Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 640 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Construction and Maintenance Practices for Permeable Friction Courses
OCR for page R2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2009 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley VICE CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles David S. Ekern, Commissioner, Virginia DOT, Richmond Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Will Kempton, Director, California DOT, Sacramento Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore Pete K. Rahn, Director, Missouri DOT, Jefferson City Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Regional General Manager, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Rosa Clausell Rountree, CEOGeneral Manager, Transroute International Canada Services, Inc., Pitt Meadows, BC Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin Linda S. Watson, CEO, LYNXCentral Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando Steve Williams, Chairman and CEO, Maverick Transportation, Inc., Little Rock, AR EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, DC Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC James E. Caponiti, Acting Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Cynthia Douglass, Acting Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC Rose A. McMurry, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Ronald Medford, Acting Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Jeffrey F. Paniati, Acting Deputy Administrator and Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT Peter Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC *Membership as of June 2009.
OCR for page R3
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 640 Construction and Maintenance Practices for Permeable Friction Courses L. Allen Cooley, Jr. Jimmy W. Brumfield BURNS COOLEY DENNIS, INC. Ridgeland, MS Rajib B. Mallick WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE Worcester, MA Walaa S. Mogawer UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS North Dartmouth, MA Manfred Partl Lily Poulikakos EMPA Dübendorf, Switzerland Gary Hicks CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, CHICO Chico, CA Subject Areas Pavement Design, Management, and Performance · Materials and Construction · Maintenance Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2009 www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 640 RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 09-41 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614 administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-11796-8 interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2009934826 or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the © 2009 Transportation Research Board accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT PERMISSION cooperative research. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein. initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission Transportation. from CRP. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of NOTICE modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed research directly to those who are in a position to use them. or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 640 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Edward T. Harrigan, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Margaret B. Hagood, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 09-41 PANEL Field of Materials and Construction--Area of Bituminous Materials Dale Rand, Texas DOT, Austin, TX Brad W. Allen, New York State DOT, Albany, NY James Mahoney, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT Kevin K. McGhee, Virginia DOT, Charlottesville, VA Joseph F. Peterson, California DOT, Marysville, CA Ronald A. Sines, Oldcastle Materials, Leominster, MA Michael Arasteh, FHWA Liaison Nelson Gibson, FHWA Liaison Thomas Harman, FHWA Liaison Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 9-41 by Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc. of Ridgeland, Mississippi. Dr. Allen Cooley, Senior Materials/Pavements Engineer of Burns Cooley Den- nis, Inc. was the Principal Investigator. Co-Principal Investigators were Dr. Rajib Mallick of Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Dr. Walaa Mogawer of the University of Massachusetts. Other contributing authors were Mr. Jimmy Brumfield of Burns Cooley Dennis, Inc., Manfred Partl and Lily Poulikakos of EMPA, and Gary Hicks of MACTEC.
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD By Edward T. Harrigan Staff Officer Transportation Research Board This report recommends design, construction, and maintenance guidelines for perme- able friction courses (PFC). It presents recommended practices for (1) design and construc- tion of PFC and (2) PFC maintenance and rehabilitation. The report will be of immediate interest to public and private sector engineers with responsibility for the specification, con- struction, and maintenance of PFC. Permeable friction courses (PFC), which include new generation open-graded friction courses (OGFC), asphalt-rubber friction courses, and porous European mixes, have wide use throughout the southern and western United States. PFC reduces hydroplaning, splash and spray, and pavement noise, and improves ride quality and the visibility of pavement mark- ings in wet weather. Properly designed and constructed PFCs are durable and exhibit service lives of 10 to 14 years. Perhaps the only hindrance to their wider use in cold climates is a con- cern that, like the OGFC introduced in the 1970s, PFC might be susceptible to freeze-thaw damage and black ice formation and require more intensive winter maintenance practices. The objective of this research was to develop practical guidelines for PFC design, con- struction, and maintenance that maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages associated with PFC use. A comprehensive, critical review of the worldwide literature on PFC design, performance, construction, and maintenance was conducted, with attention to PFC use in cold climates, and worldwide agency practice, and specifications for PFC from the United States and the rest of the world were surveyed. Based on an analysis of the results of this review and survey, two key products were prepared: (1) a recommended practice for materials selection, design, and construction of PFC and (2) a recommended practice for PFC maintenance and rehabilitation. The research was performed by Burns Dennis Cooley, Inc. of Ridgeland, Mississippi. The report fully documents the review and analysis of the highway engineering literature and agency specifications leading to the recommended practices. The recommendations are under consideration for possible adoption by the AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Construction and Subcommittee on Maintenance.
