Compaction Issues Compaction incentives were 1.04% in 2003 and 1.20% in 2004 Dropped to 0.34% in 2005 Have a net disincentive of 0.22% so far in 2006
Quick Notes Volumetrics and the Ride Specification are not included on all projects All end-result specifications
Contractors are Earning it! MDT is paying 3-5% of PMS costs in incentives Plant production has been slowed Seeing quality compete with production
Purpose Present potential future changes Provide reasoning behind changes Share information from last year Provide the opportunity to ask questions
Topics Grade S & Grade D Commercial Specification Revisions New ½” Grade S Policy Ride Specification Revisions Compaction Issues in 2005 Aggregate Surface Treatment Experiment
MDT Staff Construction Reviewers Project Staff Internal Audit
Contractors Montana Contractors Association (MCA) Non-Uniformity Complaints Claims
Specification Change Process All specification revisions go through the Specification Section Dan Smith and Ryan Antonovich Defined process Standards Committee coming soon
Change Process Ensures thorough review Reviewed by MDT staff and contractors
Plant Mix Specifications Grade S and Grade D Commercial
Grades of Plant Mix Grade S –Volumetrics –Non- Volumetrics Grade D Commercial –Tested –Non-Tested
Why two versions? Contract administration Quality of the same grades of mix should be equal. Testing and frequency of testing varies
Grade S Completely revised mix Grade S has been successful Moved to gyratory compactors Bob Weber and Scott Barnes deserve the credit
Volumetrics Volumetrics is how MDT administers and controls the plant mix quality True end result specification –Successfully encourages contracts to control their operations –Want quality to be able to compete with production
Grade D Commercial Relatively new specification Always used on “smaller projects” Bill Fogarty leading the committee
Grade B Use for bike paths or other features not subject to heavy loading Consider using Grade D or S with chip seals instead
Grade C No longer needed Grade D Commercial should be used instead
Change Process Plan to review specifications yearly Will continue to see the same issues if they are not identified Anyone can initiate change People doing the work need to identify the issues –MDT Project staff –Contractors –Reviewers
Grade S Changes Changes are minimal Changes are the same for volumetrics and non- volumetrics versions
Mix Designs 50 Gyration mixes have been eliminated SHRP recommendation for low volume roads Created issues with meeting Hamburg testing requirements
Release Agents – Specification a) Trucks. Remove trucks from service that leak fluids. When directed, cover each load with canvas or other approved material to protect the mix at Contractor expense. Do not use Diesel fuel as a truck bed release agent. Use a commercially manufactured release agent approved by the Project Manager.
Release Agents - Specification –b) Rollers. Furnish and use rollers that compact the plant mix to the specified density. Remove rollers that crush the paving aggregates or otherwise damage the plant mix and replace the damaged plant mix at contractor expense. Cleaning Agents. Do not use diesel fuel as a cleaning agent or as a release agent for any paving equipment or operations. Use a commercially manufactured release agent approved by the Project Manager.
Release Agents - Justification Expands the existing restriction on diesel fuel to all equipment Need to be uniform in our enforcement. –Contractors will include additional cost in bids –Will eliminate having the issue every time paving starts
Tack The cost of SS-1 will be incidental to the cost of Plant Mix Surfacing Includes tack between lifts of paving and for sealing rumble strips Tack is still required in all instances it was previously used
Tack SS-1 will still be a pay item for some uses –Aggregate surface treatment –Fog sealing Reasons for change –The number of lifts is no longer specified –Low cost item
Grade D Commercial Mostly Clarifications Extensive revisions last year –Previously relied only on compaction to control –Not enough control so 5% penalties on specified properties was added
Grade D Commercial Wording change Material. Provide Grade D Commercial Plant Mix Bituminous Surfacing with the specified asphalt binder, 1.4% hydrated lime, and meeting Table 701-15A requirements. Use fillers or additives as necessary.
Grade D Commercial Clarification c)Sampling. Sample the PGAB meeting subsection 402.03.2 (B). A sample is two one-pint (two 500 ml) containers of PGAB. Sample fillers, hydrated lime, additives, aggregate treatment and tack in accordance with MT- 601.
Grade D Commercial Revised target air voids Percent Air Voids: changed from 3-5 to 2-4 Do not want drier mixes Cost of oil is included in the Grade D Commercial bid item
Grade D Commercial Reweighing of vehicles is no longer mandatory It should still be done in most cases The Project Manager may randomly designate the re- weighing of loaded vehicles.
Grade D Commercial Reduced the “F” factor from 12 to 6 a) Acceptance. Rescind Subsection 401.03.12 (E) and replace with the following: Plant mix surfacing is evaluated for density on a lot-by-lot basis under Subsection105.03.2, except as noted in Subsection 401.03.12(B). Change the “F” factor for the Compaction element in Table 105-2 Table of Price Reduction Factors from 12 to 6 for plant mix furnished under this provision.
