National Academies Press: OpenBook

Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices (2020)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - State of the Practice

« Previous: Chapter 2 - Literature Review
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25870.
×
Page 40

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

23 Introduction A survey was developed to determine agency practices regarding pavement warranty activi- ties. The survey was provided to all U.S. and Puerto Rico departments of highway agencies, as well as all Canadian provincial and territorial transportation agencies. Agencies were asked sev- eral questions related to pavement warranties, including past and present use, intended imple- mentation objectives, reasons for not implementing, project selection criteria, and benefits and challenges. The intended recipients of the survey questionnaire were pavement or construction engineers (or a comparable position) responsible for agency specification development and implementa- tion of the U.S. highway agencies, Puerto Rico, and Canadian provincial and territorial govern- ments. The detailed survey questionnaire is provided in Appendix A, and agency responses are summarized in Appendix B. As of March 2019, 50 agencies (78%) responded to the survey, including 44 U.S. and Puerto Rico highway agencies (86%), and 6 Canadian provincial and territorial agencies (46%). The following provides a summary of the survey results. Use of Pavement Warranties As shown in Figure 2, of the 50 responding agencies, 32 indicated pavement warranties were used in the past (a specified time period was not included as part of the survey) (Figure 2a). Of the 50 agencies, only 19 indicated they currently use pavement warranties (Figure 2b). Seventeen agencies indicated never using warranties in the past nor today (No/No response), 14 agencies indicated using pavement warranties in the past but are not using them today (Yes/No), 18 agencies indicated using warranties in the past as well as today (Yes/Yes), and only one agency indicated using pavement warranties today when they were not used in the past (No/Yes) (Figure 2c). Of the agencies who no longer use pavement warranties or who have not considered using pavement warranties, the most common reasons (multiple responses allowed) were the need for consistent monitoring (12 agencies), pavement warranties are not cost-effective (10 agencies), impacts to contractor bonding capacity (nine agencies), and to a lesser extent, pilot or demo project (six agencies), larger number of disputes, insufficient competition, and expected perfor- mance not achieved (five agencies each), and costly claims and determined to be too high risk (three agencies each) (Figure 3). C H A P T E R 3 State of the Practice

24 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Pavement Warranty Objectives The most common objectives for pavement warranty implementation included increased pavement quality (25 agencies), shifting the risk to the contractor (20 agencies), reduced agency inspection staff (11 agencies), and reduced project costs (five agencies) (Figure 4). Of the responding agencies, 20 indicated multiple objectives, including: • Increase quality and shift risk to contractor (nine agencies). • Increase quality and shift risk to contractor, and reduce agency inspection staff (four agencies). • Shift risk to contractor and reduce agency inspection staff (two agencies). • Increase quality and shift risk to contractor, reduce agency inspection staff, and reduce project costs (one agency). • Increase quality and shift risk to contractor, and reduce project costs (one agency). a. Previously used warranties. b. Currently use warranties. c. Past/present use. Number of responding agencies: 50 32 18 Yes No 17 114 18 No/No No/Yes Yes/No Yes/Yes 19 31 Yes No Figure 2. Agency use of pavement warranties. Number of responding agencies: 24 3 3 5 5 5 6 9 10 12 0 3 6 9 12 15 Determined to be too high risk Costly claims Did not achieve expected performance Insufficient competition Large number of disputes Pilot or demo project only Impacts to contractor bonding capacity Not cost-effective Need for consistent monitoring NO. OF AGENCIES Figure 3. Reasons agencies have not used or no longer use pavement warranties.

State of the Practice 25 • Increase quality, reduce agency inspection staff, and reduce project costs (one agency). • Shift risk to contractor, reduce agency inspection staff, and reduce project costs (one agency). • Reduce agency inspection staff and reduce project costs (one agency). Pavement Warranty Implementation As illustrated in Figure 5, three agencies indicate using pavement warranties for 5 years or less, three agencies have been using pavement warranties for 6 to 10 years, and most agencies (12) have been using warranties for 10 or more years. Of the 18 agencies, half have conducted more than 50 pavement warranty projects, seven agencies have conducted less than 10 projects, and one agency each have conducted 10 to 30 and 31 to 50 pavement warranty projects (Figure 6). In addition, eight agencies indicated pavement warranties are legislatively mandated (Table 17). Project Selection Not all paving projects require pavement warranties; therefore, agencies were asked to identify characteristics used for pavement warranty project selection. As shown in Figure 7, the most common criteria identified were all new and reconstruction projects (six agencies), followed by pavement type (five agencies), and existing pavement condition, project com- plexity, and project site conditions (four agencies each). Three agencies indicated warranties criteria includes all pavement rehabilitation projects or are dependent on traffic volumes. Two agencies each indicated project selection criteria includes funding source, project length, and all asphalt pavement preventative maintenance projects. One agency indicated warranties are only used on P3 projects, and another indicated use only on design-build projects. No agency indicated project selection was based on project cost. As expected, agencies use one or more criteria for project selection. Table 18 further sum- marizes response received from 14 of the responding agencies in relation to project selection criteria. Establishing Pavement Condition Criteria As described in Chapter 2, pavement warranty specifications include requirements for speci- fied level of pavement condition (e.g., cracking, IRI) during and at the end of the warranty Figure 4. Common objectives for using pavement warranties. Number of responding agencies: 32 25 20 11 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Increase quality Shift project risk to contractor Reduce agency inspection staff Reduce project costs N O . O F AG EN CI ES

