1

Pavement

Preservation

Strategies and

Techniques for High

Traffic Volume

Roadways

2

Webinar Control Panel

You will be muted during this session

Type your questions in this box

Don’t forget to click “Send”

Grab tab

Click arrows to open or minimize

control panel

View presentations full screen

3

Commonly asked question: Can I

receive a copy of the presentation

slides?

• Answer: Yes

• Please view today’s reminder email for a link to the presenter’s slides.

• After the webinar, you will receive a link to the recording of today’s session.

4

Today’s Participants

Moderator:James Bryant, Transportation Research Board, JBryant@nas.edu

Panelist:David Peshkin, Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., dpeshkin@appliedpavement.com

5

Today’s Agenda

SHRP 2 Overview (slides 5–11)

• Project Overview (slides 12–21)

• Project Findings (slides 22–38)

• Guidelines for the Preservation of High Traffic Volume Roadways (slides 39–68)

• Summary (slides 69–72)

• Question and Answer (slides 73–77)

6

SHRP 2 Background

• Authorized in 2005 highway bill at $205 million over 4 years

• ~ $170 million spent over 7 years

– Approximately $32 million targeted to the design, construction, inspection and preservation of roads and bridges

– Memorandum of Understanding: • Federal Highway Administration• Amer. Assoc. of State Hwy & Transportation Officials• National Research Council of the National Academies

• Administered by TRB under cooperative agreement with FHWA

7

Safety($51M)

Renewal($32M)

Reliability($20 M)

Capacity($21 M)

Safe Highways

Better TransportDecisions

ReliableTravel Time

Great Customer Service

Rapid Renewal and Lasting Facilities

Safety($51M)

Renewal($32M)

Reliability($20 M)

Capacity($21 M)

Safe Highways

Better TransportDecisions

ReliableTravel Time

Great Customer Service

Rapid Renewal and Lasting Facilities

Providing outstanding customer service for the 21st Century

8

The Renewal Focus Area

9

What is Highway Renewal?

The reconstruction or substantial rehabilitation of deteriorating highway infrastructure to new standards of service, while the infrastructure continues to serve the traveling public.

Rapid Renewal implies accelerated construction but also includes project delivery, design, and operational & maintenance features that minimize the total project length and produces long lasting facilities

10

R09. Risk Manual

R06. High-Speed NDT*

R04. Innovative Bridge

Designs

R01. Locating Utilities*

R02. Geotech Solutions

R05. Modular Pavement

R07. Performance Specs

R16. Railroad-DOT

Mitigation Strategies

R15. Integrating Utility

and Transportation

Agency Priorities*

R23. Using Existing

In-place Pavement &

Achieving long Life

R21. Composite

Systems

R26. Preservation

Approaches

R19. Bridges for

Service Life

of 100 Years*

Rapid Approaches Long-Lived FacilitiesMinimize Disruption

R11. Strategic

Approaches at

Corridor/Network Level

R10. Project

Management for

Complex Projects

R03. Worker Fatigue

Technology Related

Project Delivery Related

Indicates Multiple Projects*

11

Procurement

Design

Planning

Operations & Maint

Construction

12

Today’s Agenda

SHRP 2 Overview (slides 5–11)

Project Overview (slides 12–21)

• Project Findings (slides 22–38)

• Guidelines for the Preservation of High Traffic Volume Roadways (slides 39–68)

• Summary (slides 69–72)

• Question and Answer (slides 73–77)

13

Opinion PollHow do you define pavement preservation?

a) Everything but rehabilitation and reconstruction

b) Keeping good roads good

c) Cost-effective practices that extend pavement life, improve safety, and meet motorist expectations

d) Everything but reconstruction

14

Definitions

Preservation Program

• Employs long-term

strategy

• Improves pavement

performance

• Extends life,

improves safety,

meets expectations

Preventive Maintenance

• Planned strategy

• Cost-effective

treatments

• Preserves system

• Retards deterioration

• Maintains/improves

functional condition

• Doesn’t add structure

15

Background

• Use of pavement preservation is growing

• Use on high-traffic roads is not widely

accepted and is poorly documented

• Formal guidelines being developed by

many agencies do not include pavements

with higher average daily traffic (ADT)

16

Project R26 Objectives

• Develop preventive maintenance guidelines for high-traffic volume roads

• Identify promising preventive maintenance strategies for high-traffic volume roads

17

Opinion PollWhat is greatest barrier to use of preservation treatments on high-volume roads?

a) Performance of treatment

b) Lack of quality construction

c) Agency practice

d) Risk of failure

e) No experience with preservation

18

Project Team• Principal Investigator: David Peshkin,

APTech, Inc.

