Click for next page ( 122


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 121
A P P E N D I X C Summary of Preservation Questionnaire Responses SHRP 2 Project R26 Questionnaire Start Date: 8/20/2008 End Date: 12/31/2008 Total Respondents Completed: 57 Partial Completions: 1 1.0 Pavement Preservation Experience/Background As shown below, respondents had a wide range of experience in pavement preservation. Not all respondents noted their years of experience. Range in Years of Experience Number of Respondents <5 7 6 to 10 7 11 to 15 3 16 to 20 4 >20 7 2.0 Questions Question 1 Please provide details of the typical average daily traffic (ADT) values associated with the traffic classifications of low, medium, and high traffic volume for rural and urban roadways in your agency. These classifications will be used as the basis for further questions in the questionnaire. Rural, Low Volume is less than or equal to Rural, Medium Volume range is (e.g., . . . to . . .) Rural, High Volume is greater than or equal to Urban, Low Volume is less than or equal to Urban, Medium Volume range is (e.g., . . . to . . .) Urban, High Volume is greater than or equal to Table C.1 presents the 58 agency responses regarding high-traffic-volume classification for rural and urban roadways. 126

OCR for page 121
127 Table C.1. Categorical Summary of Agency Designations for High-Volume Rural and Urban Roadways High-Traffic-Volume Categorizations Low ADT ( High ADT (- -20,000 vpd) Louisiana DOT (7,000) Alaska DOT (10,000) Connecticut DOT (30,000) Michigan DOT (3,400 est.) Hawaii DOT (10,000) Rhode Island DOT (30,000) Missouri DOT (1,000) Maine DOT (10,000) South Carolina DOT (20,000) Montana DOT (6,000) Minnesota DOT (10,000) British Columbia (100,000) New York DOT (4,000/lane) New Hampshire (10,000) Pennsylvania DOT (2,000) Oklahoma DOT (10,000) South Dakota DOT (1,500) Ontario (10,000) Washington DOT (5,000) Alberta (5,000) FHWA-CFLHD (4,000) For agencies that make a distinction between rural and urban traffic volume categorizations: Georgia DOT (5,000 rural/8,000 urban) Wyoming DOT (10,000 rural/15,000 urban) Virginia DOT (20,000 rural/40,000 urban) Iowa DOT (3,500 rural) Iowa DOT (11,500 urban) Florida DOT (10,000 rural) Florida DOT (40,000 urban) Kansas DOT (3,000 rural) Kansas DOT (20,000 urban) Kentucky DOT (5,000 rural) Kentucky DOT (10,000 urban) Mississippi DOT, Newton (3,0007,000 rural) Mississippi DOT, Newton (20,000 urban) Mississippi DOT, Batesville (2,000 rural) Mississippi DOT, Batesville (10,000 urban) Mississippi DOT, Tupelo (3,0007,000 rural) Mississippi DOT, Tupelo (20,000 urban) Nevada DOT (10,000 rural) Nevada DOT (100,000 urban) New Mexico DOT (5,000 rural) New Mexico DOT (15,000 urban) North Carolina DOT (5,000 rural) North Carolina DOT (10,000 urban) Tennessee DOT (5,000 rural) Tennessee DOT (10,000 urban) Texas DOT (1,000 rural) Texas DOT (10,000 urban) Manitoba (4,000 rural) Manitoba (10,000 urban) Quebec (8,000 rural) Quebec (20,000 urban) Organizations: NAPA (10,000); NACE (15,000 rural/60,000 urban). Other: Colorado DOT categorizes by ESALs. Caltrans categorizes by traffic index, TI: TI 18 rural and TI 15 urban, where TI = 9.0 (ESAL 106)0.119. Utah DOT (Region 4) categorizes by Interstate or non-Interstate (25,000 ADT and 2,500 ADT, respectively). City of Phoenix, Ariz., categorizes by 20,000 ADT rural, 50,000 ADT urban. Question 2 There are a variety of factors that influence the selection of a preventive maintenance treatment. Please rank the following 18 factors in terms of the level of importance that your agency places on each factor when selecting the most appropriate preventive maintenance treatment. Table C.2 presents the 58 agency responses and includes summary statistics associated with the answers.

