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-16-072 Date: December 2016 |
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-16-072 Date: December 2016 |
PDF Version (892 KB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
This document presents guidelines to measure bridge approach transitions using inertial profilers. The guidelines were developed by the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program and the Office of Infrastructure Research and Development Bridge and Foundation Engineering Team. The bump at the end of the bridge has long been studied for highways and railways, yet experts from across the transportation industry continue to identify it as one of the most prevalent substructure factors affecting bridge performance. Often, rideability is a subjective measurement used by State transportation departments to define the presence of a bump. User complaints typically drive maintenance schedules. However, the bump is not just an annoyance on the traveling public; the dynamic impact of vehicles resulting from the bump causes distress, fatigue, and long-term damage to the bridge deck. In addition, the bump also causes damage to vehicles and potentially creates an unsafe condition for drivers when this issue is not maintained in a timely manner. This guideline describes the methodology for measuring bridge approach transitions using inertial profilers. Details include bridge sectioning and site information, data collection procedures, and data analysis and reporting approaches. The intended audience for this report is pavement and bridge engineering professionals and researchers.
The LTPP Program is an ongoing and active program. To obtain current information and to access other technical references, LTPP data users should visit the LTPP Web site at http://www.tfhrc.gov/pavement/ltpp/ltpp.htm. LTPP data requests, technical questions, and data user feedback can be submitted to LTPP customer service via e-mail at ltppinfo@fhwa.dot.gov.
Cheryl Richter
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-16-072 |
2. Government Accession No. | 3 Recipient's Catalog No. | ||
| 4. Title and Subtitle
FHWA LTPP Guidelines for Measuring Bridge Approach Transitions Using Inertial Profilers |
5. Report Date December 2016 |
|||
| 6. Performing Organization Code | ||||
| 7. Author(s)
Brandt Henderson, Jesse Dickes, Gabe Cimini, and Chris Olmedo |
8. Performing Organization Report No.
|
|||
9. Performing Organization Name and Address Stantec Consulting, Ltd. |
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) |
|||
| 11. Contract or Grant No. DTFH61-12-C-00006 |
||||
| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Federal Highway Administration |
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
|
|||
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
|
||||
| 15. Supplementary Notes
The Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative was Jack Springer (HRDI-30). |
||||
| 16. Abstract
The bump at the end of the bridge has long been studied for highways and railways, yet experts from across the transportation industry continue to identify it as one of the most prevalent substructure factors affecting bridge performance. Often, rideability is a subjective measurement used by transportation departments to define the presence of a bump. User complaints typically drive maintenance schedules. However, the bump is not just an annoyance on the traveling public; the dynamic impact of vehicles resulting from the bump causes distress, fatigue, and long-term damage to the bridge deck. In addition, the bump also causes damage to vehicles and potentially creates an unsafe condition for drivers when this issue is not maintained in a timely manner. This guideline describes the methodology for measuring bridge approach transitions using inertial profilers. Details include bridge sectioning and site information, data collection procedures and data analysis, and reporting approaches. |
||||
| 17. Key Words
Bridge approach, geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS), integrated bridge system (IBS), pavement profile, profile measurements, inertial profiler, survey unit, pavement data collection, International Roughness Index (IRI), weigh-in-motion (WIM), texture |
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 41 |
22. Price | |
| Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) | Reproduction of completed page authorized |
SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors
Figure 2. Drawing. Layout of bridge site with perpendicular joints.
Figure 3. Drawing. Layout of bridge site with skewed joints.
Figure 4. Form. Perpendicular joint site layout (form 1A)
Figure 5. Form. Skewed joint site layout (form 1B)
Figure 6. Log. Form 2A—photo log.
Figure 7. Log. Form 2B—photo diagram.
Figure 8. Screen capture. Analysis options.
Figure 9. Screen capture. Report options.
Figure 10. Screen capture. Profile analysis.
Figure 11. Screen capture. Texture analysis.
Figure 12. Screen capture. Profiler system software header fields.
Figure 19. Photo. A GRS-IBS bridge in St. Lawrence County, NY (eastbound direction)
Figure 20. Photo. A conventional bridge in St. Lawrence County, NY (northbound direction)
Table 1. Comparison of testing devices.
DMI distance-measuring instrument
ERD Engineering Research Division
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GPS Global Positioning System
GRS geosynthetic reinforced soil
IBS Integrated Bridge System
ID identification
IRI International Roughness Index
LTPP Long-Term Pavement Performance
PCC portland cement concrete
PI Profile Index
PPF pavement profile format
RSE rolling straight edge
WIM weigh-in-motion