• Angie Wolters/Kelly Smith/James Krstulovich, APTech, Inc.

• Jim Moulthrop/Cesar Alvarado, Fugro Consultants, Inc.

• Consultants: Gerry Eller, Gary Hicks, and Dean Testa

James Bryant, Ph.D., P.E., SHRP2 Project Manager

19

Project Approach: Tasks• Phase I

– Task 1: Research, survey state of practice

– Task 2: Develop criteria to identify best practices

– Task 3: Submit Interim Report

• Phase II

– Identify factors affecting treatment use

– Develop draft and final guidelines

– Prepare draft and final report

20

Project Approach: Activities

• Literature review

• Comprehensive survey of practice

• Direct contacts with industry, other agencies

21

Project Products

• Final report

• Guidelines

22

Today’s Agenda

SHRP 2 Overview (slides 5–11)

Project Overview (slides 12–21)

Project Findings (slides 22–38)

• Guidelines for the Preservation of High Traffic Volume Roadways (slides 39–68)

• Summary (slides 69–72)

• Question and Answer (slide 73-77)

23

Project Findings

24

Literature Review

• Most preservation occurs on low volume roads (with varying definitions of “low”)

• Concerns on high volume roads include durability, performance, negative public perception

• Risk is also likely a concern

25

Survey Results

• Sought information on– Defining “high”– Successful and potential successful treatments– Challenges and solutions

• Distributed to 50 state highway agencies (SHAs), Canadian Provinces, cities, international practitioners, and industry reps

• Responses from 40 SHAs, 7 Provinces, and 3 cities, as well as industry

26

Opinion Poll

How does your agency define “high” traffic volume?

Urban

a) ≤ 2,000 vpd

b) 2,000 to 5,000 vpd

c) 5,000 to 10,000 vpd

d) > 10,000 vpd

vpd = vehicles per day

Rural

a) ≤ 2,000 vpd

b) 2,000 to 5,000 vpd

c) 5,000 to 10,000 vpd

d) > 10,000 vpd

27

Self-Defining “High” Traffic, ADT

Rural High-Volume Limits Urban High-Volume Limits

GreenLow

(<10,000)Yellow

Medium

(10,000-19,999)Red

High

(≥20,000)

28

Hot-Mix Asphalt (HMA) Treatments

1 Crack Fill

2 Crack Seal

3 Cape Seal

4 Fog Seal

5 Scrub Seal

6 Slurry Seal

7 Rejuvenators

8 Single Course Microsurfacing

9 Multi. Course Microsurfacing

10 Single Course Chip Seal

11 Multi. Course Chip Seal

12 Chip Seal w/ Modified Binder

13 Thin Bonded Wearing Course

14 Thin HMA Overlay

15 Cold Milling and HMA Overlay

16 Ultrathin HMA Overlay

17 Hot In-Place Recycling

18 Cold In-Place Recycling

19 Profile Milling

20 Ultrathin Whitetopping

21 Drainage Preservation

22 Other

29

Treatment Use–HMA Rural (ADT > 5,000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f A

ge

nc

ies

Treatment

30

“High” Rural Traffic (≥ 5,000 ADT)

Widely used (≥67%) HMA treatments

• Crack seal and crack fill

• Cold mill and HMA overlay, thin HMA overlay

• Drainage preservation

Infrequently used HMA treatments

• Fog seal, cape seal, scrub seal, slurry seal, rejuvenators, ultra-thin whitetopping

31

Treatment Use–HMA Urban (ADT>10,000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f A

ge

nc

ies

Treatment

32

“High” Urban Traffic (≥ 10,000 ADT)

Widely used (≥67%) HMA treatments

• Crack seal and crack fill

• Cold mill and HMA overlay

• Drainage preservation

Infrequently used HMA treatments

• Fog seal, cape seal, scrub seal, chip seals, CIR, ultra-thin whitetopping

33

Why… and What to Do About It?