OCR for page 121
128 Table C.2. Summary of Factors Influencing Agency Selection of Preventive Maintenance Treatment Not Important Low Priority Medium Priority High Priority Number of Factor % Response % Response % Response % Response Respondents Agency experience with treatment 2 5 40 53 58 Material availability 2 7 48 43 58 Previous treatment failure 0 7 41 52 58 Alternate route availability 26 40 28 7 58 Safety concerns 0 3 21 76 58 Perception 2 36 50 12 58 Noise 19 39 40 2 57 Work zone 2 22 59 17 58 Treatment cost 0 0 26 74 58 Traffic volume 0 7 40 53 57 Experienced contractor availability 5 14 60 21 58 Bias against treatment 12 32 45 11 56 Traffic control requirements 2 24 55 19 58 Closure time 2 17 57 24 58 Liability concerns 4 21 42 33 57 Durability/expected treatment life 0 2 35 63 57 Production rates 9 29 52 10 58 Time before trafficking 3 21 55 21 58 Risk associated with treatment failure 2 5 57 36 58 Climate 7 28 44 21 57 Question 3 Using the traffic classifications you defined in question 1, which of the following treatments does your agency apply in a preven- tive manner (i.e., to pavements in good condition) on RURAL roadways? Check all boxes that apply or mark "not used" if this treatment is not used by your agency. Tables C.3 and C.4 present the 58 agency responses and include summary statistics associated with the answers. Indi- vidual agency comments associated with this question are also included.

OCR for page 121
129 Table C.3. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used on HMA RURAL Roadways Distinguished by Traffic Volume Classifications Defined in Question 1 Treatments for Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Low Traffic Medium Traffic High Traffic Not Used Number of Surfaced Pavements % Response % Response % Response % Response Respondents Crack fill 74 74 74 19 58 Crack seal 83 88 86 9 58 Cape seal 9 14 9 79 58 Fog seal 45 26 14 48 58 Scrub seal 14 16 2 83 58 Slurry seal 35 25 11 54 57 Rejuvenators 16 18 11 77 57 Single-course microsurfacing 42 60 54 26 57 Multiple-course microsurfacing 31 51 44 42 55 Single-course chip seal 88 62 24 12 58 Multiple-course chip seal 55 43 11 39 56 Chip seals with polymer-modified asphalt binder 64 57 31 22 58 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., NovaChip) 16 33 48 48 58 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 64 71 66 16 58 Cold milling and HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 55 67 64 22 58 Ultra-thin HMA overlay (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) 24 22 22 66 58 Hot in-place HMA recycling (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) 22 21 19 67 58 Cold-in-place recycling (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) 41 38 29 45 58 Profile milling (diamond grinding) 17 28 41 57 58 Ultra-thin whitetopping 10 17 16 72 58 Drainage preservation 50 50 59 43 56 Other (see below) 46 38 31 54 13 Other Treatments (Table C.3): Our minimum HMA depth is 1.5 in., which we would use on any traffic volume. We have experimented with 4.75 mm "sand" mixes less than this, but not typically used. Rubber chip seals. 1.5 in. HMA mill and fill. Spot strip sealing. HMA thin overlay <60 mm. Agency Comments (Table C.3): Crack treatments not a systematic process. Some districts perform work via maintenance personnel. Diamond grind- ing seldom used. Have recently applied OGFC (3/4 in.) to a few projects. Whitetopping seldom used due to high cost. Not considered preventive maintenance but rather major rehab. All state chip seal receive fog seal.

OCR for page 121
130 Table C.4. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used on PCC RURAL Roadways Distinguished by Traffic Volume Classifications Defined in Question 1 Treatments for Portland Cement Low Traffic Medium Traffic High Traffic Not Used Number of Concrete (PCC) Pavements % Response % Response % Response % Response Respondents Concrete joint resealing 39 55 73 25 56 Concrete crack sealing 42 56 71 24 55 Diamond grinding 27 48 77 25 56 Diamond grooving 5 12 34 66 56 Partial-depth concrete pavement patching 36 51 69 29 55 Full-depth concrete pavement patching 38 62 84 16 56 Dowel bar retrofit (load-transfer restoration) 14 32 59 39 56 Thin PCC overlays 5 9 16 80 55 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 11 18 27 71 56 (e.g., HMA < 25 mm [1 in.]) Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 15 31 31 58 55 Drainage preservation 28 39 54 44 54 Other: (see below) 0 0 8 92 12 Other Treatments (Table C.4): HMA from 40 to 60 mm. Agency Comments (Table C.4): We only have 154 lane miles of PCC pavements [. . .], mostly in [. . .] metropolitan area[s]. No concrete roads [. . .]. Crack treatments not a systematic process. Some districts perform work via maintenance personnel. Diamond grinding seldom used. Have recently applied OGFC (3/4 in.) to a few projects. Whitetopping seldom used due to high cost. Not considered preventive maintenance but rather major rehab. Question 4 Using the traffic classifications you defined in question 1, which of the following treatments does your agency apply in a preven- tive manner (i.e., to pavements in good condition) on URBAN roadways? Check all boxes that apply or mark "not used" if this treatment is not used by your agency. Tables C.5 and C.6 present the 58 agency responses and include summary statistics associated with the answers. Indi- vidual agency comments associated with this question are also included.

