Optimization of Traffic Data Collection for Specific Pavement
Design Applications
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
Foreword
The objective of this study is to establish the minimum traffic
data collection effort required for pavement design applications
satisfying a maximum acceptable error under a prescribed confidence
level. The approach consists of simulating the traffic data input
to the 2002 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
1-37A design guide for 17 distinct traffic data collection
scenarios using extended-coverage, weigh-in-motion (WIM) data from
the Long-Term Pavement Performance database. They include a
combination of site-specific, regional, and national WIM, automated
vehicle classification, and automated traffic recorder data of
various lengths of coverage. Regional data were obtained using
clustering techniques. Pavement life was estimated using mean
traffic input and low-percentile input to the NCHRP 1-37A design
guide for three levels of confidence: 75 percent, 85 percent, and
95 percent. For each confidence level, ranges in pavement life
prediction errors were estimated. A three-dimensional plot was
produced, indicating the maximum error by confidence level for each
of the traffic data collection scenarios analyzed. This plot can be
used to establish the minimum required traffic data collection
effort, given the acceptable error and the desirable level of
confidence.
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 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 and manufacturers' names appear in this report only because
they are considered essential to the object 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-05-079 |
2. Government Accession No. |
3. Recipient's Catalog No. |
4. Title and
Subtitle
Optimization of Traffic Data Collection for Specific Pavement
Design Applications |
5. Report Date
May 2006 |
6. Performing Organization
Code
|
7. Author(s)
A.T. Papagiannakis, M. Bracher, J. Li, and N. Jackson |
8. Performing Organization Report
No.
123210-8 |
9. Performing Organization Name
and Address
Nichols Consulting Engineers
1885 South Arlington Avenue,
Suite 111
Reno, NV 89509-3370
Washington State University
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
101 Sloan Hall
Spokane Street
Pullman, WA 99164-2910 |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
|
11. Contract or Grant No.
DTFH61-02-D-00139 |
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and
Address
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296 |
13. Type of Report and Period
Covered
Final Report
March 2003 to July 2005 |
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|
15. Supplementary Notes
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR): Larry Wiser,
Long-Term Pavement Performance Team |
16. Abstract
The objective of this study is to establish the minimum traffic
data collection effort required for pavement design applications
satisfying a maximum acceptable error under a prescribed confidence
level. The approach consists of simulating the traffic data input
to the 2002 National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
1-37A design guide for 17 distinct traffic data collection
scenarios using extended-coverage, weigh-in-motion (WIM) data from
the Long-Term Pavement Performance database. They include a
combination of site-specific, regional, and national WIM, automated
vehicle classification, and automated traffic recorder data of
various lengths of coverage. Regional data were obtained using
clustering techniques. Pavement life was estimated using mean
traffic input and low-percentile input to the NCHRP 1-37A design
guide for three levels of confidence: 75 percent, 85 percent, and
95 percent. For each confidence level, ranges in pavement life
prediction errors were estimated. A three-dimensional plot was
produced, indicating the maximum error by confidence level for each
of the traffic data collection scenarios analyzed. This plot can be
used to establish the minimum required traffic data collection
effort, given the acceptable error and the desirable level of
confidence. |
17. Key Words
Traffic input, NCHRP 1-37A design guide, LTPP, clustering,
