Porosity of Permeable Friction Courses (PFC) Brandon Klenzendorf April 28, 2009 CE 397 – Statistics in Water Resources
Layer of porous asphalt 1 to 2 inches thick over impervious roadway surface Water enters pore space and provides benefits: ◦ Reduced splash/spray ◦ Improved traction ◦ Reduced hydroplaning ◦ Improved water quality Pores become clogged with sediment over time resulting in a loss of porosity Can we predict the extent of clogging over time? Conventional Asphalt PFC Overlay
PFC cores are extracted from three roadways for the past three years: ◦ Loop 360 ◦ FM 1431 ◦ FM 620 ◦ March 2007 ◦ February 2008 ◦ February 2009 PFC layer
33 total porosity measurements
Kruskall-Wallis Test ◦ H 0 : all groups have identical distributions ◦ Reject H 0 if K ≥ K α (from tables) Mann-Whitney Test (Rank Sum Test) ◦ H 0 : the means of two groups are identical ◦ Reject H 0 if T ≤ T α/2 (from tables)
Kruskal-Wallis Test Grouped byK calc K 0.05 DecisionComment Do Not Reject H 0 All locations had the same porosity in Reject H 0 At least one location had a different porosity Reject H 0 At least one location had a different porosity Loop Reject H 0 At least one year had a different porosity FM Reject H 0 At least one year had a different porosity FM Reject H 0 At least one year had a different porosity
Compare two years of Loop 360 porosity ◦ Mann-Whitney Test Extend this analysis to the other roadways Extend this analysis to individual years Grouped byStatisticCriticalDecisionComment ‘07 & ‘08T=167.0 Do Not Reject H and 2008 had the same porosity ‘08 & ’09T=2627.0Reject H and 2009 had different porosities ‘07 & ‘09T=2323.0Reject H and 2009 had different porosities
Multiple variables can influence PFC porosity ◦ Life of pavement ◦ Traffic volume ◦ Precipitation ◦ Roadway geometry (slope, width, etc.) ◦ Nearby construction sites, etc. Only consider first four variables
Estimate annual average daily traffic (AADT) Linear regression from 16 years of data
LCRA Hydromet data for Loop 360 and FM 1431 Need to find precipitation data for FM 620
Complete multiple variable trend analysis Write final report Extend this analysis to hydraulic conductivity data (data set not complete) Determine correlation between porosity and hydraulic conductivity How can these measurements be used to predict PFC benefits (water quality)?
Questions or Comments?
This slide intentionally left blank
PFC Introduction Porosity Data Statistical Tests ◦ Kruskall-Wallis Test ◦ Mann-Whitney Test Test Results Trend Analysis Future Work
Compare porosity in travel lane to shoulder on Loop 360 ◦ Both Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney test Grouped byStatisticCriticalDecisionComment Travel LaneK= Do Not Reject H 0 All years had the same porosity in the travel lane ShoulderT=76.0 Do Not Reject H 0 All years had the same porosity in the shoulder ComparisonT= Do Not Reject H 0 No difference between travel lane and shoulder
Remove impervious base material Vacuum sealed core Submerged specific weight device