OCR for page R8
CONTENTS 1 Summary 3 Chapter 1 Introduction and Research Approach 3 Objective 3 Research Approach 4 Task 1 Conduct a Comprehensive Review of Worldwide Literature on PFC 4 Task 2 Survey Highway Agencies in the United States and Worldwide on PFC 4 Task 3 State of Practice for Permeable Friction Courses 4 Task 4 Develop Guidelines on the Design, Construction, and Maintenance of PFC 5 Task 5 Prepare Final Report 5 Report Organization 6 Chapter 2 Results of Agency Survey 6 General Use and Structural Design 6 General Use 7 Structural Design 8 Mix Design 8 Aggregates 10 Asphalt Binder 12 Stabilizing Additives 13 Mix Design 14 Construction 14 Production 16 Transportation 17 Laydown/Compaction 17 Quality Control/Quality Assurance 18 General Construction Issues 19 Maintenance and Rehabilitation 19 General Maintenance (Non-Winter Related) 19 Winter Maintenance 19 Rehabilitation 20 Performance 21 Survey Summary 24 Chapter 3 Overview of Permeable Friction Courses 25 U.S. Experiences with PFCs 25 European Experiences with PFCs
OCR for page R9
26 Chapter 4 Benefits of Permeable Friction Courses 26 Safety Related Benefits 28 Driver Comfort Related Benefits 29 Environmental Benefits 31 Summary 32 Chapter 5 Materials and Mix Design 32 Materials Selection 32 Aggregate Characteristics 33 Asphalt Binders 34 Stabilizing Additives 35 Fillers/Adhesion Agents 36 Selection of Design Gradation 38 Selection of Optimum Binder Content 42 Performance Testing 43 Chapter 6 Inclusion in Structural Design 45 Rational Method of Selecting PFC Lift Thickness 45 Methodology 50 Sensitivity Analysis 53 Discussion of Proposed Methodology 55 Chapter 7 Construction of Permeable Friction Courses 55 Plant Production 55 Aggregates 55 Liquid Asphalt 56 Stabilizing Additives 58 Mixture Production 58 Plant Calibration 58 Plant Production 58 Mixing Time 58 Mixture Storage 58 Transportation 59 Hauling 59 Haul Time 59 Placement 59 Weather Limitations 59 Pavement Surface Preparation 61 Paver Operation 61 Lift Thickness 61 Placement and Finishing 61 Compaction 62 Rolling 62 Density Requirements 62 Quality Control/Quality Assurance 63 Pavement Markings 65 Chapter 8 Maintenance of Permeable Friction Courses 65 General Maintenance 65 Cleaning of Clogged PFC 65 Preventive Surface Maintenance 66 Corrective Surface Maintenance 66 Winter Maintenance
OCR for page R10
71 Chapter 9 Rehabilitation of Permeable Friction Courses 73 Chapter 10 Performance of Permeable Friction Courses 73 Typical Distresses with PFC 75 Performance of PFC 75 Service Life 77 Performance Life 78 Performance Measures 79 Chapter 11 Limitations on the Use of Permeable Friction Courses 81 Chapter 12 Future Research Needs 83 Chapter 13 Conclusions 85 References 88 Appendix A Questionnaire on PFC, Conventional OGFC, and Similar Materials G-i Guidelines on the Use of Permeable Friction Courses
OCR for page R11
1 SUMMARY Construction and Maintenance Practices for Permeable Friction Courses The objective of this project was to recommend design, construction, maintenance, and rehabilitation guidelines that will maximize the advantages and minimize the disadvantages associated with the use of permeable friction courses (PFCs). The research approach entailed two primary tasks: an annotated literature review and a survey of state departments of trans- portation. As no laboratory or field work was conducted as part of this project, a significant amount of time and effort was spent on the literature review and survey of agencies. Infor- mation gathered from these two activities was categorized according to the following sub- jects: general use of PFCs, benefits of the use of PFCs, materials and mix design, inclusion of PFCs in structural design, construction of PFCs, maintenance of PFCs, rehabilitation of PFCs, performance of PFCs, and limitations on the use of PFCs. For each of the subjects listed above, the information gathered from the literature review and survey of agencies was used to develop a state-of-practice on the use of PFCs. This state of practice is considered to be representative of practices used around the world, as a signif- icant amount of literature was obtained and reviewed from other countries. The informa- tion gathered also was used to develop guidelines on the use of PFCs in order to accomplish the project objectives. PFCs have been used since the 1970s. The initial use of PFCs was in Europe. Europeans took the U.S. version of open-graded friction courses developed in the 1930s through the 1970s and, through research, improved the performance of these mixes. Improvements pri- marily included the use of modified asphalt binders and fibers. The modified binders and fibers alleviated some of the problems that were encountered with open-graded friction courses in the United States. Benefits realized from the use of PFCs are primarily associated with improved safety. PFCs have been shown to improve wet weather frictional properties, reduce the potential for hydroplaning, reduce the amount of splash and spray, and improve visibility. Other ben- efits identified in the literature included resistance to permanent deformation, smoother pavements (and, hence, improved fuel economy), reduced tire/pavement noise levels, and other environmental benefits. Materials and mix design properties specified for PFCs were obtained from around the world. Materials used to comprise PFCs are coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, asphalt binders, and stabilizing additives. Stabilizing additives are used in PFCs to minimize the potential for draindown because draindown was identified as a major problem with open-graded friction courses during the 1970s and 1980s. Numerous methods of designing PFC mixes were identified; based on the information, the design of PFC mixes includes four primary steps: selection of appropriate materials, selection of a design aggregate gradation, selection of optimum asphalt binder content, and performance testing.
