Mn/DOT Office of Materials and Road Research. MnPavement Rehabilitation Best Practices LRRB Inv 808. Gene Skok (UofM) Shongtao Dai (MnDOT) 12 th Minnesota Pavement Conference February 14, 2008. Outline. Objectives Literature Review Types of Reclamation Definition of Factors
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Office of Materials and Road Research
MnPavement RehabilitationBest PracticesLRRB Inv 808
Gene Skok (UofM)
Shongtao Dai (MnDOT)
February 14, 2008
Types of Reclamation
Definition of Factors
Existing Conditions (PQI)
Surface Rating (SR)
Transverse Cracks (0.01, 0.10, 0.20)
Long. Cracks & Deter. (0.02, 0.03, 0.04)
Multiple Cracking (0.15)
Alligator Cracking (0.35)
Raveling & Weathering (0.02)
PQI = (RQI X SR)1/2
Soil Factor (GE vs HCADT)
R-Value (GE vs ESAL’s)
Mn/PAVE (Thickness vs Load
TC effect on SR
Table 3.6. Pavement Condition(s) Checklist
Ride Quality Index (RQI)
1.Methoda. ___________________Critical Value __________
1. Using Mn/DOT Van 2. Rating Panel
2. Rated by a panel
Surface Rating (SR)
ConditionIndividual Weighted Distress (IWD)
c. High Severity__________
Total T.C. IWD ___________________
3.Long. Cracking/ Joint Det. ___________________
4. Alligator Cracking ___________________
5. Raveling, Weather, Patch ___________________
Total IWD ___________________
Table 3.7 Summary of Structure Adequacy.
1. Design Procedure:
a. Soil Factor ___, R-Value ____, Mechanistic ___
b. Soil Type (Classification)
AASHTO Class ________
R- Value ________
Resilient Modulus _____
c. Traffic (20 –year Predicted):
AADT ___________HCAADT __________
d.Required Thickness (Granular Equivalent Thickness)
Soil Factor Procedure _____________
R-Value Procedure _______________
Mn PAVE _______________________
1. Is existing HMA thickness adequate to support CIR equipment?
2. Is existing subgrade stiffness adequate to support CIR equipment?
3. Consider SR degradation rate.
4. If not structurally adequate then CIR should NOT be used without additional overlay
5.If SR < 2.5 and IWD for multiple cracking or
T.C. > 5.0:
- Mill and OL should not be used
- if existing HMA > 3.5 in. use FDR or RIC
- if existing HMA < 3.5 in. use FDR only
6. If the SR < 2.5 and Mult. or Transverse cracking IWD is < than 5.0, use mill & overlay
7. Finally, cost/benefits should be considered along with decay rates in the final decision.
NOTE: T.C. IWD = 5.0 for a pavement with all medium severity T.C. represents a crack count of 50 cracks per 100 ft.
An IWD = 5.0 for a pavement with all high severity T.C. represents a crack count of 25 cracks per 100 ft.
4. Continue documenting performance information from 1., 2., and 3. in the rehabilitation database (?)
- include RQI, SR (IWD’s), GE, Soil Stiffness. This could be part of the PMS or Mn/ROAD database (s).