directives that supersede the previous directives.

 

Table 18. Directives that reference LTPP data collection monitoring frequency.
Directive Date Issued Supersedes
DCG, Section 3.2(3) May 1991 None
D-02(4) Jan. 7, 1991 None
D-05(5) Mar. 14, 1995 D-02
D-09(6) Dec. 20, 1996 None
FWD-01(7) Jan. 15, 1993 None
FWD-02(8) May 7, 1993 None
FWD-03(9) Sept. 16, 1993 FWD-05 and FWD-12
FWD-05 (Draft)(10) Feb. 27, 1991 FWD-01
FWD-10(11) Sept. 1, 1994 FWD-03 (Parts A and B)
FWD-12(12) Aug. 30, 1991 FWD-02
P-01(13) Mar. 9, 1994 All previous SHRP-LTPP Manual for Profile Measurements, Manual for Dipstick Profile Measurements, and SHRP Directive P-04
P-02(14) Sept. 1, 1994 P-01
GO-20(15) Mar. 23, 1999 DCG, Section 3.2
GO-21(16) Oct. 1, 1999 D-05, FWD-10, and P-02

These directives were used to identify all previous testing frequencies for each type of monitoring data collected and are summarized in table 19. The testing frequencies are listed chronologically from the oldest to the most recent within each cell of the table. Therefore, the current-as of the time of this report-testing frequency is listed at the bottom of each cell within the table. This allows for easy review of all previous SPS-6 testing frequencies that had been specified during the data collection process. Table 20 lists the current-again, as of the time of this report-monitoring frequencies for data collection.

 

Table 19. Testing frequencies for collection of monitoring data.
Data Collection Type Before Construction After Construction Long Term
Longitudinal profile <3 months is desired1 but < 6 months is permitted7 <2 months is desired1 <3 months is desired7but < 6 months is permitted7 Biennially,7 but may be postponed up to 1 year7Annually9
Deflection (for nonfractured PCC) <3 months1 but < 1 year is permitted5but < 6 months is permitted6 1 to 3 months1 but < 6 months is permitted5 Annually, but may be postponed up to 1 year5 Biennially6Biennially and responsive9*
Deflection (for fractured PCC) Before fracture1: < 1 year is permitted5< 6 months is permitted6 Immediately after fracture1 Immediately after seating1 1 to 3 months1 but < 6 months is permitted5 Annually, but may be postponed up to 1 year5Biennially6Biennially and responsive9*
Manual distress < 6 months1 <3 months2Only required if not done with PASCO unit3 < 6 months3 < 6 months1 < 3 months2 Biennially2 Biennially, but may be postponed up to 1 year3Annually9*
Faulting With each manual distress survey With each manual distress survey With each manual distress survey
Transverse profile/rutting Not applicable With each AC distress survey4 With each AC distress survey4
PASCO If PASCO unit is not used, then must perform manual distress survey in < 6 months3 Not specified Biennially9*
Friction < 12 months1 3 to 12 months1 None (as of Mar. 23, 19998)
1DCG, Section 3.2, May 1991 4D-09, Dec. 20, 1996 7P-02, Sept. 1, 1994
2D-02, Jan. 7, 1991 5FWD-03, Sept. 16, 1993 8GO-20, Mar. 23, 1999
3D-05, Mar. 14, 1995 6FWD-10, Sept. 1, 1994 9GO-21, Oct. 1, 1999

*For supplemental sections, the frequencies are every 3 years for manual distress, every 2 years and responsive for PASCO, and every 5 years and responsive for FWD testing.

 

Table 20. Current-as of this report-testing frequencies for collection of monitoring data.
Data Collection Type Before Construction After Construction Long Term
Longitudinal profile < 6 months is permitted7 < 6 months is permitted7 Annually9
Deflection (for nonfractured and fractured PCC) < 6 months is permitted6 < 6 months is permitted3 Biennially and responsive9*
Manual distress, rutting, and faulting < 6 months3 < 3 months2 Annually9+
PASCO If PASCO unit is not used, then must perform manual distress survey in < 6 months3 Not specified Biennially9*
Friction < 12 months1 3 to 12 months1 None
1DCG, Section 3.2, May 1991 4D-09, Dec. 20, 1996 7P-02, Sept. 1, 1994
2D-02, Jan. 7, 1991 5FWD-03, Sept. 16, 1993 8GO-20, Mar. 23, 1999
3D-05, Mar. 14, 1995 6FWD-10, Sept. 1, 1994 9GO-21, Oct. 1, 1999

*For supplemental sections, the frequencies are every 3 years for manual distress, every 2 years and responsive for PASCO, and every 5 years and responsive for FWD testing.

