Implementation of a New Ride Quality Specification at MDSHA

1
Implementation of a New Ride Quality
Specification at MDSHA
2001
2
Outline

• Need for New Specification
• Development of New Specification
• Highlights of New Specification
• QC/QA Process
• Implementation Schedule
• Questions

3
Why Develop a New Spec?

• MDSHA Business Plan Goal
• Increase the percentage of pavements with an
  acceptable ride quality on the State Highway
  System from 82 to 86 by January 2005.
• Strategies to achieve goal
• better constructed ride quality
• strategic system preservation plan to improve ride

4
How Can Constructed Ride Improve?

• Provide incentive for very good ride quality on
  all jobs
• Utilize laser profiler for construction quality
  control
• Integrate pavement design with ride quality
  specification
• Develop good QC/QA process

5
Development of New Specification

• Formed MDSHA/FHWA/Industry team in 1998 to
  develop specification
• Conducted pilot study in 1999 to compare
  different ride testing devices
• Reviewed MDSHA network level ride data
• Reviewed other state DOT ride specifications

6
Summary of Pilot Study (1999)

• Fourteen test sites (each 1/2 mile long)
• Existing pavements with variable IRI condition
• Three profiling devices
• two laser profilers
• one California-type profilograph
• Three analysis indices
• IRI
• PRI with 0.2 blanking band
• PRI with 0.0 blanking band
• Right wheel path testing

7
Pilot Study IRI vs. PRI
8
Pilot Study Profiler vs Profilograph
9
Summary of Network Level Data

• Reviewed network level IRI data for roadways
  overlaid in 1996 and 1997
• Evaluated IRI before and after overlay (up to one
  year after overlay)
• Evaluated ability to improve ride based on
• prior roadway condition
• thickness of overlay (i.e. - number of lifts)
• functional class of roadway
• Determined absolute and improvement in ride
  quality (based on IRI)

10
Summary of Network Level Data
11
Comparison of Specifications

• Old Spec
• Mix of payment based on 1/10 mile sections and
  avg for the job
• Based on PRI results using 0.2 blanking band
• Minimal enforcement of QA
• Payment based on of bid price
• Categories of pay adjustments
• Incentive only on Interstate and Principal
  Arterial roadways
• Five levels of acceptable ride based on treatment
  and geometry

• New Spec
• Payment based on 1/10 mile sections
• Based on PRI results using 0 blanking band or
  IRI results
• New QA process using high speed profiler
• Payment based on lump sum
• Calculated pay adjustment as a function of ride
• Incentive potential on all jobs
• Acceptable ride linked to pavement design

12
Equipment Verification - Current

• Process to establish baseline at reference site
• Conducted within 60 days prior to construction
• Optional for profilograph testing devices but
  highly recommended once per year

13
Equipment Verification - Plan

• Process to accept testing device
• Conducted annually at central location
• Test device in a controlled environment under a
  full range of expected pavement conditions
• Certify the operator of the testing device on a
  known test site
• Develop an approved list of vendors, consultants,
  and contractors

14
Areas Tested and Excluded

• Areas tested for pay adjustment
• Projects gt 1/2 lane mile in length
• Mainline pavement
• Areas tested with no pay adjustment
• Bridge decks and bridge approaches (within 50 ft)
• Areas within 50 ft of transverse joints of
  existing pavements
• Areas not tested
• Shoulders
• Ramps
• Accel/Decel lanes lt 1/10 mile in length

15
Pay Adjustment

• Pay adjustment based on lump sum amount for each
  1/10 lane mile section
• Based on the left and right wheel path average
  IRI for each section
• Maximum possible incentive equal to maximum
  possible disincentive
• Variable specification limits based on
• Pavement condition and treatment
• Roadway geometrics
• Constructability issues

16
Pay Adjustment and Spec Limits
17
Incentive Restrictions

• Incentive not allowed on the job if
• gt 20 of the tested sections result in
• Disincentive,
• Correction, or
• High Points
• gt 10 of the tested sections result in
• Correction or
• High Points
• Corrected sections may not receive incentive