26 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Number of responding agencies: 50 Note: Years of experience based on agencies who indicated current use of pavement warranties. Figure 5. Years of experience with pavement warranties.

State of the Practice 27 Number of responding agencies: 50 Note: Number of warranty projects based on agencies who indicated current use of pavement warranties. Figure 6. Number of warranty projects.

28 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Agency Project Type Mandated Alberta Transportation All P3 projects Yes California DOT All preventative maintenance projects Yes Florida DOT All new and reconstruction and all asphalt pavement rehabilitation projects Yes Idaho TD(a) Asphalt pavements and overlays of pavements in good condition No Louisiana DOTD All new and reconstruction projects Yes Maine DOT Asphalt pavements only, all new and reconstructed, rehabilitation, and preventative maintenance projects Yes Michigan DOT All new and reconstruction, asphalt rehabilitation (Superpave E-10 mix or higher), and all asphalt preventive maintenance projects Yes Nebraska DOT Settlement agreements for noncompliant pavement only No New Brunswick T&I(b) All new and reconstruction (based on complexity) projects Yes New Jersey DOT In the process of implementing pavement warranties No New York State DOT Varies by project site conditions and pavement type No North Dakota DOT Not specified No Ohio DOT District request on new and reconstruction and some preventative maintenance projects No Ontario MOT All new and reconstruction and all rehabilitation projects (based on project length, complexity, existing pavement condition, and funding source) No Pennsylvania DOT Depends on site conditions, pavement type, traffic volume, and existing pavement condition No Utah DOT Design-build projects only No Virginia DOT All concrete patching projects No West Virginia DOH(c) Dependent on project length, project site conditions, pavement type, traffic volume, project complexity, and existing pavement condition No (a) TD—Transportation Department. (b) T&I—Transportation and Infrastructure. (c) DOH—Department of Highways. Table 17. Pavement warranties legislatively mandated (Number of responding agencies: 18). Number of responding agencies: 14 0 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 5 6 0 3 6 9 12 15 Project cost All preventative maintenance projects Project length Funding source All rehabilitation projects Traffic volume Project site conditions Project complexity Existing pavement condition Pavement type All new construction/reconstruction projects NO. OF AGENCIES Figure 7. Pavement warranty project selection criteria.

State of the Practice 29 Agency Project Type Other Criteria Alberta Transportation N/A P3 projects only California DOT Preservation N/A Florida DOT New, reconstruction, and asphalt pavement rehabilitation N/A Idaho TD Asphalt overlays of asphalt pavements Good existing condition and lower traffic volumes Louisiana DOTD New and reconstruction N/A Maine DOT New, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and preservation N/A Michigan DOT New, reconstruction, asphalt overlay, and asphalt pavement preservation N/A New Brunswick DOT&I New and reconstruction Project complexity New York State DOT Chip seal and asphalt surface course Asphalt surface course when placed outside seasonal limitations Ontario MOT New, reconstruction, and rehabilitation Dependent on project length, project complexity, existing pavement condition for rehabilitation projects, and funding source Pennsylvania DOT N/A Dependent on project site conditions, pavement type, traffic volume, and existing pavement condition Utah DOT N/A Only design-build projects Virginia DOT Only concrete patching N/A West Virginia DOH N/A(a) Dependent on project length, site conditions, traffic volume, project complexity, and existing pavement condition (a) To date, projects include composite pavement reconstruction. Table 18. Agency-specific project selection criteria. period. Therefore, agencies were asked to provide information related to how performance criteria were determined. Most agencies use pavement management data and engineering judgment (10 agencies) as the basis for determining performance criteria (Table 19). In addition, six agencies each indicated performance criteria were mutually agreed upon with the industry and utilized other agency requirements. Several agencies also indicated using a combination of sources for determining performance criteria. The most common combination included using pavement management data, engineering judgment, and other agency requirements (three agencies). Other combinations included pavement management data and mutually agreed with industry (two agencies); pavement management data and engineering judgment (two agencies); pavement management data, engineering judgment, mutually agreed with industry, and other agency requirements (one agency); pavement management data, engi- neering judgment, and mutually agreed with industry (one agency); and engineering judg- ment and mutually agreed with industry (one agency). During the follow-up questions, the MDOT and the WVDOH provided additional details on how the agency determined performance criteria. The MDOT indicated using existing pavement performance data to determine condition levels at the end of 5 years; performance data was averaged for each condition type (e.g., IRI, cracking, rutting, faulting) and pre- sented to industry to obtain mutual agreement. The WVDOH indicated threshold values were established by determining the acceptable level of performance 3 years after construc- tion; if acceptable after 3 years, the expected performance life is anticipated to be at least 15 to 20 years.

