Guidelines for Collecting, Applying, and Maintaining Pavement Condition Data at Airports (2019)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

51 Shared Uses and Presentation of Condition Data The same condition data may be applied in part, or as a whole, for many different users and by a variety of groups and individuals. The shared uses and presentation of pavement condition data have taken on many forms historically, from hard copy paper reports to results displayed in software and interactive websites. The information contained within each form has also varied substantially, driven in part by advancements in technology and the needs of the intended audience. The following are typical users of pavement condition data: airport personnel, such as main- tenance, operations, engineering, planning, and management; airport consultants; airlines; and management agencies, such as state DOTs or the FAA. The responsibilities and interests of these different groups include pavement design, engineering, maintenance, planning, development of CIPs, budget development, and other aspects of airport management. Condition Data User Categories The presentation of condition data and PMP results to the various users of these data varies from very detailed, such as pavement distress mapping and precise repair estimates, to broader summarized information, such as the impacts of different M&R funding scenarios on overall pavement conditions for an individual airport or system of airports. The following provides a summary of the general level of detail for different airport departments. Maintenance Maintenance department personnel are generally users of detailed pavement condition data, including distress type and severity data, distress locations, estimates of maintenance work quan- tities, and various detailed results from repair needs analyses. The information is used to locate and identify candidate pavements for maintenance repairs, provide estimates of total quantities of these repairs, and potentially identify an anticipated impact that repairs, if performed, would have on a pavement’s condition. At higher levels within a maintenance department, summarized budgetary needs and impacts are often beneficial when putting together and justifying annual pavement maintenance budgets. Operations Operations staff are responsible for the day-to-day operation of airport facilities and the continued monitoring of these facilities to make sure that aircraft, airport personnel, and the traveling public can safely conduct necessary movements and operations within the airfield environment. Condition data are used by this group to identify any potential issue C H A P T E R 5

52 Guidelines for Collecting, Applying, and Maintaining Pavement Condition Data at Airports in performance or safety as they relate to the pavement. As such, the operations group uses many of the same detailed data used by the maintenance group. However, this group is gener- ally less interested in the cost or quantity estimates that result from the analysis of condition data than they are in the identification and location of conditions that pose safety hazards. Additionally, operations personnel often use the results of structural evaluation to assist in determining if heavier aircraft can use an airfield or to identify on which areas of an airfield they can operate without overloading or negatively impacting the performance of the pavement. Finally, operations groups use skid resistance and smoothness data to make sure pavements continue to provide aircraft operators and passengers with appropriate braking ability and ride- ability for safe operations on the ground. In this instance, data are often provided in a detailed format and then summarized as needed for condition monitoring. Engineering Engineering departments and engineering consultants who work with airports use the largest variety and volume of pavement condition data and results. Their needs include detailed data and results similar to those used by maintenance departments; structural evaluation data to assist with the design, construction, or rehabilitation of new or existing pavements as well as skid resistance data to determine the ability of a pavement’s wearing surface to provide the necessary friction for safe operations. Engineering departments are also often tasked with the responsibility of developing or provid- ing key inputs to multi-year CIPs for pavement maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction and incorporating these needs with other non-pavement-related airport needs. Engineers use detailed and summarized results to aid in the program development, as well as to demonstrate the financial need and the impact that constrained budgets and funding decisions have on the overall system condition. The level of detail in this use is ultimately dependent on the audience to which the data and results are provided. Planning and Management Airport planning and management users focus on broader, higher-level, summarized results that convey to a wider audience overall conditions, aggregate analysis results, and multi-year CIP needs, as well as anticipated impacts that future decisions on pavement-related expenditures have on overall pavement condition. In this role, these users often interact with airline operators, the general public, and other governing agencies such as state DOTs, the FAA, or city/municipality management groups. It is essential that condition data and results be presented in ways that are easily understood and convey the story or message in a straightforward manner. Other Agencies and Groups Other users of pavement condition data include airline operators, state DOTs, the FAA, city or municipality governments, and even the general public. With the exception of some state DOT and FAA users that may look at detailed condition data to assess needs and evaluate requests for funding assistance, these other users commonly look for summarized condition data very similar to that described under the planning and management user group. The previous descriptions of the various categories of users and the level of condition data detail they use is summarized in Table 13. The methods in which these data are provided vary nearly as much as the users. A preference toward visual methods of data presentation, including figures, charts, and especially mapping, was identified during case study and literature review as essential elements for all categories of users.

