Non-Destructive Evaluation of Thickness Variation at MnROAD Kyle Hoegh (Corresponding Author) Post-Doctoral Associate Department of Civil Engineering University

of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 507-398-2669 Fax: 612-626-7750 Email: hoeg0021@umn.edu Tom Burnham Minnesota Department of Transportation 1400 Gervais Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109-2044 Tel: 651-366-5452 Fax: 651-366-5461 Email: tom.burnham@state.mn.us Rita E. Lederle University of Minnesota 500 Pillsbury Drive SE Minneapolis MN 55455 Tel: 612-625-1571 Fax: 612-626-7750 Email: lede0038@umn.edu Lev Khazanovich, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Civil Engineering University of Minnesota Minneapolis, MN 55455 Phone: 612-624-4764 Fax: 612-626-7750 Email: khaza001@umn.edu Paper submitted 1 August 2013 in consideration for Transportation Research Board 9rd Annual Meeting Words: 3634 Figures: 12 Tables: 2 Total Word Count: 7134 Abstract Word Count: 248

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich Non-Destructive Evaluation of Thickness Variation at MnROAD ABSTRACT Variation in the thickness of the concrete layer is inherent in the paving process when constructing concrete pavements. To account for this variation while ensuring adequate thickness is achieved, contractors routinely make pavements slightly thicker than required. While this helps ensure pavement quality, it also adds extra materials and costs to the project without significant benefits to performance. Reducing the thickness variation associated with paving would reduce the amount of extra thickness contractors add to pavements. In order to determine the significant causes of variation and to work towards reducing thickness variation, it is necessary to have means by which to measure the extent of thickness variation. With this motivation, the nature of thickness variation in thirteen rigid pavement test cells at MnROAD was examined using an ultrasonic testing device called MIRA. Cores were taken to verify the accuracy of MIRA measurements and good agreement was found between the two. Because MIRA is nondestructive, testing was conducted at a higher rate than coring would typically allow. Thickness variation was measured in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. It was determined that the pavements at MnROAD are built thicker than designed. Trends in thickness variation were discernible because of the large quantity of data available using MIRA which would not have been obtained using coring at the typical spacing. As methods to reduce thickness variability are implemented in construction, use of these methods can be accounted for in design using new statistical methods and as part of performance based specifications.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich INTRODUCTION Some amount of variation in concrete thickness is expected in the paving process when constructing a Portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement. To account for this, contractors routinely pave a concrete layer that is slightly thicker than the design specifies. While this helps ensure a quality pavement, it also adds extra materials and costs to the project. Reducing the thickness variation associated with paving would reduce the amount of extra thickness contractors add to pavements to ensure that the necessary thickness is achieved. However, to reduce thickness variation, it is first necessary to have a method for measuring thickness variation. A non-destructive test method is necessary for this type of work because of the number of measurements required. Once pavement variability can be measured quickly and easily in a non-destructive manner, contractors can work to reduce the variability in their pavement, which will have many benefits. Reducing the amount of variability in concrete thickness will enable allow contractors to pave with a thickness closer to the design thickness without the risk of a resulting thickness below the design thickness. This will not only reduce the amount of materials used, but also reduce overall costs. The variability in pavement thickness can also be incorporated into design process using new statistical methods (1). This will not only allow for more accurate predictions of pavement performance, but will also provide further impetus to contractors to decrease the variability in their pavements. Measured variation in thickness can also be incorporated into performance based specifications. Currently, thickness is typically measured using cores. However, coring is a slow and destructive process which only characterizes the thickness at isolated locations, and therefore, it is less than ideal for examining thickness variation in pavement test sections. Non-destructive tools (NDT) are much more favored for their ability to sample many more locations in a short amount of time and with little effort. Much of the recent research in NDT thickness detection has used ground penetrating radar (GPR) (2,3). While current GPR technology works well for asphalt pavements, its accuracy is less reliable when measuring concrete pavement layer thickness due to the similarity in the dielectric constants of PCC and underlying layer (4). The variation in thickness of concrete pavements has more recently been studied using NDT methods including scanning lasers (5), and ultrasonic tomography (6). Both concrete and asphalt pavement test sections included in the LTPP program have had their thickness variability studied, though destructive methods were used and only a limited amount of data was obtained. (7). This study characterized pavement thickness for several concrete test sections currently in place at the MnROAD facility using a device called MIRA, which is non-destrutive, highly productive, and accurate. MnROAD The rigid pavement sections evaluated in this study were constructed at the MnROAD facility, which is a full scale, cold region pavement testing facility and laboratory. MnROAD was built in 1993, and is located approximately 40 miles from Minneapolis, MN. The facility consists of a 3.5 mile section of mainline interstate I-94, which can be subjected to live traffic and a 2.5 mile low volume road loop on which a controlled 5 axle truck is run, see FIGURE 1. MnROAD is unique in that mainline interstate traffic can be diverted onto test sections with no disruption to traffic. This allows researchers to subject test pavements to actual loads, but also to redirect traffic back onto I-94 whenever access is required to the test sections for maintenance, construction, distress surveys, etc. Several pavement sections evaluated in this study were
3