OCR for page R92
82 produced and placed. Performance of the constructed test however, no references were found to substantiate this value. sections should be monitored over time. A minimum t/mas should be selected based on construction 6. A potential need within the mix design method is another issues. A proper t/mas will allow the PFC to be placed and method for measuring moisture sensitivity. Past moisture compacted using typical construction procedures while susceptibility tests, namely tensile strength ratios, have maintaining an appropriate level of permeability. Another been conducted using Marshall compacted samples. It is element that should be included within this research is unclear how the Superpave gyratory compactor will affect the influence of lift thickness on the ability of the PFC layer tensile strength measurements on PFC mixes. Other tests to maintain permeability. Some references indicated that also have been specified in Europe. Moisture condition- thicker layers of PFC had better self-cleaning characteristics. ing of Cantabro Abrasion loss samples may prove suc- 9. The final research need related to structural design is to cessful. Research should be conducted to determine the determine how to account for PFCs in structural capacity. best method for evaluating moisture resistance of PFCs. There are several aspects that need to be investigated. First Materials of known moisture performance should be used is the proper method to characterize the properties of PFC in this research. for use in the Mechanistic-Empirical pavement Design 7. Three issues related to the inclusion of PFCs in pavement Guide. Currently, HMA is characterized using the dynamic design need to be researched. First, a method for selecting modulus test. However, research is needed to determine minimum lift thickness was proposed. This method should the needed input values for PFCs. One reference showed be validated. Validation should include field work to docu- confined testing was appropriate for PFCs; however, no rec- ment how water flows within a PFC layer. Findings from ommendations were provided for the correct confining this research can be used to refine the selection procedure pressure. Research should be conducted to determine if the to prevent water sheets on the PFC surface. Also included dynamic modulus test is the appropriate test and the proper in the research should be determination of a representative test conditions if it is the appropriate test. The second issue value for permeability. This research would entail designing related to structural design is the reduced temperatures in various PFC mixtures and determining the level of perme- layers underlying PFCs. Current temperatures with pave- ability. These values can be validated by permeability test- ment depth models do not account for the increased stiff- ing of constructed PFC layers. ness of underlying layers and, hence, increased structural 8. A practical problem related to minimum lift thickness that capacity. Accounting for the increased capacity of under- needs to be researched is determination of a minimum lift lying layers may improve the cost-benefit of using PFCs, thickness to maximum aggregate size ratio (t/mas). Within especially combined with all of the other safety benefits real- this document, a minimum ratio of 2 was approximated; ized when utilizing PFC layers.
OCR for page R93
83 CHAPTER 13 Conclusions The objective of this project was to recommend design, con- included within the design of PFC mixes. Fibers are the struction, and maintenance guidelines that will maximize the most efficient method for minimizing the potential for advantages and minimize the disadvantages associated with draindown problems. PFC use. Within this project, PFCs have been defined as spe- · Inclusion of PFC within the structural capacity of pave- cialty type open-graded friction courses that are specifically ments varies greatly. Some agencies do not account for designed to have high air void contents, above 18 percent, for any structural capacity for PFC layers while others assign removing water from the pavement surface. In order to accom- some percentage of structural capacity of dense-graded plish the project objectives, a literature review and survey of layer. When characterizing PFC mixes for inclusion of agencies was conducted. No field or laboratory research was the new Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide conducted. Following are conclusions based on the findings of using the dynamic modulus test, a confinement pressure this research: is needed. Two parameters are important in selecting an appropriate lift thickness for PFCs: rain intensity and PFC · The use of PFC layers has many benefits that can be catego- permeability. rized as related to safety, driver comfort, and environmen- · Construction of PFC mixes is similar to typical dense- tal. Benefits related to improved safety included reduced graded HMA with some slight modification. The primary potential for hydroplaning, improved wet weather friction, modification is the need for addition of fibers to the produc- reduced splash/spray, reduced glare, and improved visibility tion process, if used. Mixing times should be slightly longer of pavement markings. Benefits related to improved driver than typical mixes to ensure that the stabilizing additives are comfort include smooth pavements, increased