In addition, closeout monitoring (FWD, profile, and manual distress surveys) should be conducted on each section. According to Directive GO-21, this is "when it is determined that the test section will be taken out-of-study (due to a construction event or at the option of the highway agency) or at the end of the field monitoring portion of the LTPP program, whichever comes first."

MONITORING FREQUENCIES AS COLLECTED

Appendix C provides a tabular listing for all of the monitoring activity dates at each SPS-6 section. These dates were used to determine the monitoring interval of each data collection type for each SPS-6 section. These testing frequencies were then summarized in tables 21 through 29 for each SPS-6 site. Each of these monitoring tables evaluates the monitoring interval prior to rehabilitation, immediately after rehabilitation, and throughout the long-term monitoring of these sections. These tables also include an additional column listing the number of sections without long-term monitoring data. It should be noted that most of the sections without long-term monitoring are a result of long-term monitoring data not having been entered or collected for the supplemental pavement sections. For easy comparison of the actual testing frequencies and the frequencies specified in the directives, the periods prior to and immediately after rehabilitation were assessed in terms of months and long-term monitoring was assessed in terms of years.

All of the testing intervals are assumed to originate from the end of the construction date. This date was determined by evaluating various SPS-6 rehabilitation tables. The rehabilitation dates were then compared, and the date that rehabilitation was completed was determined. Based on the intervals specified in the directives listed in table 19, it was assumed that the testing interval immediately after construction should have occurred within the first 12-month interval after construction, except for friction that was limited to an 18-month interval. These monitoring intervals are slightly greater than those specified in the directives to allow for a reasonable margin of error within the desired testing interval. It was assumed that if a section was not tested within the 12- or 18-month interval immediately after construction, then the monitoring for the interval immediately after construction was not conducted. Therefore, any testing that exceeds the 12- or 18-month interval immediately after construction was then included as part of the long-term monitoring.

The directives for the fractured PCC pavement states that testing must be conducted prior to fracturing the PCC; immediately after fracturing the PCC, but prior to seating; and immediately after seating, but before placement of the AC overlay. Because it is very difficult to identify the monitoring activities of the fractured sections that were tested immediately before and then after seating, this information was not assessed at this time. Monitoring activities conducted before rehabilitation (before cracking) and after rehabilitation (after placement of the AC overlay) were included in table 23.

The long-term monitoring interval begins immediately following the initial monitoring after rehabilitation and, therefore, does not include any testing prior to or immediately after rehabilitation, and ends at the test date prior to the deassign date. The long-term monitoring portion of the tables also provides a more detailed summary of the testing interval, including the minimum, maximum, and mean testing intervals that occurred during the long-term monitoring of each section.

 

Table 21. SPS-6 testing frequency for longitudinal profile.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 11 of 11 0 of 11 - - - 11
AZ 8.8 13 of 19 19 of 19 0.4 0.9 1.8 11
AR 2.6 8 of 8 8 of 8 0.5 1.4 2.0 2
CA 6.9 13 of 14 13 of 14 1.9 2.5 3.2 7
IL 9.1 14 of 14 10 of 14 0.8 1.7 4.0 6
IN 8.9 22 of 22 21 of 22 0.6 1.4 3.0 14
IA 9.9 1 of 9 9 of 9 0.8 1.5 4.9 1
MI 9.2 9 of 9 8 of 9 0.4 1.5 3.2 1
MO 6.9 16 of 16 13 of 16 0.6 1.5 2.8 8
MO(A) 0.9 0 of 8 0 of 8 - - - 8
OK 6.9 8 of 8 8 of 8 1.8 3.0 4.4 0
PA 6.8 11 of 11 11 of 11 0.9 1.2 1.9 3
SD 6.8 11 of 11 0 of 11 0.8 1.4 2.9 3
TN 3.1 8 of 10 10 of 10 - - - 10

 

Table 22. SPS-6 testing frequency for nonfractured deflection testing.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 6 of 6 0 of 6 - - - 6
AZ 8.8 6 of 6 6 of 6 0.5 1.3 3.1 0
AR 2.6 6 of 6 6 of 6 - - - 6
CA 6.9 5 of 6 5 of 6 0.8 2.4 3.7 1
IL 9.1 10 of 10 10 of 10 0.8 1.5 2.3 4
IN 8.9 4 of 10 4 of 10 0.8 1.5 3.2 4
IA 9.9 6 of 7 7 of 7 0.6 1.3 1.8 1
MI 9.2 6 of 6 0 of 6 1.0 1.9 2.7 0
MO 6.9 7 of 8 6 of 8 0.0 1.5 3.2 2
MO(A) 0.9 1 of 6 1 of 6 - - - 6
OK 6.9 6 of 6 6 of 6 2.8 2.8 2.8 0
PA 6.8 6 of 6 2 of 6 0.0 2.3 3.2 0
SD 6.8 8 of 8 8 of 8 0.6 1.9 3.0 2
TN 3.1 8 of 8 8 of 8 - - - 8

