PAVEMENT STRUCTURAL ASSESSMENT USING AUTOMATED TOOLS: A COMPARATIVE STUDY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.11113/mjce.v29.15688Keywords:
Pavement assessment, Geophysical tools, Ground penetrating radar (GPR), Infrared thermograph (IR), Portable seismic pavement analyser (PSPA)Abstract
Pavement distress evaluation was traditionally conducted through visual observation. Traditional practice requires a person to walk along the stretch of pavement in order to survey distresses, take photos, and measure defects occurred at the deteriorated surface. However, this approach is too subjective causes inconsistencies of information, less reliable and time-consuming. Due to these shortcomings, the practitioners in pavement maintenance sector seek for a reliable alternative tools and techniques to arrest incapability of traditional approach. This research aimed to investigate feasibility of automated tools for pavement structural assessment conducting a comparative study. Series of interviews with expert panels and comparison matrix have been conducted comparing Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), Infrared Thermograph (IR), and Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer (PSPA) by investigating across parameters; cost-time effectiveness, operating principle, depth of performance, method of application, and limitations of pavement evaluations. The research indicated the Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is highly advantageous over IR and PSPA for pavement structural assessment. The GPR, as a geophysical tool, has extensive capabilities to accommodate data in pavement assessment, geotechnical investigation and structural assessment. GPR can considerably perform at high speed and save time. It is also beneficial for long-term investment with deeper information. Notably, the interpretation of radar gram images of GPR tool needs sufficient time and skill.References
Advance Pavement Technologies (2008). Eight Rules for Preserving Your Asphalt Investment. Advanced Pavement Technologies.
Amir et al (2012). Assessing the Benefits of Ground Penetrating Radar Technology – Does it Improve the Accuracy of FWD Results and Overlay Design. Advances in Pavement Evaluation and Instrumentation Session. Conference of the Transportationof Canada Frederiction, New Brunswick.
Anderson (2003) A Generalized Protocol of Selecting Appropriate Geophysical Techniques. Geophysical Technologies for Detecting Underground Coal Mine Voids; An Interactive Forum. U.S Department of Transportation. Retrieved from website http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/hazards/mine/workshops/ktwkshp/ky0307.cfm on 20th November 2013.
Bala, Garg & Jai (2012). GPR Based Detection of Structurally Weak Zones of Road Pavement. 2012 International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Engineering (ICTTE 2012) IPCSIT vol.26 (2012).
Bell (2006). Operating Portable Seismic Pavement Analyzer. Final Report. Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, Engineer Research and Development Centre, ERDC/GSL SR-06-9
Benedetto &Pensa (2007). Indirect Diagnosis of Pavement Structural Damage using Surface GPR Reflection Techniques. Journal of Applied Geophysics 62 (2007) (107 – 133).
Bernama (2010). 10 MP: RM2.8 billion for improving urban public transport, Bernama Oct 15 2010, www.bernama.com.
Benedetto & Rosaria (2010). Applications of Ground Penetrating radar to Road Pavement: State of Art and Novelties. GeoShanghai 2010 International Conference. Geotechnical Special Publications No.203.
Benson (2003). An Overview of Geophysical and Non Destructive Methods for Characterization of Roads and Bridges. Use of Geophysical Methods in Construction. Retrieved from website http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/40521%28296%291 on 15th November 2013.
Bojan, Josipa &Tatjana (2012). Application of Infrared Camera for Quality Control during Paving. 2nd International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure. CETRA 2012.
Carl (2006). Personal communications, WaveTech Consulting, May 2006.
Central Federal Highway Division (CFL) (2013), Baseline Condition Assessment Using Geophysical Methods. Federal Land Highway Programs. Retrieved from website http://www.cflhd.gov/resources/agm/engApplication/BridgeSystemSuperstructure/331BaselineConditionAssessUsingGeophyMethods.cfm
Daniel (2007). Portable Seismic Analyzer – PSPA. 498 – Experimental Methods. University of Illinois.
Dashevsky et al. (2005). Capacitance Sounding; A New Geophysical Method for Asphalt Pavement Quality Evaluation. Journal of Applied Geophysics 57 (2005), 95-106. Retrieved from website http://www.ac.els-cdn.com_S0926985104000849_1-s2.0-S0926985104000849-main on 15th November 2013.
David (2012). Use of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) for Pavement Assessment and Evaluation. TTE 5837 Pavement Management. University of Florida.
Doll W. E. (2008). The Path Behind and Highway Ahead: A Perspective on the Future of Geophysics in Engineering. Geo Congress 2008.