34

PCC Treatments

1 Joint Reseal

2 Crack Seal

3 Diamond Grinding

4 Diamond Grooving

5 Partial-Depth

Patching

6 Full-Depth Patching

7 Dowel Bar Retrofit

8 Thin PCC Overlay

9 Thin Bonded Wearing

Course

10 Thin HMA Overlay

11 Drainage Preservation

12 Other

35

Treatment Use–PCC Rural (ADT > 5,000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f A

ge

nc

ies

Treatment

36

Treatment Use–PCC Urban (ADT>10,000)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% o

f A

ge

nc

ies

Treatment

37

“High” Rural (≥ 5,000 ADT) and

Urban (≥ 10,000 ADT)Widely used PCC treatments

• Joint Reseal and Crack Seal

• Diamond Grinding

• Partial- and Full-Depth Patching

Infrequently used PCC treatments

• Diamond grooving, thin bonded wearing course, thin HMA or PCC overlay

38

Why… and What to Do About It?

39

Today’s Agenda

SHRP 2 Overview (slides 5–11)

Project Overview (slides 12–21)

Project Findings (slides 22–38)

Guidelines for the Preservation of High Traffic Volume Roadways (slides 39–68)

• Summary (slides 69–72)

• Question and Answer (slides 73–77)

40

Guidelines for the Preservation of

High Traffic Volume Roadways

41

Guidelines

• Discussion of decision criteria

• Detailed information on treatments

• Decision process for treatment selection

• Treatment feasibility matrices

• Example application

42

Criteria

• Traffic levels

• Pavement condition

• Climate/environment

• Construction constraints

• Expected performance

• Costs

43

Traffic Levels

• Traffic sufficiently high to warrant NOT considering a particular treatment

– Construction impact on traffic

• Impact of traffic on treatment (and pavement) performance

44

Pavement Condition

• Preliminary analysis of treatment feasibility

– Windows of opportunity (overall condition of existing pavement)

• Detailed assessment of treatments and deficiencies

– Decision trees/matrixes tying treatment functions with specific distresses

45

Climate/Environment

• Impact of climate/environment on treatment performance

– Extent of freezing conditions (none, moderate, severe)

– Other (sunlight/UV, moisture)

46

Construction Constraints• Anticipated/targeted timeframe for

construction

– Restricted time periods for application of treatment (e.g., chip seals, crack sealing)

• Work zone duration restrictions

– Time to opening to traffic

(e.g., conventional PCC repairs)

47

Treatment Performance and Cost

• Performance

– Life of treatment vs. pavement life extension imparted by treatment

– Adjust to account for traffic, existing pavement condition, and climate

• Cost

– Direct/agency (unit costs, eng/admin costs)

– Indirect/user (time delay, vehicle operating costs)

48

Treatment Summaries• Treatment description

• Conditions addressed

– Functional/other, structural, noise

• Construction considerations

• Miscellaneous

– Cost, life, life extension, risk, climate

• Other remarks

• Additional resources

49

Treatment Summary ExampleCRACK SEALING AND CRACK FILLING

Tre

atm

en

t D

escri

pti

on Crack filling involves the placement of an adhesive material into and/or over non-working cracks (typically longitudinal cold-joint and reflective

cracks, edge cracks, and distantly spaced block cracks) at the pavement surface in order to prevent the infiltration of moisture into the

pavement structure and reinforce the adjacent pavement. Crack filling operations generally entail minimal crack preparation and the use of

lower quality materials.