30 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Contractor Responsibilities Along with pavement performance criteria, agencies were also asked to indicate the level of responsibility for contractors on pavement warranty projects. Twelve agencies indicated the contractor is responsible for the mix design; six agencies noted the contractor is responsible for pavement thickness design; and four agencies indicated the contractor is responsible for pavement type (treatment) selection (Figure 8). Contractor responsibility may also include a combination of these tasks. Four agencies indi- cated the contractor is responsible for pavement type (or treatment) selection, pavement thick- ness design, and mix design, and one agency indicated the contractor is responsible for both pavement thickness design and mix design (Table 20). Seven agencies indicated the contractor Agency Pavement Management Engineering Judgment Other Agency Requirements Mutually Agreed with Industry Total No. Criteria Alberta Transportation 3 California DOT 1 Florida DOT 4 Idaho TD 3 Maine DOT 1 Michigan DOT 2 Nebraska DOT 2 New Brunswick T&I 2 New York State DOT 2 North Dakota DOT 1 Ohio DOT 3 Ontario MOT 2 Pennsylvania DOT 3 Utah DOT 1 Virginia DOT 1 West Virginia DOH 1 Total No. Agencies 10 10 6 6 Note: used and not used. Table 19. Performance criteria determination—combination of factors (number of responding agencies: 16). Figure 8. Contractor responsibility. Number of responding agencies: 13 12 6 4 0 3 6 9 12 15 Mix design Pavement thickness design Pavement type (treatment) selection N O . O F AG EN CI ES

State of the Practice 31 is only responsible for mix design, and one agency indicated the contractor can adjust (increase) thickness design based on agency minimum layer thickness recommendations. Agency Specifications The following provides a summary of agency pavement warranty specifications and special provisions. Agencies included in this discussion either provided a copy of pavement warranty specifications or special provisions as part of the survey or in response to the follow-up ques- tions. Agency pavement warranty-specific specifications described below are included in Appendix C. The Alberta Transportation, FDOT, MDOT, PennDOT, and WVDOH pave- ment warranty specifications are described in more detail in the case examples chapter and are therefore excluded in the following sections. Maine DOT The Maine DOT requires the contractor to unconditionally warrant and guarantee all hot mix asphalt pavement to be free from defects for a 1-year period. For this materials and workman ship warranty, the contractor is responsible for all construction-related activities (e.g., labor, equipment, materials, quality control) in accordance with applicable standards, and the DOT is responsible for acceptance sampling, testing, inspection, and verification sampling and testing (Maine Department of Transportation 2014). Defects are defined as conditions resulting from material, manufacture, or workmanship not conforming to the contract or industry standards. The contractor also agrees to promptly, within the first construction season after notification, perform all remedial work at no cost to the DOT (Maine Department of Transportation 2014). Agency Mix Design Pavement Thickness Pavement Type (Treatment) Selection Alberta Transportation(a) California DOT(b) Florida DOT(c) Idaho TD(d) Maine DOT Michigan DOT(e) New Brunswick T&I New York State DOT Ohio DOT Ontario MOT Pennsylvania DOT Utah DOT West Virginia DOH Total No. Agencies 12 6 4 (a) Contractor submittal for agency review. (b) Slurry seal and microsurfacing only. (c) For design-bid-build projects, DOT determines pavement type (treatment) and thickness; for design-build projects, contractor may have more input on pavement design details; mix designs submitted to DOT for approval. increase. (d) Agency establishes minimum layer thickness; contractor may only recommend thickness (e) Reconstruction and rehabilitation projects, within a specified range. Note: responsible and not responsible. Table 20. Contractor responsibilities (number of responding agencies: 13).