 

Table 23. SPS-6 testing frequency for fractured deflection testing.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 5 of 5 0 of 5 - - - 5
AZ 8.8 7 of 13 13 of 13 0.5 2.2 3.1 11
AR 2.6 2 of 2 2 of 2 - - - 2
CA 6.9 8 of 8 8 of 8 0.8 1.8 2.9 6
IL 9.1 4 of 4 4 of 4 0.9 1.6 2.3 2
IN 8.9 7 of 12 7 of 12 0.8 1.5 3.2 10
IA 9.9 2 of 2 2 of 2 0.6 1.3 1.9 0
MI 9.2 3 of 3 0 of 3 1.0 1.8 2.7 1
MO 6.9 8 of 8 2 of 8 0.4 1.4 3.1 6
MO(A) 0.9 0 of 2 0 of 2 - - - 2
OK 6.9 2 of 2 2 of 2 2.8 2.8 2.8 0
PA 6.8 5 of 5 0 of 5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3
SD 6.8 3 of 3 3 of 3 0.6 1.9 3.0 1
TN 3.1 2 of 2 2 of 2 - - - 2

 

Table 24. SPS-6 testing frequency for manual distress.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 11 of 11 11 of 11 - - - 11
AZ 8.8 0 of 19 19 of 19 0.5 2.6 3.1 13
AR 2.6 8 of 8 8 of 8 - - - 8
CA 6.9 13 of 14 14 of 14 0.8 2.0 3.7 7
IL 9.1 1 of 14 0 of 14 0.5 1.7 3.2 6
IN 8.9 0 of 22 6 of 22 0.3 1.6 3.2 14
IA 9.9 0 of 9 0 of 9 0.9 2.3 3.7 4
MI 9.2 0 of 9 0 of 9 0.3 1.7 3.4 1
MO 6.9 14 of 16 16 of 16 0.7 1.4 2.5 8
MO(A) 0.9 5 of 8 1 of 8 - - - 8
OK 6.9 8 of 8 8 of 8 0.6 1.5 2.6 0
PA 6.8 0 of 11 0 of 11 1.9 2.6 3.2 3
SD 6.8 0 of 11 8 of 11 0.8 2.7 3.0 3
TN 3.1 0 of 10 0 of 10 - - - 10

 

Table 25. SPS-6 testing frequency for PASCO testing.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 0 of 11 0 of 11 - - - 11
AZ 8.8 8 of 19 0 of 19 - - - 19
AR 2.6 0 of 8 0 of 8 - - - 8
CA 6.9 0 of 14 0 of 14 2.8 2.8 2.8 7
IL 9.1 8 of 14 9 of 14 1.7 1.7 1.7 6
IN 8.9 22 of 22 0 of 22 3.1 3.1 3.1 15
IA 9.9 8 of 9 8 of 9 0.6 2.3 3.0 1
MI 9.2 7 of 9 0 of 9 2.0 2.0 2.0 1
MO 6.9 0 of 16 0 of 16 3.0 3.0 3.0 8
MO(A) 0.9 0 of 8 0 of 8 - - - 8
OK 6.9 0 of 8 8 of 8 3.1 3.1 3.1 0
PA 6.8 0 of 11 0 of 11 1.9 1.9 1.9 3
SD 6.8 0 of 11 8 of 11 2.8 2.8 2.8 3
TN 3.1 10 of 10 10 of 10 - - - 10

 

Table 26. SPS-6 testing frequency for combination of manual distress and PASCO testing.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 11 of 11 11 of 11 - - - 11
AZ 8.8 8 of 19 0 of 19 0.5 2.4 3.5 11
AR 2.6 8 of 8 8 of 8 - - - 8
CA 6.9 13 of 14 13 of 14 0.1 1.2 3.1 7
IL 9.1 8 of 14 9 of 14 0.5 1.2 2.5 6
IN 8.9 22 of 22 6 of 22 0.2 1.1 2.0 14
IA 9.9 8 of 9 8 of 9 0.4 1.8 3.0 1
MI 9.2 7 of 9 0 of 9 0.0 1.0 3.3 1
MO 6.9 14 of 16 16 of 16 0.0 1.3 2.5 8
MO(A) 0.9 5 of 8 1 of 8 - - - 8
OK 6.9 8 of 8 8 of 8 0.6 1.0 1.5 0
PA 6.8 0 of 11 0 of 11 0.1 1.3 1.9 3
SD 6.8 0 of 11 11 of 11 0.7 1.4 2.1 3
TN 3.1 10 of 10 10 of 10 - - - 10

