2 Asphalt Pavement Facts FDOT: 5 million tons asphalt per yearApproximately $500 million300 construction projects96% of pavements in Florida are asphalt93% of pavements in US are asphaltIt’s 100% recyclable (RAP)Typical life-span in Florida is 17 years
3 Statewide Pavement Performance Deficient Pavements (%)Criteria200720082009201020112012201320142015Ride188.8.131.52.184.108.40.206Crack14.614.913.010.99.77.96.86.06.4Rut0.91.00.60.50.4Section of Florida Statutes:“Ensuring that 80% of the pavement on the SHS meets Department Standards”
5 Deficient RoadwaysSome may think that we are getting better and better due to the fact that we are resurfacing more and more. This actually shows that not to be true. We are resurfacing about the same # lane miles per year (bar chart) and our # deficient lane miles is declining (line graph).With the new system of the resurfacing program being 25 years, and more of the work program being focused on capacity, the line may go up slightly; the bar graph will decrease.
6 Asphalt Specifications Update July 2014 – January 2016
7 July 2014 Workbook Section 300 - Prime and Tack Coats Removed cut-back prime coats and emulsion grades not being used any moreAdded two new trackless tack productsSection 320 – Hot Mix Asphalt – Plant Methods and EquipmentAdded language "For warm mix asphalt, the Contractor may produce the first five loads of the production day and at other times when approved by the Engineer, at a hot mix asphalt temperature not to exceed 330°F for purposes of heating the asphalt paver
8 July 2014 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete Added clarification for SP-19.0 mixtures: "Type SP May not be used in the final (top) structural layer below FC-5 mixtures. Type SP-19.0 mixtures are permissible in the layer directly below FC-9.5 and FC-12.5 mixtures."Set time limit of 60 days for how long a LOT can be left open.
9 July 2014 Workbook Section 916 – Bituminous Materials Removed cut-backs, some emulsions, and added trackless tacksEmulsions now approved and monitored like binders. Added to the QPL.For PG (ARB), provide a certification statement that a minimum of 7.0% GTR is used in the formulation of the binder.
10 January 2015 Workbook Section 300 – Prime and Tack Coats Refers to 916Section 916 – Bituminous MaterialsTrackless Tack ExclusivelyDepartment will be monitoring tracking nature and will remove products from the QPL that track "excessively".Qualified Products List (QPL) Approved Products List (APL)
11 July 2015 WorkbookGeneral language clarifications to correspond to the Materials Acceptance and Certification (MAC) directionQC Plan clarification
13 January 2016 Workbook Section 300 – Prime and Tack Coats All tack rates have been increased by 0.01Table 300-2Tack Coat Application RatesAsphalt Mixture TypeUnderlying Pavement SurfaceTarget Tack Rate (gal/yd2)Base Course, Structural Course, Dense Graded Friction CourseNewly Constructed Asphalt Layers0.04Milled Surface or Oxidized and Cracked Pavement0.07Concrete Pavement0.09Open Graded Friction Course0.06Milled Surface0.08*All tack rates are listed as minimums
14 January 2016 WorkbookSection 320 – Hot Mix Asphalt - Plant Methods And EquipmentTemperature measurement frequency and location for windrow pavingSection 330 – Hot Mix Asphalt - General Construction RequirementsSegregation density criteria 89.5% Gmm
15 January 2016 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete SP-19.0 mixture layer thickness increased from 3.5” to 4.0”Mandatory use of Core Dry Method (FM 1-T 166)Change in Density MPRTable 334-5Master Production RangeCharacteristicTolerance (1)Asphalt Binder Content (%)Target ±0.55Passing No. 200 Sieve (%)Target ±1.50Air Voids (%)2.30 – 6.00Density (minimum % Gmm)(2)89.50(1) Tolerances for sample size of n = 1 from the verified mix design(2) Based on an average of 5 randomly located cores
17 January 2016 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete Table 334-8Specification LimitsQuality CharacteristicPassing No. 200 sieve (percent)Target ± 1.0Asphalt Content (percent)Target ± 0.40Air Voids (percent)4.00 ± 1.20Density, vibratory mode (percent of Gmm):, (1)Density, static mode (1) (percent of Gmm), (1)(1): No vibratory mode in the vertical direction will be allowed. Other vibratory modes will be allowed, if approved by the Engineer.