32 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices New York State DOT The New York State DOT requires a 1-year maintenance bond for chip seals and for asphalt pavement surface courses when placed outside the seasonal limits (New York State Depart- ment of Transportation 2010). The chip seal specifications require the contractor to obtain a warranty bond for 100% of the total project cost, specify material and mix design requirements in accordance with the standard specifications, and provide prescriptive construction require- ments. The bond is enforced immediately after acceptance and is evaluated the following year for aggregate retention, flushing or bleeding, aggregate embedment, and bonding to the existing pavement (New York State Department of Transportation n.d.). The contractor is required to repair all areas with less than 90% aggregate retention and localized areas of flushing or bleeding. For asphalt pavement surface courses placed outside the seasonal limits, the contractor must request the warranty and agree the surface course will be placed as specified, free of defects, of good quality, and meets all contract requirements. The DOT evaluates the surface layer to ensure no defects (for example, corrugations, slippage cracks, raveling, longitudinal joint separation, wheel path rutting, potholes, and delaminations) are present and requires corrective work if conditions are not met. Corrective work may include (New York State Department of Trans- portation 2010): • Milling and replacing surface course, including shoulders if necessary. • Placing a 1.5 in. (38 mm) overlay on the existing surface, including shoulders, with the surface course specified in the contract. • Routing and sealing longitudinal joint separation. Ohio DOT The Ohio DOT requires a 2-year performance warranty for chip seal and microsurfacing projects. The pavement resurfacing program for the DOT is approximately $500 million per year, with chip seals and microsurfacing composing approximately $10 million to $20 million per year. For both treatments, the contractor is required to construct in accordance with the standard specifications and conduct remedial actions for any defect that exceeds the threshold levels during the warranty period. In addition, the contractor is required to secure a bond equal to 75% of the total bid amount for microsurfacing and chip seal with warranty. Prior to the end of the warranty period, the DOT conducts a performance review and notifies the contrac- tor of work to be completed. Repairs are to be conducted with like material. A summary of defect and threshold values for microsurfacing and chip seals are provided in Tables 21 and 22, respectively. Distress Type Threshold(a) Nonuniform texture(b) ≤ 300 ft2 (28 m2) Surface loss(c) ≤ 20 ft2 (1.8 m2) Raveling(d) ≤ 300 ft2 (27 m2) Rutting(e,f) ≤ 0.25 in. (6 mm) continuous in any segment (a) Based on 1,000 ft (300 m) lane segment. The beginning of a segment is the beginning of any distress type. (b) Texture inconsistencies in either the transverse and or longitudinal direction. (c) Loss of surface by traffic wear, debonding, or delamination. (d) “Moderate” level raveling as defined in the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP) Distress Identification Manual (Miller and Bellinger 2014). (e) Measure the wheel path with a 4 ft (1.2 m) straight edge. (f) Only applies during the first 120 days of warranty or after any warranty work. Table 21. Ohio DOT pavement performance criteria—microsurfacing (adapted from Ohio Department of Transportation 2019a).

State of the Practice 33 The Ohio DOT has also developed a 7-year performance warranty for new asphalt and con- crete pavements; however, use of the specification requires approval by the state construction engineer, and very few districts have made a request. For asphalt pavements, the warranty specification requires the contractor, at a minimum, to meet the following (Ohio Department of Transportation 2012): • Meet or exceed virgin aggregate requirements used in the top 3 in. (75 mm). • Limit recycled asphalt pavement in top 3 in. (75 mm) surface course to 10% and 35% for any intermediate course with virgin binder content not less than 3.4%, if the current year’s truck count is greater than or equal to 1,500. For current year truck counts less than 1,500, maximum recycled asphalt pavement in the top 3 in. (75 mm) surface course is 30%, provided virgin binder content is not less than 3.4%. • Meet or exceed PG 70-22M and PG 64-22 requirements for top 3 in. (75 mm) for current year trucks greater than or equal to 1,500 and less than 1,500, respectively. • Include asphalt mix components and volumetric data for the top 3 in. (75 mm) in the job mix formula. • Use asphalt base, in accordance with the standard specifications, for all material placed below the top 3 in. (75 mm). Method of payment and basis of payment is in accordance with the warranty specification. • Meet contractor quality control program for asphalt base. Quality control program is not required for material place in the top 3 in. (75 mm). • Job mix formula only requires restriction of commingling multiple job mix formulas in the asphalt paver. • Contractor to determine need and type of tack coat for existing pavement or between pave- ment layers. • Surface tolerances in accordance with standard specifications. • Notify the engineer a minimum of 24 hours prior to paving and prior to resuming paving if there is no paving for 1 week. For concrete pavements, the contractor is required to meet, at a minimum, the standard specifications for mix design and other material requirements. The contractor mix design is approved by the DOT. The warranty specification for construction requires the following (Ohio Department of Transportation 2018): • Minimum transverse joint spacing of 12 ft (3.6 m). • Complete surface to meet Standard Specification unless modified elsewhere in the contract documents. • Notify the engineer a minimum of 24 hours prior to start of concrete paving. Distress Type Severity Threshold Level(a) Surface patterns Light and heavy lines over the pavement surface ≤ 40% of segment length affected, continuous or localized Bleeding/flushing Excess binder on surface (loss of stone/tire contact) not subject to wearing off quickly ≤ 5% of segment length affected, continuously or total of 20% localized Loss of aggregate Patches of aggregate loss ≤ 10% of segment length affected continuously or total of 20% localized (a) Each segment will be 300 ft (91 m) in length and the width of the lane. The beginning point of a 300 ft (91 m) segment starts at the beginning of any individual defect type. For loss of aggregate, the beginning point of a 300 ft (91 m) lane segment will exclude locations where vehicles turn from or onto other state highways. Table 22. Ohio DOT pavement performance criteria—chip seals (adapted from Ohio Department of Transportation 2019b).