OCR for page 121
131 Table C.5. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used on HMA URBAN Roadways Distinguished by Traffic Volume Classifications Defined in Question 1 Treatments for Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Low Traffic Medium Traffic High Traffic Not Used Number of Surfaced Pavements % Response % Response % Response % Response Respondents Crack fill 71 71 75 18 56 Crack seal 84 88 88 7 56 Cape seal 9 11 5 84 57 Fog seal 28 19 11 65 57 Scrub seal 14 9 2 84 57 Slurry seal 25 25 16 58 57 Rejuvenators 14 16 12 80 56 Single-course microsurfacing 53 58 46 28 57 Multiple-course microsurfacing 36 47 42 44 55 Single-course chip seal 69 38 13 31 55 Multiple-course chip seal 43 30 4 57 54 Chip seals with polymer-modified asphalt binder 60 37 18 37 57 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., NovaChip) 18 40 47 49 57 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 67 64 55 25 55 Cold milling and HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 68 70 66 20 56 Ultra-thin HMA overlay (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) 30 27 27 59 56 Hot in-place HMA recycling (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) 25 19 14 70 57 Cold-in-place recycling (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) 30 26 16 63 57 Profile milling (diamond grinding) 15 26 39 61 54 Ultra-thin whitetopping 14 26 18 65 57 Drainage preservation 48 46 52 46 54 Other (see below) 33 11 11 67 9 Other Treatments (Table C.5): Our minimum HMA depth is 1.5 in., which we would use on any traffic volume. We have experimented with 4.75 mm "sand" mixes less than this, but not typically used. Rubber chip seals. 1.5 in. HMA mill and fill. Spot strip sealing. Agency Comments (Table C.5): Crack treatments not a systematic process. Some districts perform work via maintenance personnel. Diamond grinding seldom used. Have recently applied OGFC (3/4 in.) to a few projects. Whitetopping seldom used due to high cost. Not considered preventive maintenance but rather major rehab.

OCR for page 121
132 Table C.6. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used on PCC URBAN Roadways Distinguished by Traffic Volume Classifications Defined in Question 1 Treatments for Portland Cement Low Traffic Medium Traffic High Traffic Not Used Number of Concrete (PCC) Pavements % Response % Response % Response % Response Respondents Concrete joint resealing 45 64 78 20 55 Concrete crack sealing 47 62 73 22 55 Diamond grinding 29 51 75 25 55 Diamond grooving 8 12 31 69 52 Partial-depth concrete pavement patching 38 53 62 35 55 Full-depth concrete pavement patching 44 64 82 18 55 Dowel bar retrofit (load-transfer restoration) 18 31 55 42 55 Thin PCC overlays 4 9 11 85 55 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 11 18 21 71 56 (e.g., HMA < 25 mm [1 in.]) Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 17 28 26 63 54 Drainage preservation 31 38 48 50 52 Other (see below) 0 0 0 100 12 Agency Comments (Table C.6): Crack treatments not a systematic process. Some districts perform work via maintenance personnel. Diamond grinding seldom used. Have recently applied OGFC (3/4 in.) to a few projects. Whitetopping seldom used due to high cost. Not considered preventive maintenance but rather major rehab. Don't have urban PCC pavements. Question 5 Do you use a different set of treatments on RURAL high-traffic-volume roads than on RURAL low-traffic-volume roads? If "Yes," please check those treatments that you don't consider applicable for RURAL high-traffic-volume roadways. Based on 56 total responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 62% No: 38% The 56 respondents who answered "Yes" to question 5 were asked to answer the multiple parts of question 5. These detailed results are provided below in Tables C.7 and C.8. Additional agency comments are also included.

OCR for page 121
133 Table C.7. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Considered Not Applicable for HMA RURAL Roadways Not Applicable Treatments for Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)Surfaced Pavements % Checked Crack fill 6 Crack seal 6 Cape seal 70 Fog seal 51 Scrub seal 54 Slurry seal 51 Rejuvenators 34 Single-course microsurfacing 20 Multiple-course microsurfacing 20 Single-course chip seal 83 Multiple-course chip seal 80 Chip seals with polymer-modified asphalt binder 71 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., NovaChip) 26 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 26 Cold milling and HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 9 Ultra-thin HMA overlay (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) 40 Hot in-place HMA recycling (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) 46 Cold-in-place recycling (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) 49 Profile milling (diamond grinding) 37 Ultra-thin whitetopping 57 Drainage preservation 9 Other (see below) 3 Agency Comments (Table C.7): Marked treatments we currently use and don't consider applicable.