confidence of sufficiently dispersed within the mix. The mix should be drivers during rain events through the reduced potential for protected from cooling during transportation. At a min- hydroplaning, reduced splash and spray and reduced glare, imum, tarps should be used to minimize the amount of and reduced potential for permanent deformation. Benefits cooling that takes place during transportation. Material related to the environment include smoother pavements, transfer vehicles that remix the PFC before being deposited thus improved fuel economy, and reduced pavement noise into the paver are desirable. Conventional steel wheel rollers levels. should be used to compact the PFC. Vibratory rollers should · The design of PFC mixes contains four primary steps: be discouraged as these rollers have the potential to frac- 1) selection of appropriate materials; 2) selection of a design ture aggregates during compaction. Pneumatic tire rollers gradation; 3) selection of optimum asphalt binder con- should not be used on PFC layers. Pneumatic tire rollers tent; and 4) performance testing. The literature indicated tend to pick-up mix during compaction. Typically, two that angular aggregates having the proper shape are desir- to four passes of a breakdown roller and one to two rolls able within PFCs. Stiff, modified binders have provided of a finish roller are sufficient to compact PFC layers. The the best performance. Optimum asphalt binder content goal of compaction is not to achieve a certain density; rather, should be selected based upon balancing durability and the goal is to seat the aggregates. Roll-down of PFC is about draindown potential. The Cantabro Abrasion loss test is 10 to 20 percent of the lift thickness. the most common test method for evaluating the dura- · Cleaning of clogged PFC layers is not a common practice bility of PFC mixes. Use of the voids in coarse aggregate within the Untied States. General maintenance activities concept for ensuring stone-on-stone contact should be usually include small patches in localized areas. When
OCR for page R94
84 dense-graded mix is used for small patches, the patch should · The most common rehabilitation method for PFC layers be rotated 45 degrees so that water can flow around the is to mill and replace. There is evidence that overlays should patch. No evidence was found that fog seals are an effective not be placed over PFC layers without sufficiently sealing maintenance technique. Winter maintenance activities the PFC layer. Overlays of unsealed PFC layers have shown vary greatly around the United States and the world. Sev- the propensity for moisture damage within the pavement eral references were found that indicated that experience structure. was the best method for developing a winter maintenance · There are few specific limitations on the use of PFCs. program. The literature was explicit in stating that winter These mixes should not be utilized in areas with large maintenance of PFC layers is more difficult than for dense- amounts of dirt and debris. This will lead to the PFC lay- graded layers. PFCs are generally colder than dense-graded ers clogging. PFCs should not be used in areas with high layers, indicating that PFC layers reach freezing sooner yearly snow fall rates. Winter maintenance can be expen- than dense-graded layers and stay at freezing temperatures sive in these areas and snowplows have been shown to longer. As such, more winter maintenance chemicals are damage PFC layers. PFCs should not be used when long needed for PFCs. When snowplows are employed, rubber- haul distances or haul times are needed. This will allow the tipped blades have decreased the amount of damage to PFC to cool during transportation and likely cause con- PFC layers. struction problems.
OCR for page R95
85 References 1. Cher, C., E. O. Darko, and T. N. Richardson. Optimal Continuous 14. Cooper S. B., C. Abadie, and L. N. Mohammad. Evaluation of Shoulder Rumble Strips and the Effects on Highway Safety and the Open-Graded Friction Course Mixture. Louisiana Transportation Economy. Institute of Transportation Engineers Journal, Volume 73, Research Center Technical Assistance Report Number 04-1TA. No. 5, 2003, pp. 3041. October 2004. 2. Harwood, D. W. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 191: Use of 15. Isenring, T., H. Köster, and I. Scazziga. Experiences with Porous Rumble Strips to Enhance Safety. TRB, National Research Council, Asphalt in Switzerland. In Transportation Research Record 1265, TRB, Washington, D.C., 1993. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 4153. 3. Open-Graded Friction Course Usage Guide. California Depart- 16. Ruiz, A., R. Alberola, F. Pérez, and B. Sánchez. Porous Asphalt ment of Transportation Division of Engineering Services. Materials Mixtures in Spain. In Transportation Research Record 1265, TRB, Engineering and Testing Services MS#5. Sacramento, California. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 8794. February 2006. 17. Van Der Zwan, J. T., T. Goeman, H. J. A. J. Gruis, J. H. Swart, 4. Kandhal, P. S. "Design, Construction and Maintenance of Open- and R. H. Oldenburger. Porous Asphalt Wearing Courses in the Graded Asphalt Friction Courses." National Asphalt Pavement Netherlands : State of the Art Review. In Transportation Research Association Information Series 115. May 2002. Record 1265, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 5. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 49: Open-Graded Friction 1990, pp. 95110. Courses for Highways. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, 18. Decoene, Y. Contribution of Cellulose Fibers to the Performance D.C., 1978. of Porous Asphalts. In Transportation Research Record 1265, TRB, 6. Open-Graded Friction Course FHWA Mix Design Method. Technical National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, pp. 8286. Advisory T 5040.31. Federal Highway Administration, Department 19. Alderson, Allan. The Design of Open Graded Asphalt. Australian Asphalt Pavement Association, CR C5151, November 1996. of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1980. 20. Iwata, H., T. Watanabe, and T. Saito. Study on the Performance 7. Huber, G. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 284: Perfor- of Porous Asphalt Pavement on Winter Road Surface Conditions. mance Survey on Open-Graded Friction Course Mixes. TRB, National XIth International Winter Road Conference, World Road Associa- Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. tion (PIARC), Sapporo, Japan, 2002. 8. Kandhal, P. S. and R. B. Mallick. Transportation Research Circular 21. Lefebvre, G. Porous Asphalt. Permanent International Association E-C005: Open Graded Asphalt Friction Course: State of Practice. TRB, of Road Congresses, 1993. National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998. 22. Van Heystraeten, G. and C. Moraux. Ten Years' Experience of 9. Open-Graded Friction Course FHWA Mix Design Method. Technical Porous Asphalt in Belgium. In Transportation Research Record Advisory T 5040.31. Federal Highway Administration, Department 1265, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1990, of Transportation, Washington, D.C, 1990. pp. 3440. 10. Santha, L. A Comparison of Modified Open-Graded Friction Courses 23. Titus-Glover, L. and S. D. Tayabji. Assessment of LTPP Friction to Standard Open-Graded Friction Course. FHWA-GA-97-9110. Data. Report FHWA-RD-99-037. Federal Highway Administration. Georgia Department of Transportation, Forest Park, Georgia, April Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., March 1999. 1997. 24. Greibe, A. P. Porous Asphalt and Safety. Proceedings of the Ninth 11. Watson, Donald, Andrew Johnson and David Jared. Georgia Depart- International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Copenhagen, ment of Transportation's Progress in Open-Graded Friction Course Denmark, August 2002. Development. In Transportation Research Record 1616, TRB, National 25. Flintsch, G. W. Assessment of the Performance of Several Roadway Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 3035. Mixes Under Rain, Snow, and Winter Maintenance Activities. Final 12. Bennert, Thomas, Frank Fee, Eileen Sheehy, Andris Jumikis and Contract Report, VTRC-04-CR18, Virginia Transportation Research Robert Sauber. Comparison of Thin-Lift HMA Surface Course Council, Charlottesville, Virginia, 2004. Mixes in New Jersey. TRB 2005 Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), TRB, 26. Bolzan, P. E., J. C. Nicholls, and G. A. Huber. Searching for Superior National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2005. Performing Porous Asphalt Wearing Courses. TRB 2001 Annual 13. McDaniel, R. S. and William Thornton. Field Evaluation of a Meeting (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council, Washington, Porous Friction Course for Noise Control. TRB 2005 Annual Meet- D.C., 2001. ing (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 27. Brown, E. R., A. Cooley, D. Hanson, C. Lynn, B. Powell, B. Prowell, 2005. and D. Watson. "NCAT Test Track Design, Construction, and
OCR for page R96
86 Performance." National Transportation Symposium, National Cen- Transportation Research Board, No. 1891, TRB, National Research ter for Asphalt Technology, Auburn, Alabama. November 2002. Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 182190. 28. Brousseaud, Y. and F. Anfosso-Lédée. Silvia Project Report: Review 43. Cooley, L. Allen, Jr., E. Ray Brown, and Donald E. Watson. Evalua- of Existing Low Noise Pavement Solutions in France. SILVIA-LCPC- tion of Open-Graded Friction Course Mixtures Containing Cellulose 011-01-WP4-310505. Sustainable Road Surfaces for Traffic Noise Fibers. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta- Control, European Commission, May 2005. tion Research Board, No. 1723, TRB, National Research Council, 29. Graf, B. and E. Simond. Erfahrungen mit Dränasphaltbelägen im Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 1925. Kanton Waadt. (The Experience with Porous Asphalt in Canton 44. Fortes, R. M. and J. V. Merighi. Open-Graded HMAC Considering Vaud). VSS publication Strasse und Verkehr, Route et Trafic, the Stone-on-Stone Contact. Proceedings of the International Confer- April 2005. ence on Design and Construction of Long Lasting Asphalt Pavements, 30. Larsen, L. E. and H. Bendtsen. Noise Reduction with Porous Asphalt Auburn, Alabama, June 2004. Costs and Perceived Effect. Ninth International Conference on 45. Faghri, Mohammad and Martin H. Sadd. Performance Improve- Asphalt Pavements, International Society of Asphalt Pavements, ment of Open Graded Asphalt Mixes. Report on URI_TC Project Copenhagen, Denmark, 2002. No. 536144, October 2002. 