MnDOT Pavement Surface Smoothness Specification 23 rd Annual RPUG Meeting September 29, 2011.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Minnesota Department of Transportation Mn/DOTs Gradual Shift from Profile Index to IRI.
Advertisements

Mn/DOT Combined Smoothness Specification Operator Certification Training Workshop July 12, 2010.
Why is ride important?. Our customers - the driving public values pavement smoothness very high.
Ride Specification – IRI Update Prepared by Joe Thomas, P.E. 11/1/06 MAAPT 53 rd Annual Asphalt Conference December 6, 2006.
A Connected Vehicle-Based Application to Estimate Road Roughness Transportation agencies devote significant resources towards collection of highly detailed.
Section Cross Slope District 1 Your logo here.
IRI Smoothness Testing for Quality Assurance and Warranty Construction Alberta Transportation CUPGA November 15 th, 2009 Moncton, NB.
Proposal Note 555 Surface Smoothness for Bridges and Approaches
LLP HMA Pavements Inertial Profiler Prebid Meeting Solano A0104 Oakland, CA September 14, 2012 Peter Vacura Chief, Office of Asphalt Pavement.
Joe White (608) Wayne Chase (608) WisDOT Materials Management Section 1.
Tolerances and Price Impacts Presented by:- Er. Bhagawan Shrestha.
Linear Algebra 1.4. This is about writing equations, Drawing straight line graphs Solving simultaneously Substituting in values into equations Writing.
Incorporating Travel Time Reliability Data in Travel Path Estimation Sam Granato, Ohio DOT Rakesh Sharma, Belomar Regional Council.
1 PAVEMENT DATA ITEMS. 2 Climate_Shapes (4 LTPP zones) Soil_Shapes Metadata Estimates Section level data HPMS Pavement Data Summary level data.
History Dynatest was founded in 1976 in Denmark by a group of engineers and technicians who combined  science  technology and  business into the development.
International Roughness Index (IRI) for Construction Acceptance Technical Standards Branch Knowledge Presentations to the CEA February 13 th, 2014 Jim.
Critical Length of Grade
Pavement Ride Quality Nicholas Vitillo, Ph. D. Center for Advanced Infrastructure and Transportation.
Data Collection for Determining Pavement Condition
Chapter 3, Part 1 September 9, You drive 8 mi north, turn right and drive another 8 miles to the west. Your total displacement is about
PAVEMENT CONDITION INDICES. n Historic development of pavement condition indices n The basic functions of condition indices in PMS n Different types of.
GPS Accuracy Testing Using: “RTK” (Real Time Kinematic) & “One Step Transformations” (Site Calibrations)
Speed How can I work out the speed of objects? Starter: Man Vs Cheetah ? Who would win a race? DJns#
 Quality Management Program (QMP) Review  HTCP Program  IRI News.
I. Advantages of Smooth Pavements: Longer Life Public Opinion Save Fuel Less Surface Maintenance II. Ways to Ensure Smooth Pavements Subgrade and Subbase.
Inference for regression - Simple linear regression
Describing Motion: Kinematics in One Dimension
Moving to International Roughness Index Measured By Inertial Profilers for Acceptance of New Asphalt Construction in Ontario By John A. Blair, Bituminous.
1 Development of a New Laser Reference Profiler & Testing at MnRoad 2013 Paul Toom P. Eng. MBA Cherry Systems Research (CSR) International Cybernetics.
Footer Text 3D TEXTURE MEASUREMENT Development and Field Evaluation of a Texture Measurement System Based on Continuous Profiles from a 3D Scanning Instrument.
Product Evaluation & Quality Improvement. Overview Objectives Background Materials Procedure Report Closing.
Emmanuel Fernando, Texas A&M Transportation Institute and and Magdy Mikhail, Texas Department of Transportation Texas Department of Transportation Road.
