Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 36
36
Ground-Penetrating Radar Integration COST learned the need for network-level FWD testing was
subject to six criteria (Use of Falling Weight Deflectometers
INDOT evaluated network-level FWD and GPR testing fea- at Network Level . . . 1998):
sibility. The report recommended that Indiana perform com-
plete network-level tests on 3,541 lane-km (2,200 lane-mi) · Road network size
of its Interstate highways annually, which would complete · Quality of bearing capacity data within the agency's
the state's entire network in five years. Back-calculation of pavement database
pavement layer moduli followed the ASTM D5858 standard, · Importance given to particular parameters within a
and FWD operation followed ASTM D4694. FWD and GPR PMS
should be included with the state's PMS, along with "inter- · Testing budget including time required
national roughness index, pavement condition rating, rut · Customer requirements
depth, pavement quality index, texture and skid resistance". · Historic reasons, such as frequency of maintenance
FWD and GPR data can provide information to operators,
which may prevent unnecessary coring. Furthermore, the
following research is recommended by this INDOT study MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PAVEMENT DESIGN
(Noureldin et al. 2005):
FWD data are essential to mechanisticempirical pavement
· Develop prediction models using FWD center deflec- design, and two research projects are in progress, the first
tion as a pavement performance indicator. of which, Use of Deflection Testing with the MPEDG, is
· Develop an automated structural adequacy index investigating
employing both the FWD data and automated distress
identification data (especially the structural-related [T]he current state of the practice and art in routine
distress component of the pavement condition rating) back-calculation of FWD data and develop[ing]
for pavement management purposes. recommendations for advancing FWD data analy-
· Use the GPR to characterize the dielectric characteris- sis and interpretation, particularly in relevance to
tics of pavement surfaces, especially those with poten- the rehabilitation procedures in the Mechanistic
tial to trap moisture. Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG)
developed under the NCHRP 1-37A project. This
project will also develop best practices guideline
NETWORK-LEVEL TESTING for analyzing and interpreting FWD data for project
level analyses with particular emphasis on the effec-
Members of the European Union commissioned a study of tive and efficient use of FWD data with the MEPDG
FWD usage. Confined to network-level testing, the study (Sivaneswaran 2007).
conducted a literature review, found other pertinent data
from COST studies, Lisbon's FWD workshop presentations, The second research project is entitled Evaluation of State
and FWD owners in Europe. Network-level activity was Highway Agency Adoption of Practices for Implementing
divided into four subcategories: budgeting, planning, pro- Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design (FHWA contract
gramming, and prioritization. From the Lisbon workshop, number DTFH61-06-P-00198).