18 January 2016 Workbook Section 916 – Bituminous Materials Increased allowance of PPA to 0.75%MSCR added to neat binder requirementsMoved emulsion product tables from 916 to Producer QC PlansMaterials Manual Section 3.4 – Emulsions100 psi bond strength requirement for tack
21 What is it? What goes in? Why? Materials Acceptance and Certification SystemLBR for $3.2MState Materials Office & Business Systems Support OfficeWhat goes in?All LIMSMaterial Acceptance & Material CertificationsIA Evaluation (active technicians)Why?LIMS Support will expire in Dec 2015No off the shelf product to meet the Department’s needs
22 How does this affect industry? Company, Lab and Producer ProfilesQC Plans (Producer / Contractor)Sampling and TestingDashboards and Reporting
23 Company Profile I manage what belongs to me. Company Profile Labs Plants / TerminalsUsersMix DesignsI manage what belongs to me.
24 In a nutshell Sampling and Testing (ST) MAC = APW online If it has data, it goes in MACProject samples (CQC)Mix DesignsBinder / Emulsions SamplesIA SamplesResearchHow do we get it out?Same reporting as we have nowMix Design SummaryControl ChartsExtensive standard reportsCTQP interface for technician qualifications.Construction dataIn a nutshellMAC = APW online
25 Sampling and Testing – “The New Stuff” Data Entry and Reviewer ProcessComparisons and CPFComparison / ResolutionInternal PF/CPF CalculationsRobust Audit TrailProject InformationSite Manager“Live” Qualification ChecksTechnicians (CTQP)Labs (CMEC/AMRL)Products (RAP, Aggregate, Liquid)Producers (QCP)Mix Designs (Approval / Expiration / Assignment)Conflict of InterestCTQP interface for technician qualifications.Construction data
26 NOTABLE DIFFERENCES Web-based No more APW – no more uploads Automatic comparison and CPF calculationData Reviewer capabilityDetailed audit trailNon-Compliance (DDM / EAR) processPA’s responsible for finalizing EVERYTHING!
27 Materials Acceptance and Certification (MAC) Implementation 1: MB / DCE Memo Company Profiles June 29 – Industry Builds Profiles SMO MAC Information Site:
29 NCAT Test Track20” of asphalt base insures all failures are in the top 4” asphalt structural layers.One truck = six fully loaded 18- wheelers (152,000 lbs.)Five trucks are operational at one time. ≈ 45 mph.Load 5 AM to 11 PM. Two shifts per day miles per driver per day. 6 days per week.3 year research cycle10 million ESALs applied over two years. (10.36 ESALs per pass)Forensics and reconstruction on 3rd year.Florida Department of Transportation
30 NCAT Test TrackFine vs. Coarse (PG 67-22)Continuation of 2000 cyclePG vs. PG 76-22Validation of SMO HVSValidation of Energy RatioBonded Friction CourseThick tack coatsPolymer vs. RubberHigh RAP vs. ShinglesFlorida Department of Transportation
31 NCAT Test TrackPG (PMA) with 20% RAP (this is the FDOT standard)PG (PMA) with 25% RAP PG (PMA) with 30% RAP PG (PMA) with 30% RAPFlorida Department of Transportation
32 Pavement Preservation Traditionally FDOT has focused on milling and resurfacingHigher traffic volume roadwaysGoal: Get in, get out, stay out…We technically do very little “traditional” pavement preservation. Mainly because of the high traffic levels. The public doesn’t understand why FDOT shuts down lanes, and works on a road (pavement preservation) and then five years later are out there again. Because of our good high quality subgrades and bases, our pavements generally function like perpetual pavements. Majority of the distress is within a few inches of the surface.
33 Hot-In-Place Recycling FDOT looking at alternatives…Hot-In-Place RecyclingMicrosurfacingWe’ve done a bunch of HIPR since 2001 (we did HIPR prior to that, but it was really outdated technology in the 70’s and early 80’s.) Some turned out well – SR-471 in Sumter County was reworked in 2002 and is 11+ years old; some didn’t - CR-315 in Putnam County was reworked in 2001 and failed within a few months.Crack SealingFog Seal
34 Hot in-Place Recycling 12 projects* constructed to date:11 as “Reworked Asphalt”1 as “Repaved Asphalt”Every district except for TurnpikeEarliest project* 2001Four projects completed in 2012* “Modern” EraWe’ve done a bunch of HIPR since 2001 (we did HIPR prior to that, but it was really outdated technology in the 70’s and early 80’s.) Some turned out well – SR-471 in Sumter County was reworked in 2002 and is 11+ years old; some didn’t - CR-315 in Putnam County was reworked in 2001 and failed within a few months.
35 Microsurfacing First FDOT microsurfacing project: US-319 Leon County2010Worked with several Contractors & Suppliers on specificationBased on ISSA requirementsISSA Type II mixture gradationSpread rate 20 – 26 lbs/sySingle courseRequired crack sealingWe did a micro-surfacing job on US-319 in Leon County in Cracks have all reflected up through the surface. We may have selected a job that was too cracked to begin with, plus it was only a single course.March 2014 project in Gainesville on NW 39th Avenue. It’ll be double course.
