The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 33-75

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 33... ... A final list of feasible treatments is then generated and these treatments are analyzed for cost-effectiveness and other considerations to arrive at the preferred treatment. Preliminary Analysis of Treatment Feasibility: Consideration of Existing Pavement Conditions Applying preservation treatments at the correct time is often cited as a key to cost-effectively extending pavement serviceability. Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... since original construction or the last major rehabilitation (e.g., crack seal at Year 5, apply a chip seal between Years 7 and 10) Read the entire page →
From page 35... ... Treatment (years) Crack filling 9 Crack sealing 10 Crack sealing 10 Joint resealing 10 Sand seals 9 Diamond grinding 8 Chip seals 8 Partial-depth spall repair 10 Microsurfacing (single course) Read the entire page →
From page 36... ... Ohio DOT Condition Criteria for PM Treatments Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) Rangea Flexible Composite PM Treatment Pavements Pavements Crack sealing 75 to 95 75 to 95 Chip seal 75 to 90 75 to 90 Microsurfacing 75 to 90 75 to 90 (single course) Read the entire page →
From page 37... ... hot-mix overlay 13 Reconstruction: 3-course OL w/repairs Ride Quality (IRI, in./mi) D Defer treatment Pavement Surface Rating Based on Frequency and Severity Descriptions Severity Frequency None Slight Minor Moderate Moderateto Severe Severe Very Severe Travel Is Impaired Impassable No distress is present. Read the entire page →
From page 38... ... Consequently, more significant treatments, like chip seals and thin overlays, become more suitable for use. • Further distress development (and possibly the initial onset of some load-related distresses) Read the entire page →
From page 39... ... 70 to 85 Diamond grinding 70 to 90 Microsurfacing, single 70 to 85 Diamond grooving 70 to 90 Microsurfacing, double 70 to 85 Partial-depth concrete patching 65 to 85 Chip seal, single Conventional 70 to 85 Full-depth concrete patching 65 to 85 Polymer modified 70 to 85 Chip seal, double Conventional 70 to 85 Dowel bar retrofitting 65 to 85 Polymer modified 70 to 85 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 65 to 85 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 70 to 90 Ultra-thin HMAOL 65 to 85 Thin HMA overlay 70 to 90 Thin HMAOL 60 to 80 Cold milling and thin HMAOL 60 to 75 Hot in-place recycling Surf recycle and HMAOL 70 to 85 Remixing and HMAOL 60 to 75 Repaving 60 to 75 Cold in-place recycling and HMAOL 60 to 75 Profile milling 80 to 90 Ultra-thin whitetopping 60 to 80 Note: HMAOL = Hot-mix asphalt overlay. Read the entire page →
From page 40... ... Example Decision Support Matrix for Identifying Flexible Pavement PM Strategies Seal Coat Slurry Seal Microsurfacing 1. Traffic ADT < 2000 R R R 2000 > ADT < 5000 Ma Ma R ADT > 5000 NR NR R 2. Read the entire page →
From page 41... ... Example decision support tree for identifying flexible pavement preservation and rehabilitation strategies. Distresses Subgrade Causes/Factors Material deficiencies (design/construction related) Read the entire page →
From page 42... ... Decision Support Matrixes for PCC-Surfaced Pavements The FHWA's Concrete Pavement Preservation Workshop Reference Manual (Smith et al. Read the entire page →
From page 43... ... Treatmentsa Thin Slurry Crack Rout and Rout and Chip Seal: Chip Seal: Pavement Conditions Parameters Overlay Seal Seal Sealb Fillb Finec Coarsec Microsurface Fog Traffic ADT/laned <1000 E E E E E E E E E 1000 < ADT < 4000 E E E E E E-Q E-Q E E-Q >4000 E E E E E E-N-Q E-N-Q E E-Q Rutse <3⁄8 in. Read the entire page →