34 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices The contractor is also required to obtain a bond for both pavement types equal to 30% of the total bid amount for the warranty item (Ohio Department of Transportation 2012, 2018). The warranty specification also includes the ability for the DOT to waive (prorated for years in pay item) warranty requirements in the event the cumulative equivalent single axle loads (ESALs) exceed the design ESALs by 20% (Ohio Department of Transportation 2012, 2018). ESALs are calculated based on current information and agency procedures as described in the Ohio DOT Pavement Design Manual (Ohio Department of Transportation 2016). Pavements under the warranty specification are reviewed annually for conformance to performance requirements. The project length is divided into 1-mi (1.6-km) sections, and each section is divided into 0.10-mi (0.16-km) segments. At least two segments in each section are reviewed during the annual pavement evaluation. Distress requiring remedial action for asphalt and concrete pave- ments are summarized in Tables 23 and 24, respectively. Distress Type Threshold Level Remedial Action Cracking(a) 500 ft (152 m) and ≤ 0.75 in. (19 mm) wide Rout and seal 500 ft (152 m) and > 0.75 in. (19 mm) wide or multiple cracks in a 1 ft (0.3 m) wide area Remove and replace distressed area to depth needed to repair the distress > 1,000 ft (305 m) or routed and sealed cracks Remove and replace distressed area, full width, to a depth of 1.5 in. (38 mm) Disintegrated area(b) None Remove and replace distressed area to depth needed to repair the distress Flushing 125 ft2 (12 m2) Remove and replace distressed area, full lane width, to a depth of 1.5 in. (38 mm) Previous patching(c) 300 ft2 (28 m2) Remove and replace, full lane width, minimum depth of 1.5 in. (38 mm) Rutting(d) 0.375 in. (9.5 mm) Remove and replace distressed area to depth needed to repair the distress (a) Excludes longitudinal crack at rigid base-flexible pavement. Sum width of multiple cracks in a 1 ft (300 mm) wide area. (b) Includes, but not limited to, delamination, potholes, raveling, and any disintegration occurring at a joint or crack. (c) Remedial action determined to be contractor’s responsibility. Calculate area of multiple patches as lane width x length of patch extent. (d) Measured using a 4-ft (1.2-m) straightedge. Table 23. Ohio DOT pavement performance criteria—asphalt pavements (adapted from Ohio Department of Transportation 2012). Distress Type Threshold Level Remedial Action(a) Transverse and diagonal cracking(b) One crack per panel Restore load transfer, full depth and width repair, or remove and replace slab Two or more cracks per panel Full depth and width repair, or remove and replace slab Longitudinal cracking < 15 in. (380 mm) from tied longitudinal joint Rout and seal with hot applied joint sealer All other Full depth and width repair, or remove and replace slab Disintegrated(c) > 1 ft2 (0.09 m2) Bonded patch or full depth and width repair Faulting(d) > 0.1875 in. (5 mm) Full depth, full width repair (a) As directed by the Engineer. (b) Any crack that touch two or more joints or touch one joint and ≥ 0.0625 in. (1.6 mm) wide at any point. (c) Includes, but not limited to, spalling, scaling, and mud or cement balls (excludes aggregate pop outs). (d) At transverse joints and cracks, measured in wheel path. Table 24. Ohio DOT pavement performance criteria—jointed plain concrete (JPCP) pavements (adapted from Ohio Department of Transportation 2018).