Dependency of Coefficient of Rolling Resistance on Pavement Surface Characteristics Richard Sohaney, The Transtec Group Bernard Izevbekhai, MnDOT 19 September.
Math 1050 Project Transportation Costs
On Low Speed Problem in Road Smoothness Profiling Vadim Peretroukhine Michael Nieminen September 28, 2011.
MD : ATIKUL ISLAM JUNIOR INSTRACTOR DEPT. OF. CIVIL SUB: SURVEYING3 SUB CODE : 6452 MOB:
Comparison of Inertial Profiler Measurements with Leveling and 3D Laser Scanning Abby Chin and Michael J. Olsen Oregon State University Road Profile Users.
User perceptions of highway roughness Kevan Shafizadeh and Fred Mannering.
Geometric Design (I). Learning Objectives To understand the considerations and quantifiable aspects of geometric design.
ASTM E17 Committee Mini-Seminar Dec. 5, 2006 Federal Aviation Administration 1 FAA PERSPECTIVE Airfield Pavement Roughness Presentation to: ASTM E17 Committee.
Addressing Localized Roughness at the Project Level by Gary Higgins.
Using LTPP Data in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Pavement Smoothness.
4/25/2017 9:25 AM Inertial Profiler Forum Intro to the Inertial Profiler Implementation September 28, 2015 © 2015 California Department of Transportation.
Caltrans Test Method METHOD OF TEST FOR OPERATION, CALIBRATION AND OPERATOR CERTIFICATION OF INERTIAL PROFILERS References: AASHTO R 56 – Certification.
Section 8.5 Analyzing Graphs. 8.5 Lecture Guide: Analyzing Graphs Objective 1: Identify a function as an increasing or decreasing function.
 You can use weighted averages to solve uniform motion problems when the objects you are considering are moving at constant rates or speeds.
1 COMPARISON OF MPD VALUES FROM HIGH- SPEED LASER MEASUREMENTS WITH MPD FROM TWO STATIONARY DEVICES Rohan Perera, PhD, PE Soil and Materials Engineers,
Modeling With Quadratic Functions Section 2.4 beginning on page 76.
By Terry Treutel Ride Quality Consultant Former WisDOT Ride Spec Coordinator.
User perceptions of highway roughness
IRI T ESTING IN N ORTH C AROLINA Presented by Christopher Bacchi, PE Vice President, Trimat Materials Testing, Inc. Raleigh, NC.
Office of Highway Safety Sight Distance and Roadway Condition Dan Walsh, P.E.
How are Highway Designs Actually Represented in Surface Models for Automated Machine Guidance and How Should We Control Them? Alan Vonderohe Construction.
Motion Notes. Key Terms 1)Motion: 2)Reference point: The state in which one object’s distance from another is changing. A place or object used for comparison.
NCDOT – “Final Surface Testing” CAPA / NCDOT Asphalt Training Workshop February 21-22, 2012 Raleigh, NC IRI Standard Specification Article
National Highway Institute 4-1 REV-2, JAN 2006 PROFILE INDICES BLOCK 4.
Jiangbi Hu, Transportation Research Center, Department of Civil Engineering,Beijing University of Technology, China A QUANTITATIVE MODEL OF ROAD-SURFACE.
National Highway Institute 5-1 REV-2, JAN 2006 EQUIPMENT FACTORS AFFECTING INERTIAL PROFILER MEASUREMENTS BLOCK 5.
Micro-milling The Economics A Rehabilitative Strategy for Savings Presented By: Sheila Hines Georgia Department of Transportation.
Quantity Calculations Module 3. Quantity Calculations  Specifications  Post Bid Quantity Calculations  Production Quantity Calculations –Checking Yield.
Plotting in Excel KY San Jose State University Engineering 10.
Phase I Experiment 4 Different pavement structures, 8 sections Compare
ALDOT Specification Updates
Transitioning to IRI for Pavement Smoothness
Meaning of Slope for Equations, Graphs, and Tables
Patented Precision 8 August 2014 US Patent 6,775,914
CHAPTER 3 Describing Relationships
Section 3.1 Graphs of Linear Equations.
Ch 2, L2 Students will be able to write and interpret direct variation equations. Direct Variation What is the length between each pair of vertical posts.
Presentation transcript:

