U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000
Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
| REPORT |
| This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information |
 |
| Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-14-088 Date: March 2015 |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-14-088 Date: March 2015 |
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
This report documents the reinterpretation of the dynamic load response (DLR) traces for selected Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) test sections in Ohio. The report also describes the work performed to correct data issues such as trace peak time lag shifts, sensor locations, and wheelpath offsets for asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete pavements. The reinterpreted DLR data have been made available in the LTPP program's Standard Data Release 27.0 and later versions.(1) This new LTPP DLR data will serve as a unique resource for researchers in investigating the dynamic interaction between truck axle loads and pavements, validating their pavement dynamic loading models, and developing mechanistic pavement performance prediction models.
Jorge E. Pagán-Ortiz
Director, Office of Infrastructure
Research and Development
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 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-HRT-14-088 |
2. Government Accession No. | 3 Recipient's Catalog No. | ||
| 4. Title and Subtitle
Long-Term Pavement Performance Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 Dynamic Load Response Data Processing |
5. Report Date March 2015 |
|||
| 6. Performing Organization Code | ||||
| 7. Author(s)
Mahesh Agurla and Sean Lin |
8. Performing Organization Report No.
|
|||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Engineering & Software Consultants, Inc. |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) |
|||
11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-12-C-00002 |
||||
| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Research Report |
|||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|
||||
15. Supplementary Notes The Contracting Officer's Representative (COR) was Aramis Lopez, and the Task Manager was Larry Wiser, |
||||
| 16. Abstract
The dynamic load response (DLR) Study Team reinterpreted 4,290 Ohio Specific Pavement Studies (SPS)-1 (asphalt concrete pavements) raw traces and 9,240 Ohio SPS-2 (portland cement concrete pavements) raw traces, correcting the data issues identified by Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) data analysis/operations feedback reports and the technical memorandum, Investigation of Ohio DLR data in LTPP Database for LTPP Standard Data Release (SDR) 22.0, including trace peak time lag shifts, incorrect sensor locations, and wheelpath offsets. (See references 2-6.) The team calibrated and smoothed the SPS-1 and SPS-2 raw traces before categorizing those traces into three categories: good, maybe, and not good. For the SPS-1 data, approximately 24 percent of strain gauge traces, 55 percent of linear variable differential transformer (LVDT) traces, and 99 percent of pressure cell traces were categorized as good. For the SPS-2 data, only smoothed traces were categorized due to significant noise in the raw traces. Approximately 61 percent of strain gauge traces and 15 percent of LVDT traces were categorized as good. Only good traces were used for further extraction of trace peaks and valleys for SDR 27.0.(1) In addition, the sensor locations and the corresponding wheelpath offsets were also corrected.
The reinterpreted DLR data resolved the data issues and have been published in SDR 27.0.(1) To aid future DLR data users in identifying the layout and status of each sensor from one test visitorrun to another, appendices A through E show the sensor layouts in the Ohio SPS-1 and SPS-2 DLR test sections as well as the results of the 23 Ohio SPS-1 DLR tests and the 24 Ohio SPS-2 DLR tests. |
||||
| 17. Key Words
Dynamic load response, Strain gauge, Linear variable differential transformer, Pressure cell, Pavement deflection peak and valley, Raw trace, Test run, Truck axle load |
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. |
|||
19. Security Classification Unclassified |
20. Security Classification Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages 169 |
22. Price | |
| Form DOT F 1700.7 | Reproduction of completed page authorized |
SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
Figure 1. Illustration. SHRP test pavement layout
Figure 2. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390102 sensor layout
Figure 3. Illustration. Ohio SPS-2 test section 390212 sensor layout
Figure 4. Graph. Dyn12 strain gauge traces for test section 390102 test J2C run 1 with 2,000.579 Hz
Figure 5. Illustration. Dyn12 strain gauge locations and wheelpath offsets for test section 390102
Figure 6. Graph. Dyn5 strain gauge traces for test section 390201 test J1A run 2
Figure 7. Graph. Normalized Dyn8 strain gauge raw traces for Ohio SPS-2 test section 390201 test J1A run 27
Figure 8. Graph. Magnified view of the three trace peaks in figure 7
Figure 9. Graph. Extracted trace peaks and valleys from an Ohio SPS-1 test run
Figure 10. Graph. Extracted trace peaks and valleys from an Ohio SPS-2 test run
Figure 11. Graph. Ohio SPS-1 transverse strain gauge trace categorization
Figure 12. Graph. Ohio SPS-1 LVDT trace categorization
Figure 13. Graph. Ohio SPS-2 longitudinal strain gauge trace categorization
Figure 14. Graph. Ohio SPS-2 LVDT trace categorization
Figure 15. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2F
Figure 16. Graph. Transverse LVDT3 longitudinal strain gauge trace that assumes valleys
Figure 17. Graph. Unresponsive strain gauge trace
Figure 18. Graph. Longitudinal Dyn17 strain gauge trace exhibiting an upside down transverse pattern
Figure 19. Graph. Dyn12 strain gauge traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on August 5, 1996
Figure 20. Graph. LVDT1 traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on August 5, 1996
Figure 21. Graph. PC1 traces for Ohio test section 390102 test J2C run 1 on August 5, 1996
Figure 22. Graph. Dyn5 strain gauge traces for Ohio test section 390201 test J1A run 2 on August 12, 1996
Figure 23. Graph. LVDT1 traces for Ohio test section 390201 test J1A run 2 on August 12, 1996
Figure 24. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390104 sensor layout
Figure 25. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390108 sensor layout
Figure 26. Illustration. Ohio SPS-1 test section 390110 sensor layout
Figure 27. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2A
Figure 28. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2C
Figure 29. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2D
Figure 30. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2E
Figure 31. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2F
Figure 32. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390102 test J2G
Figure 33. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4A
Figure 34. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4B
Figure 35. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4C
Figure 36. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4D
Figure 37. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4E
Figure 38. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4F
Figure 39. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390104 test J4G
Figure 40. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8A
Figure 41. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8D