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich original construction from the early 1990s, while other sections tested in this study were replacement sections constructed in 2000 or after.

Mainline Road

Low Volume Road

FIGURE 1. Arial view of MnROAD facility (top), showing mainline road test sections (middle) and low volume road loop (bottom) (8). Given the recent success demonstrated by the MIRA ultrasonic tomography device (6, 9 11), it was decided that MIRA would be a good NDT tool to use to characterize the thickness of all of the MnROAD concrete pavement test cells in operation as of spring 2013 While this device is also applicable for other pavement diagnostic needs, in this project, the layer boundary detection procedure (12), developed specifically to determine layer boundary depths was used (13). TESTING METHODOLOGY Ultrasonic Linear Array Equipment The ultrasonic array technology used in this study (a device called MIRA) allows for a self-contained arrangement of sending and receiving transducer pairs at a set spacing. In addition to eliminating the need for a manual mechanical impact to excite the elastic wave in concrete, the large number transducer pairs MIRA has allow for transmitting and receiving arrays with multiple angles of transmission and reception at reduced transducer spacing for high precision shear wave impulse measurements. MIRA differs from traditional ultrasonic devices which require liquid couplant in that dry point contact transducers are used. The ultrasonic linear array used in this study consists of 40 sending and receiving transducers arranged in 10 channels of 4 transducers as can be observed in FIGURE 2.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

Impact Echo

1 pair per measurement

(A)

Mira

55 per 45pairs pairs per measurement measurement

(B)

FIGURE 2. Ultrasonic linear array device, with a handle designed at the University of Minnesota (A) for more productive measurements on pavement systems. The device has 45 sending and receiving transducers for higher precision (B). As observed in FIGURE 2B, impulses are emitted and received by multiple transducer pairs allowing for 45 transmitting and receiving pair pulse time-history measurements at multiple incident angles for analysis of elastically heterogeneous material such as concrete. The spacing between adjacent transducer channels is 40 mm (1.6 in.). Each of the channels can act as either receiver or transmitter with a typical operation ultrasonic frequency of the 50 kHz. The shearwave impulse time-histories from each of the 45 transmitting and receiving transducer pairs are recorded in each approximately 1 second measurement. Layer Boundary Detection Methodology To determine the thickness of the PCC layer, an automated procedure, called the layer boundary detection, is used to process the individual impulse time-histories gathered by MIRA in each scan. FIGURE 3 presents an example layer boundary detection scan taken on an approximately 6.5 inch thick sound PCC pavement on grade. Using the spatial diversity of the sending and receiving pairs, along with Kirchoff migration, each individual impulse time-history is converted to the physical location causing the reflection back to the surface (14). Using the layer boundary detection procedure, the depth of the highest reflectivity within the resulting reconstruction (indicated by the blue line within the red portion of the reconstruction) is associated with the depth of the shear wave penetration. It can be observed from FIGURE 3 that there is a large increase in reflection intensity at the depth of the concrete base interface. This depth is typically associated with reflection from the interface between the concrete and base layer. Thus, this analysis was used to determine the thickness at each scanned location.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

16 in. Dowel

Depth, in.

PCC/AC Interface
12

FIGURE 3. Example automated SAFT layer boundary scan.