31. Noise-Reducing Pavements for Urban Roads. Danish Road Direc- 46. Spillemaeker, P. E., and P. Bauer. Development of 0/6 Porous torate (DRD), Nordic Road & Transport Research, Volume No. 3, Asphalt. 2nd Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, Barcelona, 1999. Spain, 2000, pp. 553557. 32. Barrett, M. et al. Pollutant Removal or Vegetated Highway Shoulders. 47. Moore, Lucinda. M. and R. G Hicks. Design, Construction, and Report No FHWA/TX-05/0-4605-1. Center for Transportation Maintenance Guidelines for Porous Asphalt Pavements. In Trans- Research, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas, January 2006. portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 33. Berbee, R., G. Rijs, R. de Brower, and L. Velzen. Characterization Board, No. 1778. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., and Treatment of Runoff form Highways in the Netherlands Paved 2001, pp. 9199. with Impervious and Pervious Asphalt. Water Environment Research, 48. Rogge, D. and E. A. Hunt. Development of Maintenance Practices Vol. 71, No. 2. 1999, pp. 183190. for Oregon F-Mix Interim Report SPR371. Oregon Department 34. Kubo, K., H. Kido, and M Ito. Study on Pavement Technologies to of Transportation, Salem, Oegon, August 1999. Mitigate the Heat Island Effect and Their Effectiveness. 10th Inter- 49. Litzka, J. Austrian Experiences with Winter Maintenance on Porous national Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Quebec City, 2006. Asphalt. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Asphalt 35. Alvarez, A. E., A. Epps-Martin, C. K. Estakitiri, J. W. Button, Pavements, Copenhagen, Denmark, August 2002. C. J. Glover, and S. H. Jung. "Synthesis of Current Practice on the 50. Ranieri, Vittorio. Runoff Control in Porous Pavements. In Trans- Design, Construction, and Maintenance of Porous Friction Courses." portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research FHWA/TX-06/0-5262-1. Texas Transportation Institute. College Board, No. 1789, Transportation Research Board of the National Station, Texas. July 2006. Academies, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 4655. 36. Mallick, R. B., P. S. Kandhal, L. A. Cooley, Jr., and D. E. Watson. 51. Padmos, C. Over Ten Years Experience with Porous Road Surfaces. Design, Construction, and Performance of New Generation Open- Ninth International Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Inter- Graded Friction Courses. NCAT Report No. 2000-01. National national Society of Asphalt Pavements, Copenhagen, Denmark, Center for Asphalt Technology, Auburn University, 2000. 2002. 37. Poulikakos, L. D., S. Takahashi, and M. N. Partl. Evaluation of 52. Watson, Donald E., Jingna Zhang, R. Buzz Powell. Analysis of Improved Porous Asphalt by Various Test Methods. Report No. 113/13 Temperature Data for the National Center for Asphalt Technology (EMPA No. FE 860076), EMPA, October 2006. Test Track. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- 38. Molenaar, J. M. M. and A. A. A. Molenaar. An Investigation into portation Research Board, No. 189. Transportation Research Board the Contribution of the Bituminous Binder to the Resistance to of the National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2004, pp. 6875. Raveling of Porous Asphalt. 2nd Eurasphalt & Eurobitume Congress, 53. Bishop, Michael C. and Michael F. Oliver. Open Graded Friction Barcelona, Spain, 2000, pp. 500508. Course Pavements in British Columbia. Proceedings of the 46th 39. Watson, Donald E., L. Allen Cooley, Jr., Kathryn Ann Moore, and Annual Conference of the Canadian Technological Asphalt Associ- Kevin Williams. Laboratory Performance Testing of Open-Graded ation, Toronto, Canada, 2001. Friction Course Mixtures. In Transportation Research Record: Jour- 54. Kaloush, Kamil E., Matthew W. Witczak, Andres C. Sotil and nal of the Transportation Research Board, No 1891, TR, National Re- George B. Way. Laboratory Evaluation of Asphalt Rubber Mixtures search Council, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 4047. Using the Dynamic Modulus (E*) Test. TRB 2003 Annual Meeting 40. Watson, Donald E., Kathryn Ann Moore, Kevin Williams, and (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council. Washington, D.C., L. Allen Cooley, Jr. Refinement of New Generation Open-Graded 2003. Friction Course Mix Design. In Transportation Research Record: Jour- 55. Tan, S. A., T. F. Fwa, and K. C. Chai. Drainage Considerations for nal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1832, TRB, National Porous Asphalt Surface Course Design. In Transportation Research Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 7885. Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1868. Trans- 41. Pasetto, M. Porous Asphalt Concretes with Added Microfibres. portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, 2nd Eurasphalt & Eurobitumen Congress, Barcelona, Spain, 2000, D.C., 2004, pp. 142149. pp. 438447. 56. Bedjent, P. B., and W. C. Huber. Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis. 42. Watson, Donald E., Eyad Masad, Kathryn Ann Moore, Kevin Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts,1988. Williams, L. Allen Cooley, Jr. Verification of Voids in Course Aggre- 57. Brown E. R. and L. A. Cooley, Jr. NCHRP Report 425: Designing Stone gate Testing to Determine Stone-On-Stone Contact of Hot-Mix Matrix Asphalt Mixtures for Rut Resistant Pavements. TRB, National Asphalt Mixtures. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.