 

Table 27. SPS-6 testing frequency for faulting.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 11 of 11 3 of 11 - - - 3
AZ 8.8 0 of 19 3 of 19 0.5 0.5 0.5 2
AR 2.6 8 of 8 3 of 8 - - - 3
CA 6.9 0 of 14 2 of 14 1.3 2.8 3.7 1
IL 9.1 0 of 14 0 of 14 0.0 1.4 3.2 2
IN 8.9 0 of 22 0 of 22 0.9 1.9 3.2 1
IA 9.9 0 of 9 0 of 9 0.9 0.9 0.9 2
MI 9.2 0 of 9 0 of 9 0.8 1.3 2.0 0
MO 6.9 3 of 16 0 of 16 1.8 2.5 3.2 1
MO(A) 0.9 0 of 8 0 of 8 - - - 3
OK 6.9 8 of 8 3 of 8 0.6 1.5 2.6 0
PA 6.8 8 of 11 0 of 11 1.9 2.5 3.2 0
SD 6.8 0 of 11 3 of 11 1.2 2.6 3.0 0
TN 3.1 10 of 10 3 of 10 - - - 3

 

Table 28. SPS-6 testing frequency for transverse profile of rutting.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 0 of 8 8 of 8 - - - 8
AZ 8.8 0 of 16 8 of 16 0.5 2.0 3.0 11
AR 2.6 0 of 5 2 of 5 - - - 5
CA 6.9 5 of 11 5 of 11 0.1 1.5 3.6 6
IL 9.1 0 of 9 0 of 9 0.2 1.3 2.5 4
IN 8.9 0 of 19 3 of 19 0.0 1.2 2.9 14
IA 9.9 0 of 6 0 of 6 0.4 1.2 3.0 1
MI 9.2 0 of 6 0 of 6 0.0 1.0 2.7 1
MO 6.9 0 of 12 5 of 12 0.2 1.1 2.4 7
MO(A) 0.9 0 of 5 1 of 5 - - - 5
OK 6.9 5 of 5 5 of 5 0.3 1.9 3.1 0
PA 6.8 0 of 8 0 of 8 0.1 1.3 1.9 3
SD 6.8 0 of 8 5 of 8 0.3 1.3 2.1 3
TN 3.1 0 of 7 0 of 7 - - - 7

 

Table 29. SPS-6 testing frequency for friction testing.
State Age, years Number of Sections Tested Before Construction Number of Sections Tested After Construction Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), years Number of Sections Without LTM
Minimum Mean Maximum
AL 1.1 0 of 11 0 of 11 - - - 11
AZ 8.8 0 of 19 0 of 19 1.1 1.1 1.1 11
AR 2.6 0 of 8 0 of 8 - - - 8
CA 6.9 0 of 14 0 of 14 - - - 14
IL 9.1 0 of 14 0 of 14 - - - 14
IN 8.9 0 of 22 8 of 22 0.7 1.0 2.2 14
IA 9.9 0 of 9 8 of 9 0.0 1.0 1.3 1
MI 9.2 0 of 9 0 of 9 2.0 2.6 3.3 1
MO 6.9 0 of 16 7 of 16 0.9 1.5 2.9 8
MO(A) 0.9 0 of 8 0 of 8 - - - 8
OK 6.9 0 of 8 0 of 8 - - - 8
PA 6.8 0 of 11 0 of 11 - - - 11
SD 6.8 0 of 11 0 of 11 - - - 11
TN 3.1 0 of 10 0 of 10 - - - 10

The directives do not limit the interval when closeout tests must be performed. It can be assumed that the last test conducted during the long-term monitoring of each section is the closeout test. Therefore, closeout monitoring was not evaluated during this analysis.

Based on these assumptions, the frequency of the monitoring data is summarized for each site in tables 21 through 29. For each of these tables, the number of sections tested before and after construction is given in terms of the total number of sections. For example, in table 21, Alabama had 11 of 11 sections that had received longitudinal profile monitoring immediately before and after rehabilitation. In addition, all of these sections have had long-term monitoring ranging from an interval of 0.9 to 3.0 years. Most of the sites have received the required testing.