Crack sealing involves the placement of an adhesive material into and/or over working cracks (i.e., those that open and close with

temperature changes, such as transverse thermal and reflective cracks, diagonal cracks, and certain longitudinal reflective cracks) at the

pavement surface in order to prevent the infiltration of moisture into the pavement structure. Crack sealing operations typically require good

crack preparation (i.e., routing or sawing a reservoir over the crack and power cleaning the reservoir) and the placement of high-quality flexible

materials (i.e., thermosetting or thermoplastic bituminous materials that soften upon heating and harden upon cooling) into and possibly over

the reservoir.

Co

nd

itio

ns

Ad

dre

ssed

Functional/Other

Longitudinal cracking.

Transverse cracking.

Reflection cracking.

Minor block cracking.

Structural: Crack sealing may be applied to structural (i.e., fatigue or reflection) cracks early in their

development. While sealing provides no structural benefit, keeping moisture out of the pavement structure may

slow down the progression of load-related cracking.

Noise: Overband applications may increase pavement noise. Similarly, wide cracks contribute to a louder

riding surface.

Co

nstr

ucti

on

Co

nsid

era

tio

ns

Material selection requirements to consider include adhesion, softening resistance, flexibility, pot life, weather resistance, and cure time.

In deciding between hot- and cold-applied crack fillers, consider the size and types of cracks. Hot-applied crack fillers are better suited

to 0.5 in wide or larger expanding cracks (large longitudinal, transverse, and reflective cracks), while cold crack fillers work better in

smaller cracks less than 0.5 in wide.

Cracks should be clean and dry. Cleaning is essential to good bond and maximum performance.

A variety of placement configurations are used based on local experience, materials, snow plow use, anticipated subsequent treatments,

and aesthetic considerations.

Sealants and fillers should be allowed to set before being subjected to traffic.

Sealants and fillers require curing before another treatment is applied to the surface. Emulsions usually require several days to cure,

while hot-applied crack fillers take 3 to 4 months.

50

Treatment Summary Example (cont.)CRACK SEALING AND CRACK FILLING (continued)

Mis

cellan

eo

us C

on

sid

era

tio

ns

Cost (Relative Cost, $ to $$$$):

Crack filling: $0.10 to $1.20/ft ($)

Crack sealing: $0.75 to 1.50/ft ($)

Treatment Life (years):

Crack filling: 2 to 4

Crack sealing: 3 to 8

Pavement Life Extension (years):

Crack filling: NA

Crack sealing: 2 to 5

Safety: Extensive crack sealing may require blotting to maintain the pavement’s skid resistance.

Risk: Improper installation can cause sealant or filler material to fail. Overband applications should be avoided on heavily

trafficked roadways due to high tensile stresses directly above crack edges, resulting in edge separations. Overband

applications are susceptible to snowplow damage.

Climate: Placement should take place during moderate temperatures when the pavement is dry. The manufacturer’s

guidelines should be followed, but a good range of ambient temperatures is 45 to 65°F.

Oth

er

Rem

ark

s

Tracking of seal or fill material by tire action may obscure lane markings and adversely affect skid resistance. Applying a

blotter coat of sand can reduce such “tracking.” There are other products and means available to reduce surface tackiness.

There is point at which excessive cracking is better addressed by a “blanket” solution, such as a surface treatment or milling.

Aesthetic considerations may limit the acceptable amount of crack sealed surface.

Rough riding surface may occur during warm months when sealant or filler material is compressed and bulges out of the

crack.

Ad

dit

ion

al

Reso

urc

es Manual of Practice: Materials and Procedures for Sealing and Filling Cracks in Asphalt-Surfaced Pavements, Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) Publication FHWA-RD-99-147 (2001).

Pavement Preservation Checklist Series 1: Crack Seal Application, FHWA Publication No. FHWA-IF-02-005 (2001).

51

Example ContentCRACK SEALING AND CRACK FILLING

Co

nd

itio

ns A

dd

ressed

Functional/Other

Longitudinal

cracking.

Transverse

cracking.

Reflection

cracking.

Minor block

cracking.

Structural: Crack sealing may be

applied to structural (i.e., fatigue or

reflection) cracks early in their

development. While sealing provides no

structural benefit, keeping moisture out of

the pavement structure may slow down

the progression of load-related cracking.