State of the Practice 35 Ontario MOT The Ontario MOT requires a 2-year materials and workmanship warranty for all double chip seal applications. Material specifications are in accordance with the departments’ standards for aggregate and emulsified asphalt materials. The chip seal design is conducted by the contractor, and must be in accordance with a recognized design methodology and determined by a labora- tory equipped and staffed to designate the required type and grade of asphalt binder, aggregate class, and application rate. During construction, the contractor is responsible for all quality control procedures to ensure all aggregate and binder meet the contract requirements (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2018). Acceptance is conducted by the department and based on an evaluation to ensure no greater presence than slight flushing, slight streaking, or slight loss of cover aggregate and delamination. During the warranty period, the roadway is surveyed by the department at the end of the first year and 45 days prior to the end of the warranty period (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2018). Required pavement condition, criteria, and remedial action are summarized in Table 25. In the event the distress is deemed by the department to pose a hazard to the traveling public, repairs are conducted within 14 days of notification, otherwise repairs are completed prior to the end of the warranty period (Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2018). Utah DOT The Utah DOT performance warranty is used for new and reconstructed pavements as part of P3 projects (Utah Department of Transportation n.d.). The number of P3 projects led each year was reported to be 1 or 2 projects per year, with the pavement portion being approximately 1% to 5% of the total statewide pavement surface area. Unless specified within other contract provisions, the pavement-related warranty provisions are based on a 2-year warranty period, which is initiated upon department issue of notice of physical completion (Utah Department of Transportation n.d.). The pavement warranty provision also includes maximum permissible settlement and pave- ment performance requirements. Maximum permissible settlement requirements are based on string line measurements or measurements from the as-designed roadway grade. Maximum settlement in the transverse direction should be no more than 0.5 in. per 12 ft (13 mm per 3.7 m), Distress Type Severity Extent Required Repair(a,b) Loss of aggregate Slight Intermittent, frequent, or extensive No action required Moderate or severe Intermittent or frequent Single chip seal Moderate or severe Extensive(c) Double chip seal Flushing Slight Intermittent, frequent, or extensive No action required Moderate Intermittent or frequent(c,d) Single chip seal Severe Intermittent or frequent(c,d) Remove and replace double chip seal Streaking Slight Intermittent, frequent, or extensive No action required Moderate Intermittent or frequent(c,d) Single chip seal Severe Intermittent or frequent(c,d) Sand seal followed by double chip seal (a) Repairs shall not have transverse or longitudinal ripples ≥ 0.25 in. (6 mm) over a 10-ft (3 m) straightedge. (b) Length of repair to eliminate surface defect and full-lane width. (c) Repair area > 164 ft (50 m) long. (d) Repair area > 32 ft (10 m) long. If repair areas < 32 ft (10 m) apart, repair shall be continuous. Table 25. Ontario MOT double chip seal performance criteria (adapted from Ontario Ministry of Transportation 2018).

36 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices and in the longitudinal direction no more than 0.5 in. per 25 ft (13 mm per 7.6 m) for approaches to structures (within 150 ft [46 m] of bridge abutment) and 0.5 in. per 50 ft (15 m) for all other locations. The Utah DOT asphalt and concrete pavement requirements are summarized in Tables 26 and 27, respectively. Virginia DOT The Virginia DOT requires a 1-year materials and workmanship warranty for concrete patch- ing. Once patching has been completed, the DOT monitors performance of the patch over the warranty period. Any patch that fails due to materials or workmanship is required to be replaced (Virginia Department of Transportation 2016). Patch failure is defined as medium or high severity longitudinal or transverse cracking, spalling, corner breaks, faulting, or other undesir- able distress as in accordance with the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP) Distress Identification Manual. Implementation Benefits and Challenges Agencies were asked to identify benefits and challenges related to pavement warranty imple- mentation. Figure 9 illustrates the agency responses to the benefits of pavement warranties. Agencies indicated transferring the risk to the contractor (eight agencies) and reduced pavement Distress Type Severity Extent Corrective Action(a) Fatigue cracking Few connecting cracks; cracks not spalled or sealed; no pumping < 5% of wheel path Remove and replace (including base courses) Block cracking Width ≤ 0.25 in. (6 mm); or with sealant in good condition < 5% area per ln-mi (ln-km) Seal cracks and overlay Edge cracking Cracks with no breakup or loss of material < 10% per ln-mi (ln-km) Seal crack Longitudinal cracking Width ≤ 0.25 in. (6 mm); or with sealant in good condition < 10% per ln-mi (ln-km) Reseal crack and overlay Transverse cracking Width ≤ 0.25 in. (6 mm); or with sealant in good condition < 100 per ln-mi (62 per ln- km); ≤ 3 ± 50 ft (15 m) Seal or reseal crack or joint and overlay Patch/patch deterioration None N/A Repair to full depth Potholes None N/A Repair to full depth Rutting < 0.125 in. (3 mm) deep < 5% of traveled surface per ln-mi (ln-km) Mill and overlay to required depth Shoving < 0.125 in. (3 mm) deep < 5% of traveled surface per ln-mi (ln-km) Mill and overlay to required depth Bleeding Surface area discolored by excess asphalt < 2% of surface area per ln- mi (ln-km) Surface-treat with plant mix friction course Polished aggregate Reduction in surface friction < 2% of surface area per ln- mi (ln-km) Surface-treat with plant mix friction course Raveling Material beginning to wear away; some loss of fine aggregate < 2% of surface area per ln- mi (ln-km) Surface-treat with plant mix surface treatment Lane-to-shoulder drop-off < 0.25 in. (6 mm) 5% of joint length per ln-mi Restore shoulder elevation Water bleeding and pumping Water seeping through cracks None Seal or reseal Differential settlement < 0.5 in. (13 mm) Any location Slab-jack or remove and replace (a) Unless noted otherwise, applies full width for full length of distress. Table 26. Utah DOT pavement performance criteria—asphalt pavements (adapted from Utah Department of Transportation n.d.).

