Using Scanning Lasers for Real-Time Pavement Thickness Measurement, TR-538, 2006

Due to limited budgets and reduced inspection staff, state departments of transportation (DOTs) are in need of innovative approaches for providing more efficient quality assurance on concrete paving projects. The goal of this research was to investigate and test new methods that can determine pavement thickness in real time. Three methods were evaluated: laser scanning, ultrasonic sensors, and eddy current sensors. Laser scanning, which scans the surface of the base prior to paving and then scans the surface after paving, can determine the thickness at any point. Also, scanning lasers provide thorough data coverage that can be used to calculate thickness variance accurately and identify any areas where the thickness is below tolerance. Ultrasonic and eddy current sensors also have the potential to measure thickness nondestructively at discrete points and may result in an easier method of obtaining thickness. There appear to be two viable approaches for measuring concrete pavement thickness during the paving operation: laser scanning and eddy current sensors. Laser scanning has proved to be a reliable technique in terms of its ability to provide virtual core thickness with low variability. Research is still required to develop a prototype system that integrates point cloud data from two scanners. Eddy current sensors have also proved to be a suitable alternative, and are probably closer to field implementation than the laser scanning approach. As a next step for this research project, it is suggested that a pavement thickness measuring device using eddy current sensors be created, which would involve both a handheld and paver-mounted version of the device.

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil for Low-Volume Bridge Abutments, January 2012

This report presents a review of literature on geosynthetic reinforced soil (GRS) bridge abutments, and test results and analysis from two field demonstration projects (Bridge 1 and Bridge 2) conducted in Buchanan County, Iowa, to evaluate the feasibility and cost effectiveness of the use of GRS bridge abutments on low-volume roads (LVRs). The two projects included GRS abutment substructures and railroad flat car (RRFC) bridge superstructures. The construction costs varied from $43k to $49k, which was about 50 to 60% lower than the expected costs for building a conventional bridge. Settlement monitoring at both bridges indicated maximum settlements ≤1 in. and differential settlements ≤ 0.2 in transversely at each abutment, during the monitoring phase. Laboratory testing on GRS fill material, field testing, and in ground instrumentation, abutment settlement monitoring, and bridge live load (LL) testing were conducted on Bridge 2. Laboratory test results indicated that shear strength parameters and permanent deformation behavior of granular fill material improved when reinforced with geosynthetic, due to lateral restraint effect at the soilgeosynthetic interface. Bridge LL testing under static loads indicated maximum deflections close to 0.9 in and non-uniform deflections transversely across the bridge due to poor load transfer between RRFCs. The ratio of horizontal to vertical stresses in the GRS fill was low (< 0.25), indicating low lateral stress on the soil surrounding GRS fill material. Bearing capacity analysis at Bridge 2 indicated lower than recommended factor of safety (FS) values due to low ultimate reinforcement strength of the geosynthetic material used in this study and a relatively weak underlying foundation layer. Global stability analysis of the GRS abutment structure revealed a lower FS than recommended against sliding failure along the interface of the GRS fill material and the underlying weak foundation layer. Design and construction recommendations to help improve the stability and performance of the GRS abutment structures on future projects, and recommendations for future research are provided in this report.

Iowa DOT Evaluation of the PASCO Road Survey System, HR-539, 1987

The report compares and contrasts the automated PASCO method of pavement evaluation to the manual procedures used by the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to evaluate pavement condition. Iowa DOT's use of IJK and BPR roadmeters and manual crack and patch surveys are compared to PASCO's use of 35-mm photography, artificial lighting and hairline projection, tracking wheels and lasers to measure ride, cracking and patching, rut depths, and roughness. The Iowa DOT method provides a Present Serviceability Index (PSI) value and PASCO provides a Maintenance Control Index (MCI). Seven sections of Interstate Highway, county roads and city streets, and one shoulder section were tested with different speeds of data collection, surface types and textures, and stop and start conditions. High correlation of results between the two methods in the measurement of roughness (0.93 for the tracking wheel and 0.84 for the laser method) were recorded. Rut depth correlations of 0.61 and cracking of 0.32 are attributed to PASCO's more comprehensive measurement techniques. A cost analysis of the data provided by both systems indicates that PASCO is capable of providing a comparable result with improved accuracy at a cost of $125-$150 or less per two-lane mile depending on survey mileage. Improved data collection speed, accuracy, and reliability, and a visible record of pavement condition for comparable costs are available. The PASCO system's ability to provide the data required in the Highway Pavement Distress Identification Manual, the Pavement Condition Rating Guide, and the Strategic Highway Research Program Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Studies, is also outlined in the report.