Noise: Overband applications may

increase pavement noise. Similarly, wide

cracks contribute to a louder riding

surface.

52

Decision Process, part 1Evaluate Current and Historical

Pavement Performance Data (from field surveys and testing and/or agency PMS database)

Overall Condition Indicator (PCI, PSR, etc.) Individual Distress Types, Severities, and

ExtentsSmoothness (IRI, PI, etc.)Surface and Subsurface Drainage

CharacteristicsSafety Characteristics

friction/texture (FN, MPD/MTD, IFI, etc.)crashes

Pavement–Tire Noise

Develop Preliminary Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments

Review Historical Design,

Construction,

and Maintenance and

Rehabilitation (M&R) Data

Pavement Type and Cross-Sectional DesignMaterials and As-Built

ConstructionM&R Treatments (materials,

thicknesses, etc.)

Decision

53

Assess Specific Needs and Constraints of Project

Performance Needs

Treatment Life traffic effects (functional class and/or traffic level)climate/environment effectsRiskAvailability of qualified contractorsAvailability of quality materials

Construction Constraints

Funding Time (of year) of construction GeometricsWork duration (facility downtime) Traffic accommodation

Decision Process, part 2Develop Preliminary Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments

Select the Preferred Preservation Treatment

Conduct Cost-Effectiveness AnalysisBenefit-Cost AnalysisLife-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)Evaluate Economic and Non-Economic Factors

Develop Final Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments

54

Preliminary Feasibility Matrixes• Developed for HMA and PCC

• Down left side• Preservation treatments

• Across top• Window of opportunity (index, age)

• Distress types and severity levels

• Surface characteristics

• Table cells• Highly recommended, generally recommended,

provisionally recommended, not recommended

55

HMA Prelim Feasibility MatrixPreservation

Treatment

Window

Of

Opportunity

Distress Types and Severity Levels (L=Low Severity, M=Medium Severity, H=High Severity) Surface

Characteristics

IssuesSurface Distress Cracking Distress Deformation Distress

Ravel/

Weather

Bleed/

FlushPolish

Segre-

gation

Water

Bleed/

Pumpa

Fatigue/

Long WP/

Slippage

BlockTrans

Therm

Joint

Reflect

Long/

Edge

Wear/

Stable

Rutting b

Corrug/

Shove cBumps/

SagsPatches

Ride

QualityFriction Noise

PCI/

PCRAge, yrs L/M/H — — L/M/H — L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H — — —

Crack Fill 75-90 3-6 d

Crack Seal 80-95 2-5 d

Slurry Seal (Type III) 70-85 5-8

Microsurfacing-Single 70-85 5-8

Microsurfacing-Double 70-85 5-8

Chip Seal-Single

Conventional

Polymer-modified

70-85

70-85

5-8

5-8

Chip Seal-Double

Conventional

Polymer-modified

70-85

70-85

5-8

5-8

Ultra-Thin Bonded

Wearing Course65-85 5-10

Ultra-Thin HMAOL 65-85 5-10

Thin HMAOL 60-80 6-12

Cold Milling and

Thin HMAOL60-75 7-12

Hot In-place Recycling

Surf

Recycle/HMAOL

Remixing/HMAOL

Repaving

70-85

60-75

60-75

5-8

7-12

7-12

Cold In-place

Recycling

and HMAOL

60-75 7-12

Profile Milling 80-90 3-6 d

d

Ultra-Thin

Whitetopping60-80 6-12

Highly Recommended Generally Recommended Provisionally Recommended Not Recommendeda Porous surface mix problem.b Rutting primarily confined to HMA surface layer and largely continuous in extent.c Corrugation/shoving primarily HMA surface layer mix problem and frequent in extent.d For composite AC/PCC pavements, a more probable window of opportunity is 2-4 years for crack filling and 1-3 years for crack sealing.e Localized application in the case of bumps.