From page 44... ... 44 45 Table 3.6. FHWA/FP2 Guidelines for Pavement Treatment Selection Treatments Ultra- Full-Depth evitcefleRnoitamalceR nihT kcarC ralunarG toH dloCdelcyceRdednoB-hgiH.doM .dtS feileR esaB nihT ecalP-nI ecalP-nI tlahpsAgniraeWyrrulSecnamrofreP pihCpihCdnaSkcarC goF tnemevaP yalretnInoitazilibatSyalrevOgnilcyceRgnilcyceRtnemevaPesruoCgnicafrusorciMlaeSlaeS pihClaeSlaeSlaeSlaeSlaeSsretemaraPsnoitidnoC er * Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... . It is also used to refer to the service life of a pavement, as defined by the time until the pavement needs a major or structural rehabilitation (which can be determined in a variety of ways using time-series condition data or historical pavement construction and rehabilitation event data) Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... As can be seen, there are significant increases in treatment performance (4 to 5 years) for chip seals, slurry seals, microsurfacing, and thin HMA overlays when they are placed on pavements in good condition rather than on those in fair condition. Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... 17,000 2.15 2.15 2.15 NA NA Slurry seals Type II (See note a AN06.2–09.104.2–57.102.2–06.1000,32PGGGNNGGGFGGGNNNGF) +0.30 AN06.2–09.104.2–57.102.2–06.1000,42PGGGNNGGGFGGGNFNGGIII epyT +0.30 AN08.1–02.108.1–02.108.1–02.1PGGGNNGGGFGGGNFNGGSAER +0.30 Microsurfacing FGNGGII epyT PGGGNGGGGGGGG 31,000 2.00–2.80 2.10–2.90 2.25–3.00 +0.10–0.20 NA NGGIII epyT PGGGNGGGGGGGGGG 31,000 2.00–2.80 2.10–2.90 2.25–3.00 +0.10–0.20 NA Chip seals AN05.3–00.357.2–52.200.2–08.1000,72PGPPNNNGGFFGGNFNGG enfi .deM :EMP +0.50–1.00 (see note d) Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... PPGNFGNNNNPNNFNnoislumE PPPFGPNPNNPNPGN) rebbur( defiidoM Seal coats Fog seal (see note a PPFNNFNNFNNGNPG) Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... Of the treatments, chip seals are most appropriate at addressing alligator cracking. b If stable rutting is present without other distresses, microsurfacing or mill and overlay is the recommended treatment. Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... NR R* F F Joint reflection and transverse R R F F R* Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... – = Not suitable for distress severity level. NA = Particular distress is not considered in the logical decision. Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... – = Not suitable for distress severity level. NA = Particular distress is not considered in the logical decision. Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... 63/158 76/190 89/222 PSR 3.8/3.0 3.6/2.5 3.4/2.0 California profilograph (in./mi) 12/60 15/80 18/100 Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavement (Joint Space < 20 ft) Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... Had the same threshold PCR level been used for both systems, overlay life on the priority system would still have been at least 2 years shorter than the life on the general system. Additional analysis of the data was performed to determine the life extension of thin overlays. Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... LSa MSa HSa Map cracking/scaling (AAR) MS HS Joint seal damage d Joint spalling LSa MS MSa HS HSa Blowups LS MS HS Pumping b Joint faulting b c Bumps, settlements, heaves MS HS Polishing Source: Modified from Smith et al. Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... Map cracking/scaling (AAR) Joint seal damage Joint spalling Blowups Pumping Joint faulting Bumps, settlements, heaves Polishing Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... 