2016 SWIFT Conference CAPTG Workshop€¦ · Note: ASTM D5340 recommends a min. of 10% of the sample units to be inspected at the Network Level ...

2016 SWIFT Conference‐CAPTG Workshop

AUTOMATED PAVEMENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT USING LASER CRACK MEASUREMENT SYSTEM (LCMS) AT TORONTO PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

September 2016Presented by: • Kevin Chee, P.Eng., Senior Engineer, Airside Civil – Airside and Infrastructure Engineering, Greater Toronto Airports Authority

• Jessica A. Hernandez, M.Sc., P.Eng., Director, Soil & Material Engineering – GTA Office, Englobe Corp.

THE ASSISTANCE OF CHRIS STEWART (GTAA), MICHAEL MACKAY (ENGLOBE) AND MICHEL PARENT (ENGLOBE) IS GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGED

Toronto Pearson: Current Airfield Map

Toronto Pearson: Site Map

•1867 hectares

4

Toronto Pearson: Site Map

5

•DVP past Bathurst St.

•Front St. to St. Clair Ave.

Size compared to Downtown Toronto

6

Toronto Pearson –Canada’s Largest Airport

• 2015 Passenger Volume: 41 Million PAX.• Ranking in North America: 2nd busiest airport(in terms of international passengers, 25 Million PAX.)

• Total airside paved areas: approx. 5,838,000 m2 (concrete and asphalt)

• # of aircraft movements: approx. 443,000 annually• # of aircraft movements daily: over 1200 • Cargo processed: over 500,000 tonnes• Jobs created: over 40,000

7

Toronto Pearson –Runway Movements in 2015

RWY 06L-24R 2,956m (9,697 ft)

RWY 06R-24L 2,743 m (9,000 ft)

Terminal 1

Terminal 3

45,535 movementson 06R‐24L

2nd busiest airportin North America

8,208 movementson 15R‐33L

179,011 movementson 06L‐24R

15,953 movementson 15L‐33R

194,646 movementson 05‐23

RWY 05-23 3,389 m (11,120 ft)

RW

Y 15

R-3

3L

2,7

70 m

(9,0

88 ft

)

RW

Y 1

5L-3

3R

3,3

68 m

(11,

050

ft)

8

Toronto Pearson –Forecast Traffic Statistics in 2033

9

Challenges to Reduce Closure Duration to Accommodate Increased Traffic

• Maximizing work performed at night time and off‐peak hours to minimize Runway downtime

• Reducing closure duration by using state of the art technology for construction/investigation work such as high speed Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS)for pavement condition survey

• Maximizing pavement life through better pavement design and longer pavement life

10

Overview

Overview

This presentation will focus on the pros and cons of the pavement condition assessment method using high speed Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS) versus Traditional Visual Inspection System

12

Background Information

In 2000 with the assistance of Englobe, GTAA installed and implemented the PAVER™ PMS. This included dividing the TPIA pavement network into branches and sections, then populating the GTAA PAVER™ database with available construction history information, and maintenance and rehabilitation information from GTAA records. Pavement condition surveys of the airside pavements were carried out in accordance with ASTM D5340 procedures in order to determine the condition (Pavement Condition Index) of the TPIA airside facilities, and airside pavement network as a whole. The PAVER™ PMS was then used to prioritize pavement maintenance and rehabilitation needs (and budgets) in order to preserve and improve the airside pavement condition.

13


Subsequently, in 2006 to 2009, in 2010 to 2012 and then again in 2013 to 2015, Englobe was retained by GTAA to carry out pavement condition surveys and update the pavement management system database for the airside pavement network.

In order to meet the increased traffic at Pearson and to minimize the closure requirement on the runways, the last pavement inspections of the runways were completed by using a high speed Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS) and validated by the Traditional Visual Inspection method.

14

Detailed Pavement ConditionSurveys

Database

Analysis Module(PAVER™)

PREDICTIVE MODEL

Prioritization

RestorationProgram

(theoretical)

Pavement StructuralHistory

Inventory

RestorationProgram(actual)

OperationalRestrictions &Constraints


Feedback Loop

Technical Inputs

Output

Non AnalyticalInputs

Updates to Database

Output

Update

*FAMS – Facility Asset Management System

Pavement MaintenanceRequirements into

(FAMS*)

FieldVerification

AvailableFunding(Budget)

Typical Branch and Section layouts

16

Runways:

Taxiways:

Network Level Inspection Frequency and Size of Sample Unit per Section

AC PCC

Frequency Sample Size Frequency Sample Size

Runway CentrePortion, 30m 30% 450 + 180 m2 30% 20 + 8 slabs

Runway OuterPortion, 15m 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs

Taxiway(Main) 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs

Taxiway(Shoulder) 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs

Apron 25% 450 + 180 m2 25% 20 + 8 slabs

Roadway 20% 225 + 90 m2 20% 20 + 8 slabs

17

Note: ASTM D5340 recommends a min. of 10% of the sample units to be inspected at the Network Level

What does Engineering want to achieve from the PMS?