Figure 42. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8E
Figure 43. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390108 test J8G
Figure 44. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10A
Figure 45. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10C
Figure 46. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10D
Figure 47. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10E
Figure 48. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10F
Figure 49. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390110 test J10G
Figure 50. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1A
Figure 51. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1B
Figure 52. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390201 test J1C
Figure 53. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5A
Figure 54. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5B
Figure 55. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5C
Figure 56. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1M
Figure 57. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1N
Figure 58. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1O
Figure 59. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390205 test J5J1P
Figure 60. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8A
Figure 61. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8B
Figure 62. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8C
Figure 63. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3M
Figure 64. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3N
Figure 65. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3O
Figure 66. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390208 test J8S3P
Figure 67. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12A
Figure 68. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12B
Figure 69. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12C
Figure 70. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10M
Figure 71. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10N
Figure 72. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10O
Figure 73. Illustration. QC results by sensor type for test section 390212 test J12J10P
Table 1. Dyn12 strain gauge data for test section 390102
Table 2. Strain gauge locations for SDR 22.0 and Ohio raw data
Table 3. SPS-1 DLR data trace count
Table 4. SPS-2 DLR data trace count
Table 5. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in Ohio SPS-1 test J2F
Table 6. Peaks and valleys extracted for smoothed traces in test J2F (e)
Table 7. Summarized QC results for raw traces in test J2F
Table 8. Peaks and valleys extracted for raw traces in test J2F
Table 9. Comparison of first peak smooth and raw peak values with Ohio peak values
Table 10. PC sensor begin offset, end offset, and range values
Table 11. Summarized QC results for SPS-1 smoothed traces
Table 12. Summarized QC results for SPS-1 raw traces
Table 13. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-1 smoothed traces
Table 14. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-1 raw (unsmoothed) traces
Table 15. Comparison of first peak smooth values with Ohio peak values
Table 16. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-2 smoothed traces
Table 17. Summarized QC results for Ohio SPS-2 smoothed traces
Table 18. Sample Ohio SPS-1 truck peak data for test J2F
Table 19. Ohio SPS-2 inconsistencies between test section visits and subseries
Table 20. Strain gauge sensors with time history data for each test
Table 21. Sample Ohio SPS-2 truck peak data for test J1A
Table 22. Raw Dyn8 strain gauge values of test J5J1P
Table 23. Records in the DLR_TEST_MATRIX table in SDR 22.0 with no source data
Table 24. TruckPass.txt records for run 1
Table 25. Sample data from Ohio data for test section 390108
Table 26. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2A
Table 27. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2C
Table 28. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2D
Table 29. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2E
Table 30. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2F
Table 31. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J2G
Table 32. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4A
Table 33. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4B
Table 34. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4C
Table 35. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4D
Table 36. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4E
Table 37. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4F
Table 38. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J4G
Table 39. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8A
Table 40. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8D
Table 41. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8E
Table 42. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J8G
Table 43. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10A
Table 44. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10C
Table 45. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10D
Table 46. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10E
Table 47. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10F
Table 48. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390102 test J10G
Table 49. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 Test J1A
Table 50. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 test J1B
Table 51. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390201 test J1C
Table 52. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5A
Table 53. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5B
Table 54. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5C
Table 55. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1M
Table 56. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1N
Table 57. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1O
Table 58. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390205 test J5J1P
Table 59. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8A
Table 60. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8B
Table 61. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8C
Table 62. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3M
Table 63. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3N
Table 64. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3O
Table 65. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390208 test J8S3P
Table 66. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12A
Table 67. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12B
Table 68. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12C
Table 69. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10M
Table 70. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10N
Table 71. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10O
Table 72. Summarized QC results for smoothed traces in test section 390212 test J12J10P
| AC | Asphalt concrete | |
| ASCII | American Standard Code for Information Interchange | |
| CL | Center lane | |
| DAOFR | Data analysis/operations feedback report | |
| DLR | Dynamic load response | |
| LTPP | Long-Term Pavement Performance | |
| LVDT | Linear variable differential transformer | |
| OU | Ohio University | |
| PATB | Permeable asphalt treated base | |
| PC | Pressure cell | |
| PCC | Portland cement concrete | |
| QC | Quality control | |
| SDR | Standard Data Release | |
| SHRP | Strategic Highway Research Program | |
| SPS | Specific Pavement Studies | |
| TCS | Test control software |
