ATP Presentation Series Pavement Materials Selection Process Cody - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ATP Presentation Series Pavement 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

Percent of Roadway Miles

"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

Percent of Roadway Miles

"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

Percent of Roadway Miles

"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

Percent of Roadway Miles

"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

Ride Quality Index Year

Projecting Pavement Conditions

10

Ride Quality Index 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 Severity Transverse cracks / 500’ Year

18 + years

Effects of Resurfacing – Medium M&O

15

Low Severity Transverse cracks / 500’ 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 deliverability

17

Effects of Resurfacing – UTBWC

18

Ride Quality Index 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