Shared Uses and Presentation of Condition Data 53 The remainder of this chapter expands on the differences between project- and network-level data, describes the various methods for disseminating this information, and provides insight into the current preferences and future developments that users identified in the case studies and literature review conducted as part of this research. Project- and Network-Level Condition Data Pavement condition data are often described by the level at which the data are collected and the intended scope and outcome for which the data are used to deliver a result. For example, the terms “project-level” and “network-level” are often used to describe both the level of detail and the relative accuracy that the collected data provide. Examples of each level of pavement condition data are discussed earlier in this report. In general, project-level data coincide with the evaluation of a specific branch within an airport network, for example, the structural evalu- ation of a specific runway, as opposed to the evaluation of an entire airport or system of airports. In contrast, network-level condition data are often associated with the condition evaluation of an entire airport or system of airports, such as the PCI inspection of all pavement facilities within an airport. A primary difference between these levels is the amount of data collected within each pave- ment facility. Project-level data are often collected over 100 percent of the pavement surface or at a significantly higher sampling density than network-level data. It is important to note that the terms “detailed” and “summarized” are not necessarily synonymous with the terms “project- level” and “network-level.” Whether condition data are collected at a project- or network-level, the presentation of the results may be in a very detailed or summarized format for each level depending on the intended user. Presentation of Historic Condition Data and Results Pavement condition data may be provided to the owner in both hard copy formats and accessible electronic formats, whether that is a PAVER or equivalent database, a spreadsheet, or specialized data file formats. The appropriate presentation method can reflect contractual obligations, how the results will be used, as well as best practices. Hard Copy Report Documents Pavement condition data are usually presented in the form of hard copy reports. Depending on the level of detail, these reports consist of large, technical documents that present data in great detail, often with voluminous appendices and shorter executive summary documents that present data and results to a broader range of users. User Category General Condition Data Level of Detail Detailed Summarized Maintenance Operations Engineering Planning and Management Other Agencies and Groups Table 13. Level of condition data detail by user category.

54 Guidelines for Collecting, Applying, and Maintaining Pavement Condition Data at Airports These reports may provide background information and explanation on the conduct of the condition assessment method(s) used, discussion of the results, and incorporate the use of tables and figures to present the results. Examples of these results are shown in Table 9, Figure 20, Figure 25, and Table 14. These reports often also use maps that show condition data and associated analysis results. Examples of this include Figure 1, which is a detailed map of the pavement distress types and severities located during a visual inspection; Figures 4 and 21, which are graphical representa- tions of the current PCI condition of the pavements at an airport; and Figure 26, which depicts the structural remaining life of pavements based on a structural condition assessment. To communicate condition data and results to a wider audience, these documents can include summarized results for those groups of users that require both levels of detail. Examples of these types of results are summarized in multi-year CIPs and include illustrations of the impacts that various funding levels for M&R have on an airport or system of airports, or average condition values for a variety of measures. Examples of these types of summarized results are presented in Table 10, Figure 22, and Figure 27, respectively. Branch Use Branch ID Section ID Surface Area, SF Slabs Last Const. Year PCI % Distress due to Climate Load Other APRON ANORTH 10 PCC 75,300 402 1944 16 12 61 27 20 APC 22,500 - 1975 57 100 0 0 30 APC 364,800 - 1991 34 54 46 0 40 PCC 13,500 60 2003 85 0 0 100 50 APC 18,480 - 1991 31 84 15 1 RUNWAY RW1230 10 PCC 67,210 109 2009 62 15 0 85 20 PCC 110,000 176 1995 34 40 1 59 30 PCC 163,106 263 1995 43 27 2 71 40 PCC 170,015 272 2006 65 16 0 84 50 PCC 7,500 12 1958 6 19 46 35 60 PCC 10,106 30 2006 92 83 0 17 70 PCC 97,675 161 2006 80 8 0 92 80 PCC 58,750 94 1995 47 11 16 73 90 PCC 51,875 83 1958 3 14 36 50 100 PCC 11,875 19 1995 53 19 0 81 110 PCC 151,095 244 1995 59 12 35 53 120 PCC 76,250 122 1995 35 40 6 54 130 PCC 25,000 40 1958 3 29 36 35 140 PCC 72,338 116 2006 83 36 0 64 150 PCC 143,091 708 1944 35 15 61 24 160 PCC 12,000 64 2006 94 32 0 68 TAXIWAY TWC 10 PCC 82,500 224 2010 90 0 0 100 20 PCC 57,100 160 1993 76 7 4 89 30 PCC 12,440 44 1959 76 38 0 62 40 PCC 97,700 165 15959 72 25 0 75 50 PCC 94,700 268 2013 94 35 0 65 60 PCC 163,800 436 2014 100 6 27 67 Table 14. PCI inspection results presented in tabular format.

