gene skok uofm shongtao dai mndot 12 th minnesota pavement conference february 14 2008 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Gene Skok (UofM) Shongtao Dai (MnDOT) 12 th Minnesota Pavement Conference February 14, 2008 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Gene Skok (UofM) Shongtao Dai (MnDOT) 12 th Minnesota Pavement Conference February 14, 2008

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 32

Gene Skok (UofM) Shongtao Dai (MnDOT) 12 th Minnesota Pavement Conference February 14, 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 128 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Gene Skok (UofM) Shongtao Dai (MnDOT) 12 th Minnesota Pavement Conference February 14, 2008' - dandre


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

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.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
gene skok uofm shongtao dai mndot 12 th minnesota pavement conference february 14 2008

Mn/DOT

Office of Materials and Road Research

MnPavement RehabilitationBest PracticesLRRB Inv 808

Gene Skok (UofM)

Shongtao Dai (MnDOT)

12th Minnesota

Pavement Conference

February 14, 2008

outline

Outline

Objectives

Literature Review

Types of Reclamation

Definition of Factors

Decision Checklists

Criteria

Recommendations

pavement rehabilitation lrrb inv 808 objective
Pavement Rehabilitation (LRRB INV 808)Objective
  • Laying out the Best Practices for the selection of asphalt concrete
  • recycling techniques:
  • Full-Depth Reclamation (FDR)
  • Cold In-place Recycling (CIR)
  • Mill/Overlay (M&O).
why mill and overlay
Why Mill and Overlay ?
  • Low Initial Cost
  • Minimize clearance/grade issues
  • Construction time minimized
  • “Covers” up reflective cracks
rehabilitation decision factors
Rehabilitation Decision Factors

Existing Conditions (PQI)

Ride (RQI)

Surface Rating (SR)

Transverse Cracks (0.01, 0.10, 0.20)

Long. Cracks & Deter. (0.02, 0.03, 0.04)

….

rehabilitation decision factors cont
Rehabilitation Decision Factors (cont.)

Multiple Cracking (0.15)

Alligator Cracking (0.35)

Rutting (0.15)

Raveling & Weathering (0.02)

Patching (0.04)

PQI = (RQI X SR)1/2

slide7

STRUCTURAL ADEQUACY

  • TONNAGE
  • PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN

Soil Factor (GE vs HCADT)

R-Value (GE vs ESAL’s)

Mn/PAVE (Thickness vs Load

Spectra)

pavement rehabilitation database
Pavement Rehabilitation Database
  • Location
  • Original Pavement Construction
  • Pre-Rehab
  • Rehab
  • Post-Rehab
mn rehabilitation projects surveys
MN Rehabilitation ProjectsSurveys

CIR (37)

FDR (41)

M&O (25)

decision check lists
Decision Check Lists
  • Geometrics
  • Pavement Condition (s)
  • Review Figure 3.7 (PQI < 2.5)
  • Structural Adequacy
    • Pavement Thickness
    • Tonnage
    • Falling Weight Deflectometer
geometrics checklist
Geometrics Checklist
  • Clearances
  • Shoulder Width
  • Grading Width
  • Curb and Gutter
  • Constructability
geometrics
Geometrics
  • 3.6 GEOMETRIC CONSIDERATIONS
  • NOTE: Official State Aid rules can be found directly at http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=RULE_CHAP&year=current&chapter=8820
  • OR by browsing to www.leg.state.mn.us and then selecting:
  • Statues, Session Laws, and Rules
  • Under the “Minnesota Rules” section on the main page, “Retrieve an entire chapter”
  • Enter in the number “8820” and click “Get Chapter”
pavement conditions checklist
Pavement ConditionsChecklist

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)

Condition Individual Weighted Distress (IWD)

1.Rut Depth ___________________

2.Transverse Cracking

a.Low Severity __________

b.Medium Severity __________

c. High Severity __________

Total T.C. IWD ___________________

3. Long. Cracking/ Joint Det. ___________________

4. Alligator Cracking ___________________

5. Raveling, Weather, Patch ___________________

Total IWD ___________________

SR _________________

PQI _________________

Discussion __________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

structural adequacy
Structural Adequacy

Table 3.7 Summary of Structure Adequacy.

PAVEMENT THICKNESS

1. Design Procedure:

a. Soil Factor ___, R-Value ____, Mechanistic ___

b. Soil Type (Classification)

AASHTO Class ________

R- Value ________

Measured ___

Estimated ____

Resilient Modulus _____

Measured ___

Estimated ___

c. Traffic (20 –year Predicted):

AADT ___________ HCAADT __________

ESAL’s __________________

d.Required Thickness (Granular Equivalent Thickness)

Soil Factor Procedure _____________

R-Value Procedure _______________

Mn PAVE _______________________

NOTES ___________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

____________________________________________________

specific criteria
SPECIFIC CRITERIA

1. Is existing HMA thickness adequate to support CIR equipment?

(3.5 in.)?

2. Is existing subgrade stiffness adequate to support CIR equipment?

(5000 psi)?

3. Consider SR degradation rate.

criteria continued
Criteria Continued

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

criteria continued more
Criteria Continued more

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.

recommendations
RECOMMENDATIONS
  • Determine ride (RQI) periodically with Mn/DOT IRI correlation(s) or panel
  • Determine IWD and SR using Mn/DOT Distress Manual periodically
  • Run FWD periodically to determine:
    • Tonnage
    • Subgrade Stiffness
    • GE of pavement section
recommendations cont
RECOMMENDATIONS (cont.)

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).

summary
Summary
  • Types of Reclamation
  • Decision Factors
  • Database Development
  • Decision Checklists
  • Criteria
  • Recommendations
acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
  • Minnesota Local Road Research Board
  • Technical Advisory Committee
  • Mn/DOT, Dave Janisch, Erland Lukanen, Graig Gilbertson,Perry Collins
  • Counties, Brian Noeltzman,Wayne Olson,Milt Hagen,Brad Wentz,Brian Shepard,Kathy Jaschke,Darrell Pettis, Curt Bolles, Guy Kohnlhofer,
  • Midwest Construction, Tom Olson,American Engineering, Dave Rettner, SEM Materials,Dan Wegman,