To effectively manage airside pavements in the most cost effective way over the projected life expectancy of the asset

To minimize operational downtime resulting from unplanned maintenance activities

To maximize the life expectancy of the pavement asset

To spend money wisely and where it is most critically needed through prioritization

How do we determine what needs to be done first?!A. Impact of Failure

Priorities are set from high to low in the following order:1. Runways2. Deicing Pads3. Taxiways4. Aprons5. Airside Roads

Priorities are further subdivided based on how critical the surface is to the FLOW of aircraft between Terminal and Runway ends (and deicing facility)

B. Likelihood of Failure

Priorities are based on the following criteria:1. Pavement Condition Index (PCI)2. Foreign Object Damage (FOD) potential3. Structural Condition Index (SCI)4. Pavement Roughness5. Field Validation

Prioritization

Prioritization of the Airside Pavement Restoration Program is determined based on “Impact of Failure” versus “Likelihood of Failure”. Projects are prioritized as L (green), M (yellow) or H (red). (Low, Moderate or High)

Review the Impact and Likelihood of Failure

1

1 2 3 4 5

3

2

4

5

Likelihood of Failure

Impact of Failure

Low

Low High

High

1

1 2 3 4 5

3

2

4

5

Likelihood of Failure

Impact of Failure

Low

Low High

High

L

M

H

21Pavements should be managed, not simply maintained!

Critical Pavement Condition

75% of Pavement Life

40%

D

rop

in

Qua

lity

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY

Source: Paver™

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY

AT THE BEST TIME

WITH THE BEST METHODS

WITH THE BEST COST/BENEFIT (LCC) RATIO

PAVEMENT REHABILITATION IS REQUIRED WHEN SATISFACTORY FUNCTIONAL PERFORMANCE CAN NOT BE MAINTAINED THROUGH SYSTEMATIC PRESERVATION STRATEGIES AND/OR THE PAVEMENT STRUCTURE IS NOT ADEQUATE

WITHOUT PMSPA

VEM

ENT

CO

ND

ITIO

N I

ND

EX

WITH PMS

Years

100%

0%0

LIFESPAN OF PAVEMENT, YEARS

INTERVENTION LEVEL

22

GOODGOOD

VERY POOR

SATISFACTORY

FAIR

POOR

FAIR

POORSERIOUS

FAILED

DISTRESS QUANTITY

DISTRESS TYPE

PCI

DISTRESS SEVERITY

STANDARD PCIRATING SCALE

CUSTOM PCIRATING SCALE

100

85

70

55

40

25

10

0

100

70

55

0SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

PAVER™ is state-of-the-art technology in Pavement Management

PAVER™ INSTALLED AT TORONTO PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BY ENGLOBE IN 2000

PAVER ™ (version 7.0)

23

24

TPIA PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

ADEQUATE

MARGINAL

UNSATISFACTORY

25

Pavement Condition Surveys

ASTM D6433 Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys

The traditional pavement condition surveys are carried out ‘manually’, with all of the observable distresses within each sample unit identified by experienced pavement

engineers/technicians and the inspection results recorded directly into the database using tablets

ASTM D5340 Standard Test Method for Airport

Pavement Condition Index Surveys

26

Airside Pavement Assessment Ratings

RATING CATEGORY PCI FOD SCI Adequate (Green)

71 - 100 0 - 45 -

Marginal (Yellow)

56 - 70 46 - 60 -

Unsatisfactory (Red)

0 - 55 61 - 100 ≤ 80

The FOD Index is calculated using the PAVERTM software considering the PCI survey data for distresses that potentially contribute to FOD.

The Structural Condition Index (SCI) is calculated from the field distress condition survey data using the FAA criteria. The SCI is defined as the structural component of the PCI.

27

High‐Capacity Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing

HWD load/deflection testing to assess the structural adequacy of the airside pavements in areas where major load related distresses or load transfer

problems at joints are observed

28

TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis

The runway pavement condition surveys were carried out using Englobe’sstate-of-the-art pavement image collection system in conjunction with PAVER™

ImageInspector™

29


30

The runway inspections were completed by one driver and one operator using Englobe’s multifunction vehicle (LCMS)


Front Cameracontext view, 2D images

GPS Receiver withInertial Platform

LCMS(cracking, rutting and

macrotexture, 3D images)

Profilometer(IRI) DMI

Back Camerapavement view, 2D images

31

4 m

2.2 m

2 m

TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis LCMS data collection parameters (resolution and depth range) were adjusted to

complete inspections at a maximum of 80 km/hr., covering the entire runway pavement surface in less than 4 hours (closure window)

SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS

32


SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS

SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS

33


SOURCE: PAVEMETRICS

34

TPIA Runways PCI Inspection and Data Analysis During the inspections, one technician (driver) mainly drives the vehicle and

ensure transversal runs are properly aligned whereas a second technician (operator) manages all on-board systems (inertial profiler, LCMS, video

system, GPS and DMI)

35

The Data Collection Interface presents the GIS layout (shapefile) of the pavement to be surveyed along with a GPS trace of the vehicle.

The interface allows initializing, monitoring all systems and viewing the conventional 2D video images in real-time


36

Since the LCMS 3D images cover 4 m wide and some data overlap is required, 17 runs (3.5 m apart) were required to cover an entire 61 m wide runway.