Repeatability and Accuracy The thickness measurements produced by taking two scans at one location without moving MIRA were compared after applying the layer boundary detection procedure. TABLE 1 shows the results of 60 layer boundary detection comparisons. The columns labeled T1 and T2 represent the first and second measurements, respectively, and the column labeled (T1-T2) represents the difference between them. Only four of the 60 differences were not equal to zero within the .001 in. precision used here, and these instances are highlighted in TABLE 1. The maximum reported concrete thickness difference was 0.092 in.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich TABLE 1. SAFT B-Scan Thickness Measurements Recorded without Disturbing MIRA between Measurements
Trial Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 T1 9.781 10.056 10.362 10.148 9.445 9.659 5.135 5.013 5.227 5.441 5.196 5.227 5.441 5.594 5.471 5.135 5.074 5.257 5.441 5.227 5.288 5.441 5.563 5.471 5.227 5.074 5.288 5.441 5.288 5.319 T2 9.781 10.087 10.362 10.148 9.445 9.659 5.135 5.013 5.227 5.441 5.196 5.257 5.441 5.594 5.471 5.135 5.074 5.257 5.441 5.227 5.288 5.441 5.563 5.471 5.227 5.074 5.288 5.441 5.288 5.319 (T1-T2) 0.000 -0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Trial Number 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 T1 5.471 5.563 5.502 5.257 5.044 5.257 5.471 5.288 5.319 5.471 5.533 5.533 5.227 5.257 5.319 5.441 5.288 5.319 5.471 5.563 5.471 5.257 5.288 5.257 5.502 5.288 5.349 5.471 5.563 5.471 T2 5.471 5.563 5.502 5.257 5.044 5.257 5.471 5.288 5.349 5.471 5.533 5.533 5.319 5.257 5.319 5.441 5.288 5.319 5.471 5.563 5.471 5.257 5.288 5.257 5.502 5.288 5.349 5.471 5.563 5.471 (T1-T2) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

MIRA scans were also able to be taken at several locations commensurate with the locations of cores. Each core was measured at several points by MnDOT technicians to capture variation in thickness within the same core. The maximum and minimum values of thickness were reported for each core. FIGURE 4 and FIGURE 5 show the results of comparing thicknesses as determined by the MIRA layer boundary detection method and the low and high core thickness measurements. FIGURE 4 shows a plot of the core measured thickness measurements versus MIRA layer boundary detection with high and low core measurements. From this figure, it can be seen that the layer boundary detection results are typically within the variation and uncertainty of the core measurements. FIGURE 5 shows high and low core measurements and corresponding MIRA layer boundary detection results at different locations. From this figure, it can be observed that core thicknesses agree well with the layer boundary detection results. Additional cores taken in close proximity with MIRA measurements also showed similar thickness results to the layer boundary detection MIRA results at various sections.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

FIGURE 4. High and low core measurements versus MIRA layer boundary detection results.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

7

6.5

Thickness, in.

5.5

4.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Core Number high core Layer Boundary Detection low core

FIGURE 5. High and low core measurements and corresponding MIRA layer boundary detection results at different locations. Testing coverage Over 2000 scans of 13 rigid pavement test cells at MnROAD were taken using the ultrasonic tomography device, MIRA. Although measurements were taken for all rigid pavement sections, only conventional slab on grade sections were considered in this analysis. The layer boundary detection procedure was then applied to the MIRA scans obtained. The testing pattern was designed to capture the variability in the as-built PCC layer thickness in both the longitudinal and transverse directions. To ensure that there were no gaps in coverage in the longitudinal direction, while still attaining sufficient coverage in the transverse direction, a repetitive diagonal pattern was used, see FIGURE 6. For comparison purposes, the measurements were categorized based on their transverse positions and the stationing in the longitudinal direction. The positions considered were the driving lane edge, driving lane interior, adjacent to the centerline joint, passing lane interior as well as passing lane edge. In this pattern scans 1 and 2 are denoted as DL edge; 3,4 as DL interior; 5 to 8 as centerline; 9,10 as PL interior; and 11,12 as PL edge.