18
Pay Adjustment Ranges
19
QC/QA Roles

• Project Engineer
• Review QC data - recommend corrective action
• Monitor construction
• Review payment recommendations
• QA Operator
• Test project for Quality Assurance
• Office of Materials and Technology (OMT)
• Enter QC/QA data in Ride Tool
• Compare and evaluate QC and QA data
• Manage resolution process
• Recommend any pay adjustments
• Contractor
• Test project for Quality Control
• Enter QC data in electronic form
• Send QC data to OMT

20
QC/QA Process
Contractor QC Testing
48 hrs
Contractor QC Reporting
24 hrs
OMT Data Processing
Day Received
OMT QA Testing
Every 10 Paving Days
Comparison of QC/QA Data
Agreement
Difference
QC/QA Report
Resolution Process
3 days
Pay Report
21
Contractor QC Testing

• Contractor marks areas to be tested
• Test surface mix on all lanes
• Run test 1 time for profilograph or 3 times if
  using profiler
• Tests required within 48 hours of paving

Back
22
Contractor QC Reporting

• Contractor notes sections with bumps
• Contractor provides output in hardcopy form to
  Project Engineer
• Project Engineer reviews output and notes any
  areas that may need corrective action
• Contractor generates output file or enters
  results in spreadsheet and sends electronically
  to OMT
• Required 24 hours after testing is completed

Back
23
OMT Data Processing

• QC data entered into the ride tool when it is
  received from the Contractor
• Data checked for any errors
• Sections that have bumps or need corrective
  action are noted
• Lot number assigned to the QC data set

Back
24
QA Testing

• QA Operator downloads QC test results prior to
  conducting QA test
• QA Operator conducts one QA test in all areas
  resurfaced since last QA test
• QA Operator compares QC results to QA results
  using local copy of ride tool on site
• If the data agree then the QA results are sent to
  OMT
• If the data do not agree then two additional runs
  are conducted and the QA data from the three runs
  are sent to OMT

Back
25
QC/QA Data Comparison

• OMT runs comparison for a given lot using the
  ride tool
• Average QA data is compared to the average QC
  data as defined in the spec
• IRI acceptance limit ?(2.5 2 IRI)
• PRI acceptance limit ?(3 3 PRI)
• Interim pay report sent to the project engineer
  if the QC and QA agree

Back
26
QC/QA Resolution Process

• If the QC and QA data do not agree, resolution
  options include
• Review and compare data section by section
• Verify calibration of QA and QC testing devices
• Review reference site data
• Possibly retest reference site
• Compare QA profiler to SHA profilograph at
  reference site

Back
27
QC/QA Pay Reports

• QC/QA Report
• OMT provides a hardcopy report outlining the
  results of each tested section
• QC/QA report will document if Contractor QC or
  OMT QA data will be used as basis for pay
• Pay Report
• OMT provides recommendations for pay adjustments
  for each section on the project

Back
28
Implementation Schedule

• Winter 2001
• Draft spec completed
• July 1, 2001
• All advertised projects include new spec
• Spec allows use of laser profiler or profilograph
• OMT will conduct QA testing on all projects with
  high speed profiler
• August to December 2001
• Shadow testing on existing projects
• Develop detailed QC/QA process
• Summer 2001 - Winter 2002
• Evaluate new methods to accept profilers
• Winter 2002
• Hold Project Engineer and Certification training
• July 1, 2003
• All advertised projects will require use of laser
  profiler

29
Contacts

• Peter Stephanos (General Questions)
• 410-321-3110
• pstephanos_at_sha.state.md.us
• John Andrews (Equipment Specification)
• 410-321-3098
• jandrews_at_sha.state.md.us
• Jeff Withee (Ride Specification)
• 410-321-3115
• jwithee_at_sha.state.md.us
• OMT Toll Free 1-800-637-1290