Figure 26. Example of a map showing structural remaining life.

56 Guidelines for Collecting, Applying, and Maintaining Pavement Condition Data at Airports While large technical documents can contain both detailed and summarized condition data and results, for those who want summarized information to use and present to other audiences, both internally and externally, these larger documents can be cumbersome and difficult to use. Instead, executive summary documents, short-form project brochures, and other similar documents are developed. These summary documents are often more visual in nature and present overall condition statistics and summarized results in a nontechnical manner. They may contain some of the same summarized results provided in the larger technical documents in addition to other results; for example, presenting results for multi-airport systems on the total M&R funding needs by airport for PMPs, or pavement inventory and condition data by measures such as political district or region, airport classification system, FAA asset classifica- tion, or funding eligibility. While hard copy documents contain a wealth of information and can provide the needed level of detail to each category of user, there can be a significant amount of time between the collection of the condition data and development of results, and for the reporting elements to be finalized and available for use; this time can extend from a few months to nearly a year. This gap has caused concerns with the validity and usefulness of the collected data and is a concern identified within the case studies presented in Appendix B. PMP Software and Condition Data Databases While hard copy reports in their various forms have been used to present condition data and results, PMP software and databases containing condition data form another shared use and presentation of these data. In addition to the use of PMP software and condition data- bases, GIS have allowed users to depict condition data and results and incorporate these data into larger sets of spatial data that include other airport assets such as lighting, signage, and drainage. Figure 28 shows an example of spatially referenced inventory and condition data within a GIS. The use of PMP software, such as PAVER or PAVEAIR, or a comprehensive GIS has his- torically been undertaken by a smaller set of users with the training and expertise required to operate such software. Additionally, licensing requirements and restrictions may limit the practical number of users. Often this set of users is tasked with the maintenance of these data Figure 27. Example summary of overall condition by the pavement use.

Figure 28. Sample of spatially referenced condition data in a GIS.

58 Guidelines for Collecting, Applying, and Maintaining Pavement Condition Data at Airports and development of the presentation materials and outputs that are then used by others. For these reasons, the use of PMP software and GIS to provide the various users of the condition data access to the results has been limited. Moving forward, data viewers with pre-programmed querying and reporting capabilities, in association with either PMP software or GIS programs, are likely to improve access to and extend the usability of those tools. Presentation of Current Condition Data and Results Hard copy presentations of detailed and summarized condition data and results are very common. Many users place a high value on the dissemination of condition data and results through hard copy documents or documents delivered in electronic format. Increasingly, however, pavement condition data are delivered in some sort of digital format. Digital versions of reports allow users and agencies to share the results quickly, to develop download- able content on their internet homepages, or to store those data on their computer networks. Delivery of digital, native file format offers the greatest flexibility in data analysis and future use. This approach may be used in addition to hard copy delivery or, in some cases, instead of the hard copies. As electronic content becomes more accepted and widely used, it has become clear that access to these condition data without having to use complex or proprietary software solutions or locate documents, whether hard copy or electronic, is an even more efficient method of presenting the results. This has driven the development of interactive PMP websites and GIS- deployed, web-based solutions that do not require individual software licenses or complex training for users to access pavement condition data and analysis results. Interactive PMP Websites The development of interactive PMP programs started nearly 20 years ago. The initial devel- opment and primary driver for these programs were state aviation agencies that needed to pro- vide condition data and PMP results to a range of users. The content within the programs was tailored to meet the needs of users, providing convenient methods for presenting detailed airport condition data and results, as well as more summarized content. With continued refinement, along with advances in internet connectivity, these interactive PMP programs developed into interactive websites. These websites allow users to access data and results when needed, provided the user has access to the internet, and can be viewed on several platform types, such as a tablet or smartphone, with varying effectiveness. These websites allow the presentation of condition data in various formats, including tables, figures, and charts. Current PMP websites allow the use of spatially referenced condition data and results using imagery and other airport mapping outputs to provide a highly visual and easy-to-use tool, while continuing to use the methods of presentation preferred by all categories of users, including those identified within the case studies. Figures 29 and 30 are examples of pavement condition data presented in the form of spatially referenced PCI condition maps. In Figure 29, future pavement conditions are also presented and accessed by selecting the future year of interest. Figure 31 provides an example of summarized condition data and results using interactive graphics. This level of summarized data is often reported as part of an annual tracking measure for state departmental agencies such as a department of transportation. In this example, the condition distribution for a system of airports is presented by the amount of pavement area in each condition category.