OCR for page 121
134 Table C.8. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Considered Not Applicable for PCC RURAL Roadways Not Applicable Treatments for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements % Checked Concrete joint resealing 8 Concrete crack sealing 8 Diamond grinding 4 Diamond grooving 33 Partial-depth concrete pavement patching 17 Full-depth concrete pavement patching 8 Dowel bar retrofit (load-transfer restoration) 21 Thin PCC overlays 62 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., HMA < 25 mm [1 in.]) 75 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 62 Drainage preservation 8 Other (see below) 4 Agency Comments (Table C.8): We do not use concrete on these roads. Question 6 Do you use a different set of treatments on URBAN high-traffic-volume roads than on URBAN low-traffic-volume roads? If "Yes," please check those treatments that you don't consider applicable for URBAN high-traffic-volume roadways. Based on 57 total responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 54% No: 46% The 57 respondents who answered "Yes" to question 6 were asked to answer the multiple parts of question 6. These detailed results are provided in Tables C.9 and C.10.

OCR for page 121
135 Table C.9. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Considered Not Applicable for HMA URBAN Roadways Not Applicable Treatments for Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA)Surfaced Pavements % Checked Crack fill 9 Crack seal 6 Cape seal 50 Fog seal 69 Scrub seal 72 Slurry seal 62 Rejuvenators 50 Single-course microsurfacing 28 Multiple-course microsurfacing 22 Single-course chip seal 91 Multiple-course chip seal 88 Chip seals with polymer-modified asphalt binder 84 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., NovaChip) 31 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 28 Cold milling and HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 12 Ultra-thin HMA overlay (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) 38 Hot in-place HMA recycling (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) 53 Cold-in-place recycling (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) 59 Profile milling (diamond grinding) 28 Ultra-thin whitetopping 44 Drainage preservation 9 Other (no comments) 0 Table C.10. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Considered Not Applicable for PCC URBAN Roadways Not Applicable Treatments for Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) Pavements % Checked Concrete joint resealing 5 Concrete crack sealing 5 Diamond grinding 5 Diamond grooving 23 Partial-depth concrete pavement patching 14 Full-depth concrete pavement patching 5 Dowel bar retrofit (load-transfer restoration) 23 Thin PCC overlays 55 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., HMA < 25 mm [1 in.]) 73 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 55 Drainage preservation 14 Other (no comments) 5

OCR for page 121
136 Question 7 Please indicate whether you are more or less likely to use each treatment on high-traffic-volume roads that have HIGH TRUCK traffic volumes as compared to those with little truck traffic. If you do not use the treatment, then indicate that it is a treatment that is not used by your agency. Tables C.11 and C.12 present the 57 agency responses and include summary statistics associated with the answers. Indi- vidual agency comments associated with this question are also included. Table C.11. Summary of Comparative Use of Preventive Maintenance Treatment for High-Traffic-Volume HMA Roads with High Truck Traffic Compared with Those with Low Truck Traffic Treatments for Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) More Likely No Difference Less Likely Not Used Number of Surfaced Pavements % Response % Response % Response % Response Respondents Crack fill 2 80 0 18 56 Crack seal 2 91 0 7 56 Cape seal 0 16 5 79 57 Fog seal 0 28 11 61 57 Scrub seal 0 16 5 79 57 Slurry seal 0 19 21 60 57 Rejuvenators 0 19 5 75 57 Single-course microsurfacing 7 50 16 27 56 Multiple-course microsurfacing 14 45 5 36 56 Single-course chip seal 0 38 32 30 56 Multiple-course chip seal 4 27 23 46 56 Chip seals with polymer-modified asphalt binder 19 30 16 35 57 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., NovaChip) 14 35 5 46 57 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 9 58 14 19 57 Cold milling and HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 21 20 12 16 56 Ultra-thin HMA overlay (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) 4 30 11 56 57 Hot in-place HMA recycling (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) 4 30 4 63 57 Cold-in-place recycling (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) 4 33 18 46 57 Profile milling (diamond grinding) 9 38 0 53 55 Ultra-thin whitetopping 14 20 11 55 56 Drainage preservation 6 59 0 35 54 Other (see below) 0 31 8 62 13 Agency Comments (Table C.11): Rubberized surface treatment. 1.5 in. HMA mill and fill. Fog seal on all chip seals.