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

Next Start TL Edge
TL Interior 3,4 5,6 Interior 7,8

1,2
Truck Lane

9,10
11,12

PL Interior
PL Edge

Passing Lane

FIGURE 6. MIRA scan measurement locations with scan numbers indicated. RESULTS The general information and thickness results for each of the various sections tested are given in TABLE 2, along with corresponding mean and standard deviation in the data. TABLE 2. Overview of thickness measurements of MnROAD concrete test sections.
MIRA thickness (in) Designed Test Cell Number Standard Year Cell # Location Mean Thickness (in) Length (ft) of Scans Deviation Constructed 7 mainline 7.5 500 168 7.86 0.22 1992 8 mainline 7.5 510 192 8.04 0.42 1992 9 mainline 7.5 517 204 8.04 0.19 1992 12 mainline 9.5 480 192 9.85 0.25 1992 32 low volume 5 460 276 5.38 0.37 2000 36 low volume 6 480 192 6.48 0.23 1993 37 low volume 6 504 252 6.55 0.22 1993 38 low volume 6 480 192 6.57 0.24 1993 52 low volume 7.5 285 108 7.82 0.43 2000 53 low volume 12 115 48 12.36 0.53 2000 54 low volume 7.5 198 72 7.40* 0.62*** 2004 306 mainline 6 268 96 7.21** 0.80**** 2011 406 mainline 6 270 108 6.53 0.47 2011 *Mean after removing transition zone = 7.17 **Mean after removing transition zone = 6.83 ***Stdev after removing transition zone = 0.45 ****Stdev after removing transition zone = 0.48

Three types of variation in thickness measurements were observed, as shown in FIGURE 7, FIGURE 8, and FIGURE 9. The figures show the thickness measurements with respect to the

10

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich stationing while transverse locations were divided into the following categories with corresponding shapes and color markings: DL Edge (blue diamond): approximately 1 ft. from the lane/shoulder edge of the concrete pavement in the truck lane DL Interior (red square): within the truck lane Interior (green triangle): approximately 1 ft. from the edge of the centerline joint in either the truck or passing lane PL Interior (purple X): within the passing lane PL Edge (light blue asterisk): approximately 1 ft. from the edge of the concrete pavement in the passing lane

12

10

Thickness, in.

TL Edge
TL Interior Interior PL Interior

PL Edge
Designed Thickness cores

0 117800 117900 118000 118100 118200 118300 118400 Stationing, ft.

FIGURE 7. Cell 306 results showing a typical variation in thickness.

11

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

10 9 8 7

Thickness, in.

6 5 4 3

TL Edge

TL Interior
Interior PL Interior PL Edge Designed Thickness

2 1 0 113150
113200 113250 113300 113350 Stationing, ft. 113400 113450

FIGURE 8. Cell 306 results showing a gradual increase in thickness (indicated by the black box on the figure) due to transition to a neighboring test section.

FIGURE 9. Cell 8 results showing a spike in thickness due to a malfunctioning slip form paver. FIGURE 7 shows the most typical type of variation, where there are relatively uniform differences in thickness in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. This figure also shows core measurements taken in close proximity to the MIRA measurement. Some of the variation seen in the MIRA results can also be observed in the core results. FIGURE 8 illustrates a gradually occurring increase in thickness at locations near an adjacent test section of different surface elevation. This indicates that the pavement was thickened during construction at a transition to a neighboring test sections to account for the difference in surface elevation. To
12

