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 14
15 TABLE 6 JOB MIX FORMULA DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITY SUMMARY Number of Responses U.S. Canada Entity That Develops the Job Mix Formula (of 28) (of 8) Agency in-house design section 2 1 Agency in-house maintenance group 2 0 Agency in-house materials lab section 1 1 Microsurfacing contractor under the construction contract 21 6 Independent lab for the microsurfacing contractor under the construction contract 1 0 Do not know 1 0 Finally, when asked to rate how they perceived the per- PROJECT PLANNING AND ROAD SELECTION formance of their microsurfacing program (Table 8), the majority of the agencies rated their microsurfacing per- The mantra of the pavement preservation movement in the formance as "Good" or "Excellent" and none rated it as United States is "the right treatment, on the right road, at the one of the unsatisfactory ratings ("Poor" or "Very Poor"). right time" (Galehouse et al. 2003). As such, project selec- Taking the results of Tables 6, 7, and 8 leads to the fol- tion becomes the key to a successful microsurfacing program. lowing effective practice: Moulthrop (2007) emphasizes Wood and Geib's (2001) find- ing when he states: "Failures are generally a result of poor proj- Microsurfacing design can be successfully assigned to ect selection--there is a need to educate users on the proper use the microsurfacing contractor with the agency reviewing of slurry and microsurfacing." Table 9 is a summary of the and/or approving the final job mix formula. project selection criteria found in the literature. Its format came from the most detailed source (Caltrans 2009). As noted in However, applying the perfectly designed job mix to a road chapter one, it shows the cited project selection criteria for both that will not benefit from microsurfacing is a formula for treatments in those sources where both were given. failure. Therefore, "project selection play[s] a key factor in overall success of microsurfacing" (Wood and Geib Analysis of Table 9 shows that microsurfacing is the 2001). appropriate option in most of the categories where its utility TABLE 7 MICROSURFACING WARRANTY SUMMARY Microsurfacing Agency Warranty Length Warranty Criteria Louisiana 1 year Standard construction warranty for surface defects New Hampshire 1 year Surface defects New York 1 year Raveling, flushing, delamination, snowplow damage Oklahoma 1 year Standard construction warranty for surface defects Alberta 1 year Raveling British Columbia 1 year Standard construction warranty for surface defects Quebec 1 year Standard construction warranty for surface defects Saskatchewan 1 year Standard construction warranty for surface defects Nevada 2 years Standard construction warranty for surface defects Texas 2 years Raveling, flushing Manitoba 2 years Raveling, friction New Brunswick 2 years Standard construction warranty for surface defects Nova Scotia 2 years Standard construction warranty for surface defects Ontario 2 years Raveling, flushing Indiana 3 years Raveling, friction, rutting TABLE 8 MICROSURFACING PERFORMANCE RATINGS Performance Rating Excellent Good Fair Poor Very Poor U.S. 1 20 4 0 0 Canada 1 7 0 0 0 Total 2 27 4 0 0
OCR for page 14
16 TABLE 9 PROJECT PLANNING AND SELECTION CRITERIA SUMMARY G =Good; F = Fair; P = Poor; N = Not Pavement Condition Parameters Desired Benefits Minimize User Delay Costs M = Microsurfacing (general); Maintenance Early Opening to Traffic MII = Microsurfacing (Type II); Surface Condition Rutting Cracking Traffic Volumes Type issues Multiple Lifts Needed Expected service life MIII = Microsurfacing (Type III); S = Slurry Seal Night-time Work Stopping Points ADT = 3K to 5K Snow plow use Cool Temps Longitudinal Transverse Oxidation ADT >5K Source Reference Type Raveling Bleeding ADT<3K Alligator Friction Urban < 1/2" Rural >1/2" MII - F G N G N N N N G G G F G F G G G G F G 3 TO 4 Caltrans Hicks et al 2000 MIII - G G N G G P N N G G G F G F G G N N F F 3 TO 4 Ohio DOT Hicks et al 2000 M G G G - G G N N N G G - - - - - - - - - - 3 TO 8 Oregon DOT Hunt 1991 S - G G - N N P N N - - - - - - - - - - - - - Asphalt Inst AI 1983 S - G - - - - F P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - M G G - G G G N N N G G G - - G - - - - Iowa DOT Jahren et al 1999 S F G - G G G N N N G P N - - F - - - - Wisconsin DOT Shober 1997 M G G G G G G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 TO 6 New York State M - F - - G G P P P G G G - - - - - - - - - - NYSDOT 1999 DOT S - P - - P P P P P G N N - - - - - - - - - - M G G G - F F P F F - - - - - - - - - - - - - USACE ASTM 1998 S G F F - - - P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - - Asphalt M G G G G G G F G G G G G - - G G G G G - G - Mouthrop et al 1999 Contractor S G G N G F N N P F G G G - - G G N N N - N - MII - G G G G G N N N G G G G G - - - - - G - 7 TO 10 FHWA FHWA 2007 MIII - G G G G G N N N N G G G G - - - - - G - 7 TO 10 M - - - - G G - - - G G G G - - G G G G G G - FLHD FLHD 2009 S - - - - N N - - - G N N - - - N G N N - - - M G - - - G G P P P G G G - - - F G G G - G - Austroads Austroads 2003 S F - - - F N N N N F N N - - - G N - - - - - Indiana DOT Labi et al 2007 M - G G G G G F F F G G F - - - G F - 5 TO 6 Texas DOT Smith and Beatty 1999 M G - G F G G F F F G G G - G - G G G G - - 7 TO 10 M G - G G G G F F F G G G G G - G G G G G G 5 TO 7 Caltrans Olsen 2008 S G - F F - - P P P G G G N - - G - N N N P 5 TO 7 Iowa DOT Jahren & Behling 2004 M G F G G G G F P P - - - - - P - - - - - - - AI = Asphalt Institute.