OCR for page 121
163 Table C.21. Summary of Contracting Mechanisms Used to Ensure Quality for a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for High-Traffic-Volume HMA Roads Contracting Mechanisms Used HMA-Surfaced Pavement Treatments for Performance Contract Number of High-Traffic-Volume Roadways QC/QA Specifications Warranties Maintenance Respondents Crack fill 50 41 9 44 34 Crack seal 51 41 13 46 39 Cape seal 70 30 20 50 10 Fog seal 47 20 0 53 15 Scrub seal 55 18 0 55 11 Slurry seal 74 32 11 47 19 Rejuvenators 54 38 0 46 13 Single-course microsurfacing 57 38 27 38 37 Multiple-course microsurfacing 67 26 26 33 27 Single-course chip seal 67 42 21 45 33 Multiple-course chip seal 64 43 18 39 28 Chip seals with polymer-modified asphalt binder 60 40 13 40 30 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., NovaChip) 67 39 12 30 33 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 84 44 23 37 43 Cold milling and HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 82 51 26 31 39 Ultra-thin HMA overlay (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) 76 43 19 33 21 Hot in-place HMA recycling (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) 72 40 12 36 25 Cold-in-place recycling (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) 82 36 14 36 28 Profile milling (diamond grinding) 55 59 0 27 22 Ultra-thin whitetopping 67 33 6 28 18 Drainage preservation 73 23 5 41 22 Other (see below) 100 0 0 0 3 Agency Comments (Table C.21): Rubberized chip seal. 1.5 in. HMA mill and fill. Ultra-thin whitetopping (major rehabilitation).

OCR for page 121
164 Table C.22. Summary of Contracting Mechanisms Used to Ensure Quality for a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for High-Traffic-Volume PCC Roads Contracting Mechanisms Used Performance Contract Number of PCC Pavement Treatments for High-Traffic-Volume Roadways QC/QA Specifications Warranties Maintenance Respondents Concrete joint resealing 56 31 6 39 36 Concrete crack sealing 56 31 6 42 36 Diamond grinding 59 38 6 35 34 Diamond grooving 55 40 5 30 20 Partial-depth concrete pavement patching 59 22 6 44 32 Full-depth concrete pavement patching 58 29 8 39 38 Dowel bar retrofit (load-transfer restoration) 58 32 6 35 31 Thin PCC overlays 56 38 0 38 16 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course (e.g., HMA < 25 mm [1 in.]) 72 33 6 33 18 Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 75 35 5 40 20 Drainage preservation 75 20 5 45 20 Other (see below) 100 0 0 50 2 Agency Comments (Table C.22): All concrete maintenance is performed by city crews. Dowel bar retrofit (have standard specification--seldom used). Thin PCC overlay (major rehabilitation). Question 18 Does your agency have in place quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA) procedures for preventive maintenance applications? If "Yes," would you describe these QC/QA procedures as informal or formal? Based on 57 total responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 51% No: 49% If the agency responded "Yes," a follow-up question asks the respondent to, if possible, provide a copy of the procedures (by fax, e-mail, or URL link). Yes: If put out to bid; No: If done with state forces. http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/SpecificationsEstimates/Implemented/CurrentBK/Default.aspx?PageAddr=lt;a%20hrefeq;qt. Maintenance applications are covered the same as pavement used for rehabilitation. www.virginiadot.org/business/const/spec-default.asp. http://mdotwas1.mdot.state.mi.us/public/dessssp/. But only during placement. Normal construction/material specifications. Contractor needs ISO 9001 quality plan. Internal QC. 2006 LA Standard Specifications for Roads and Bridges; Materials Sampling Manual; Materials Testing Procedure Manual. www.dotd.la.gov/highways/project_devel/contractspecs/2006_STAND_SPECS.zip. https://www.raqsa.mto.gov.on.ca/techpubs/ops.nsf/OPSHomepage. www.ksdot.org.

OCR for page 121
165 Question 18 (continued) As indicated by a "No" response to question 18, you do not currently have QC/QA procedures for preventive maintenance treat- ments in place. Do you have plans for implementing them? Based on 24 responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 17% No: 83% Individual statements included: Several years ago, we had a QA procedure for several maintenance activities. These have since been discontinued. Our maintenance forces complete most of the preventative maintenance items that have been discussed. Contractor to have a quality management program in place. We enforce QC/QA by using the Greenbook and our in-house materials laboratory. As indicated by a "No" response to question 18, you indicated that your agency does not use warranty specifications on any of your preventive maintenance treatments. Do you have any plans/interest in the use of warranties? Based on 23 responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 26% No: 74% Individual comments included: 18 doesn't say anything about warranties. We require warranties for microsurface and UBWC. I am interested in looking at warranties on all four treatments that we allow, but no time frame as to when that would happen. HMA overlays. Question 19 If you indicated that your agency has implemented performance-related specifications for preventive-maintenance treatments, briefly describe your experience with these specifications. We get a better product from contractors with specs in force. Mostly good experience. Our current standard specifications were our first attempt at performance specifications. It is not entirely performance based. The next version will work toward more performance specs. So far the majority of work done by performance specification has been good. We have a performance specification for chip seal, including conventional, polymer modified, fiberized, and rub- berized chip seals. The contracts include warranty provisions. The contracting community proposed them and they have been very cooperative in addressing the problems on a small percentage of completed projects. Materials field testing of PG graded asphalt products as well as QA testing of the HMA. Ride specification (IRI). Very good experience. Good. If we have a problem such as not meeting density requirements, contractor is penalized or removed and replaced. We have warranties on the majority of CPM projects, generally 2 years for surface seals and 3 years for HMA overlays. Generally, we obtain good result, but sometimes, it is difficult to choose the right specification. We do have performance-related specifications for pavements in our total maintenance contracts. We have revised them through the years based on experience and I believe that they are working well. Good. They define proper materials and processes but need to be revisited to address issues that arise. These are specifications are more with performance, ride quality, etc. Our construction side of the house provides the inspection with these items.