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich eliminate the skew due to the transition zone the start of the sloping area to its end was eliminated from analysis. The two sections transition effects were eliminated, resulting in standard deviation decreasing from 0.62 to 0.45 and 0.80 to 0.47 in. for cells 54 and 306, respectively. This also changed the mean values from 7.40 to 7.17 and 7.21 to 6.83 in. for cells 54 and 306, respectively. FIGURE 9 shows the measured thicknesses for cell 8. In this figure a spike in thickness in the middle of the section can be observed. This corresponds to a stoppage in paver operations due to slip form paver problems. DISCUSSION Analysis of TABLE 2 brings several observations to light. The most obvious trend observed was that the as-built mean thickness was higher than the as-designed required thickness in all but one of the sections studied. Additionally, in six of the thirteen sections, the as-built thickness exceeded the as-design thickness by more than 0.5 in. This finding is not necessarily unique to MnROAD sections. For typical projects, contractors anticipate a certain amount of variability in as-constructed thickness. Since they can be penalized for cores with lower than designed thickness, their standard practice is to place pavements slightly thicker than the design requires. This adds materials and cost to the project; reductions in both could be seen if variation could be reduced. The standard deviation of the as-constructed sections at MnROAD show additional trends. Variation in the sections constructed in 1992 and 1993 (denoted as Group 1) exhibited standard deviations much lower than those constructed in 2000 and later (denoted as Group 2). Cells in Group 1 showed standard deviation of thickness ranging from 0.19 to 0.25 in, with the exception of cell 8. This cell had documented construction problems and a standard deviation of 0.42 in. The increase in thickness variability seen in cell 8 compared with the other cells highlights the importance of minimizing unnecessary paver stoppages during construction. The standard deviation in thickness for Group 2 pavements was much larger than those in Group 1. For Group 2, the standard deviation of thickness ranged from 0.37 to 0.53 in, excluding the increases in thickness due to the transition to neighboring test sections of different surface elevations. Possible explanations for the higher variability in Group 2 sections include different construction crews and equipment, and reconstruction type activities of short paving length as cells were rebuilt. There are also other factors that might contribute to variability associated with reconstruction, such as moisture conditions in the base layer and damage from material delivery trucks. It is interesting to note that, while the variability of Group 2 does not correlate with the mean thickness, Group 1 shows an increase in standard deviation with increasing thickness. This can be seen in FIGURE 10; the data from Group 2 does not have a discernible trend while the standard deviation of thickness variation for the pavements in Group 1 increase as thickness increases. A similar trend was observed for LTTP sections by Jiang et al. (2003).

13

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

0.60 0.50 y = 0.018x + 0.3135 R = 0.6481

Standard Deviation, in.

0.40
Paver operations problem
0.30 0.20 0.10

0.00
0.00 2.00 4.00 Group 1 6.00 8.00 Thickness, in. Group 2 10.00 12.00 14.00

Linear (Group 1)

FIGURE 10. Comparison of standard deviation in thickness versus measured thickness for pavements in Groups 1 and 2 By comparing thickness measurements at different transverse locations within each cell, some additional interesting observations were made. FIGURE 11 shows a comparison of mean thickness at both the driving and passing lane edges with the mean thickness measurements close to the centerline of the slabs. From this figure, it can be observed that there is generally good agreement between thickness at the edge and the centerline. There were several locations where the thickness measurements at the centerline are slightly thicker than those at the edge locations. This slight increase in thickness towards the centerline could be partially explained by construction of the crown to allow for a slope in the pavement surface for drainage.

14

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich

14 12

10

Thickness Edges, in.

8 Truck Lane 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 Thickness Centerline, in. 12 14 Passing Lane Symmetry Line

FIGURE 11. Mean thickness comparison of edges versus interior. A more significant difference is observed when comparing the variation of the edges to the centerline locations. The variation is much lower at the lane edges of both the driving and passing lanes as compared to the variation within the slabs, especially near the centerline. FIGURE 12 shows a comparison of variation, as quantified by the standard deviation, near the centerline compared to the standard deviation in thickness at the edge of both the driving and passing lane. From this figure, it can be observed that there is a much larger variation in thickness toward the centerline as compared to the edges. In addition to any effects of the crown construction, other possible explanations of the larger variability include the fact that the center line is located further from the stringline references points than the edges are, and effects associated with base layer trimming and construction traffic.

1.2

Standard Deviation Edges, in.

0.8

0.6

Truck Lane Passing Lane Symmetry Line

0.4

0.2

0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Standard Deviation Centerline, in. 1.2

FIGURE 12. Comparison of standard deviation of the edges versus centerline.

