TERRA Pavement Best Management Practices February 5, 2014

Minneapolis, Minnesota

Presented by:

David Peshkin, P.E.

PAVEMENT PRESERVATION EFFECTIVENESS: Lessons Learned

Presentation Overview • Background in preservation studies • Some lessons learned • SHRP2 R26 overview

My First Mistake

• NCHRP 14-14 • Intended as a

summary of agency preventive maintenance practices

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_523.pdf

MDOT’s CPM Study

• Michigan DOT has over 20 years of experience in preservation through their CPM

• Has collected performance data

• This report updates analyses of those data

http://michigan.gov/documents/mdot/RC-1579_-_Cost_Effectiveness_of_Preventive_Maintenance_421799_7.pdf

MDOT’s CPM Study Objectives

• Determine the costs and benefits of pavement preventive preservation options used by MDOT

• Document the cost and benefits of the MDOT pavement preservation program

• Determine the variability in the costs and benefits of each pavement preservation option

• Establish a relational matrix for the selection of time, location, and preservation option

CPM Treatment Performance and Cost

Treatments

Average Pavement Life Extension (Years)

AverageTime to Next CPM Tretment (Years)

Percent Benefit over Pre-Treatment Performance Average Unit

Cost (per yd2) Flexible Pavements

Composite Pavements

Flexible Pavements

Composite Pavements

Flexible Pavements

Composite Pavements

HMA Overlay (non-structural) 3.6 to 4.0 2.2 to 4.2 6.5 to 6.9 4.5 to 7.8 35 to 49 12 to 21 $3.59

HMA Mill and Overlay (non-

structural) 7.8 to 7.9 3.6 to 8.5 5.6 to 8.2 5.0 to 5.5 49 to 79 26 to 68 $4.34

Ultra- Thin HMA Overlay 2.3 to 2.7 $2.29

Single Chip Seal 2.7 to 6.6 5.5 to 5.6 4.7 15 to 63 $1.31

Double Chip Seal 6.9 1.9 4.6 to 7.3 5.7 40 32 $2.27

Double Micro- surfacing 1.8 to 7.8 9.8 to 11.6 5.3 to 5.5 2.8 to 5.8 22 to 61 49 to 56 $2.35

Paver Placed Surface Seal 3.1 $4.70

Crack Treatment 0.6 to 2.8 0.9 to 2.1 4.2 to 5.0 5.2 to 8.0 4 to 12 5 to 21 $0.26

CPM Program Cost-Effectiveness

• Simplified life-cycle cost model developed • Compared rehabilitation-only strategy vs. CPM

strategy • Used performance models developed

Cost ($/lane-mile)

Rehabilitation Preventive

Maintenance Non-Freeway $510,000 $63,700

Freeway $693,000 $70,400 Average $601,500 $67,050

Cost-Effectiveness: Flexible Pavement

End of First Rehabilitation

End of First CPM

End of Second CPM

End of Post-Second CPM

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

0 1 2 3

Tota

l Cos

t (10

00 $

/lane

-mile

)

Rehabilitation (Average Cost) CPM (Average Cost)

$309,802 per lane-mile

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

Tota

l Cos

t (10

00 $

/lane

-mile

)

Rehabilitation (Average Cost) CPM (Average Cost)

Cost-Effectiveness: Composite Pavement

End of First Rehabilitation

End of First CPM

End of Second CPM

End of Post-Second CPM

$265,013 per lane-mile

CPM Treatment Benefit

Treatment Pavement

Type Zone Pavement Service Life

Extension (years) Benefit Area

(%)

First CPM Treatments

Flexible All 7.9 38

Zone 1 7.6 31 Zone 2 10.2 51

Composite All 8.9 32

Zone 1 Zone 2 6.5 32

Post-first CPM

Treatments

Flexible All 8.0 35

Zone 1 Zone 2

Composite All 6.6 20

Zone 1 Zone 2

MDOT Study Overall Conclusions

• CPM treatments (first and post-first combined) provide life extensions of around 16 years

• MDOT CPM Program certainly helping preserve existing pavements and delay major R&R activities

Recommended Implementation Items

• CPM Manual – Verify life extensions based on project findings – Add guidance on treatment selection

• Data Collection Practices – Consistent labeling of CPM treatments

(moderate effort) – Common method to identify location across

various MDOT databases (significant effort)

