Assessment of Life-Cycle Benefits of Bio-Based Fog Sealant for Low-Volume Asphalt Pavement Preservation

Abstract

Bituminous pavement can become brittle and distressed over time as a result of the oxidation of bitumen associated with exposure to air, and multiple preservation methods could be implemented to prevent oxidation and prolong the lifespans of asphalt roads. Fog seal, a common preservation strategy, refers to applying a thin layer of emulsion on an existing surface to mitigate oxidation and moisture penetration. Over recent decades, some innovative sealants derived from biomass have drawn considerable attention given their economic benefits and eco-friendly properties, including a proprietary soybean-derived sealer that has been successfully applied in many states. While some studies have investigated its performance and concluded that it could effectively preserve asphalt roads and potentially prolong their lifespans, there has been little comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) based on field performance and actual construction cost which would support appropriate recommendations to local public agencies. To fill this gap, this study selected a low-volume asphalt pavement in Clinton County, Iowa, and during summer 2016 sprayed a proprietary bio-based fog sealant on it for five consecutive years of investigation, including an annual distress survey conducted on both untreated and bio-based fog sealant-treated sections for comparison purposes. Field assessment during this five-year period indicated that bio-based fog seal treatment could control crack growth of asphalt-surfaced roads. Bio-based fog sealant installation and road maintenance costs were combined and LCCA was employed, with results suggesting that, among the various options investigated in this study, applying three treatments at five-year intervasl during a service period was the most cost-effective.

Keywords

asphalt cracking design and rehabilitation of asphalt pavements LCCA pavement condition evaluation pavement distress sustainable and resilient pavements

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Chatti

Lee

Development of a Preventive Maintenance Strategy for Minimizing Roughness- Related Pavement Damage. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2001. 1769: 39–45.

Lee

Chatti

Baladi

G. Y.

Development of Roughness Thresholds for Preventive Maintenance Action Aimed at Reducing Dynamic Loads. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002. 1816: 26–33.

Hicks

R. G.

Moulthrop

J. S.

Daleiden

Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1999. 1680: l–12

Lamptey

Decision Support for Optimal Scheduling of Highway Pavement Preventive Maintenance Within Resurfacing Cycle. Decision Support Systems, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2008, pp. 376–387.

Walls

Smith

M. R.

Life Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design. Interim Technical Bulletin.Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-SA-98-079, 1998, pp. 39–41.

Labi

Sinha

Life-Cycle Evaluation of Flexible Pavement Preventive Maintenance. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 131, No.10, 2005, pp. 744–751.

Peshkin

D. G.

Hoerner

T. E.

Zimmerman

K. A.

NCHRP Report 523: Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004. DOI: 10.17226/13772

Baladi

G. Y.

Svasdisant

Van

Cost-Effective Preventive Maintenance Case Studies. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002. 1795: 17–26.

Estakhri

C. K.

Agarwal

Effectiveness of Fog Seals and Rejuvenators for Bituminous Pavement Surfaces. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, 1991.

10.

Prapaitrakul

Freeman

Glover

C. J.

2005. Analyze Existing Fog Seal Asphalts and Additives: Literature Review. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 2005.

11.

Steven

Monismith

C. L.

Tsai

B. W.

Friction Testing of Pavement Preservation Treatments: Friction Measurements on Fog Seal Trials Using Six Rejuvenators, State Route KER58. University of California Pavement Research Center Davis and Berkeley, Davis, CA, 2009.

12.

Cheng

D. X.

Lane

Vacura

Performance Evaluation of Fog and Rejuvenating Seals on Gap and Open Graded Surfaces by Caltrans. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2015, pp. 159–166.

13.

Song

Huang

Shu

Chandler

Woods

Jia

Laboratory Investigation of Fog-Seal Treatment on Performance of Open-Graded Friction Course Pavement. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2021, p. 04021002.

14.

Prapaitrakul

Freeman

Glover

C. J.

Fog Seal Treatment Effectiveness Analysis of Pavement Binders Using the T-Test Statistical Approach. Petroleum Science and Technology, Vol. 28, No. 18, 2010, pp. 1895–1905.

15.

J. H.

Kim

Y. R.

Development of Fog Seal Field Test Methods and Performance Evaluation Using Polymer-Modified Emulsion. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2013. 2361: 88–97.

16.

MoDOT. Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. Missouri Department of Transportation, Jefferson City, MO, 2021.

17.

Iowa Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction. Iowa Department of Transportation, Ames, IA, 2015.

18.

Oregon Department of Transportation. Oregon Standard Specification for Construction. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, OR, 2021.

19.

Texas Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges. Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, TX, 2014.

20.

Washington Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction. Washington Department of Transportation, Olympia, WA, 2018.

21.

IPCC. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England, 1996.

22.

IPCC. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change: Working Group III Contribution of to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1994.

23.

Yang

Zhang

Ceylan

Kim

Gopalakrishnan

Assessment of Soils Stabilized with Lignin-Based Byproducts. Transportation Geotechnics, Vol. 17, 2018, pp. 122–132.

24.

Shatnawi

RePlay^® Agricultural Oil Seal and Preservation Agent: A Sustainable and Environmentally Safe Product for Effective Rejuvenation and Sealing of Asphalt Concrete Surfaced Pavements. Shatec Engineering Consultants, LLC, El Dorado Hills, CA, 2014.

25.

Ghosh

Turos

Marasteanu

Evaluation of Bio-Fog Sealants for Pavement Preservation. Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN, 2016.

26.

Johnson

E. N.

Nontraditional Fog Seals for Asphalt Pavement: Performance on Shoulder Sections in Minnesota. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, 2018.

27.

Von Quintus

H. L.

Raghunathan

Effectiveness of Asphalt Penetrating Sealers in Extending New Asphalt Pavement Life. Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, OH, 2017.

28.

Miller

J. S.

Bellinger

W. Y.

Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Program. Office of Infrastructure Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA, 2003.

29.

SRF Consulting Group, Inc. RePlay Pavement Preservation and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (Phase 2) . SRF Project No.:13853. SRF Consulting Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN, 2021.

30.

Babashamsi

Yusoff

N. I. M.

Ceylan

Nor

N. G. M.

Jenatabadi

H. S.

Evaluation of Pavement Life Cycle Cost Analysis: Review and Analysis. International Journal of Pavement Research and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 4, 2016, pp. 241–254.

31.

Xiao

Zhang

Amirkhanian

S. N.

Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Recycled Solid Waste Materials in Highway Pavement: A Review. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 233, 2019, pp. 1182–1206.

32.

Ceylan

Yang

Zhang

Kim

Evaluation of RePLAY for Mainline, Shoulders, and Rumbles: Pilot Study in Clinton County. Institute for Transportation, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 2022.

33.

Kim

Y. R.

J. H.

Fog Seal Effectiveness for Bituminous Surface Treatments. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Raleigh, NC, 2015.

34.

Yang

Ceylan

Smadi

Gopalakrishnan

Kim

Turkan

Alhasan

A. A.

Adarkwa

Review of pavement cracking data collection practices. 10th Bearing Capacity of Roads, Railways and Airfields, Athens, Greece, 2017.

35.

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Primer . FHWA IF-02-047. Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2002.

36.

Pittenger

Gransberg

D. D.

Zaman

Riemer

Life-Cycle Cost-Based Pavement Preservation Treatment Design. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2011. 2235: 28–35.

37.

Kiel

A look back at the historic cold from Jan. 29–31, 2019. KWQC TV6 News. https://www.kwqc.com/2022/01/31/look-back-historic-cold-jan-29-31-2019/. Accessed Nov. 27, 2022.