60 Table 3.15. Highway Agency Treatment Usage on HMA-Surfaced Roadways According to Pavement Condition Pavement Distress Surface Distressa Treatment Raveling Oxidation Bleeding Smoothness Friction Noise Light Moderate Heavy Crack filling NA NA NA Limited NA Limited Extensive Moderate Limited Crack sealing NA NA NA Limited NA Limited Extensive Moderate Limited Slurry seal Extensive Extensive Limited Limited Limited None Moderate Limited None Microsurfacing Moderate Moderate Limited Moderate Moderate Limited Extensive Moderate Limited Chip seals Moderate Extensive Limited Limited Moderate None Extensive Extensive Limited Ultra-thin bonded wearing course Moderate Moderate Limited Moderate Extensive Limited Extensive Moderate Limited Thin HMA overlay Extensive Moderate Moderate Extensive Moderate Limited Extensive Extensive Limited Cold milling and overlay Extensive Moderate Moderate Extensive Moderate Limited Extensive Extensive Moderate Ultra-thin HMA overlay Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Limited Extensive Moderate Limited Hot in-place HMA recycling Moderate Moderate Limited Moderate Moderate Limited Extensive Moderate Moderate Cold in-place recycling Limited Limited Limited Moderate Limited Limited Moderate Extensive Extensive Profile milling None None Limited Extensive Moderate Limited Moderate Limited None Ultra-thin whitetopping Limited Limited Limited Moderate Limited Limited Moderate Moderate Limited Note: Extensive = Used by ≥66% of respondents; Moderate = 33% to 66% usage; Limited = <33% usage. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... of the expected performance range (5 to 12 years) of the thin overlay treatment. Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... 70–85 5–8 ● ● Microsurfacing: Single 70–85 5–8 ● ● ● Microsurfacing: Double 70–85 5–8 ● ● ● ● ● ● Chip seal: Single Conventional 70–85 5–8 ● ● ● ● ● ● Polymer modified 70–85 5–8 ● ● ● ● Chip seal: Double Conventional 70–85 5–8 ● ● ● ● Polymer modified 70–85 5–8 ● ●● ●● ●● ● Ultra-thin bonded 65–85 5–10 ● ● wearing course Ultra-thin HMAOL 65–85 5–10 ● ● Thin HMAOL 60–80 6–12 ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● Cold milling and 60–75 7–12 ● ● ● ● ● thin HMAOL Hot in-place recycling Surf recycle/HMAOL 70–85 5–8 ● ● ● ● ● Remixing/HMAOL 60–75 7–12 ● ● ● ● ● Repaving 60–75 7–12 ● ● ● ● ● Cold in-place recycling 60–75 7–12 ● ● ● ● ● and HMAOL Profile milling 80–90 3–6 Ultra-thin whitetopping 60–80 6–12 ● Note: ● = Highly Recommended; = Generally Recommended; = Provisionally Recommended; = Not Recommended. a Porous surface mix problem. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... 63 Distress Types and Severity Levels Deformation Distress Wear/ Stable Corrug/ Bumps/ Ride Preservation Ruttingb Shovec Sags Patches Quality Friction Noise Treatment L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H -- -- -- Crack fill Crack seal Slurry seal (Type III) Microsurfacing: Single ● Microsurfacing: Double ● ● ● Chip seal: Single Conventional ● Polymer modified ● Chip seal: Double Conventional ● ● Polymer modified ● ● Ultra-thin bonded ● wearing course Ultra-thin HMAOL ● ● Thin HMAOL ● ● ● ●● ● ● ● Cold milling and ● ● ● ●● ● thin HMAOL Hot in-place recycling Surf recycle/HMAOL ● Remixing/HMAOL ●● ●● ● ● Repaving ●● ●● ● ● Cold in-place recycling ●● ●● ● ● and HMAOL Profile milling ● e e Ultra-thin whitetopping Surface Characteristics Issues Table 3.17 (continued) Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... Surface Distress PCI/ Age Preservation Treatment PCR (yr) -- -- L/M/H -- -- Concrete joint resealing 75–90 5–10 Concrete crack sealing 70–90 5–12 Diamond grinding 70–90 5–12 ● Diamond grooving 70–90 5–12 Partial-depth concrete patching 65–85 6–15 Full-depth concrete patching 65–85 6–15 ●b Dowel bar retrofitting 65–85 6–15 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 70–90 5–12 ● Thin HMA overlay 70–90 5–12 ● Note: ● = Highly Recommended; = Generally Recommended; = Provisionally Recommended; = Not Recommended. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... 65 Joint Seal Joint Long/ Ride Damage Spall Corner Trans Faulting Patches Quality Friction Noise Preservation Treatment L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H -- -- -- Concrete joint resealing ● Concrete crack sealing ● ● Diamond grinding a ● ● ● ● Diamond grooving ● Partial-depth concrete patching ●● Full-depth concrete patching ●● c ● Dowel bar retrofitting ●d Ultra-thin bonded wearing course ● ● ● Thin HMA overlay ● ● ● ● Surface Characteristics Joint Distress Cracking Distress Deformation Distress Issues Distress Types and Severity Levels Table 3.18 (continued) Read the entire page →