tolerable errors, confidence level. |
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through
the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA
22161. |
19. Security Classification (of this
report)
Unclassified |
20. Security Classification (of this
page)
Unclassified |
21. No. of Pages
126 |
22. Price
|
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of
completed page authorized
Table Of Contents
- Executive Summary
- Chapter 1. Introduction
- Chapter 2. Identify Scenarios And
Knowledge Gaps
- Chapter 3. Define Traffic Data Collection
Requirements For Each Selected Application
- Chapter 4. LTPP Data Analysis
- LTPP Wim Data Extracted
- Rationale For Selecting Sites For The
Detailed Sensitivity Analysis
- Identifying Groups Of Sites For
Obtaining Regional Data
- Simulating Traffic Data Collection
Scenarios
- Scenario 1-0: Site-Specific Continuous
WIM Data
- Scenario 1-1: Site-Specific WIM Data
for 1 Month/4 Seasons
- Scenario 1-2: Site-Specific WIM Data
for 1 Week/Season
- Scenario 2-0: Continuous Site-Specific
AVC Data and Regional WIM Data
- Scenario 2-1: Site-Specific AVC Data
for 1 Month/Season and Regional WIM Data
- Scenario 2-2: Site-Specific AVC Data
for 1 Week/Season and Regional WIM Data
- Scenario 2-3: Site-Specific AVC Data
for 1 Week/Year and Regional WIM Data
- Scenario 3-0: Continuous Site-Specific
ATR Data, Regional AVC Data, and Regional WIM Data
- Scenario 3-1: Site-Specific ATR Data
for 1 Week/Season, Regional AVC Data, and Regional WIM
Data
- Scenario 4-0: Continuous Site-Specific
ATR Data, Regional AVC Data, and National WIM Data
- Scenario 4-1: Site-Specific ATR Data
for 1 Week/Season, Regional AVC Data, and National WIM
Data
- Scenario 4-2: Site-Specific ATR Data
for 1 Week/Year, Regional AVC Data, and National WIM Data
- Scenario 4-3: Site-Specific ATR Data
for 1 Weekday Plus 1 Weekend/Year, Regional AVC Data, and National
WIM Data
- Scenarios 4-4 through 4-7:
Various-Coverage, Site-Specific ATR Data, National AVC Data, and
National WIM Data
- Estimating Traffic Input
- Chapter 5. Sensitivity Analysis
- Chapter 6. Define Traffic Collection
Requirements
- Chapter 7. Summary
- Appendix A. CARD-4 AND CARD-7
Descriptions
- Appendix B. Cluster Analysis
Results
- Appendix C. Structural And Climatic
Input
- Appendix D. Pavement Performance
Results
- References
List Of Figures
- Figure 1. Schematic of the sensitivity
of distress predictions to load spectra input.
- Figure 2. LTPP sites with WIM data
available for periods longer than 359 days per year.
- Figure 3. LTPP sites with WIM data
available for periods longer than 299 days per year.
- Figure 4. Flexible pavement site
selection by AADTT and structural number.
- Figure 5. Rigid pavement site
selection by AADTT and slab thickness.
- Figure 6. Annual distributions of
tandem-axle loads, Washington State LTPP sites.
- Figure 7. Tandem-axle load
distributions for the cluster of Washington State LTPP site
6048.
- Figure 8. Tandem-axle load
distributions for the cluster of Washington State LTPP site
1007.
- Figure 9. Example of NCHRP 1-37A
design guide output, site 181028 in Indiana.
- Figure 10. Summary of mean in life
predictions, site 181028 in Indiana, confidence 50
percent.
- Figure 11. Summary of the range in
predictions, site 181028 in Indiana, confidence 75
percent.
- Figure 12. Summary of the range in
predictions, site 181028 in Indiana, confidence 85
percent.
- Figure 13. Summary of the range in
predictions, site 181028 in Indiana, confidence 95
percent.
- Figure 14. Summary of the range in
predictions, site 181028 in Indiana, confidence 99.9
percent.
- Figure 15. Pavement life prediction
comparison between actual annual AADTT growth rate and 4 percent
annual AADTT growth rate, flexible pavement sites.
- Figure 16. Pavement life prediction
comparison between actual annual AADTT growth rate and 4 percent
annual AADTT growth rate, rigid pavement sites.
- Figure 17. Components of the
percentage difference between pavement life predictions for
scenario X and those for scenario 1-0.
- Figure 18. Statistics for error
component "A" in life predictions (percent), flexible pavement
sites with AADTT &804; 800 trucks/day/lane.
