pavement performance measures: reporting versus decision ... kargah-ostadi.pdfr² = 0.3531 0 20 40...
TRANSCRIPT
Pavement Performance Measures: Reporting Versus Decision Making
Nima Kargah-Ostadi, PhD, PE, PMPPavement Engineering Manager, Fugro
Road Profile User’s Group (RPUG) ConferenceNovember 16, 2017 Denver, CO
www.fugro.com2
this presentation will address:
Performance management conceptPerformance measures used for decision makingPerformance measures used for reportingExample gap analysis Insights and remaining questions
https://www.tpmtools.org/
www.fugro.com3
Performance Management Concept
Measures used for planning investmentsMeasures used for reporting investment benefits
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/resources/training.cfm
www.fugro.com4
Management Performance Measures
Network-Level DecisionsOverall/combined condition indicese.g. Pavement Quality Index (PQI),
Pavement Condition Index (PCI), etc.Used for planning and budget
allocationProject-Level DecisionsIndividual performance measurese.g. rut depth, transverse cracking,
faulting, fatigue, etc.Used for selecting specific
treatments
www.fugro.com5
Reporting Performance Measures
Reports Communication Funds• Tie asset management analysis
results to funding– Data-driven, performance-based,
defensible– Feedback & evaluation of asset
management processes• Transparency, e.g. dashboards• Accountability, e.g. HPMS Reporting
www.fugro.com6
Example: Virginia DOT Dashboard
http://dashboard.virginiadot.org/
www.fugro.com7
Federal HPMS Reporting Measures
www.fugro.com8
LTPP InfoPaveData: LTPP flexible sections in Texas (173)
www.fugro.com9
Reporting vs Network Level Measures
Example: HPMS2016 versus ASTM PCIData: LTPP flexible sections in Texas (173)
R² = 0.2286
0102030405060708090
100
0 20 40 60 80 100
Perc
ent C
rack
ing
Pavement Condition Index (%)
HPMS2016 Percent_Cracking Vs ASTM D6433 PCI
R² = 0.4536
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 20 40 60 80 100Aver
age
Rut
Dep
th (m
m)
Pavement Condition Index (%)
HPMS2016 Rutting Vs ASTM D6433 PCI
www.fugro.com10
Reporting vs Project Level Measures
Example: Cracking Percent versus LTPP CrackingData: LTPP flexible sections in Texas
R² = 0.3531
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 100 200 300 400
Perc
ent C
rack
ing
Alligator Cracking Area (sq. m)
HPMS2016 Percent_Cracking Vs LTPP
Alligator Cracking R² = 0.2103
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 100 200 300 400 500
Perc
ent C
rack
ing
Wheel Path Longitudinal Cracking (m)
HPMS2016 Percent_Cracking Vs LTPP WP Longitudinal
Cracking
www.fugro.com11
Reporting vs Project Level Measures
Example: Cracking Percent versus LTPP CrackingData: LTPP flexible sections in Texas
R² = 0.7157
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 100 200 300 400
Perc
ent C
rack
ing
Gator + 0.75*WP_LongCrack(sq. m)
HPMS2016 Percent_Cracking Vs LTPP
Gator+0.75*WP_LongCrackR² = 0.6545
0
20
40
60
80
100
0 100 200 300 400 500
Perc
ent C
rack
ing
Gator + 1.0*WP_LongCrack (sq. m)
HPMS2016 Percent_Cracking Vs LTPP
Gator+1.0*WP_LongCrack
www.fugro.com12
Insights and Remaining Questions
Federal HPMS Reporting MeasuresCANNOT replace existing network-level measures
MIGHT be used for treatment decision making
Agency investment decisions might not be reflected in the reported performance measures
Should the existing agency measures change? Probably not!
Should the federal reporting measures change? Probably won’t!
Can there be any correlation?
Nima Kargah-Ostadi, PhD, PE, PMPPavement Engineering [email protected]