56

PCC Prelim Feasibility MatrixPreservation

Treatment

Window

Of

Opportunity

Distress Types and Severity Levels (L=Low Severity, M=Medium Severity, H=High Severity) Surface

Characteristics

IssuesSurface Distress Joint Distress Cracking Distress Deformation Distress

Polish

Map

Crack/Scale

(non-ASR)

D-Crack PopoutsWater

Bleed/Pump

Joint Seal

Damage

Joint

SpallCorner

Long/

TransFaulting Patches

Ride

QualityFriction Noise

PCI/

PCR

Age,

yrs— — L/M/H — — L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H — — —

Concrete Joint Resealing 75-90 5-10

Concrete Crack Sealing 70-90 5-12

Diamond Grinding 70-90 5-12 a

Diamond Grooving 70-90 5-12

Partial-depth

Concrete Patching65-85 6-15

Full-depth

Concrete Patching65-85 6-15

b

c

Dowel Bar Retrofitting 65-85 6-15 d

Ultra-Thin Bonded

Wearing Course70-90 5-12

Thin HMA Overlay 70-90 5-12

Highly Recommended Generally Recommended Provisionally Recommended Not Recommendeda May be appropriate in conjunction with partial- and/or full-depth repairs to ensure smooth profile.b Isolated incidences of D-cracking only.c Isolated incidences of faulting only.d Likely needed in conjunction with diamond grinding.

57

Final Feasibility Matrixes• Both HMA and PCC

• Treatment durability• Under high traffic, rural vs. urban, and different

climates

• Work zone durations

• Expected performance

• Relative cost

• Highly, generally, provisionally, and not recommended

58

Preservation Treatment

Treatment DurabilityWork Zone Duration

Restrictions

Expected

Performance

on High

Volume

Facility, yrs

Relative

Cost

Rural Roads Urban Roads

Overnight

or Single-

Shift

Weekend LongerHigh

Traffic

ADT >

5,000 vpd

Climatic Zone High

Traffic

ADT >

10,000 vpd

Climatic Zone

Deep-

Freeze

Moderate-

Freeze

Non-

Freeze

Deep-

Freeze

Moderate-

Freeze

Non-

Freeze

Crack Fill 2-3 $

Crack Seal 2-6 $

Slurry Seal (Type III) 3-5 $$

Microsurfacing-Single 3-5 $$

Microsurfacing-Double 4-6 $$/$$$

Chip Seal-Single

Conventional

Polymer-modified

4-6 $$

$$$

Chip Seal-Double

Conventional

Polymer-modified

6-8 $$/$$$

$$$

Ultra-Thin Bonded

Wearing Course 5-8 $$$

Ultra-Thin HMAOL 4-7 $$

Thin HMAOL 5-10 $$$

Cold Milling and

Thin HMAOL 6-11 $$$

Hot In-place Recycling

Surf Recycle and

HMAOL

Remixing and HMAOL

Repaving

5-8

6-12

6-12

$$$

$$$

$$$

Cold In-place Recycling

and HMAOL 5-11 $$$

Profile Milling 2-4 $

Ultra-Thin Whitetopping NA $$$$

Highly Recommended Generally Recommended Provisionally Recommended Not Recommended

$ (lowest relative cost) ↔ $$$$ (highest relative cost)

59

Preservation Treatment

Treatment Durability Work Zone Duration Restrictions

Expected

Performance

on High

Volume

Facility, yrs

Relative

Cost

Rural Roads Urban Roads

Overnight

or Single-

Shift

Weekend LongerHigh Traffic

ADT >

5,000 vpd

Climatic Zone High

Traffic

ADT >

10,000

vpd

Climatic Zone

Deep-

Freeze

Moderate-

Freeze

Non-

Freeze

Deep-

Freeze

Moderate-

Freeze

Non-

Freeze

Concrete Joint Resealing 4-7 $

Concrete Crack Sealing 4-6 $

Diamond Grinding 6-12 $$

Diamond Grooving 6-12 $$

Partial-depth Patching 1

1

5-15 $$/$$$

Full-depth Patching 1

1

10-15 $$/$$$

Dowel Bar Retrofitting 1

1

10-15 $$$

Ultra-Thin Bonded

Wearing Course 5-7 $$$

Thin HMA Overlay 5-8 $$$

Highly Recommended Generally Recommended Provisionally Recommended Not Recommended