- Figure 19. Statistics for error
component "A" in life predictions (percentage), flexible
pavement sites with AADTT > 800 trucks/day/lane.
- Figure 20. Statistics for error
component "A" in life predictions (percentage), rigid pavement
sites with AADTT &804; 1,200 trucks/day/lane.
- Figure 21. Statistics for error
component "A" in life predictions (percentage), rigid pavement
sites with AADTT > 1,200 trucks/day/lane.
- Figure 22. Estimated range in NCHRP
1-37A design guide pavement life prediction errors from mean
traffic input.
- Figure 23. Estimated range in NCHRP
1-37A design guide pavement life prediction errors
from low-percentile traffic input.
- Figure 24. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual tandem-axle load distribution, Washington State.
- Figure 25. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual tandem-axle load distribution, Vermont.
- Figure 26. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual tandem-axle load distribution, Mississippi.
- Figure 27. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual tandem-axle load distribution, Minnesota.
- Figure 28. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual tandem-axle load distribution, Michigan.
- Figure 29. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual tandem-axle load distribution, Indiana.
- Figure 30. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual tandem-axle load distribution, Connecticut.
- Figure 31. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual average truck class distribution, Washington State.
- Figure 32. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual average truck class distribution, Vermont.
- Figure 33. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual average truck class distribution, Mississippi.
- Figure 34. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual average truck class distribution, Minnesota.
- Figure 35. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual average truck class distribution, Michigan.
- Figure 36. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual average truck class distribution, Indiana.
- Figure 37. Clusters of LTPP sites by
annual average truck class distribution, Connecticut
List Of Tables
- Table 1. Range in life prediction
percentage errors from mean traffic input
- Table 2. Range in combined life
prediction errors from low-percentile traffic input
- Table 3. Accuracy of AADT predictions
as a function of factoring procedure
- Table 4. Traffic input levels in the
NCHRP 1-37A design guide
- Table 5. Detailed description of the
NCHRP 1-37A design guide traffic data input levels
- Table 6. NCHRP 1-37A design guide flow
of calculations in assembling axle-load spectra
- Table 7. Suggested levels of
reliability for roads of various classes
- Table 8. Selected traffic data
collection scenarios
- Table 9. Relationship between
two-sided probability of survival/failure and standard normal
deviate in pavement life predictions
- Table 10. Definition of variables
extracted from the CTDB
- Table 11. Background information on
the flexible LTPP sites selected
- Table 12. Background information on
the rigid LTPP sites selected
- Table 13. Identification codes for
roadway functional classes as defined by LTPP database field
FUNCTIONAL_CLASS in table INV_ID
- Table 14. Euclidean distance matrix:
Annual distributions of tandem-axle loads, Washington State LTPP
sites
- Table 15. Summary of clustering
strategies and associated Euclidean distance: Annual distributions
of tandem-axle loads, Washington State LTPP sites
- Table 16. LTPP sites used for
obtaining regional vehicle classification data
- Table 17. LTP sites used for obtaining
regional axle-load data
- Table 18. Example of computing MAFs
from regional data
- Table 19. Monthly versus annual
vehicle class distribution, AVC cluster, Washington State site 6048
45
- Table 20. Number of single axles per
vehicle, annual Washington State data
- Table 21. Number of tandem axles per
vehicle, annual Washington State data
- Table 22. Summary of the source of
traffic data input to the NCHRP 1-37A design guide for the selected
scenarios
- Table 23. Number of possible traffic
sampling combinations by scenario
- Table 24. Failure criteria for each
pavement type
- Table 25. Scenario 1-0: Life
prediction and critical distress, flexible pavement sites
- Table 26. Scenario 1-0: Life