Recommended Implementation Items

• Data Collection Practices (continued) – Database checks to flag segments when

performance measures improve without treatment application (significant effort)

– Record pre-treatment condition (significant effort)

Federal Lands Study of Preventive Maintenance on Park Service Roads

• Network of > 10,000 miles

• Extensive experience with surface treatments

• Spending on preservation increasing

Preservation Spending By Year, $ Millions

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

2007 2009 2010

Federal Lands Commonly Used Preservation Treatments • Chip seals • Slurry seals • Microsurfacing • Thin hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlays

Federal Lands Summary • Original intent to model performance of surface

treatments • Multiple problems encountered:

– Data collection equipment changes – Limited data availability – Lack of rehabilitation dates – Quantitative performance data not available

for Parking Areas – Long cycle times leave many unknowns

• Alternate approach applied to Type I chip seals

Federal Lands Conclusions

• Type I chip seals provided best opportunity for modeling

• Longer life extensions in dry vs. wet (wet-freeze) zones

• Higher SCR jumps in dry vs. wet • Based on the limited analysis, FLHD’s

preventive maintenance program is extending service lives

Federal Lands Recommendations

• With any future changes in data collection or analysis, develop an appropriate translation for past data

• Construct and monitor test sections covering appropriate range of variables

• Improve model development by collecting data more frequently (e.g., every 2 years) for selected sections

• Apply more objective evaluation scheme to Parking Areas if modeling desired

Lessons Learned: Treatment Selection and Construction • Select good candidate projects

– Fair to good condition better than poor condition

• Construct treatments under optimal conditions and reconstruct if construction-related failure occurs

Lessons Learned: Condition Monitoring • Document pre-treatment condition • Conduct survey before removing from service • Monitor important performance characteristics • Keep sections in service • Construct and retain control sections • Document treatment locations • Consider signing test sections

Lessons Learned: Pavement Management • Track and model each treatment rather than

grouping them into broad categories • Determine cause of failure

SHRP2 R26: Preservation of High Traffic Volume Roadways

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-R26-RR-1.pdf

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2-S2-R26-RR-2.pdf

R26 Study Highlights

• Looked at agency practices • Evaluated definitions of “high volume”

– Rural – Urban

• Provided guidance on preservation of high volume roads

Decision Overview, Part 1

Evaluate 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

Extents Smoothness (IRI, PI, etc.) Surface and Subsurface Drainage

Characteristics Safety 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 Design Materials and As-Built

Construction M&R Treatments (materials,

thicknesses, etc.)

Decision

Assess Specific Needs and Constraints of Project Performance Needs

Treatment Life traffic effects (functional class and/or traffic level) climate/environment effects

• Risk Availability of qualified contractors Availability of quality materials

Construction Constraints

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

Decision Overview, Part 2 Develop Preliminary Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments

Select the Preferred Preservation Treatment

• Conduct Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Benefit-Cost Analysis Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)

• Evaluate Economic and Non-Economic Factors

Develop Final Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments

Feasibility Matrix – Bituminous

Feasibility Matrix – PCC

Secondary Selection – Bituminous

Secondary Selection – PCC

R26 Implementation

Brought to you by… • AASHTO • FHWA • SHRP 2 • Their partners

R26 Implementation Process

• Agencies submitted applications • 14 selected and funded

Arizona Pennsylvania Tennessee Kentucky Maine Wisconsin Delaware

Georgia Rhode Island District of Columbia Missouri Minnesota Washington Massachusetts

Nature of the Agreement

• Strictly preservation • High volume roads (HVR) • Must use R26 Guidelines to select and

engineer projects • Will receive technical assistance • Will allow documentation

Minnesota’s Implementation

• Hosting a workshop in conjunction with MPPP • Agenda under development • Technical presentations, exhibits, and perhaps

workshops/training • Tie into MnROAD preservation activities with

site visit

R26 Support

• Technical support – Project selection – Treatment selection – Tool customization – Construction – Pre-evaluation – Post-evaluation/monitoring

More Support

• Peer exchanges • Workshops • Presentations

Additional R26 Implementation

• Update to NHI 131115 • Incorporate HVR preservation content

– Decision tools – Workshops

DAvid Peshkin, P.E. Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. DPESHKIN@APPLIEDPAVEMENT.COM 217.398.3977

Thank You

Questions?