View
285
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
ATP Presentation SeriesPavement Materials Selection Process
Cody Brand | Soils Engineer
District 8
6/23/2017
ATP Presentation Series
2
1. MnDOT Statewide Planning
2. Performance Measures & Funding Programs
a) Pavement & Materials Selection Process
3. Project Selection Processes
4. Project Scoping
5. STIP Overview and Approval Process
You are here!
Overview
3
• Reconnaissance
• Current & Predicted Pavement Conditions
• Effects of Pavement Resurfacing
• Cost of Pavement Resurfacing
• Network Analysis
• Project Selection
Reconnaissance
• Historic Plans
• Technical Information
• Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
• Coring
• Past Pavement Condition
• Projected Pavement Condition
4
Focus For Today
Pavement Conditions
5
60
.6%
74
.4%
86
.1%
73
.1%
73
.2%
55
.0%
73
.8%
71
.4%
71
.5%
58
.0%
56
.9%
74
.4%
69
.2%
72
.2%
60
.4% 66
.4%
57
.9% 64
.7%
68
.4%
70
.5%
88
.7%
71
.9%
68
.5%
61
.3%
56
.6%
78
.5%
71
.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ATP-1 ATP-2 ATP-3 ATP-4 ATP-6 ATP-7 ATP-8 Metro Statewide
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ro
adw
ay M
iles
"Good" Ride Quality Index, Non-Interstate NHS System(RQI > 3.0)
Actual 2016 Predicted 2021 (2018-2021 STIP) Predicted 2027 (2022-2027 CHIP)
Pavement Conditions
6
3.8
%
0.8
%
0.7
%
0.8
%
1.9
%
4.4
%
1.7
%
1.6
%
2.0
%
10
.4%
4.1
%
3.0
%
6.4
%
4.8
% 5.5
%
8.0
%
5.0
% 5.9
%
7.9
% 8.8
%
1.5
%
5.2
%
8.8
%
10
.9%
9.6
%
4.8
%
6.8
%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
ATP-1 ATP-2 ATP-3 ATP-4 ATP-6 ATP-7 ATP-8 Metro Statewide
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ro
adw
ay M
iles
"Poor" Ride Quality Index, Non-Interstate NHS System(RQI <= 2.0)
Actual 2016 Predicted 2021 (2018-2021 STIP) Predicted 2027 (2022-2027 CHIP)
Pavement Conditions
7
49
.0%
85
.1%
69
.5%
73
.2%
74
.8%
34
.8%
76
.7%
53
.7%
65
.8%
63
.3%
62
.8%
65
.2%
63
.4%
73
.9%
40
.8%
70
.1%
49
.2%
62
.1%
75
.7%
57
.6%
71
.4%
63
.9%
77
.6%
67
.1%
58
.0%
73
.7%
67
.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
ATP-1 ATP-2 ATP-3 ATP-4 ATP-6 ATP-7 ATP-8 Metro Statewide
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ro
adw
ay M
iles
"Good" Ride Quality Index, Non-NHS System(RQI > 3.0)
Actual 2016 Predicted 2021 (2018-2021 STIP) Predicted 2027 (2022-2027 CHIP)
Pavement Conditions
8
17
.5%
1.0
%
3.4
%
0.6
%
3.1
%
8.4
%
1.0
%
8.3
%
5.5
%
13
.3%
4.8
%
2.5
%
4.3
%
8.9
%
26
.6%
3.9
%
12
.7%
9.3
%
9.0
%
12
.7%
6.0
% 8.2
%
6.1
%
16
.3%
4.8
%
9.0
%
9.1
%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
ATP-1 ATP-2 ATP-3 ATP-4 ATP-6 ATP-7 ATP-8 Metro Statewide
Pe
rce
nt
of
Ro
adw
ay M
iles
"Poor" Ride Quality Index, Non-NHS System(RQI <= 2.0)
Actual 2016 Predicted 2021 (2018-2021 STIP) Predicted 2027 (2022-2027 CHIP)
Projecting Pavement Conditions
9
Rid
e Q
ual
ity
Ind
ex
Year
Projecting Pavement Conditions
10
Rid
e Q
ual
ity
Ind
ex
Year
Defining “Pavement Condition”
• Measures include:
• Ride Quality Index (RQI)
