Full Depth Pavement Reclamation

Transcription

1 Full Depth Pavement Reclamation Delaware County, Ohio Chris Bauserman, PE, PS April 28, 2015

2 Background Population has increased from 55,000 in 1989 to approximately 200,000 Explosive growth in residential, commuter, construction and commercial traffic County Highway system inadequate to meet demands of growth

3 1990 s Road Conditions Narrow Roads 18 feet or less with poor crown Predominantly Chip Seal surfaces Cross sections vary in thickness Poor subgrade Shallow aggregate base sections HMA projects were not performing well Reflective cracking early in maintenance cycle Loss of cross slope early in the maintenance cycle

4 Full Depth Reclamation Pulverized flexible pavement section creating a uniform stabilized base Further Stabilization obtained through: Addition of aggregate Addition of stabilizers Liquid Asphalt Portland Cement

5 Full Depth Reclamation Mechanical Stabilization Aggregate

6 Full Depth Reclamation Chemical Stabilization Liquid Asphalt 2nd Pass Liquid Additive System Working Direction Granular Material or Chemical Additive

7 Full Depth Reclamation Chemical Stabilization Portland Cement

8 FDR - Slope Adjustments

9 FDR - Slope Adjustments

10 FDR Pavement Widening

11 FDR- Resists Reflective Cracking

12 1997 FDR Test Section Norton Road 4.7 mile section widening & overlay (3 depth) 1.0 mile section FDR with 3 treatment variations Performed Before and After falling weight deflectometer tests at multiple locations on each section

13 Test Section CONTROL SECTION (widening & 3 overlay) R-1 (aggregate) R-2 (aggregate & emulsion) R-3 (aggregate & portland cement)

14 Test Section CONTROL SECTION (widening & 3 overlay) Deflection reduced by 17.6% R-1 (aggregate) Deflection reduced by 41.7% R-2 (aggregate & emulsion) Deflection reduced by 48.3% R-3 (aggregate & portland cement) Deflection reduced by 51.0%

15 Full Depth Reclamation

16 Pavement Preservation An Asset Management approach for pavement infrastructure Keep good pavements in good condition by the use of properly timed and selected preventative maintenance surface treatments Not a worst first approach

17 Pavement Preservation

18 Pavement Preservation Funding Commitment Staff Political Collect and maintain data on the condition of your system

19 Pavement Preservation 2014 Pavement Condition Record

20 Pavement Preservation 2014 Pavement Condition Record

21 Pavement Preservation Program How much surface treatment work? Every year each system ages by 1 year In order to maintain your system at the current level, preventative maintenance treatments and/or structural improvements are required that extend the remaining useful life by a number equal to your system mileage

22 Pavement Preservation Program

23 Pavement Preservation Evaluation of annual program: (lane miles of chip seal X expected life extension) + (lane miles of crack seal X expected life extension) + (Lane miles asphalt overlay X expected life extension) + (Lane miles micro surfacing X expected life extension) = Total annual Lane Mile Years A number equal to the total number of lane miles on your system is required to maintain your road system in its existing condition

24 FDR vs. Overlay Comparison 2014 Pavement Condition Record 2014 Pavement Condition Record

25 FDR vs. Overlay Comparison Analyzed Maintenance Life Cycle Cost The amount of money spent on each FDR roadway and each structural overlay Expressed in $ per square yard per year Excludes initial cost Evaluates amount of subsequent expenditures by roadway segment

26 2014 Pavement Condition Record 1996: $ 4.95/sy 1997 to 2014 $13.75/sy Avg. annual cost $.76/sy/yr 1998: $8.23/sy 1999 to 2014 $4.90/sy Avg. annual cost $.33/sy/yr

27 FDR vs. Overlay Comparison Average Maintenance Life Cycle Cost for all applicable Delaware County roads: Conventional Structural Overlay Segments Average Expenditure $.80 / sy / year FDR w/ Structural Overlay Segments Average Expenditure $.28 / sy / year

28 FDR vs. Overlay Comparison Initially, FDR with overlay has cost about twice as much as the structural overlay Long term, FDR has saved about two thirds of subsequent surface treatment and repair costs This doesn t account for the additional benefits of crown correction and profile grade adjustments

29 FDR vs. Overlay Comparison Evaluation of Total Life Cycle Cost: Performed the same evaluation comparison including the initial cost to the analysis: Structural Overlay Average $1.05/sy/yr FDR $.81/sy/yr

30 Disadvantages of FDR Higher initial cost MOT is more difficult than conventional paving operation Initial Public reaction Length of disturbance is greater Steeper Intersection and driveway approaches Destroys survey monuments in pavement

31 Advantages of FDR Lower long term cost Increased Pavement Strength Re-establishment and retention of crossslope Reduction in reflective cracking Extended Maintenance Cycle Cost Effective alternative to reconstruction Flexibility in stabilizers (stone, asphalt, cement) Public perception

32 Advantages of FDR Recycles existing asphalt and stone Reduced Hauling of offsite materials Reduced damages to haul routes

33 FDR Resources Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association Basic Asphalt Recycling Manual (BARM) Four Chapters on FDR ODOT County

34 Questions? Chris Bauserman, PE, PS Delaware County Engineer

35