State of the Practice 37 Distress Type Severity Extent Corrective Action(a) Corner break Spalled ≤ 10% of the length of crack; no faulting; and ≤ 2 pieces < 2 corner breaks per ln-mi (1 per ln-km) Repair full depth “D” cracking Crescent-shaped hairline cracking, with no loose or missing pieces None Replace total slab Longitudinal cracking Width < 0.125 in. (3 mm), no spalling, no faulting; or well-sealed and width cannot be determined < 4 slabs per ln-mi (3 per ln-km) Replace full depth slab, ≥ 2 cracks per slab, replace full slab Transverse cracking Width < 0.125 in. (3 mm), no spalling, no faulting; or well-sealed and width cannot be determined < 4 slabs per ln-mi (3 per ln-km) Replace full depth slab, ≥ 2 cracks per slab, replace full slab Joint seal damage(b) Extrusion, hardening, adhesive and cohesive failure, or loss of sealant < 10% of joint length per ln-mi (ln-km) Reseal joint Spalling < 3 in. (76 mm) wide with loss of material; or spalls, no loss of material, and no patching < 5% length per ln-mi (ln-km) or < 25% of transverse joint only Low severity: fill void with hot-pour sealant, else repair full depth Surface crazing Not applicable < 1% of surface area per ln-mi (ln-km) Apply penetrating seal Scaling Deterioration of upper concrete surface < 1% of surface area per ln-mi (ln-km) Apply penetrating seal Map cracking Cracks that extend into upper surface of slab None Replace full slab Polished aggregate damage Surface mortar and texturing worn away Skid resistance value < 45 at end of 2 years Abrade or grind surface Popouts > 1 in. (25 mm) in diameter, broken loose from surface > 3 per yd2 (2.5 per m2) Remove and replace with flexible repair material Blowups Not applicable; however, severity levels can be defined by ride quality and safety Within ride quality and skid-resistance criteria, and a visual inspection DOT performs temporary repair; Design-Builder must repair full depth within 6 months Faulting None None Replace full slab Lane-to-shoulder or lane-to-lane (ramp) drop off ≤ 0.25 in. (6 mm) < 2% of joint length per ln-mi (ln-km) Retrofit No. 5 tie bars @ 3 ft (0.9 m) centers; grind and overlay Differential settlement ≤ 0.5 in. (13 mm) At any location Slab-jack or remove and replace full slab Patch/patch deterioration None None Replace full depth Water bleeding and pumping Seeping or ejection of water from beneath the pavement through cracks None Under seal slab and seal joint (a) Unless noted otherwise, applies full width of paving pass for full length of distress. (b) Per Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (Miller and Bellinger 2014). Table 27. Utah DOT pavement performance criteria—concrete pavements (adapted from Utah Department of Transportation n.d.). failures (seven agencies) as the primary benefits of pavement warranties. In addition, six agencies noted improved contract workmanship and agency time savings, five agencies noted improved pavement performance, four agencies indicated cost savings, and two agencies indicated improved use of materials as benefits of pavement warranty implementation. Conversely, agencies also noted several challenges with pavement warranties. The most common challenges are condition assessment and industry resistance (eight agencies each) (Figure 10). Agencies also indicated defining threshold values (seven agencies), legal challenges

38 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Number of responding agencies: 14 2 4 5 6 6 7 8 0 3 6 9 12 15 Improved use of materials Agency cost savings Agency time savings Improved pavement performance Improved contractor workmanship Reduced pavement failures Transfer risk to contractor NO. OF AGENCIES Figure 9. Benefits of pavement warranty implementation. Number of responding agencies: 16 3 3 4 5 7 8 8 0 3 6 9 12 15 Project selection Specification development Organizational Legal Defining threshold values Industry resistance Condition assessment NO. OF AGENCIES Figure 10. Challenges with pavement warranty implementation.