15

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Thickness measurements were taken on thirteen rigid pavement test cells at MnROAD to examine the nature of thickness variation. Measurements were obtained using an ultrasonic testing device called MIRA and with cores. Because MIRA is nondestructive, testing was conducted at a higher frequency than coring would typically allow. Thickness variation was measured in both the transverse and longitudinal directions. Good agreement was found between the thickness as measured by MIRA and by coring. This shows that MIRA can be used to determine pavement thickness nondestructively. MIRA measurements can be taken with a much greater frequency than cores while maintaining accuracy, allowing thickness variation in a pavement to be determined. From the MIRA thickness data, certain trends were found; some of these trends match well with those determined by other researchers (1, 7). It was determined that the pavements at MnROAD are built thicker than designed, as is typically the case. There were also some trends that could be identified due to the high density and spatial diversity of the measurement process. For example, it was determined that there was more variation in thickness at the center of the pavement than closer to the edges on a consistent basis. For pavements built after 2000, the level of variation in thickness increased as the thickness increased, while no correlation was found between thickness and thickness variation for pavements built in the 1990s other than one section, where stopping the paver during construction caused an increase in the pavement thickness and its variability. The effect of bridging the gap between adjacent cells with different thickness was also observed in two cases. These trends were discernible because of the large quantity of data available using MIRA which would not have been obtained using only coring. The ability to measure variability in pavement thickness is an important first step in reducing that variability. The variability associated with paving causes contractors to routinely make pavements slightly thicker than required. While this helps ensure pavement quality, it also adds extra materials and costs to the project. Reducing the thickness variation associated with paving would reduce the amount of extra thickness contractors add to pavements to ensure that the necessary thickness is achieved. This in turn would reduce both the amount of materials used and project costs. Additionally, as methods to reduce thickness variability are implemented in construction, use of these methods can be accounted for in design using new statistical methods and as part of performance based specifications. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank Doug Lindenfelser from MnDOT for extracting the cores at MnROAD and making core measurements. Dan Franta from MnDOT also assisted in the measurement process and collecting GPS locations.

16

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.

Hoegh, Burnham, Lederle, and Khazanovich REFERENCES 1. Vancura, M. E., Barnes, R., and Khazanovich, L. (2013). "Concrete Pavement Thickness Variation Assessment with Cores and Nondestructive Testing Measurements." Transportation Research Record(Paper #13-4910). 2. Aguiar-Moya, J.P., Banerjee, A. and J. A. Prozzi. Sensitivity analysis of the MEPDG using measured probability distributions of pavement layer thickness. In Proceedings, 89th TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2009. 3. Corley-Lay, J. and C.S. Morrison. Layer thickness variability for flexible pavements in North Carolina. Transportation Research Record 1778, pp. 107-112, Washington D.C., 2001. 4. Maierhofer, C. 2003. Nondestructive evaluation of concrete infrastructure with ground penetrating radar. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 15, 287-297. 5. Walters, R., Jaselskis, E., Zhang, J., Mueller, K., and M. Kaewmoracharoe. Using Scanning Lasers to Determine the Thickness of Concrete Pavement J. Const. Eng. Manage., 134, 583-591. 2008. 6. Vancura, M. E. Evaluation of In-Situ Variability of Concrete Pavement Characteristics and Their Effect on Performance. Ph.D Dissertation. University of Minnesota. 2013. 7. Jiang, Y., Selezneva, O., Mladenovic, G., Aref, S., and M. Darter. Estimation of pavement layer thickness variability for reliability-based design. Transportation Research Record 1849, pp. 156-165, Washington D.C., 2003. 8. Tompkins, D., L. Khazanovich, and D.M. Johnson (2007). Overview of the First Ten Years of the Minnesota Road Research Project, Journal of Transportation Engineering,American Society of Civil Engineers, 133(11):599609 9. Hoegh, K. and L. Khazanovich (2012). Correlation Analysis of 2D Tomographic Images for Flaw Detection in Pavements, Journal of Testing and Evaluation. American Society for Testing and Materials Paper ID: JTE103765, Volume 40, Issue 2. 9 pages. 10. Hoegh, K. and L. Khazanovich (2012) Concrete Pavement Joint Diagnostics Using Ultrasonic Tomography, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Volume 2305: p.5461. 11. Hoegh, K., Worel, B., Yu T., and Khazanovich, L. (2013) Subsurface Joint Deterioration Detection: MnROAD Blind Test Comparison of Ultrasound Array Technology with Conventional Nondestructive Methods Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Paper # 132048 (Accepted for publication), 2013. 12. Hoegh, K., Khazanovich, L., Maser, K. R. & Tran, N (2012) Evaluation of Ultrasonic Technique for Detecting Delamination in Asphalt Pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Volume 2306 p. 105-110. 13. Hoegh, K. and L. Khazanovich (2011). Ultrasonic Tomography Technique for Evaluation of Concrete Pavements, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. 2232: 8584. 14. Claerbout, J. F. 2004. Earth soundings analysis: Processing versus inversion, Blackwell Scientific Publications.

17

TRB 2014 Annual Meeting

Paper revised from original submittal.