Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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. [email protected] 217.398.3977
Thank You
Questions?