OCR for page R97
87 58. Hot Mix Asphalt Paving: Handbook 2000. U.S. Army Corps of Engi- faces for Traffic Noise Control, European Commission, February neers, Federal Highway Association,. AC 150/5370-14A, Appendix 1, 2004. 2000. 69. Cooley, Jr., L. A., R. C. Ahlrich, D. E. Watson, and P. S. Kandhal. 59. Choubane, Bouzid, James A. Musselman, and Gale C. Page. Foren- Improved Porous Friction Courses (IPFC) on Asphalt Airfield sic Investigation of Bleeding in Open-Graded Asphalt-Rubber Sur- Pavements. Final Report. Airfield Asphalt Pavement Technology face Mixes. TRB 1999 Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), TRB, National Program, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, June 2007. Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999. 70. Ketcham, S. A., L. D. Minsk, R. B. Blackburn, and E. J. Fleege. Man- 60. Wagner, C. and Y. S. Kim. Construction of a Safe Pavement Edge: ual of Practice for an Effective Anti-Icing Program. A Guide for Minimizing the Effects of Shoulder Dropoff. TRB 2005 Annual Meet- Highway Winter Maintenance Personnel. FHWA-RD-95-202. U.S. ing (CD-ROM). TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2005. June 1996. 61. Sholar, Gregory A., Gale C. Page, James A. Musselman, Patrick B. 71. Bennert, T. and L. A. Cooley, Jr. Comparison of Friction Proper- Upshaw and Howard L. Moseley. Development of the Florida ties of Friction-Course Pavement Systems During Winter Storm Department of Transportation's Percent Within Limits Hot-Mix Events. International Journal of Pavements, Volume 5, Number 1, Asphalt Specification. TRB 2005 Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), January 2006, pp. 112. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. 2005. 72. Van Doorn, Roland. Winter Maintenance in the Netherlands. 62. Performance Characteristics of Open-Graded Friction Courses. Ministry of Transportation, Public Works and Water Management. Massachusetts Highway Department, Pavement Management Compiled from COST344 Snow and Ice Control on European Roads Section. Boston, Mass. February 15, 2001. and Bridges Task Group 3, Best Practices, March 2002. 63. Corrigan, Sean., K. Wayne Lee, and Stephen A. Cardi. Implementa- 73. Giuliani, F. Winter Maintenance of Porous Asphalt Pavements. tion and Evaluation of Traffic Marking Recesses for Application of XIth International Winter Road Conference, World Road Associa- Thermoplastic Pavement Markings on Modified Open Graded Fric- tion (PIARC), Sapporo, Japan, 2002. tion Course. TRB 2001 Annual Meeting (CD-ROM), TRB, National 74. Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Perfor- Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001. mance Project. Strategic Highway Program. SHRPP-338. TRB, 64. Hiershe, E. U. and H. J. Freund. Technology and In-Situ Trail of National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993. Noise Absorbing Pavement Structure. Proc. 7th International Con- 75. Flintsch, Gerardo W., Edgar de León, Kevin K. McGhee, and Imad ference on Asphalt Pavements, University of Nothinghan, United L. Al-Qadi. Pavement Surface Macrotexture Measurement and Kingdom, August 1992. Application. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans- 65. Abe, T. and Y. Kishi. Development of Low-Noise Pavement portation Research Board, No. 1860, Transportation Research Board Function Recovery Machine. Proceedings of the Ninth Inter- of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 168177. national Conference on Asphalt Pavements, Copenhagen, Denmark, 76. Hardiman, C. The Improvement of Water Drainage Function and August 2002. Abrasion Loss of Conventional Porous Asphalt. Proceedings of the 66. Rogge, D. Development of Maintenance Practices for Oregon Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Volume 5, 2005, F-Mix. Oregon Department of Transportation, FHWA-OR-RD- pp. 671678. 02-09, Corvallis, Oregon, 2002. 77. Poulikakos, L. D., S. Takahashi, and M. N. Partl. A Comparison 67. Wimsatt, Andrew J. and Tom Scullion. Selecting Rehabilitation of Swiss and Japanese Porous Asphalt through Various Mechan- Strategies for Flexible Pavements in Texas. TRB 2003 Annual Meet- ical Tests. 3rd Swiss Transport Research Conference, Monte Verita/ ing (CD-ROM), TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Ascona, March 1921, 2003. 2003. 78. Tan, S. A., T. F. Fwa, and C. T. Han. Clogging Evaluation of Perme- 68. Pucher, E., J. Litzka, J. Haberl, and J. Girard. Silvia Project Report: able Base. Journal of Transportation Engineering. American Society Report on Recycling of Porous Asphalt in Comparison with Dense of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, Volume 129, Issue 3, May 2003, Asphalt. SILVIA-036-01-WP3-260204. Sustainable Road Sur- pp. 309315.
OCR for page R98
88 APPENDIX A Questionnaire on PFC, Conventional OGFC, and Similar Materials Questionnaire on PFC, Conventional B. Asphalt Binder OGFC, and Similar Materials 1. What grade of asphalt binder do you specify? PART 1: General Use and Structural Design 2. Are there other tests that you specify for asphalt binders other than those required in grading a sample? What is your A. General Use reason for specifying other tests (e.g., ensure a certain poly- 1. Do you currently use OGFC? mer, ensure polymer is added, etc.)? If your answer is No, please continue the survey and provide your input wherever you deem important. C. Stabilizing Additives 2. Based on the above descriptions of PFC and ACFC, which 1. Do you specify stabilizing additives (for example: fibers, term best describes your OGFC mix? If other, please explain. polymers, crumb rubber, etc.) to reduce the potential for 3. What is your approximate volume of use per year? draindown? 4. On what type of roadways do you use OGFC? 2. If the answer to the above question is Yes, what type of 5. What are the factors involved in selection of OGFC for stabilizing additive do you require? a roadway? 3. If you specify fibers, what type and percentage do you 6. Are there limitations on where OGFC is used (for example: require? elevation, temperature, speed, geometry, etc.)? 4. Do you specify certain polymer modifiers in asphalt binders? 7. Are there any other comments on general use of OGFC? If so, do you specify a certain type (for example: SBR, SBS, SB, EVA, etc.)? B. Structural Design 5. Do you specify crumb rubber in asphalt binders? If so, 1. Do you assign any structural value to the OGFC layer? what type and what manufacturing process do you specify? 2. If answer to the above question is Yes, how do you estimate structural value? If other, please explain: D. Mix Design 3. Do you specify a single lift thickness for all OGFC layers? 1. Do you use laboratory compaction during mix design? 4. If the answer to the above question is No, what factors are 2. If yes, what compaction method (e.g., Marshall, Super- involved in selecting lift thickness (for example: maximum pave gyratory compactor, etc.) and compactive effort (e.g., aggregate size, rainfall intensity, pavement classification, 50 blows per face, 50 gyrations, etc.) do you use? traffic level, etc.)? 3. Do you include draindown testing within the mix design procedure? If yes, what method do you specify (e.g., PART 2: Mix Design draindown basket, Schellenberger, etc.) and what are the requirements? Mix Design 4. Do you include permeability testing within the mix design procedure? If yes, what method do you specify and what A. Aggregates are the requirements? 1. Can you provide your current gradation requirements for 5. Do you specify other laboratory performance tests during OGFC? mix design (e.g., Cantabro Abrasion loss, Voids in Coarse 2. Please rank from 1 to 7 the following aggregate character- Aggregate, permanent deformation testing, moisture istics for use in OGFC in order of their importance, 1 being susceptibility test, permeability, etc.) and what are the the most important. requirements?