• Remaining Service Life (RSL)
• Surface Rating (SR)
• Crack Counts
11
What the Public Sees
Pavement Distress Identification
12
Effects of Resurfacing
• Examine performance of:
• Major Rehabilitation
• Cold In-place Recycle (CIR)
• Medium mill & overlay
• Thin Surface Treatments
• Ultra-thin Bonded Wearing Course (UTBWC)
• Micro-milling
13
Paver
5/8” – 1.0”Thickness
Effects of Resurfacing - CIR
14
Low
Sev
erit
y Tr
ansv
erse
cra
cks
/ 5
00
’
Year 18 + years
Effects of Resurfacing – Medium M&O
15
Low
Sev
erit
y Tr
ansv
erse
cra
cks
/ 5
00
’
Year 11 years
Cost of Resurfacing
• Cold In-place Recycle
• $ 250,000 / mile
• Detour may be needed
• CIR mix design may need to be performed by a consultant
• CIR doesn’t work well in urban sections
• Medium Mill and Overlay
• $ 225,000 / mile
• Detour not required
16
Cost of Resurfacing
• Full Depth Reclamation / Stabilized Full Depth Reclamation
• $ 350,000 / mile
• Detour required
• Ground Penetrating Radar should be performed by consultant
• White-topping
• $ 300,000 – $ 600,000 / mile
• Detour required
• Ground Penetrating Radar should be performed by consultant
• More complex deliverability17
Effects of Resurfacing – UTBWC
18
Rid
e Q
ual
ity
Ind
ex
Year Year
No Ultra-Thin Bonded Wearing Course
Ultra-Thin Bonded Wearing Course
Effects of Resurfacing – Micro-milling
19
Year 0 RQI Year 1 RQI Year 3 RQI
Micro-mill & Chip Seal 3.3 3.4 3.4
Micro-mill & Micro-Surfacing* 2.3 3.7 3.2
Micro-mill & UTBWC 2.9 3.9 3.5
NRRA micro-milling case study on 3 MN trunk highways between 2013 – 2016.*Polymer Modified Micro-Surfacing
• RQI on traditional mill and overlay projects ranges from 4.2 – 3.6
• Other Thin Surface Treatments to Consider:
• Double chip seal
• ThinLay
Cost of Resurfacing
• Ultra-thin Bonded Wearing Course
• $ 100,000 / mile
• Potential for snow and ice issues in wind-blown locations
• Micro-milling
• $ 15,000 / mile (additional cost)
• ThinLay
• $ 65,000 / mile
20
Benefits of Thin Surface Treatments
21
• Program Flexibility
• Can be advanced or delayed with minimal impact
• No profile raise:
• Reduces the cost of shouldering
• Reduces the cost of entrances / intersection
• Preserves in-slope
• “Easy” deliverability
• Design and Inspection
• Shorter duration
Network Analysis
• Highway Pavement Management Application (HPMA)
• Uses a decision tree to determine the appropriate rehabilitation strategy for each segment. Triggers include:
• Ride Quality Index
• Surface Rating
• Transverse Cracking
• Alligator Cracking
• Fiscal constrains are used to determine the most cost effective projects
22
23
Project Selection
• HPMA network analysis is verified or revised by District
• Past project performance
• Recent regional experience
• Research and literature
• Projects are selected based on funding targets and performance measures
• Process is repeated annually for program development
• Also repeated within the fiscal year
24
Thank you!Questions?
Cody Brand
Cody.Brand@state.mn.us
320-214-6366
25
Recommended