“F” Factor Change Compaction is no longer the only measure for controlling quality Want to be consistent with other mixes Inflated prices due to haul Too much risk for Contractors
Grade D Commercial Wording clarification A 5 percent price reduction (15% maximum), in the unit bid price for PMS Grade D Commercial will be applied for each test not meeting the Mix Design Stability, Flow, Percent Air Voids, Asphalt Binder Properties, Gradation, or Asphalt content specified. Price reductions will be assessed on the quantity of material represented by each failing sample. The quantity of material represented by each sample is the total tons of material produced divided by the total number of samples representing the material.
Grade D Commercial The quantity of material represented by each sample is the total tons of material produced divided by the total number of samples representing the material. Changed to help keep administration uniform Fairer to the contractor
Grade D Commercial – Non Tested Many of the same changes as the tested version Price reductions are only assessed for obviously defective material Added the following: Provide the Project Manager density testing results upon request.
Contract Administration – Tied Projects Issue has been identified Materials working with construction to develop guidance
October 2003 Policy ½” Required for all lifts less than 60 mm Introduced in response to Grade S compaction concerns Followed SHRP recommendations
Revised Policy – April 2005 Limited use of ½” Grade S to low volume roads Reduced the overall use.
January 2006 Revision Construction Memo Requires the use of ¾” PMS whenever 0.15 ft or greater is required Requires ½” Grade S only be used for overlays Allows reduced overlay depths if ½” is used
Additional Requirements ½” Grade S can only be used if: –Ave. Rut = 0.20 inches or less –Ave Ride = 80 in/mile or less –An isolation lift is required –Surfacing Design must approve
Implementation Surfacing Design will review existing design projects and make recommendations Projects will not be changed from ¾” to ½” Grade S Change orders will be considered – Should not be “no cost”
½” Facts ½” Gr. S is more difficult to compact ½” Gr. S is more expensive ½” Gr. S is equal to or better than ¾” structurally
Project Purpose Review Current Specification Compare with Current Literature Compare with State-of- Practice End Products
Why Is Pavement Roughness Important? Ride Quality Impacts on Vehicle Maintenance
Why Is Pavement Roughness Important? User Cost –WesTrack Experiment 4.5% Increase in Fuel Efficiency Savings of 10,257 gal of fuel per 1,000,000 veh miles Approx. 10% Drop in IRI $
Project Background Montana Residents Survey in 1998 –Attention & resources in the following order: Winter maintenance Surface smoothness Surface smoothness Highway striping, debris removal, highway signage, winter roadway information, roadway maintenance, rest stop maintenance Etc.
Revised Documents Profiler Operations Manual (POM) –Comprehensive MT-422 Document –Summary of POM QC/QA Plan –Emphasis on field activities Draft Revised Ride Specification
Profiler Operations Manual (POM) Calibration of Equipment 1.Full Calibration Check of Laser Sensors 2.Calibration of Accelerometers 3.Bounce Test Profiling System 4.Calibration of DMI
Full Calibration Check of Laser Sensors Calibrated and sealed by Manufacturer
Courtesy Testing At least 7 calendar day notice to EPM MDT will provide once per project –Not less than 2 and not more than 3 miles of continuous pavement Contractor interprets results
Surface Smoothness All mainline travel lanes including climbing lanes, passing lanes and ramps that are 0.2 miles or longer Bridge decks included only if paved as part of project
Surface Smoothness Not evaluated –Climbing and passing lanes less than 0.2 miles –Turning lanes –Acceleration and deceleration lanes –Shoulders and gore areas –Road approaches
Surface Smoothness Not evaluated –Horizontal curves 900 feet or less in centerline radius –Pavement within 50 feet of bridge decks (only for bridges not paved as part of project) –Pavement within 50 feet of approach slabs and terminal paving points of project
Profiling Test Section Procedures Minimum of Two Runs Start of Data Collection With F3 Key End of Data Collection With F3 Key Beginning of Project (BOP) End of Project (EOP) Exclude Area (e.g., Bridge) With F5 Key Approx. 500 ft.