36 Crack Sealing Five Crack Seal Test Decks were placed in March 2012 Leon, Baker, Sumter, DeSoto, and Miami-Dade CountiesSeveral materials and construction techniques evaluatedPerformance will be monitored for three to five yearsWe did a number of crack sealing projects around the state in We’re monitoring them to see if they are effective. Typically cracks are sealed to keep water out of the base, and since our cracking is generally top down, we’re not sure that it’ll do much good. But we’ll see if it slows the crack growth.Crack seal test decks were constructed at five locations statewide:SR 61, Leon CountySR 121, Baker CountySR 471, Sumter CountySR 72, Desoto CountySR 997, Miami-Dade CountyEach test deck is 1.25 miles in length and consists of only one lane.The test decks are divided into five 1/4-mile segments. From south to north (or west to east) the five segments are the same at each location:Segment 1: Routing and sealing with asphalt rubber binderSegment 2: Crack filling with asphalt rubber binderSegment 3: Control (no work)Segment 4: Routing and sealing with polymer modified binderSegment 5: Crack filling with polymer modified binderConstruction occurred at all five locations in March 2013.Monitoring of each location will occur annually for a period of 3-5 years.Initial project selection criteria included roadway segments that had a 2012 crack rating between 7.0 and 8.0, a ride rating of 7.2 or better, and a rut rating of 9 or 10. Only dense graded friction courses were considered.Friction measurements were taken within 1-3 months of construction at all five locations. In comparison with the previously recorded friction measurement for each roadway segment, the average reading for the five sections were: +3.6, -0.6, +1.4, +2.6, and -4.6. I haven’t discussed the ramifications of these measurements with anyone, and I would hesitate to make any generalizations, but I do not see any discernable pattern with the data, and they all appear to be relatively close to the baseline measurements.Crack, ride, and rut measurements were taken for each segment (25 total) about three months prior to construction and about 2-3 months after construction. A comparison of the before and after measurements for the 20 segments that received treatment follows:Average IRI for each segment increased by 5.1 after construction. Over half of that increase came from four specific segments found in the first two jobs that were constructed. It appears from the data (and it appeared to me in the field) that once the guy working the wand became comfortable with the process and what I was looking for, that we got a much smoother product. The average IRI increase for segments found in the final three jobs was only 2.6.Average Ride Number (RN) for each segment decreased by 0.14 after construction. This would correspond with an average decrease in ride rating of 0.28. However, looking only at the final three jobs, the average RN for each segment decreased by only 0.07, which corresponds with an average decrease in ride rating of 0.15.Average rut rating was not affected by the installation of crack sealing.The final crack rating did not change for 18 of the 20 segments. However, an improvement in crack rating would not be expected immediately for roads with generally light crack severity. An improvement in crack rating would be evidenced over time, by comparison to the control section, which we would expect to deteriorate to moderate or severe cracking, while the test sections might be expected to maintain their “light cracking” status for a longer period of time.
37 Fog Sealing Test Sections Placed in 2013US-27 & US-17 Polk CountyPlaced on OGFCAttempt to reduce raveling & top-down crackingAge: 4 years oldGood conditionMultiple Test SectionsMultiple ProductsWe’re looking at fog sealing (at an early age) to see if it’ll extend the life of the pavement by either preventing raveling or top down cracking. The problem with fog sealing is the fairly dramatic loss of friction on the surface. It gets better in a few days/weeks but it’s a pretty high risk. Friction numbers can go down anywhere from 2 points down to 15 points (i.e., 40 to a 25), depending on the production.
38 Pavement Preservation Test Sections US-98 Gulf CountyConstructed 2012Ten Test Sections:Control SectionMicro-surfacing (Double course)1/2” HMA overlays with 4.75 mm mix3/4” HMA overlays with 4.75 mm mix1” HMA overlay with 9.5 mm mixHot-in-place recyclingBonded open graded friction courseMill and resurface 1.0” with 9.5 mm mixMill and resurface 1.5” with 12.5 mm mixControl sectionWe did a controlled experiment on US-98 in Gulf County. Construction was in Dec 2012 – Tried a number of things. Each section was 0.1 mile long. One Year PCS survey is coming up – they had equipment issues in December. This project will help guide FDOT’s direction on preservation.
45 Bonded Friction Course eTacUltraFuseConventionalTracklessFlorida Department of Transportation
46 Other Research Micro-milling Fiber Technology Volumetric refinement Alternative technique(s) to mitigate reflective crackingIncreased RAP with Dense- graded FCEvaluation of FL mixes for using Overlay TesterBinder RejuvenatorsOptimization of FC-5 characteristicsField test method to detect Polymer and/or GTRFC-5 image analysis for determination of optimum binder contentUnderstanding mechanisms of OGFC raveling