The more recently rehabilitated sections, including Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri (A), and Tennessee may have received all of the initial monitoring immediately before and after construction as specified in the directives. However, this information may be in the process of being entered into the regional IMS databases and, therefore, had not yet reached the IMS database as of the August 1999 or January 2000 IMS downloads.

Figures 3 through 11 visually show the long-term monitoring intervals that were graphically presented in tables 21 through 29 for each of the data monitoring types. Each figure shows the long-term monitoring intervals for all sections of a particular site. This includes the minimum and maximum testing interval, and the average monitoring frequency that occurred at each site. Typically, all of the sections within a site were tested within a 3-year period.

Figure 3. Profile testing intervals for each site.

Profile testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and profile testing intervals from 0 to 7 years are graphed on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. California and Oklahoma had the highest average of intervals, with 2.5 years for California and 3 years for Oklahoma. The rest of the sites, except for Alabama, Missouri A, and Tennessee, tested an average range between 1 and 1.5 years. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 4. Nonfractured FWD testing intervals for each site.

Nonfractured FWD testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and nonfractured falling weight deflectometer testing intervals from 0 to 7 years are graphed on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indianan, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. All the sites were tested within 3 years. California, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania show more than 2-year average intervals. Oklahoma had the highest average interval, at 2.8 years. All the other sites, except for Alabama, Missouri A, and Tennessee, tested an average range between 1 and 2 years. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 5. Fractured FWD testing intervals for each site.

Fractured FWD testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and fractured falling weight deflectometer testing intervals from 0 to 7 years are graphed on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indianan, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Pennsylvania had the highest average interval at 3.2 years. Iowa had the lowest average interval at 1.3 years. All the other sites, except for Alabama, Missouri A, and Tennessee, tested below 3 years. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 6. Manual distress testing intervals for each site.

Manual distress testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and manual distress testing intervals from 0 to 7 years are graphed on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. South Dakota had the highest average intervals at 2.7 years, and Missouri had the lowest at 1.5 years. Most of the sites tested below 3 years. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 7. PASCO testing intervals for each site.

PASCO testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and PASCO testing intervals from 0 to 7 years are graphed on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. The highest average interval tested is Oklahoma at 3.2 years, and the lowest is Illinois at 1.7 years. Most of the sites tested between 1.7 and 3.2 years. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 8. Combined manual distress and PASCO testing intervals for each site.

Combined manual distress and PASCO testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and combined manual distress and PASCO testing intervals from 0 to 7 years are graphed on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Most of the sites tested between 1 to 3 years. The highest average interval tested combined is Arizona with 2.4 years, and the lowest is Michigan at 1 year. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 9. Faulting testing intervals for each site.

Faulting testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and faulting testing intervals are graphed on the vertical axis from 0 to 7 years. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. Intervals for all the graphed sites are less than 3 years. The highest average interval is California at 2.8 years, and the lowest is Arizona at 0.4 years. Most of the sites tested between 1 to 3 years. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 10. Rutting testing intervals for each site.

Rutting testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and rutting testing intervals from 0 to 7 years are graphed on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Oklahoma, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. All the averages for the graphed sites fall below 3 years. The highest interval tested is Arizona at 2.1 years, and the lowest is Michigan at 1 year. California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota had an average between 1 and 2 years. No profile information is graphed for Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri A, and Tennessee.

Figure 11. Friction testing intervals for each site.

Friction testing intervals for each site. Graph. In this figure, SPS sites are graphed on the horizontal axis, and Friction testing intervals are graphed from 0 to 7 years on the vertical axis. The sites listed are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Missouri A, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Tennessee. There are only five sites that averaged in the friction interval testing. Arizona has 1.1 years, Indiana, has 1.1 years, Iowa has 0.9 years, Michigan has 2.6 years, and Missouri has 1.5 years. All five sites average below 3 years. No profile information for any of the other sites is graphed.

In addition, because the data collection monitoring for the manual distress and PASCO surveys is used to identify the same information (surface distress), these dates were combined in figure 8. Using the combination of manual distress and PASCO survey dates, almost all of the sites have an average survey time of between 1 and 2 years. This interval is very good and it is vital information that will be used later to evaluate each pavement section. Surface distress may be a key parameter in identifying and recommending appropriate rehabilitation techniques for future projects.

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

 


The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field offices across the United States. is a major agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field offices across the United States. is a major agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Provide leadership and technology for the delivery of long life pavements that meet our customers needs and are safe, cost effective, and can be effectively maintained. Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) R&T Web site portal, which provides access to or information about the Agency’s R&T program, projects, partnerships, publications, and results.
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration