Research Update Construction Conference Charles Holzschuher, P.E. February 3, Florida Department of Transportation

Transcription

1 Research Update 2017 Construction Conference Charles Holzschuher, P.E. February 3, 2017

2 Laser Based Sensor Evaluation Goals: Evaluate Laser Based Sensors for Profilers Support RN and IRI Smoothness Specifications Rigid and Flexible Pavements High Speed Survey

3 High Speed Laser Profiler Class 1 Profiler, ASTM E KHz Selcom Lasers High Speed 60 mph Point Laser IRI, RN, Rut Network Acceptance

4 High Speed Laser Profiler (Continued) Laser measures the pavement profile (elevation changes with distance) Smoothness algorithms process into RN or IRI Laser in each wheel path Point Laser

5 Experiment Compare Sensor Types Projects (10-OGFC, 10-DGFC, and 14-Rigid) Repeatability % Difference IRI

6 Multi-Laser Profiler 3-Sensor Type Point Wide Spot Roline Wheel Path High Speed

7 Laser Footprint for Pavement Smoothness

8 Concrete Pavement All new concrete pavements are longitudinally ground LGD surface texture improves drainage and friction Artificial texture has challenges for lasers with a small footprint

9 Rigid Pavement Summary Surface Type Pooled Standard Deviation of Three Repeat Runs (in/mile) Point Wide Spot Roline LDG > 1 year LDG < 1 Year All Projects All Lasers Repeatable Large Difference with Point Laser Section LDG > 1 year LDG < 1 year Comparison Avg. IRI Difference (in/mile) 95% Confidence Interval or IRI Differences (in/mile) Lower Limit Upper Limit Point vs. Wide Spot Point vs. Roline Wide Spot vs. Roline Point vs. Wide Spot Point vs. Roline Wide Spot vs. Roline All Projects Point vs. Wide Spot Point vs. Roline Wide Spot vs. Roline

10 IRI Using Roline Laser (in/mile) Rigid Pavement Summary LDG greater than 1 year LDG less than 1 year IRI Using Point Laser (in/mile)

11 Flexible Pavement Summary 10-Open Grade Friction Course Projects 10-Dense Grade Friction Course Projects

12 Flexible Pavement Summary Surface Type Pooled Standard Deviation of Three Repeat Runs (in/mile) Point Wide Spot Roline Dense Open All Projects All Lasers Repeatable Minimal IRI Difference Mix Type Section Comparison Avg. IRI Difference (in/mile) 95% Confidence Interval or IRI Differences (in/mile) Lower Limit Upper Limit Point vs. Wide Spot Dense Point vs. Roline Wide Spot vs. Roline Point vs. Wide Spot Open Point vs. Roline Wide Spot vs. Roline Point vs. Wide Spot All Point vs. Roline Projects Wide Spot vs. Roline Laser Type

13 IRI Using Roline Laser (in/mile) Flexible Pavement Summary 250 Open Dense IRI Using Point Laser (in/mile)

14 Future Efforts To meet asphalt and rigid smoothness needs: Implementation of the Roline Laser is recommended Look at impacts to the Pavement Management and Acceptance programs Work towards building a single ride specification for both rigid and flexible pavements

15 Rumble Stripe Evaluation

16 Rumble Stripe Evaluation

17 Rumble Stripe Evaluation Retroreflectivity Evaluation on Rumble Stripes OBSI Noise Evaluation on Rumble Stripes

18 Retroreflective Equipment (Handheld and High Speed) Both utilize the 30-meter geometry Both work best on flat surfaces

19 Equipment (30 Meter Geometry) Standard 30 meter geometry 0.65 m Observation Angle = m Co-entrance Angle = meters 1/3 rd scale of 30 meter geometry (Used in FDOT unit) 0.22 m Observation Angle = m Co-entrance Angle = meters

20 Rumble Stripe (Developmental FDOT Index 519)

21 Background How does the shape of the rumble stripe effect retroreflectivity?

22 Retroreflectivity Evaluation Project Site: District 2

23 Test Plan Equipment Type Equipment Count Sections Locations per Section Replicates Total Handheld MRU Testing spacing for handheld testing

24 RL Centerline - Retroreflectivity Evaluation Rumble - Lower RL for both devices Variation between Handheld and MRU Repeatability higher for MRU and Rumble Yellow Centerlines Rumble-Stripe Control Milepost Handheld Average MRU Average Yellow Centerline Control Rumble RL Repeatability RL Repeatability Difference MRU % % 25% Hand Held 400 2% 353 7% 12% Difference 19% 0.50%

25 RL Edgeline - Retroreflectivity Evaluation Negligible Difference Between Rumble and Control Shift between Handheld and MRU Repeatability Good White Edgelines Rumble-Stripe Control Milepost Handheld Average MRU Average White Edgeline Control Rumble RL Repeatability RL Repeatability Difference MRU 540 5% 540 5% 0% Hand Held 692 3% 684 4% 1% Difference 22% 21%

26 Summary Single Project Inconclusive - Further evaluations are necessary New rumble stripe test sections are currently being constructed (8 sections)

27 Noise Evaluation

28 Noise Evaluation How do groove depths of the rumble stripe effect tirepavement interaction noise?

29 Noise Trailer FDOT Noise Trailer (OBSI) Collect High Speed Noise Data AASHTO TP Predict Wayside measurements Quantify Noise: Pavement Type Mix Design Aggregates Striping

30 Florida Acoustic Inventory (OBSI) Flexible Pavements DGFC (3) db(a) OGFC (30) db(a) Rigid Pavements LGD (6) db(a) Dense Grade Open Grade Concrete

31 Human Perception of Decibel Level

32 OBSI Test Sites Sites Stripe Type Length (mile) Evaluation Item 1-4 Rumble/Control 0.30 OBSI Depth (Site 4) 5 Audible/Control 0.30 OBSI

33 Site 4 - Rumble Stripe Control (107 dba) Rumble (122 dba)

34 OBSI, dba Site 4 Groove Depth on Rumble Stripe Noise Levels Comparison of OBSI Noise Level among Job Sites (Site 4) Groove Depth: 5/8" Groove Depth: 7/16" Site 1 Site Groove Depth: 5/16" Site Control Rumble Stripe Wayside due to Rumble Stripe Test Section

35 Site 5 - Audible Stripe Control (103 dba) Audible = (109 dba)

36 Summary OBSI Rumble Deeper Grooves Higher dba Audible - Quitest Site Stripe Type Surface Type Control (OBSIdBA) Rumble/Audible (OBSI-dBA) Difference (OBSI-dBA) 1 Rumble Dense Rumble Dense Rumble Dense Rumble Open Audible Dense

37 Summary OBSI Evaluation Rumble stripes produce higher noise levels when compared to controls In general, the deeper the groove depth, the higher the noise level 3

38 Questions/Comments 39