OCR for page 121
166 Warranties on chip seals. Volumetric Mix Design, Hamburg Rut Testing. Chip seal and micro must meet 1-year review by agency. We have 1- or 2-year warranties in place for many pavement preservation treatments. We are also trialing 3- and 7-year warranties for some pavement preservation treatments. Our performance-related specifications are only with hot-mix asphalt applications. These specifications were not devel- oped specifically for preventive maintenance treatments but rather for overlays--both structural and thin PM overlays. We use the Superpave system with performance-graded binders, statistical acceptance for several key parameters, and incorporate pay factors. We also control the roughness using IRI and pay factors. We have been using these specifica- tions for over 10 years with good success. The nationally certified Materials Lab for the City of Phoenix has a representative at a supply plant when a project is ongoing. The Materials Lab tests each sample to ensure that the mixes are within design specifications. Mostly ride specs on multiple layer projects like a 2 in. SR and NovaChip for HMA or ride spec on diamond grinding and concrete inlay. Generally the specifications represent procedures that have been proven to be successful over time. Materials and meth- ods have to meet these specs or be replaced by the contractor or supplier. To my knowledge we only have performance related specs for microsurfacing. I am not familiar with spec. Standard specifications have been developed (and continue to be developed) for major treatments such as thin-lift AC overlays and full granular aggregate seal coats. They are reasonably successful in producing quality products. Inspect and test to insure specs are met. Performance related requirements that we have are pretty simple and simply require the product to perform to a cer- tain level for 1 or 2 years. For example, for sealcoat, if there is a lack of aggregate coverage, the contractor is required to come back and correct the deficiency. Overall we get good performance but when not there can be disputes as to whether it is a workmanship issue or whether our snowplows were too rough on the seal (for example). Some HMA mill and overlay and overlay projects have smoothness specifications and joint density specifications. Most of our preventive maintenance treatments do not have performance related specifications. An exception to this is with diamond grind projects. Each project is tested for rideability prior to grinding, a simulation is performed to deter- mine the expected IRI after grinding, and thresholds are set accordingly. They have made the contractor pay attention to details. Question 20 If you indicated that you do not have performance-related specifications, what are your plans for implementing them? None at present. Uncertain. Possibly in the future for seal coat, fog seal, and rejuvenators. We have written performance based specs for crack sealing/crack filling, but they have not been used to date. I would like to review other states' warranties and see if it is something we can implement. We have no plans to implement performance-based specifications at present. No plans at this time. It is our desire to develop performance-related specifications as we gain more knowledge of the performance indicators and parameters. At this time, we will most continue to use QA/QC specifications. None. See previous question for my answer pertaining to QA/QC. Don't know. No current plans for implementation. Following national trends for future consideration. None at this time. Our specifications engineer is recommending moving to performance related specifications in the next major revision of our specification book. FLH has a study under way looking at the feasibility of using performance-related specifications for polymer-modified asphalt emulsions for chip seals, slurry seals, and microsurfacing.

OCR for page 121
167 As new methods to measure performance that are not subjective become available MN/DOT will evaluate them and implement them. Question 21 For RURAL high-traffic-volume roadways, which treatments do you use to address the following pavement performance issues. Please check all that apply. Tables C.23 and C.24 present the agency responses and include summary statistics associated with the answers. Indi- vidual agency comments associated with this question are also included.