From page 63... ... (yr) Concrete joint resealing 2 to 8 5 to 6 Concrete crack sealing 4 to 7 NA Diamond grinding 8 to 15 NA Diamond grooving 10 to 15 NA Partial-depth concrete patching 5 to 15 NA Full-depth concrete patching 5 to 15 NA Dowel bar retrofit 10 to 15 NA Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 6 to 10 NA Thin HMA overlay 6 to 10 NA Sources: Peshkin et al. Read the entire page →
From page 64... ... Performance of PM Treatments in Ohio PCR Range at Existing Primary Applications Time of Pavement with Respect to PM Treatment Treatment Type Highway Classa 80 75 70 65 Chip seals 70 to 80 Flexible General 6.0 9.0 12.0 80 to 90 Flexible General 6.5 9.0 12.0 All All All 6.25 9.0 12.0 Single-course microsurfacing 70 to 80 Flexible General and urban 3.75 5.75 7.5 9.5 80 to 90 Flexible General and urban 5.0 7.0 8.5 10.5 70 to 80 Composite Urban and priority 2.25 4.0 6.25 8.5 80 to 90 Composite Urban and priority All All All 3.75 5.5 7.25 9.25 Double-course microsurfacing 70 to 80 Flexible Priority and urban 3.75 5.25 7.0 9.0 80 to 90 Flexible Priority and urban 70 to 80 Composite Priority and urban 80 to 90 Composite Priority and urban 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.0 All All All 5.0 6.5 8.25 10.0 Ultra-thin bonded wearing courseb 70 to 80 All Priority 6.0 8.0 10.0 11.5 80 to 90 All Priority 6.0 8.0 10.25 12.0 All All All 6.0 8.0 10.0 11.5 PMAC overlaysc 70 to 80 Flexible Priority and urban 6.5 8.25 10.25 12.0 80 to 90 Flexible Priority and urban 7.0 8.25 10.25 12.0 70 to 80 Composite Priority and urban 6.0 8.25 10.75 12.0 80 to 90 Composite Priority and urban All All All 6.5 8.25 10.25 12.0 Thin HMA overlays (without repairs) 70 to 80 Flexible General, urban, and priority 8.5 11.0 14.0 80 to 90 Flexible General, urban, and priority 10.25 12.0 15.0 70 to 80 Composite Priority and urban 7.0 9.25 12.0 80 to 90 Composite Priority and urban 10.0 12.0 15.0 All All All 8.5 11.0 14.0 Thin HMA overlays (with repairs) Read the entire page →
From page 65... ... Flexible 8 to 9 4 to 6 2 to 4 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course Flexible ≤9 ≤7 ≤5 Thin HMA overlay Flexible 10 to 11 5 to 9 3 to 5 Mill and thin HMA overlay Flexible 10 to 11 5 to 10 3 to 5 Crack sealing Rigid ≤6 ≤3 ≤2 Joint resealing Rigid 4 to 6 3 to 5 2 to 3 Diamond grinding Rigid 6 3 2 to 3 Partial-depth spall repair Rigid 4 to 6 2 to 3 ≤3 Dowel bar retrofitting Rigid 4 to 6 2 to 3 ≤3 Full-depth concrete repair Rigid 6 to 11 3 to 10 ≤5 Source: Galehouse 2004. Note: AADTT = average annual daily truck traffic; tpd = trucks per day. Read the entire page →
From page 66... ... (yr) Crack filling 1.5 to 3 NA Crack sealing 2.0 to 5.5 2 to 5 Slurry seal 2.0 to 3.5 4 to 5 Microsurfacing Single course 2.0 to 4.0 3 to 5 Double course 3.0 to 5.0 4 to 6 Chip seal Single course 2.0 to 5.0 5 to 6 Double course 3.5 to 7.0 8 to 10 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 5.0 to 8.5 NA Thin HMA overlay Dense graded 3.5 to 8.5 NA Open graded (OGFC) Read the entire page →
From page 67... ... (yr) Concrete joint resealing 1.5 to 5.5 5 to 6 Concrete crack sealing 3.5 to 4.0 NA Diamond grinding 5.5 to 7.0 NA Diamond grooving 7.0+ NA Partial-depth concrete patching 3.5 to 10.5 NA Full-depth concrete patching 3.5 to 10.5 NA Dowel bar retrofitting 7.0 to 10.5 NA Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 4.0 to 6.5 NA Thin HMA overlay 4.0 to 6.5 NA Source: Adapted from Jackson and Puccinelli 2006. Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... Recommended Time Periods for Constructing Pavement Preservation Treatments in Colorado Asphalt Pavement Treatments Application Timinga Concrete Pavement Treatments Application Timinga Crack filling Early fall Crack sealing Early fall Crack sealing Sand seals Elev ≥ 10,000 ft: 7/4 to 8/1 Joint resealing -- Chip seals 8,000 ≤ Elev < 10,000 ft: 6/15 to 8/15 Diamond grinding Microsurfacing 6,000 ≤ Elev < 8,000 ft: 6/1 to 9/1 Partial-depth repair 4,000 ≤ Elev < 6,000 ft: 5/15 to 9/1 Dowel bar retrofitting Elev < 4,000 ft: 5/1 to 9/1 Full-depth repair Ultra-thin bonded wearing course -- Thin HMAOL Mill and thin HMAOL Source: Galehouse 2004. Notes: HMAOL = Hot-mix asphalt overlay; 1 ft = 0.305 m. Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... . They are quantified by computing the area under the pavement performance curve, which is defined by 72 Approach A: Life extension based on pretreatment condition levels Approach B: Life extension based on specified condition threshold levels Condition Threshold Pavement Condition Time, years Preservation Treatment Figure 3.11. Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... The costs associated with a particular preservation strategy are evaluated using life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) techniques. Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... Estimated and Relative Treatment Costs for Preservation Treatments on HMA-Surfaced Pavements Treatment Relative Cost ($ to $$$$) Estimated Unit Cost Crack filling $ $0.10 to $1.20/ft Crack sealing $ $0.75 to $1.50/ft Slurry seal $$ $0.75 to $1.00/yd2 Microsurfacing (single course) Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... Estimated and Relative Treatment Costs for Preservation Treatments on PCC-Surfaced Pavements Treatment Relative Cost ($ to $$$$) Estimated Unit Cost Joint resealing Crack sealing Diamond grinding Diamond grooving Partial-depth patching Full-depth patching Dowel bar retrofit Ultra-thin bonded wearing course Thin HMA overlay Note: $ = low cost; $$ = moderate cost; $$$ = high cost; $$$$ = very high cost. Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... This is illustrated in Figure 3.13. • In the BCR method, the user costs of all future preservation and rehabilitation treatments associated with each preservation strategy can be computed as part of the LCCA. Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... Such elimination criteria might include the following: • Substantially lower cost-effectiveness compared with other treatment alternatives (e.g., EAC greater than 10% higher than the EACs of the alternatives, B/C ratios greater than 10% less than the ratios of the alternatives) ; • Initial cost greater than available funding, resulting in negative impact on network-level budgeting; and • Excessive user costs that would have serious negative impact on roadway users. Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... ; initial cost: 1 = highest, 5=lowest; cost-effectiveness: 1 = least cost effective, 5 = most cost-effective; agency cost: 1 = highest, 5 = lowest; user cost: 1 = highest, 5 = lowest; availability of qualified contractors: 1 = low/none, 5 = high; availability of quality materials: 1 = low/none, 5 = high; conservation of materials/energy: 1 = low, 5 = high; weather limitations: 1 = major, 5 = low/none; traffic disruption: 1 = major, 5 = low/none; safety issues: 1 = serious, 5 = none; ride quality and noise issues: 1 = serious, 5 = none; continuity of adjacent pavements: 1 = does not match at either end, 5 = matches at both ends; continuity of adjacent lanes: 1 = does not match, 5 = matches; local preference: 1 = inconsistent with preference, 5 = consistent with preference. Read the entire page →

From page 33...

... A final list of feasible treatments is then generated and these treatments are analyzed for cost-effectiveness and other considerations to arrive at the preferred treatment. Preliminary Analysis of Treatment Feasibility: Consideration of Existing Pavement Conditions Applying preservation treatments at the correct time is often cited as a key to cost-effectively extending pavement serviceability.