Dumoulin et al. (2009). Active Infrared Thermography Applied to detection and Characterization of Non Emergent Defects on Asphalt Pavement. NDTCE Conference, Nantes, 30th – 3rd July.
Gardiner, Law & Nesmith (2000). Using Infrared Thermography to Detect and Measure Segregation in Hot Mix Asphalt Pavements., International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1:4, 265-284, DOI:10.1080/10298430008901710. Retrieved from website http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10298430008901710 on 3rd December 2013.
Gardiner and Brown (2000). Segregation in Hot-Mix Asphalt Pavements, NCHRP Report 441, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Georgopoulus, Loizos, & Flouda (1995). Digital Image Processing as a Tool for Pavement Distress Evaluation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 50 (1): 23 – 33.
Grote et al. (2005). Evaluation of Infiltration in Layered Pavements Using Surface GPR Reflections Techniques. Journal of Applied geophysics. 57 (2), 129 – 153.
Hartman, Baston, Sedgwick, and Bohmer (2004). Pilot Study Assessing the Feasibility of Advanced Ground Penetrating Radar in Pavement Assessment. Bulletin 034. 8th Conference on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa (CAPSA’ 04).
Hausman et al. (2002).Laboratory and Field Analysis of the TransTech Model 300 Pavement Quality Indicator TM for Determining Asphalt Pavement Density. 81st Transportation Research Annual Meeting, Washington, D. C.. Paper No. 02-4055. 2002.
Henault (1999). Development of Guidelines for Reduction of Temperature Differential Damage (TDD) for Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement Projects in Connecticut, Report 2222-1-99-5, Connecticut Department of Transportation.
Holzschuher et al. (2007), Accuracy and Repeatability of Ground Penetrating Radar for Surface Layer Thickness Estimation of Florida Roadways, Research Report, Department of Transportation Florida, State Materials Office, 07-505.
Ircon (n.p). Introduction to Infrared Thermometry, Technical Solution TS104, Retrieved from website http://www.ircon.com/techsolution.html#5.
Krapez and Cielo (1991). Thermograph No Destructive Evaluation: Data Inversion Procedures, Part 1: 1-D Analysis and experimental results, Res. Nondestructive Evaluation 3(2): 8 1-100.
Loizos and Plati (2007). Accuracy of Pavement Thickness Estimation Using Different GPR Analaysis Approaches, NDT & E International 40, Amsterdam, Elsevier 2007, 147 – 157.
Mahoney et al. (2003). Application of Infrared Thermographic Imaging to Bituminous Concrete Pavements – Final Report, Connecticut Advanced Pavement Laboratory, Connecticut Transportation Institute, 2229-F-03-7
MALA GPR (2013). MAA GPR for Infrastructure and Construction Applications. MALA Geosciences. Retrieved from website www.malags.com/solutions/roads on 2nd October 2013.
Maldague (1993). Nondestructive Evaluation of Materials by Infrared Thermography, Springer-Verlag London Lirnited.
Marchetti et al. (2010). Implementation of and Infrared Camera for Road thermal Mapping. 10th International Conference on Quantitative Infrared Thermography, July 27 – 30, 2010 Quebec, Cananda.
Marc (2007). Using Ground Penetrating radar to Evaluate Minnesota Roads, Final Report, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Research Service Section, Minnesota.
Mark & Dave (2006). Using Ground Penetrating Radar as an Assessment Methodology in Roadway Rehabilitation. Soil and Materials Sessions. 2006 Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada.
Maser &Vandre (2006). Network level Pavement Structure Assessment Using Automated Processing of Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Data. Airfield and Highway Pavements 2006.
MDOT (2006). Mississippi Department of Transportation State Study Phase I – GPR Final Report.
Meegoda et al. (2006), Correlation of Surface Texture, Segregation and Measurements of Air Voids, Final Report, New Jersey Department of Transportation, FHWA-NJ-2002-026.
Morcous & Erdogmus (2009). Use of Ground Penetrating Radar for Construction Quality Assurance of Concrete Pavement. NDOR Project Number P307. Nebraska Department of Roads & University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
Mooney, M. A., Miller, G. A., Teh, S. Y., & Bong, W. (2000). Importance of invasive measures in assessment of existing pavements. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 14(4), 149-154.
Mostafa (2013). Use of Infrared Thermography to Control the Quality of Joints Construction and to Detect Reflective Cracking in Asphalt Pavements. Transportation Infrastructure State of Good Repair. Retrieved from website http://www.evaccenter.lsu.edu/pub/13-04.pdf on 3rd December 2013.
Morris (1991). Digital Design, 2e edition.
MTAG (2003). Common Flexible Pavement Distress. Caltrans Department of Transportation. Maintenance
