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-01-143
Date: October 2003

Distress Data Consolidation Final Report

PDF Version (1.61 MB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

FOREWORD

This report documents a study undertaken to conduct a detailed review of the distress data collected for the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) project. As a result of this work, a more in-depth review of the distress data has been completed and it has improved the understanding of the compatibility of distress data collected using different methodologies to facilitate future analysis. As a result of this study, it was found that distress data collected from the three different methodologies for LTPP may be combined without concern for systematic differences between the data sets.

This report will be of interest to highway agency engineers involved in the collection, processing, and interpretation of cracking data for the purpose of pavement management.

T. Paul Teng, P.E.

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 its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

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

 

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.
FHWA-RD-01-143

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle
DISTRESS DATA CONSOLIDATION FINAL REPORT

5. Report Date
October 2003

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)
A.L. Simpson and J.F. Daleiden

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Furgo-BRE, Inc.
8613 Cross Park Dr.
Austin, TX 78754

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-96-C-00003

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration
Office of Engineering Research and Development
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296

13.Type of Report and Period Covered
May 1998 - November 1998

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes
Data used in this study were obtained from NIMS release 8.6. The files are dated October 1998. FHWA's Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): Cheryl RichterProject Contractor: ERES Consultants, Inc.Subcontractor: Fugro-BRE, Inc.

16. Abstract
Pavement distress is an important indicator of pavement performance. The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program has been collecting distress information on more than 2,000 test sections located across North America since 1989. However, these surveys were performed using three different methodologies–two photographic and one manual. Additionally, over the years, distress definitions and measurement techniques were revised in an attempt to improve consistency in data collection. The primary objective of the research reported here was to produce a comprehensive consolidated distress data set to reconcile differences between data collected using these different methodologies.

After thorough review, two-thirds of the LTPP distress data were considered to be in "good shape" and could be included in the consolidated data set with no further effort. The other one-third of the data will require additional review by the agencies that performed the data collection. Overall, the discrepancies found between surveys were independent of distress methodology. The data sets from these different data collection methods could be combined without concern about a consistent bias existing in the data. Of the discrepancies that were observed, 17 percent could be attributed to human error, 6 percent to data collection methodology, 36 percent to the strategies used in this review, and 41 percent were unidentifiable.

17. Key Words
Pavement distress, data collection method, distress trends

18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified

21. No. of Pages
206

22. Price

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

SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors


Table of Contents

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 2. GRAPHICAL REVIEW PROCESS

CHAPTER 3. CATEGORIES AND PROBABLE CAUSES OF DISCREPANT SURVEY DATA

CHAPTER 4. AUTOMATION OF REVIEW PROCESS

CHAPTER 5. DETAILED REVIEW OF DISCREPANT MANUAL SURVEYS

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDIX A. ILLUSTRATION OF VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES
APPENDIX B. DISTRESS QC USER'S GUIDE
APPENDIX C. HMA CONSOLIDATED DATA SET
APPENDIX D. JC CONSOLIDATED DATA SET
APPENDIX E. CRC CONSOLIDATED DATA SET
APPENDIX F. DISCREPANCIES IN HMA DISTRESS
APPENDIX G. DISCREPANCIES IN JC DISTRESS
APPENDIX H. DISCREPANCIES IN CRC DISTRESS

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

  1. Illustration of user interface for graphical review software
  2. Normal probability plot
  3. Illustration of section that has been through the review
  4. Example of output file from graphical review software
  5. Offsetting discrepancies between fatigue and longitudinal cracking noted on survey of January 1996
  6. Illustration of offsetting discrepancies in longitudinal cracking caused by lack of distinction between wheel path and non-wheel path cracking
  7. Illustration of discrepancy caused by lack of distinction between block cracking and transverse and longitudinal cracking
  8. Illustration of discrepancy in length of transverse cracks caused by a summarization error
  9. Illustration of discrepancy in area of patching caused by summarization error
  10. Illustration of discrepancy caused by lack of distinction between wheel path and non-wheel path longitudinal cracking in PADIAS 1.x data
  11. Illustration of discrepancy caused by insufficient quantities of distress on an asphalt-surfaced section
  12. Illustration of discrepancy caused by insufficient quantities of distress on a jointed concrete-surfaced section
  13. Illustration of discrepancy caused by insufficient quantities of distress on a continuously reinforced concrete-surfaced section
  14. Illustration of discrepancy caused by an exponential growth rate
  15. Illustration of discrepancy caused by an undocumented maintenance or rehabilitation event

LIST OF TABLES

  1. Summary of distress on surveys of HMA-surfaced sections
  2. Summary of distress on surveys of JC-surfaced sections
  3. Summary of distress on surveys of CRC-surfaced sections
  4. Key distress types
  5. Coefficient of variation used in consolidated distress study
  6. Number of discrepant surveys by data collection methodology
  7. Number of discrepant surveys by distress for HMA sections
  8. Number of discrepant surveys by distress for JC sections
  9. Number of discrepant surveys by distress for CRC sections
  10. Number of discrepancies observed on each HMA survey
  11. Number of discrepancies observed on each JC survey
  12. Number of discrepancies observed on each CRC survey
  13. Categories and probable causes of discrepant survey data
  14. Number of elements affected by insufficient quantities of distress
  15. Number of elements affected by exponential growth rates
  16. Number of discrepant surveys for each category
  17. Number and percentage of data elements in the consolidated data sets
  18. Summary of discrepant surveys by year
  19. Discrepancy categories
  20. Processing errors
  21. Distress identification concerns
  22. Miscellaneous concerns
  23. Resolvable discrepancies from manual surveys
  24. Most commonly occurring distresses for various pavement types
  25. Categorization of discrepant surveys

 

 

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