$ (lowest relative cost) ↔ $$$$ (highest relative cost)

60

Example Application

• Rural HMA roadway

– 4-lane interstate, 8 miles long

– Deep-freeze climate, flat to mildly rolling terrain

– ADT=14,000, 11% trucks

– Treatment performance goal: ≥ 4 yrs

– Existing structure (built in 2001)

• 8.5 inches HMA, 8 inches aggregate base, lime-treated subgrade

• Past condition surveys and tests indicate:

61

Example Application (cont.)Existing Pavement

Condition ParametersCondition Survey

YearSmoothness Testing

YearFriction Testing

Year

2005 2007 2009 2007 2009 2007 2009

PCR 95 90 81

Raveling, LS (% area) 3.0 11.2 18.4

Raveling, MS (% area) 1.3 4.7 7.3

Segregation, LS (% area) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Segregation, MS (% area) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Trans Thermal Cracking, LS (cracks/mi) 45 96 102

Trans Thermal Cracking, MS (cracks/mi) 11 52 64

Long Cold-Joint Cracking, LS (ft/mi) 120 967 1,798

Long Cold-Joint Cracking, MS (ft/mi) 0 54 367

Stable Rutting, LS (0.125 to 0.375 in) (ft/mi)

45 735 3,987

Stable Rutting, MS (0.5 to 1.0 in) (ft/mi) 0 151 1,268

Fatigue Cracking, LS (% wheelpath area) 0.2 1.0 2.2

IRI (Average ± Std Dev) (in/mi) 88.5±6.2 105.7±10.3

FN40S (Average ± Std Dev) 45.4±3.2 43.6±2.6

Key Deficiencies

62

HMA Preliminary Feasibility Matrix

Preservation

Treatment

Window

Of

Opportunity

Distress Types and Severity Levels (L=Low Severity, M=Medium Severity, H=High Severity) Surface

Characteristics

IssuesSurface Distress Cracking Distress Deformation Distress

Ravel/

Weather

Bleed/

FlushPolish

Segre-

gation

Water

Bleed/

Pumpa

Fatigue/

Long WP/

Slippage

BlockTrans

Therm

Joint

Reflect

Long/

Edge

Wear/

Stable

Rutting b

Corrug/

Shove cBumps/

SagsPatches

Ride

QualityFriction Noise

PCI/

PCRAge, yrs L/M/H — — L/M/H — L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H L/M/H — — —

Crack Fill 75-90 3-6 d

Crack Seal 80-95 2-5 d

Slurry Seal (Type III) 70-85 5-8

Microsurfacing-Single 70-85 5-8

Microsurfacing-Double 70-85 5-8

Chip Seal-Single

Conventional

Polymer-modified

70-85

70-85

5-8

5-8

Chip Seal-Double

Conventional

Polymer-modified

70-85

70-85

5-8

5-8

Ultra-Thin Bonded

Wearing Course65-85 5-10

Ultra-Thin HMAOL 65-85 5-10

Thin HMAOL 60-80 6-12

Cold Milling and

Thin HMAOL60-75 7-12

Hot In-place Recycling

Surf

Recycle/HMAOL

Remixing/HMAOL

Repaving

70-85

60-75

60-75

5-8

7-12

7-12

Cold In-place

Recycling

and HMAOL

60-75 7-12

Profile Milling 80-90 3-6 d

d

Ultra-Thin

Whitetopping60-80 6-12

63

Treatment

Selection

-Raveling/

Weathering

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

Ultra-Thin Whitetopping

Do Same for:

Trans/thermal cracking

Long. cold joint cracking

Stable rutting

Highly recommended

Generally

Provisionally

Not recommended

64

Preliminary Feasibility

• Several candidate treatments for addressing INDIVIDUAL key deficiencies

• Four candidate treatments for addressing ALL key deficiencies

– Double microsurfacing

– Single-course conventional chip seal

– Ultrathin HMA overlay

– Thin HMA overlay

65

HMA Final Feasibility Matrix

Preservation Treatment

Treatment DurabilityWork Zone Duration

Restrictions

Expected

Performance

on High

Volume

Facility, yrs

Relative

Cost

Rural Roads Urban Roads

Overnight

or Single-

Shift

Weekend LongerHigh

Traffic

ADT >

5,000 vpd

Climatic Zone High

Traffic

ADT >

10,000 vpd

Climatic Zone

Deep-

Freeze

Moderate

-

Freeze

Non-

Freeze

Deep-

Freeze

Moderate

-

Freeze

Non-

Freeze

Crack Fill 2-3 $

Crack Seal 2-6 $

Slurry Seal (Type III) 3-5 $$

Microsurfacing-Single 3-5 $$

Microsurfacing-Double 4-6 $$/$$$

Chip Seal-Single

Conventional

Polymer-modified

4-6 $$

$$$

Chip Seal-Double

Conventional

Polymer-modified

6-8 $$/$$$

$$$

Ultra-Thin Bonded

Wearing Course 5-8 $$$

Ultra-Thin HMAOL 4-7 $$

Thin HMAOL 5-10 $$$

Cold Milling and

Thin HMAOL 6-11 $$$

Hot In-place Recycling

Surf Recycle and

HMAOL

Remixing and HMAOL

Repaving

5-8

6-12

6-12

$$$

$$$

$$$

Cold In-place Recycling

and HMAOL 5-11 $$$

Profile Milling 2-4 $

Ultra-Thin Whitetopping NA $$$$

66

Treatment

Selection

-Climate

Ultrathin HMA overlay

provisionally

recommended based

on climate (and traffic

level) >>> Remove

from consideration

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

Ultra-Thin Whitetopping

67

Final Feasibility

• Conduct cost-effectiveness analysis of:

– Double microsurfacing

– Single-course conventional chip seal

– Thin HMA overlay

68

Selecting Preferred Alternative

• Economic analysis

• Materials and contractors

• Customer satisfaction

• Sustainability

• Other factors

69

Today’s Agenda

SHRP 2 Overview (slides 5–11)

Project Overview (slides 12–21)

Project Findings (slides 22–38)

Guidelines for the Preservation of High Traffic Volume Roadways (slides 39–68)

Summary (slides 69–72)

• Question and Answer (slides 73–77)

70

Summary

• Goal to develop guidelines for preservation on high traffic volume roadways

• Examined state-of-practice: what agencies are and are not using under different conditions

• Literature and survey findings considered in the development of guidelines

71

Next Steps

• Final Report and Guidelines documents available in November (both electronic and hard copies)

• Workshop to develop implementation plan to be held later this week: results will guide future work in this area

• Expectation is that greater use of appropriate preservation will lead to safer roads which perform better and save money

72

Additional Resources

Reports

• NCHRP 523: Optimal timing

• Synthesis 342: Chip seal best practices

• Underway: performance specs, recycling, microsurfacing

Training Courses

• NHI: 131103, 131115

• NHI Web-Based:131110, 131114, 131126

www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov

73

Today’s Agenda

SHRP 2 Overview (slides 5–11)

Project Overview (slides 12–21)

Project Findings (slides 22–38)

Guidelines for the Preservation of High Traffic Volume Roadways (slides 39–68)

Summary (slides 69–72)

Question and Answer (slides 73–77)

74

Question and Answer Session

•Please type your questions into this box

•We will answer as many of your questions as time allows

75

TRB Announcements:

• We have emailed you the presenter’s slides in today’s webinar reminder email.

• TRB Annual Meeting: January 23-27, 2011 www.TRB.org/AnnualMeeting

• Upcoming webinars: http://trb.org/ElectronicSessions/Public/Webinars1.aspx

• Follow TRB on Twitter @TRBofNA http://twitter.com/TRBofNA

76

SHRP 2 E-mail List

• Receive news from SHRP 2

• Subscribe at http://eepurl.com/loRP

77

Today’s Participants

Moderator:James Bryant, Transportation Research Board, JBryant@nas.edu

Panelist:David Peshkin, Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., dpeshkin@appliedpavement.com

78

Thank you for joining the webinar.

www.TRB.org

www.TRB.org/SHRP2