OCR for page R99
89 6. If you specify the tensile strength ratio test for moisture D. Quality Control/Quality Assurance susceptibility, how many freeze-thaw cycles do you utilize to condition the samples? 1. What tests do you require for Quality Control/Quality 7. Please provide any other comments on materials and mix Assurance of OGFC? design for OGFC? E. General Construction Issues PART 3: Construction 1. What materials do you utilize for OGFC pavement A. Production markings? 2. Do you construct rumble strips at the OGFC pavement 1. How do you specify OGFC? edge? 2. What type of plants are used to produce OGFC? 3. Do you require a longer mixing time for OGFC mixes than 3. Have you experienced any distress related to pavement for dense-graded mixes? markings and rumble strips? If Yes, please explain. 4. Do you have a maximum and/or minimum temperature requirement for mixing? PART 4: Maintenance and Rehabilitation 5. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 6. Do you have a limit on silo storage time? A. General Maintenance (Non-Winter Related) 7. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 1. What are your most common general maintenance issues for OGFC? B. Transportation 2. Do you have any regularly scheduled maintenance activi- 1. Do you limit haul distances? ties specifically for OGFC? 2. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 3. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 3. Do you require insulated trucks? 4. Do you employ maintenance activities to unclog OGFC 4. Do you specify tarping of trucks? pavements? 5. Do you require heated trucks? 5. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 6. Do you specify a minimum temperature when the truck 6. Do you use any field test to identify when general mainte- reaches the paving site? nance activities are required? 7. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 7. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 8. Do you allow the use of release agents? 8. Do you patch OGFC? 9. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 9. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify the type of material you use (e.g., dense-graded HMA, OGFC, etc.). C. Laydown/Compaction 1. Do you require a Material Transfer Vehicle? B. Winter Maintenance 2. Do you require a tack coat on the underlying layer? 1. Do you use any type of weather prediction system for 3. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify type and winter maintenance activities? rate, with units. 2. What weather conditions (for example: air temperature, 4. Do you require a calibrated distributor truck to apply the snow, rain, etc.) trigger winter maintenance? tack coat? 3. What type(s) of snow and ice control chemicals do you use? 5. Do you require any other techniques to ensure an imper- meable underlying layer besides using tack coat (for exam- 4. Do you employ anti-icing methodologies? ple: seal coat, paving fabric, SAMI, etc.)? 5. What are the typical spread rates for snow and ice control 6. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. chemicals for your dense graded mixes? 7. Do you have a minimum specified air and/or surface 6. What are the typical spread rates for snow and ice control temperature for placing OGFC? chemicals for your OGFC mixes? 8. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 9. How do you specify compaction of OGFC layer? C. Rehabilitation 10. Do you specify a certain type of roller? 11. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 1. What typical problems trigger rehabilitation activities? 12. Do you allow tacking of the vertical face of longitudinal 2. For the problems listed above, what are the typical rehabil- joints? itation activities (for example: mill and replace)?
OCR for page R100
90 3. Are you aware of any known or perceived problem with 3. Please rank the following performance characteristics any of the above maintenance/rehabilitation techniques from 1 to 7 in terms of their importance, 1 being the most of OGFC? important. 4. If answer to above question is Yes, please specify. 4. What tests/equipment have you used to measure perfor- mance quality characteristics (laboratory or field)? 5. Has your agency conducted life cycle cost analysis for PART 5: Performance OGFC? 1. What is the estimated average service life of OGFC? 2. What are common distresses in OGFC and which one is the most common?
OCR for page R101
Guidelines on the Use of Permeable Friction Courses
OCR for page R102
CONTENTS G-1 Introduction G-2 Objective G-2 Report Organization G-3 Standard Practice for Materials, Design and Construction of Permeable Friction Courses G-20 Standard Method of Test for Determining the Abrasion Loss of Permeable Friction Course (PFC) Asphalt Specimens by the Cantabro Procedure G-26 Standard Practice for Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Permeable Friction Courses (PFC)