State of the Practice 39 (five agencies), organizational challenges (four agencies), and specification development and project selection (three agencies each) as challenges with pavement warranty implementation. Agencies also noted distress identification challenges can be related to assessing whether the cause of surface distress is within the contractor’s control. Summary A survey was prepared and distributed to all U.S. and Puerto Rico highway agencies, as well as all Canadian provincial and territorial transportation agencies. In total, 50 agencies responded to the survey: 44 U.S. and 6 Canadian highway agencies. Agencies were asked to respond to questions related to pavement warranties: past and present use, intended imple- mentation objectives, reasons for not implementing, project selection criteria, and benefits and challenges. In addition, agencies who indicated the current use of warranties were also provided and asked to respond to several follow-up questions to obtain more detailed informa- tion related to pavement warranty implementation. Of the 50 responding agencies, 32 indicated pavement warranties were used in the past, 18 agencies indicated never using warranties, and 18 agencies indicated warranties are cur- rently used in new or reconstructed asphalt and concrete pavements, and asphalt pavement rehabilitation and preservation projects. Primary objectives for pavement warranty use included increasing quality and shifting more of the project risk to the contractor. Of those agencies who indicated pavement warranties are not or no longer used, the primary reasons were the need for consistent pavement performance monitoring, lack of cost-effectiveness, and negative impacts on contractors’ bonding capacity. For agencies that currently use pavement warranties, the common project selection criteria include new and reconstructed pavements, existing site conditions, project complexity, and existing pavement condition (for preservation and rehabilitation projects). These agencies also identified several factors for determining performance criteria (e.g., distress types and threshold values), with pavement management system data and engineering judgment as the primary sources of information. Along with pavement performance criteria, agencies were also asked to indicate the level of responsibility for contractors on pavement warranty proj- ects. Most agencies indicated the contractor is responsible for the mix design, and to a much lesser extent pavement thickness design and pavement type (or treatment) selection. Agencies also noted several benefits and challenges with implementing pavement warranty projects. Challenges have included condition assessment and contractor’s resistance to the use of pave- ment warran ties. Conversely, noted benefits of pavement warranties included transferring more of the project risk to the contractor, reducing pavement failures, improving workman- ship, and improving pavement performance. Finally, agency-provided pavement warranty specifications were summarized in relation to performance indicators and threshold values. A summary of agency performance criteria is summarized in Table 28.

40 Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Agency Years of Experience No. of Projects Treatment Type Warranty Type (Period) Performance Indicator Maine DOT > 10 > 5 Asphalt pavements Materials and Workmanship (1 year) Free of defects New York State DOT > 10 > 50 Chip seals Materials and Workmanship (1 year) Aggregate retention, flushing or bleeding, aggregate embedment, and bond to existing pavement Late season asphalt surface course Materials and Workmanship (1 year) No defects, such as, corrugations, cracking, raveling, rutting Ohio DOT > 10 > 50 Chip seal Performance (2 year) Surface patterns, bleeding/flushing, loss of aggregate Microsurfacing Performance (2 year) Texture, surface loss, raveling, rutting Asphalt pavement Performance (7 year) Cracking, disintegrated area, flushing, patching, rutting Concrete pavement Performance (7 year) Transverse and diagonal cracking, longitudinal cracking, disintegrated areas, faulting Ontario MOT > 10 > 50 Double chip seal Materials and Workmanship (2 year) Loss of aggregate, flushing, streaking Utah DOT 6–10 > 10 Asphalt pavement Performance (2 year) Fatigue, block, edge, longitudinal, and transverse cracking, patching, rutting, shoving, bleeding, polished aggregate, lane-shoulder drop-off, water bleeding/pumping, differential settlement Concrete pavement Performance (2 year) Corner breaks, “D” cracking, longitudinal, transverse, and map cracking, joint seal damage, spalling, crazing, scaling, polished aggregate, popouts, blowups, faulting, lane-shoulder and lane- lane drop-off, differential settlement, patching, water bleeding/pumping Virginia DOT > 10 > 30 Concrete patching Materials and Workmanship (1 year) Longitudinal or transverse cracking, spalling, corner breaks, faulting, or other undesirable distress Table 28. Summary of agency performance indicators.

Next: Chapter 4 - Case Examples »
Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Pavement warranties have been common in the United States at various points in time, coming back into favor during the 1990s. While there is no national pavement warranty standard, agencies have developed their own specifications with varying criteria.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program'sNCHRP Synthesis 553: Performance-Based Pavement Warranty Practices documents highway agency practices associated with the use of performance-based pavement warranties, focusing on asphalt, concrete, and composite pavement projects (new, preservation, and rehabilitation) with warranty periods of at least one year.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!