Source: LaDOTD Figure 29. Current and forecast pavement condition presented within an interactive PMP.

Source: MnDOT Figure 30. Pavement condition presented within an interactive PMP website.

Shared Uses and Presentation of Condition Data 61 Figure 31. Condition distribution by pavement area. Future Developments Future trends in the presentation of condition data and results are being driven by data users. Interviews conducted as part of the case studies identified a common desire to continue the development of online access tools that provide these data in the formats and levels of detail needed for broad use across all user categories. Users also expressed interest in the ability to incorporate these condition data and results within larger GIS platforms that include other airport assets, such as signage, lighting, drainage structures, and so on, in order to provide a complete inventory and presentation platform of all assets that are available to those who are responsible for data maintenance and management. The collection and analysis of condition data that are spatially referenced allows this to occur. A final consideration is the need to make condition data and results available and to make these data accessible sooner after collection than has been possible in the past. Factors that affect the time before data and results become available include the amount of data collected, the level of detail, and the intended purpose and use. While the trend away from hard copy or traditional electronic versions of documentation has reduced this time, continued development of interactive tools and online access deliverables should further reduce the delay between data collection and delivery. This faster delivery will be even more beneficial if continued development of these interactive tools trends toward the ability to directly link to collected data and analyzed results. One interesting development is the introduction to airports of asset management policies and plans (GHD 2012). These go well beyond pavements in their scope and are being

62 Guidelines for Collecting, Applying, and Maintaining Pavement Condition Data at Airports increasingly implemented at airports around the world. This might have many different impacts on pavement condition data, including the platforms used to share asset data, how such data are collected, and cross-asset decision making. Rehabilitation Act Section 508 Compliance A current challenge in continuing the development of PMP websites and online access to the condition data and results is the required compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended in 1998. Section 508 requires federal agencies to make electronic and infor- mation technology accessible to people with disabilities. A majority of states are now either requesting or requiring the same level of compatibility within their electronic and information technology products, and the list continues to grow. This compliance extends to the interactive PMP websites developed for presentation of pavement condition data and results. In addition to interactive PMP websites, many agencies have adopted the same requirements for traditional reporting in the form of electronic documentation, such as downloadable portable document format (PDF) files. Due to these compliance requirements, current and future development of methods for presenting these data to shared users must keep these requirements in mind in order to continue to assure that the information is presented and available to all categories of users. Summary A pavement, or a system of pavements, is often the largest asset in terms of value and cost for those responsible for the management of airport facilities. Within the airport environ- ment, various users and stakeholders have multiple needs for the data, varying from presenta- tion of detailed information and results for some users, such as engineering and maintenance departments, to providing overall summarized results to other users, such as planning staff, management, or other agencies. Establishing and maintaining an effective PMP provides this group with a tool to assist in the proactive management of the pavement facilities. PMP software and databases, while containing all of the condition data and potential results, often require substantial training in their use and have proven to be hard to access for the infrequent user. As a result, condition data and results historically were developed by individuals with expertise in the use of PMP software and presented to users of the data in the form of hard copy reports. These reports documented the conditions and overall results using tables, figures, and mapping. The presentation of these data has evolved over time to include GIS- and web-based deliverables available through internal networks or externally on the inter- net. Respondents to the case studies expressed their desire to continue the efforts to incorpo- rate these condition data and results within broader airport GIS- and interactive web-based deliverables. Additionally, future development of these presentation methods, along with data collection methods, may also assist in shortening the timeframe from collection of these data to the presentation and use of the results for the various users.