Study of Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP): Pavement Deflections
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
FOREWORD
Falling weight deflectometer (FWD) load-deflection data
generally are used to characterize the tested pavement by an
analysis of the applied load and the magnitudes (or shape) of the
measured deflection basin. Often, these data are used to
backcalculate layered elastic stiffnesses or moduli. The analysis
results give the pavement researcher a measure of the pavement’s
bearing capacity, which can in turn be linked to future pavement
performance.
The primary objective of this study was to identify data errors
or anomalies in the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)
load-deflection database that were not identified during routine
screening required to reach level E. Routine screening applies more
general procedures, such as broad range checks, to the data. The
intent of this study was to review the level E deflection data and
ancillary information, looking for data discrepancies and errors
that routing screening may not have identified. The overall
objective of the postscreening final data check was to assure that
good quality load-deflection and ancillary data are available for
researchers and highway engineers.
Gary L. Henderson
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-RD-03-093
|
2. Government Accession No.
|
3. Recipient's Catalog No.
|
4. Title and Subtitle
Study of Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP): Pavement
Deflections
|
5. Report Date
August 2006
|
6. Performing Organization Code
|
7. Author(s)
Richard Stubstad, Erland Lukanen, and Lawrence Clevenson
|
8. Performing Organization Report No.
|
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Consulpav International
P.O. Box 700
Oak View, CA 93022-0700
|
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
|
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61–01–P–00144
|
12. Sponsoring Agency's Name and Address
Federal Highway Administration
LTPP Division, HNR–40
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
|
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
April 2001–September 2001
|
14. Sponsoring Agency's Code
|
15. Supplementary Notes
Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative—Cheryl Allen
Richter, HRDI–13
This work was conducted under direct contract with the Federal
Highway Administration
|
16. Abstract
This report presents the results of a study of pavement
deflections. The study covered all level E falling weight
deflectometer (FWD) deflections and associated data in LTPP’s
database from Data Release 9.0, November 23, 1998. Although the
limited amount of data from unbound material testing was also
provided, these data were not screened due to the large variations
in the recorded deflections in comparison with bound layer
tests.
The report covers the screening techniques developed and used to
identify data errors and anomalies in the FWD load-deflection
database, along with a description of each category of data errors
identified. Contrary to prior expectations, the vast majority of
these data errors were related to manually input data elements, not
the deflections themselves. Approximately 8 percent of the 4.4
million lines, or records, in the pre-autumn 1998 load-deflection
database were affected by manual input data errors alone, while
less than 0.2 percent appear to be affected by actual
load-deflection data anomalies generated by the FWD. Out of the
approximately 8 percent of manual input data errors found, around 7
percent were associated with nonprotocol and unreported placement
of the deflection sensors along the FWD’s raise-lower bar. Other
types of manual data entry errors, each occurring at a rate of less
than 1 percent, included incorrect lane designation, station
number, date- or time-stamp, test site, drop height, and
configuration of the sensors for joint testing on portland cement
concrete (PCC) pavements. Deflection reading data errors included
deflection basin anomalies and sensor malfunctioning errors. A
universally applicable deflection basin screening tool called SLIC
was also developed for use on select FWD data file formats.
The overall quality of the pre-autumn 1998 FWD database can be
characterized as good to excellent. |
17. Key Words
Long-Term Pavement Performance, LTPP, falling weight
deflectometer, FWD, load-deflection data, deflection basin,
deflection sensors, pavement deflection testing
|
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions.
|
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
|
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
|
21. No. of Pages
103
|
22. Price
|
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page
authorized
SI
(Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- LTPP Data Screened and Reviewed
- Inconsistent FWD Deflection Basins
- Other Load-Deflection Data Errors
- Data Entry Errors
- Noted Anomalies and Other Potential Data
Problems
- Suggested Computed Parameters and FWD
Testing Protocols
- Summary and Conclusions
Appendix A. Various Feedback Reports
Submitted to FHWA
Appendix B. Semiautomatic SLIC Procedure
for FWD Data Screening
Appendix C. FWD SN #129, November 3,
1995–April 14, 1996
Appendix D. FWD SN #129, April 15,
1997–May 21, 1997
Appendix E. FWD SN #058, October 15,
1997–March 5, 1998
Appendix F. FWD SN #061, February 26,
1989–September 8, 1989
Appendix G. FWD SN #130, August 25,
1994–September 7, 1994
Appendix H. FWD SN #075, January 17,
1990–January 22, 1990
Appendix I. FWD SN #132, July 29,
1996–October 25, 1996
Appendix J. FWD SN #061, July 17,
1995–October 31, 1995
Appendix K. FWD SN #131, May 24,
1994–April 30, 1996
Appendix L. FWD SN #131, December 16,
1997–January 20, 1998
Appendix M. The Generalized Likelihood
Ratio for H48 Over H60
References
List of Figures
- Graph. Frequency distribution of
standard deviations for repeated deflections.