OCR for page 121
Table C.23. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used to Address RURAL HMA Pavement Performance Issues 168 Percent Responses HMA-Surfaced Pavement Treatments Light Moderate Heavy for RURAL High-Traffic-Volume Smoothness/ Surface Surface Surface Number of Roadways Raveling Oxidation Bleeding Ride Quality Friction Noise Distress Distress Distress Responses Crack fill 0 0 0 10 0 0 74 61 19 31 Crack seal 3 3 3 5 3 0 84 65 19 37 Cape seal 100 100 33 33 33 0 100 100 0 3 Fog seal 67 83 0 0 0 0 22 6 0 18 Scrub seal 67 67 0 0 0 0 67 33 0 3 Slurry seal 65 82 0 24 24 0 59 18 0 17 Rejuvenators 38 75 12 0 0 0 12 12 0 8 Single-course microsurfacing 57 71 29 31 57 11 77 37 6 35 Multiple-course microsurfacing 53 70 30 37 53 13 67 70 17 30 Single-course chip seal 42 70 24 9 52 0 79 42 3 33 Multiple-course chip seal 45 59 18 14 45 0 59 68 9 22 Chip seals with polymer-modified 42 65 15 8 58 0 77 50 8 26 asphalt binder Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 50 71 29 46 83 25 88 50 8 24 (e.g., NovaChip) Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 66 59 41 76 44 29 85 71 20 41 Cold milling and HMA overlay 68 55 43 82 39 20 73 80 41 44 (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) Ultra-thin HMA overlay 53 63 37 63 58 21 84 47 11 19 (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) Hot in-place HMA recycling 50 38 25 62 38 12 62 62 38 16 (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) Cold-in-place recycling 24 29 19 43 19 10 43 71 67 21 (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) Profile milling (diamond grinding) 0 0 6 94 62 6 38 19 0 16 Ultra-thin whitetopping 20 13 13 60 20 7 40 60 60 15 Drainage preservation 0 0 0 17 0 0 33 83 83 6 Other (see below) 50 0 100 50 50 0 0 50 50 2 Other Treatments (Table C.23): 1.5 in. HMA mill and fill. Crack fill and crack seal. Prevent water intrusion; ultra-thin whitetopping (major rehabilitation). Shot blast or water blast.

OCR for page 121
Table C.24. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used to Address RURAL PCC Pavement Performance Issues Percent Responses PCC-Surfaced Pavement Treatments Light Moderate Heavy for RURAL High-Traffic-Volume Smoothness/ Surface Surface Surface No. of Roadways Raveling Oxidation Bleeding Ride Quality Friction Noise Distress Distress Distress Responses Concrete joint resealing 5 0 0 27 0 14 91 36 9 22 Concrete crack sealing 0 0 0 14 0 11 96 46 4 28 Diamond grinding 3 0 0 82 58 37 24 32 5 38 Diamond grooving 0 0 0 56 94 25 12 12 6 16 Partial-depth concrete pavement patching 3 0 0 35 0 6 53 79 38 34 Full-depth concrete pavement patching 0 0 0 34 2 5 22 73 80 41 Dowel bar retrofit (load-transfer restoration) 0 0 0 55 3 6 24 42 36 33 Thin PCC overlays 0 0 0 45 18 9 36 64 64 11 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 8 0 0 69 54 15 23 23 0 13 (e.g., HMA < 25 mm [1 in.]) Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 5 5 5 58 37 26 37 42 11 19 Drainage preservation 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 75 100 4 Other (see below) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Treatments (Table C.24): Crack fill, crack seal, and drainage preservation. Prevent water intrusion; thin PCC overlays (major rehabilitation). 169

OCR for page 121
170 Question 22 For URBAN high-traffic-volume roadways, which treatments do you use to address the following pavement performance issues. Please check all that apply. Tables C.25 and C.26 present the agency responses and include summary statistics associated with the answers. Indi- vidual agency comments associated with this question are also included. Question 23 Does your agency consider user costs in the treatment selection process for preventive maintenance applications? (Check the one answer that is most representative.) Based on 56 responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 21% No: 79% Question 23 (continued) If "Yes," are user costs quantified numerically in your treatment selection process? Based on 13 responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 38% No: 62% If "No," does your agency have plans to begin considering [or incorporating] user costs in the treatment selection process? Based on 52 responses, the following percentages of "Yes" and "No" were observed: Yes: 23% No: 77% Individual comments included: Not specifically, but we are starting to use FHWA's RealCost software, which can incorporate user costs. We have attending classes detailing the processes. To evaluate cost-effectiveness of treatments. Actually, our plans are to indirectly incorporate user costs through the development and implementation of more com- prehensive performance requirements. It is currently included, whether it be formally or informally. We will not spend limited funds on low-volume roads. We track ADT and spend the funds we have on the routes that tend to get the most traffic. We are considering the development of life-cycle costs, including user costs, for preservation projects in order to pro- mote the use of alternate bidding. We already do. Asset management has been developed and implemented. Used in the consideration of lane closure times. I have heard that we are looking into it but have no direct knowledge.