MnDOT Pavement Surface Smoothness Specification 23 rd Annual RPUG Meeting September 29, 2011

Key Components of Spec. 1.Inertial Profiler (IP) Certification 2.Operator Certification 3.Smoothness 4.Areas of Localized Roughness (ALR)

1. IP Certification MnROAD Research Facility (≈ 40 miles west of Minneapolis/St. Paul)

IP Certification Objectives 1.To provide a calibration standard against which all inertial profilers can be tested 2.To verify the reliability and validity of data collected by inertial profilers ICC SurPRO Neither reliable, nor validReliable, but not valid Both reliable and valid

IP Certification Procedure 1.Calibrate IP (check tire pressure, accelerometers, vertical height sensors, DMI, etc.). 2.Collect six profiles on each test section (one bituminous, one concrete). 3.Submit hard copies and ERD files of the five “best” runs for each test section.

Bituminous Test Section

IP Certification Acceptance Criteria 1.The distance of each contractor run must be within 0.2% of the actual length of the test section. 2.On each test section, the average contractor IRI must be within 5% of the reference IRI. 3.On each test section, the coefficient of variation of the five contractor IRI values must be no larger than 3%. 4.On each test section, the average of the five contractor correlations must be at least 90%.

2011 IP Certification Decal

2. Operator Certification All contractors who operate an IP on a MnDOT project must have completed a training course and passed an operator certification exam (70% correct required). The training and exam are available on the MnDOT Smoothness Program website:

Operator Training Screenshot #1

Operator Training Screenshot #2

Operator Certificate of Training

3. Smoothness “Smoothness” is a single IRI value that represents the overall roughness of an entire 528-ft pavement segment in/mi53.9 in/mi55.6 in/mi49.8 in/mi 528 feet Smoothness is calculated with ProVAL’s “Ride Quality: Fixed Interval” for both the left and right wheel paths.

Pay Adjustment Equations Pay Adjustments for Bituminous Pavements EquationIRI (in/mi)Pay Adjustment ($/0.1 mi) HMA-A < – − × IRI > 75.0Corrective Work to ≤ 56.7 HMA-B < – − × IRI > 85.0Corrective Work to ≤ 60.0 HMA-C < – − x IRI > 95.0Corrective Work to ≤ 63.7 Pay Adjustments for Concrete Pavements EquationIRI (in/mi)Pay Adjustment ($/0.1 mi) PCC-A < – − × IRI > 90.0Corrective Work to ≤ 71.7 PCC-B < – − × IRI 71.3 – > 90.0Corrective Work to ≤ 71.3

4. ALR “ALR” are 25-ft continuous IRI values that equal or exceed inches/mile ALR is computed for the right wheel path only. ALR are determined with ProVAL’s “Smoothness Assurance: Short/Long Continuous Histogram.” ALR monetary deductions depend on the type of paving and posted vehicle speed on a project.

ALR Graph 125 in/mi ALR

ALR Graph

ALR Monetary Deductions ALR Monetary Deductions and Corrective Work Requirements Equation25ft Continuous IRI, in/mi Corrective Work or Monetary Deduction, per linear 1.0 ft HMA-A or HMA-B, and a posted vehicle speed > 45 mph < 125.0Acceptable ≥ and < Corrective work or $10.00, as directed by the Engineer ≥ and < Corrective work or $25.00, as directed by the Engineer ≥ Corrective work or $50.00, as directed by the Engineer PCC-A or PCC-B, and a posted vehicle speed > 45 mph < 125.0Acceptable ≥ and < Corrective work or $10.00, as directed by the Engineer ≥ and < Corrective work or $25.00, as directed by the Engineer ≥ 250.0Corrective work as directed by Engineer HMA-C, PI-A, or any paving with a posted vehicle speed ≤ 45 mph < 175.0Acceptable ≥ and < 250.0$10.00 ≥ 250.0$25.00

Thank You!