prediction and critical distress, rigid pavement sites
- Table 27. Summary of computed AADTT
growth rates and corresponding scenario 1-0 pavement lives,
flexible pavement sites
- Table 28. Summary of computed AADTT
growth rates and corresponding scenario 1-0 pavement lives, rigid
pavement sites
- Table 29. Statistics and ranges for
the percentage life prediction errors from mean traffic input
(i.e., quantity "A"), n=17
- Table 30. Statistics for percentage
additional error in life predictions from lowest percentile traffic
input (i.e., quantity "B")
- Table 31. Range in mean "B"
errors
- Table 32. Overall range in pavement
life prediction errors ("A" plus "B" components) by probability of
exceeding them 68
- Table 33. Card-4: Vehicle classification
record
- Table 34. Card-7: Truck weight
record
- Table 35. PC strength properties for
level 2 input
- Table 36. Layer types and thicknesses
for all sites
- Table 37. Assumed layer moduli
- Table 38. Site locations used for
interpolation of weather station
- Table 39. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
181028
- Table 40. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
261010
- Table 41. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
282807
- Table 42. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
536048
- Table 43. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
185518
- Table 44. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
275076
- Table 45. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
094008
- Table 46. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
501682
- Table 47. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
186012
- Table 48. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
261004
- Table 49. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
261012
- Table 50. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
261013
- Table 51. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
271019
- Table 52. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section 28308
- Table 53. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
185022
- Table 54. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
265363
- Table 55. Life prediction estimates by
scenario and traffic input percentile level, section
533813
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AADT |
Average Annual Daily Traffic |
AADTT |
Average Annual Daily Truck Traffic |
AADW |
Annual Average Day of Week |
AASHTO |
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials |
AC |
Asphalt Concrete |
AEPV |
Average ESALs per Vehicle |
ATR |
Automated Traffic Recorder |
AVC |
Automated Vehicle Classification |
CMAWD |
Combined Month and Average Weekday |
CMDW |
Combined Month and Day of Week |
COTR |
Contracting Officer's Technical Representative |
CRC |
Continuously Reinforced Concrete |
CRCP |
Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement |
CTDB |
Central Traffic Database |
CWAWD |
Combined Week and Average Weekday |
DAR |
Daily Adjustment Ratio |
DOT |
Department of Transportation |
DOW |
Day of Week |
DTR |
Daily Traffic Ratio |
ESAL |
Equivalent Single-Axle Load |
FHWA |
Federal Highway Administration |
GPS |
General Pavement Study |
GVW |
Gross Vehicle Weight |
ICM |
Integrated Climatic Model |
IRI |
International Roughness Index |
JPCP |
Jointed Plain Concrete Pavement |
LTPP |
Long-Term Pavement Performance |
M |
Monthly Adjustment Factor |
MADT |
Monthly Average Daily Traffic |
MADW |
Monthly Average Day of Week |
MAF |
Monthly Adjustment Factor |
MAR |
Monthly Adjustment Ratio |
MDW |
Month and Day of Week |
MDWTR |
Monthly Day of Week Traffic Ratio |
MTR |
Monthly Traffic Ratio |
N |
National |
NCHRP |
National Cooperative Highway Research Program |
PCC |
Portland Cement Concrete |
PDG |
Pavement Design Guide |
PSI |
Present Serviceability Index |
QC |
Quality Control |
R |
Regional |
RFP |
Request for Proposal |
RH |
Relative Humidity |
SAS |
Statistical Analysis System® |
SD |
Specific Day |
SD |
Standard Deviation |
SDNN |
Specific Day With Noon-to-Noon Factors |
SN |
Structural Number |
SS |
Site Specific |
SWDW |
Separate Week and Day of Week |
TMG |
Traffic Monitoring Guide |
TTC |
Truck Traffic Class |
TWRG |
Truck Weight Road Group |
VC |
Vehicle Class |
VMT |
Vehicle-Miles Traveled |
VOL |
Daily Vehicle Volume Count |
WIM |
Weigh-in-Motion |
FHWA-HRT-05-079
|