OCR for page 121
Table C.25. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used to Address URBAN HMA Pavement Performance Issues Percent Responses HMA-Surfaced Pavement Treatments Light Moderate Heavy for URBAN High-Traffic-Volume Smoothness/ Surface Surface Surface Number of Roadways Raveling Oxidation Bleeding Ride Quality Friction Noise Distress Distress Distress Responses Crack fill 0 0 0 6 0 3 81 56 12 32 Crack seal 0 0 0 8 0 5 86 62 16 37 Cape seal 100 100 0 0 0 0 67 67 0 3 Fog seal 56 81 0 0 0 0 19 6 0 16 Scrub seal 60 60 0 0 0 0 60 20 0 5 Slurry seal 67 87 7 7 20 0 80 20 0 15 Rejuvenators 33 83 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 6 Single-course microsurfacing 67 60 27 33 50 7 83 40 0 30 Multiple-course microsurfacing 69 65 35 46 50 8 73 73 15 26 Single-course chip seal 33 53 0 0 67 0 80 47 0 15 Multiple-course chip seal 38 54 0 0 46 0 62 69 15 13 Chip seals with polymer-modified 47 60 7 7 53 0 93 67 13 15 asphalt binder Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 50 64 36 55 73 32 86 41 9 22 (e.g., NovaChip) Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 65 57 45 72 40 25 90 65 20 40 Cold milling and HMA overlay 74 53 50 76 37 24 76 79 42 38 (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) Ultra-thin HMA overlay 62 69 44 62 62 31 94 38 12 16 (<20 mm [<0.75 in.]) Hot in-place HMA recycling 50 42 33 50 42 17 67 50 50 12 (<50 mm [<1.95 in.]) Cold-in-place recycling 20 13 20 40 20 13 47 93 60 15 (<100 mm [<4.0 in.]) Profile milling (diamond grinding) 0 0 6 94 59 12 18 24 0 17 Ultra-thin whitetopping 21 14 14 50 21 14 36 64 43 14 Drainage preservation 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 75 75 4 O ther (see below) 50 0 100 50 0 0 0 50 50 2 Other Treatments (Table C.25): Crack fill and crack seal. Prevent water intrusion; ultra-thin whitetopping (major rehabilitation). 171 Shot blast or water blast.

OCR for page 121
172 Table C.26. Summary of Preventive Maintenance Treatments Used to Address URBAN PCC Pavement Performance Issues Percent Responses PCC-Surfaced Pavement Treatments Light Moderate Heavy for URBAN High-Traffic-Volume Smoothness/ Surface Surface Surface Number of Roadways Raveling Oxidation Bleeding Ride Quality Friction Noise Distress Distress Distress Responses Concrete joint resealing 4 0 0 29 0 17 88 46 4 24 Concrete crack sealing 0 0 0 20 0 12 88 52 8 25 Diamond grinding 3 0 0 84 65 41 19 24 5 37 Diamond grooving 0 0 0 56 75 31 19 25 6 16 Partial-depth concrete pavement patching 6 0 0 42 0 3 55 79 36 33 Full-depth concrete pavement patching 2 0 0 42 2 5 35 75 72 40 Dowel bar retrofit (load-transfer restoration) 0 0 0 69 3 7 31 55 41 29 Thin PCC overlays 0 0 0 64 9 0 45 55 36 11 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 7 0 0 64 57 36 64 50 14 14 (e.g., HMA < 25 mm [1 in.]) Thin HMA overlay (<40 mm [<1.5 in.]) 0 0 0 72 44 33 61 72 11 18 Drainage preservation 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 75 75 4 Other (see below) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Treatments (Table C.26): Concrete joint resealing, concrete crack sealing, and drainage preservation--prevent water intrusion; thin PCC overlays (major rehabilitation).

OCR for page 121
173 Question 24 There are a number of reasons why agencies may not be performing pavement preservation on high-traffic-volume roadways. Please prioritize the additional guidance that you feel is needed for the successful implementation of preservation strategies on high- traffic-volume roadways. Table C.27 presents the agency responses and includes summary statistics associated with the answers. Table C.27. Summary of Additional Guidance Needed for the Successful Implementation of Pavement Preservation Strategies on High-Traffic-Volume Roadways No Guidance Some Guidance Significant Guidance Needed Needed Needed Number of % % % Respondents Other agency experience with treatment 17 61 22 54 Experienced contractor availability list 34 45 21 53 Availability of suitable materials 38 45 17 53 Typical traffic control requirements 57 40 4 53 Typical closure time information 52 42 6 52 Durability/expected treatment life 11 33 56 54 Typical noise associated with treatment 45 47 8 53 Treatment production rates 34 38 8 53 Time needed before trafficking 31 48 21 52 Typical treatment costs by region 19 57 25 53 Applicable traffic volumes 24 35 41 54 Appropriate climatic regions for treatments 25 36 40 53