- Graph. Sensor 5 deflection readings
for one LTPP section.
- Graph. Sample deflection basins
transformed with SLIC (input protocol positions).
- Graph. Sample deflection basins
transformed with SLIC (input actual positions).
- Equation. AREA.
- Equation. AREA (@ 20 ºC).
- Equation. Offset, with exponents d
and e.
- Chart. Average deflections, FWD
#131, August 12, 1998.
- Equation. y, x1, x2.
- Equation. a, b, c.
- Equation. Offset, sensor
2.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #129, 1995–96.
- Graph. Same section data for d7
position, two different FWDs.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
34–0503 including unit #129, November 1995.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
34–0507 including unit #129, November 1995.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #129, 1997–98.
- Graph. Same section data for d7
position, two different FWDs.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
24–0509 including unit #129, May 1997.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
36–4017 including unit #129, April 1997.
- Graph. Predicted position of d2,
unit #058, 1997–98.
- Graph. Same section data for d2
position, two different FWDs.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
10–0102 including unit #058, November–December 1997.
- Graph. R2 model for d2
prediction, unit #061, 1989–90.
- Graph. R2 model for d7
prediction, unit #061, 1989–90.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
04–1017 including unit #061, April 1989.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
08–9020 including unit #061, June 1989.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
32–1030 including unit #061, February 1989.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
49–1017 including unit #061, April 1989.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
56–7773 including unit #061, June 1989.
- Graph. R2 model for d7
prediction, unit #130, 1994–96.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #130, 1994–96.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
20–0101 including unit #130, August 1994.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
20–0111 including unit #130, August 1994.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
20–3060 including unit #061, September 1994.
- Graph. R2 model for d2
and d7 predictions, unit #075, 1990–97.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
72–1003 including unit #075, January 1990.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
72–4122 including unit #075, January 1990.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #132, 1995.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #132, 1996.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #132, 1997.
- Graph. Same section data for d7
position, three different FWDs.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
48–k310 including unit #132, July 1996.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
48–k350 including unit #132, August 1996.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #061, 1994–97.
- Graph. Same section data for d7
position, three different FWDs.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
04–A310 including unit #061, July 1995.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
32–7000 including unit #061, September 1995.
- Graph. Predicted position of d7,
unit #131, 1994–97.
- Graph. Same section data for d7
position, four different FWDs.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
08–6002 including unit #131, May 1995 and April 1996.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
30–0805 including unit #131, August 1994.
- Graph. R-squared model for d2
prediction, unit #131, 1997–98.
- Graph. R-squared model for d7
prediction, unit #131, 1997–98.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
41–7019 including unit #131, January 1998.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
04–1065 including unit #131, January 1998.
- Graph. SLIC plots for section
06–3042 including unit #131, December 1997.
- Equation. Maximum likelihood
estimate.
- Equation. The likelihood.
- Equation. Maximum likelihood
estimate, sH = 48.
List of Tables
- Format of FWD load-deflection records
from the pre-autumn 1998 database.
- Marked or flagged autoidentification
criteria for various lanes.
- Autoidentification example of a
marked FWD data record.
- FWD records identified for flagging
in the pre-autumn 1998 database.
- FWD unit- and time-specific sensor
positioning errors in the database.
- Likelihood ratios for protocol versus
nonprotocol sensor positions for d7.
- General data anomaly notes of
unchanged records or files.
- Deflection testing frequency analysis
data.
- Initial SLIC procedure calculations
for sensor 7.
- Final SLIC procedure calculations
for sensor 7.
- Regression results, sensor
7.
- Likelihood ratio stats for protocol
versus nonprotocol d7 sensor positions.
FHWA-RD-03-093
|