Images were captured at 5 m intervals longitudinally


Runway 06L-24R (December 2014)

37

The GPS track of the vehicle (one dot per every

5 m travelled) was monitored in real-time to

ensure that the transversal runs are

properly aligned. In order to achieve this,

predefined survey lines were added to the runway

shapefile



38

The Runway PCI inspection data analyses were performed using the

ImageInspector™ software developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers team who also developed PAVER™. This

software, compatible with PAVER™, was designed to perform ASTM D5340

(Airport) or D6433 (Road) PCI inspections viewing multi-function vehicle images at

the office, instead of performing a traditional visual inspection on the field


39


SOURCE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

40


An experienced technician selects which sample units are to be inspected (1/3 of the entire surface) and proceeds with the PCI inspection for a particular section

41

An example of a LCMS Range image showing sealed cracks and open cracks (Hairline: blue, Low Severity: Green, Medium Severity: Orange and High Severity: Red). The

information provided by the LCMS crack detection helps the technician to confirm the exact crack type (Alligator, Block, Joint Reflection, Longitudinal & Transverse, and

Slippage) and the severity taking the FOD potential into consideration



42 Runway 15L-33R (December 2014)

LCMS Intensity Image: shows surface contrast such as sealed cracks, pavement markings, patching, inset lights, maintenance access holes and

catchbasins



2D color context view from

conventional video camera


List Selector

ImageInspector™ Edit Inspection Tools

LCMS Range image with superimposed cracks detected by LCMS and final distresses from

technician analysis

45

A manual visual inspection was also

performed on the field in order to complete and validate the distresses identified though Image

Inspector


46


80

7074

72

96

82

69

7674

96

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Runway 05-23 Runway 06L- 24R Runway 06R-24L Runway 15L-33R Runway 15R-33L

Pave

men

t Con

ditio

n In

dex

(PC

I)

Automated Survey Manual Visual Verification

47


RUNWAY 06L‐24RAutomated Survey : December 2014Manual Visual Verification: May 2015

PCI FOD SCI PCI FOD-M SCI06L24R 06L24R-B1 66 34 100 64 36 7706L24R 06L24R-B2 69 31 100 65 35 8806L24R 06L24R-B3 77 23 100 76 24 10006L24R 06L24R-B4 74 26 100 69 31 8706L24R 06L24R-B5 70 30 99 71 29 10006L24R 06L24R-B6 73 27 100 74 26 10006L24R 06L24R-B7 59 41 99 58 42 10006L24R 06L24R-B8 59 41 100 56 44 8806L24R 06L24R-B9 80 20 100 85 15 100

Branch ID Section ID Automated Survey Manual Visual Verification

48

Findings and Conclusions [1]

An automated survey methodology (LCMS acquisition parameters, survey location and alignment using GPS) was developed. This methodology allows to inspect a runway (61 m wide) in a short period of time (approximately 2 to 3 hours);

The impact to TPIA Operations (closures) is minimized, however this automated pavement inspection methodology still requires a lot of ‘office’ analysis, along with a calibration/verification by manual inspection;

The methodology presented was used for asphalt concrete surfaced pavements only. Concrete pavements can not be analyzed with the ImageInspector™ software yet. More research is required in this area;

49

Findings and Conclusions [2]Cracking (using LCMS algorithms)

1 mm cracks: most cracks were not detected;2 mm cracks: some cracks were detected, detection rate varied based on surface texture;3 mm cracks and over: most were detected;Sealed cracks: less than 50 percent were automatically detected;Crack Type (alligator, block, joint reflection, longitudinal and transverse and slippage cracking) were not identified automatically by LCMS as per ASTM Standard. This task was completed by pavement technician in the office.

Crack Severity is measured by LCMS based on the “Full width at half Maximum” technique (crack width at mid-depth). This severity does not necessarily match the ASTM D5340 Standard (which also take FOD potential into consideration). A calibration would be necessary to obtain a better match between LCMS crack severity and manual visual inspection severity. Also care must be taken for opened sealed cracks that are recorded by LCMS as some of them might need to be re-rated as medium due to the crack sealant quality.

50

Findings and Conclusions [3]Rutting is measured using LCMS libraries over the survey runs in the central portion of the runway (traffic area). A rutting table is computed which allow the technician to easily identify this distress within ImageInspector™;Other Distresses:

Other distresses are identified (in the office) using conventional video and LCMS images. Some distresses are very obvious and easy to identify (patching, bleeding, jet blast erosion, oil spillage), however, others (corrugation, depression, polished aggregate, ravelling, shoving, swelling, weathering) are challenging especially if their severity is low;Weathering was difficult to identify and classify by simple looking at the LCMSimages;

Future R&D could lead to automatic identification of these other distresses. For instance the combination of roughness, ravelling and macrotexture data could be used to identify some of these distresses and their severity as per ASTM D5340.

2016 SWIFT Conference‐CAPTG WorkshopTHANK YOU!

2016 SWIFT Conference CAPTG Workshop€¦ · Note: ASTM D5340 recommends a min. of 10% of the sample units to be inspected at the Network Level ...

Documents