Quality Control Report Acceptability: –For each interval, the average IRI for each run is within ± 5.7% of the mean IRI for both runs –If a run has an interval that is outside the acceptable limit, additional runs (up to three) should be made on that lane
Quality Control Report IntervalRun 1Run 2Mean Avg -5.7% Avg +5.7% Does Run 1 Meet Criteria? Does Run 2 Meet Criteria? 167 6371 okay 272 6876 okay 36867686471 okay 457 5460 okay 56766676370 okay 66162 5865 okay 75960 5663 okay Meets Criteria So Use Run 1…for Roughness Report
Surface Profile Correct surface profile defects that fail bump criteria –0.40 inches in a distance of 25 feet Correct surface profile defects –Milling and filling –Diamond grinding
Bump Report Considered Other Methodologies –Profilograph Simulation, –Bumpfinder and Grinding Simulation –Localized Roughness (TEX-1001- S) Method Current System is Satisfactory
Bump Report Bump Report for only first error free profile run in each lane is presented to EPM Defect locations should be physically verified
Expectations MDT profiles finished surface 2 times –One run is “the” run –Second run is for quality control After QC activities and acceptance –Operator delivers IRI Report and Bump Report to EPM –Potential defects will be physically examined
File Naming Convention 7 Characters –1 to 4 is Control Number –5 to 6 is Direction –7 is Lane Example 1022NBT: Control Number 1022, northbound direction, travel lane
File Directory Two Conventions –By Control Number –By Date D:\1022 D:\15JUL05 D:\1022 D:\15JUL05
Current Ride Specification Class Target (in/mi) Other Criteria I46-65 3 or more opportunities Pre-Pave IRI < 140 in/mi 2 Opportunities Pre-Pave IRI <90 in/mi Single Lift Overlay II55-75 Pre-Pave IRI 140 in/mi 2 Opportunities Pre-Pave IRI >90 in/mi and <140 in/mi Single Opportunity III56-80 Pre-Pave IRI 140 in/mi and <190 in/mi Single Opportunity IV61-90 Pre-Pave IRI >190 in/mi Single Opportunity
Data Set ClassCount Post-Pave IRI Avg (in/mi) Min IRI (in/mi) Maxi IRI (in/mi) Std Dev (in/mi) I 635038667 II 135144584 III 24645471 IV 26159633
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 405060708090100 Post-Pave IRI (in/mi) Avg MDT Class I Avg MDT Class II Avg MDT Class III Avg MDT Class IV Class I Target Class II Target Class III Target Class IV Target
Category 1 Target IRI set at 50 to 55 in/mi Project with two or more opportunities to improve the ride Single lift overlays with pre- pave IRI < 110 in/mile Maximum post-pave IRI should not be greater than 90 in/mi
Category 2 Target IRI set at 55 to 60 in/mi Single lift overlays with pre- pave IRI value 110 in/mi and < 190 in/mi Maximum post-pave IRI should not be greater than 95 in/mi
High Pre-Pave IRI Roadways Exception for roadways with pre-pave IRI >190 in/mi –Treat as Category 1 2 or more opportunities –Other Budget, functionality, etc. Specify a maximum post-pave IRI NOT be more than 50% of pre- pave IRI
Opportunities Placing a gravel base or surfacing course Placing plant mix bituminous base Placing cement treated base Placing pulverized plant mix surfacing Milling Cold recycling (milling and laydown) Each full 0.15 ft increment of new plant mix surfacing
Data Set ClassCount Post-Pave IRI Avg (in/mi) Min IRI (in/mi) Maxi IRI (in/mi) Std Dev (in/mi) I 635038667 II 135144584 III 24645471 IV 26159633 Cate gory Count Post-Pave IRI Avg (in/mi) Min IRI (in/mi) Maxi IRI (in/mi) Std Dev (in/mi) 1 735138667 2 75147585
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 405060708090100 Post-Pave IRI (in/mi) Class I Target Class II Target Class III Target Class IV Target Category 1 Target Category 2 Target Avg MDT Class I Avg MDT Class II Avg MDT Class III Avg MDT Class IV
Current Pay Adjustment Factor ClassActual IRI (in/mi)Pay Factor I <401.25 40-451.10 46-651.00 >650.80 II <451.25 45-551.10 56-751.00 >750.80 III <561.10 56-801.00 >800.90 IV <611.10 61-901.00 >900.90
Pay Adjustment Factor Category 1 IRI (in/mi)Pay Adjustment Factor < 351.25 35 - 501.845 – 17/1000 * IRI 50 < IRI <551.00 55 - 751.825 – 3/200 * IRI 75 < IRI <900.70 > 90 Corrective Action Required (Initially Assumed as a Zero Pay)
Pay Adjustment Factor Category 2 IRI (in/mi)Pay Adjustment Factor < 501.10 50 - 552.100 – 1/50 * IRI 55 < IRI <601.00 60 - 951.343 – 1/175 * IRI > 95 Corrective Action Required (Initially Assumed as a Zero Pay)
Testing & Acceptance Prior to seal and cover Performed with 3 working days of completion Contractor must ensure entire finished lane width can be tested and not impeded Test results within 2 working days
Economic Comparison classification categoryCompared current classification pay versus category pay Evaluated a total of 53 lanes –Category 1 would have 47 lanes –Category 2 would have 6 lanes
Disincentive Difference Category Current System New System % of Current System 1 $(54,388)$(122,411)$(68,022)225% 2 ----
Economic Impact Example Control Number Direction Current Class Current Pay ($) Category New Pay ($) Post-Pave IRI (in/mi) 2945 EBI $ 8,4071 $ 9,393 43 WBI $ 6,4091$ 6,527 45 4821 NBII $ 8,0962$ 4,226 47 SBII $ 7,5692$ 3,482 47
Economic Comparison Incentive –Payment will be similar to current system Disincentive –Penalty will be more rigorous than current system
Why Is Pavement Roughness Important? Ride Quality Impacts on Vehicle Maintenance User Cost Montana Residents FHWA Performance Goals National Trends
Concluding Remarks Held a seminar for contractors Complete Final Report –Address Comments Finalize MDT Ride Specification Document First training session – Spring 2006 Implementation – June 2006