Michigan Department of Transportation Pavement Demonstration Program Rep. Rick Olson’s 2012 Best Practices Conference on Road and Bridge Maintenance Curtis Bleech Pavement Operations Engineer August 16, 2012

Pavement Demonstration LCCA LawLCCA Law Legally Can Not Perform Demonstration ProjectLegally Can Not Perform Demonstration Project No Equivalent Pavement DesignNo Equivalent Pavement Design No Performance DataNo Performance Data Development of Pavement Demonstration LawDevelopment of Pavement Demonstration Law Allows Demonstration Projects Without Performing LCCAAllows Demonstration Projects Without Performing LCCA

Pavement Demonstration Law Allows four demo projects per year without having to go through life-cycleAllows four demo projects per year without having to go through life-cycle “…to evaluate new construction methods, materials, or design”“…to evaluate new construction methods, materials, or design” “Each demonstration project shall include measurable goals and objectives for determining the success of that project”“Each demonstration project shall include measurable goals and objectives for determining the success of that project” “The department shall make a final report for each demonstration project…that assesses the cost-effectiveness and performance…” “The department shall make a final report for each demonstration project…that assesses the cost-effectiveness and performance…”

Pavement Demonstration Law Criteria for selection:Criteria for selection: –Designs intended to increase pavement life expectancy –Designs intended to improve performance, including: FrictionFriction Surface stressSurface stress Noise reductionNoise reduction Improved ride qualityImproved ride quality –Comparisons of performance of various types of pavement

Pavement Demonstration Law Pavement costs for demo projects must balance within 20% between the two paving materials over a two year periodPavement costs for demo projects must balance within 20% between the two paving materials over a two year period Director has to provide an annual report on demonstration projects to the State House and Senate Transportation CommitteesDirector has to provide an annual report on demonstration projects to the State House and Senate Transportation Committees

Pavement Demonstration Examples of Project TypesExamples of Project Types White-topping (concrete over HMA)White-topping (concrete over HMA) Thin un-bonded concrete overlay (4”)Thin un-bonded concrete overlay (4”) Low-volume concrete reconstruct (6”)Low-volume concrete reconstruct (6”) Perpetual HMA pavement (40 year design)Perpetual HMA pavement (40 year design) Perpetual HMA pavement on rubblized concrete (40 year design)Perpetual HMA pavement on rubblized concrete (40 year design)

Demonstration Projects

I-75 near West BranchI-75 near West Branch –6” unbonded concrete overlay on NB –Rubblize and HMA resurface on SB –Both projects constructed concurrently –Several test sections involving undoweled and doweled joints, 10’ and 12’ joint spacing, sealed and unsealed joints Minor longitudinal crackingMinor longitudinal cracking

Demonstration Projects

M-84 between Saginaw and Bay CityM-84 between Saginaw and Bay City –40 year HMA perpetual pavement design on SB (existing roadbed) 6.5” HMA, 12” agg. base, 14” sand subbase –Normal 20 year HMA design on NB (new roadbed) 6.5” HMA, 6”agg. base, 18” sand subbase6.5” HMA, 6”agg. base, 18” sand subbase –Perpetual pavement HMA polymerized Very few distresses on SBVery few distresses on SB

Demonstration Projects

M-3 (Gratiot Ave.) in DetroitM-3 (Gratiot Ave.) in Detroit –Thin unbonded overlay (4”) –Existing composite, HMA milled down and new 1” separator layer placed –Four test sections – two separator layers and sealed and unsealed joints –Joint spacing 5’ to 6’ –Potential 15 year fix Some panels have been replaced due to crackingSome panels have been replaced due to cracking

Demonstration Projects

M-13 in PinconningM-13 in Pinconning –Low-volume concrete design –Reconstruct with 6” of concrete, 6” of dense-graded agg. base, and 12” of sand subbase –5.5’ joint spacing in both directions –No dowel bars at transverse joints –Unsealed joints –15 to 20 year expected life Performing very wellPerforming very well New cracks at approach to structure at Pinconning RiverNew cracks at approach to structure at Pinconning River

Demonstration Projects

I-96 WB in DetroitI-96 WB in Detroit –40 year perpetual pavement design 14” HMA, 16” OGDC, 8” sand subbase, 12” lime stabilized subgrade14” HMA, 16” OGDC, 8” sand subbase, 12” lime stabilized subgrade –Normal 20 year JPCP design on EB –Not a side by side comparison No distresses in the perpetual pavementNo distresses in the perpetual pavement

Demonstration Projects M-99 in SpringportM-99 in Springport –Low-volume concrete –Reconstruct with 6” of concrete, 6” of dense-graded agg. base, and 12” of sand subbase –6’ joint spacing in both directions –No dowel bars at transverse joints –Unsealed joints –15 to 20 year expected life Early age cracking (possibly late sawing)Early age cracking (possibly late sawing)

Demonstration Projects

I-75 NB in Cheboygan CountyI-75 NB in Cheboygan County –40 year HMA perpetual pavement design on NB over rubblized concrete 8.0” HMA –NB also had concrete reconstruct and unbonded overlay –Unbonded overlay on SB the previous year –Not a side by side comparison

Demonstration Projects M-1 (Woodward Ave.) in DetroitM-1 (Woodward Ave.) in Detroit –Thin unbonded overlay (4”) –Existing composite, HMA milled down and new 1” separator layer placed –Joint spacing 5’ to 6’ and sealed

Results Some observations at early agesSome observations at early ages Sealing of joints appears beneficial to help prevent water infiltrationSealing of joints appears beneficial to help prevent water infiltration Perpetual HMA pavement showing less cracking than comparison sectionPerpetual HMA pavement showing less cracking than comparison section For thin un-bonded concrete overlays, drainable HMA interlayer showing less cracking than dense graded interlayerFor thin un-bonded concrete overlays, drainable HMA interlayer showing less cracking than dense graded interlayer Low-volume concrete design has little cracking to dateLow-volume concrete design has little cracking to date

Candidate Process Can be just a portion of a larger projectCan be just a portion of a larger project Typically get buy-in from industry groupsTypically get buy-in from industry groups Candidate project is submitted to Engineering Operations Committee with a workplanCandidate project is submitted to Engineering Operations Committee with a workplan –Experimental feature –Potential benefits –Monitoring plan –Reports to be written

Candidate Process If EOC approves, it becomes an official Demonstration ProjectIf EOC approves, it becomes an official Demonstration Project Candidate projects must be submitted before any life-cycle documents are submittedCandidate projects must be submitted before any life-cycle documents are submitted Currently no extra funding for demonstration projectsCurrently no extra funding for demonstration projects

Plan For Future Demo’s Types of projects:Types of projects: –White-topping (regular and ultra-thin) –Thin un-bonded overlay –Low-volume concrete reconstruction –Perpetual pavement on rubblized concrete –Long life concrete reconstruction –HMA over stabilized base –Others?

Questions?