Impact of Three State Practices on Effectiveness of Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlay

Abstract

The effectiveness of pavement treatments is a function of several factors, including material quality, design, distribution of pavement condition states (conditions and rates of deterioration) before treatment, and construction quality. Because of these factors, state highway agencies have established estimates of treatment service lives with significantly wide ranges. These wide ranges make the calculation of treatment benefits or effectiveness a difficult task unless the role of each factor that affects service life is well understood. This study analyzed the impacts of the state of the practice of Colorado, Louisiana, and Washington on the effectiveness of thin (< 2.5 in.) hot-mix asphalt (HMA) overlay treatment. This paper reports that analysis of time-series pavement condition and distress data of previously treated pavement sections can be tabulated in a matrix format to demonstrate a snapshot examination of past practice. Such matrices are called treatment transition matrices (T²Ms). The data in the matrices express the probability that a pavement treatment will have certain effectiveness. T²Ms for pavement projects subjected to thin HMA overlays by three state highway agencies are discussed. Differences in treatment effectiveness were related to differences in the state of the practice in the three states. Selection of treatment timing and project boundaries significantly affected treatment effectiveness, and similar states of the practice yielded similar treatment effectiveness.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Dawson

T.A.

, Dean

C.M.

, Baladi

G.Y.

, Haider

S.W.

, and Chatti

Selection of Optimum Pavement Treatment Type and Timing at the Project Level. Presented at 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2011.

Bolander

P. W.

Seal Coat Options: Taking Out the Mystery. Transportation Research Circular No. E-C078: Roadway Pavement Preservation 2005. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2005, pp. 24–41.

Geoffrey

D. N.

NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 223: Cost-Effective Preventive Pavement Maintenance. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C, 1996.

Gransberg

, and James

D. M. B.

NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 342: Chip Seal Best Practices. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington D.C., 2005.

Hicks

G.R.

, Seeds

S.B.

, and Peshkin

D. G.

Selecting a Preventive Maintenance Treatment for Flexible Pavements. Publication FHWA-IF-00-027. Foundation for Pavement Preservation and FHWA, Washington, D.C., 2000.

Johnson

A. M.

Best Practices Handbook on Asphalt Pavement Maintenance. Minnesota T2/LTAP Program. Report 2000-04. Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 2000.

Labi

S.A.

, Lamptey

, Kong

S.-H.

, and Nunoo

Long-Term Benefits of Microsurfacing Applications in Indiana—Methodology and Case Study. Presented at 85th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.

Maher

, Marshall

, Harrison

, and Baumgaertner

Context-Sensitive Roadway Surfacing Selection Guide. Publication FHWA-CFL/TD-05-004a. FHWA, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, Lakewood, Colo., 2005.

Morian

D.A.

, Epps

J.A.

, and Gibson

S. D.

Pavement Treatment Effectiveness, 1995 SPS-3 and SPS-4 Site Evaluations, National Reports. Report FHWA-RD-96-208. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1997.

10.

Ohio Department of Transportation. Pavement Preventive Maintenance Program Guidelines. Office of Pavement Engineering, Columbus, 2001.

11.

Peshkin

D.G.

, Hoerner

T.E.

, and Zimmerman

K. A.

NCHRP Report 523: Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004.

12.

Smith

R.E.

, and Beatty

C. K.

Microsurfacing Usage Guidelines. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1680, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 13–17.

13.

Wade

, DeSombre

R.I.

, and Peshkin

D. G.

High Volume/High Speed Asphalt Roadway Preventive Maintenance Surface Treatments. Report SD99-09. South Dakota Department of Transportation, Pierre, 2001.

14.

Baladi

G.Y.

, and Snyder

Highway Pavements, Volume I, II, and III. National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C., 1992.

15.

Colorado Department of Transportation. Pavement Distress Database, 1998 through 2009, Denver, 2010.

16.

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. Pavement Distress Database, 1995 through 2009, Baton Rouge, 2010.

17.

Washington State Department of Transportation. Pavement Distress Database, 1995 through 2007, Olympia, 2010.

18.

Dawson

T.A.

, Baladi

G.Y.

, Dean

C.M.

, Haider

S.W.

, and Chatti

Predicting Pavement Treatment Performance from Relationships Between Before- and After-Treatment Trends. Presented at International Conference on Managing Pavement Assets, Santiago, Chile, 2011.

19.

Dawson

T.A.

, Baladi

G.Y.

, Dean

C.M.

, Haider

S.W.

, and Chatti

Defining Benefits from Pavement Rehabilitation and Preservation. Proc., ASCE Conference, Integrated Transportation and Development for a Better Tomorrow, Chicago, Ill., March 2011.

20.

Beach

A.C.

, Baladi

G.Y.

, Dawson

T.A.

, Dean

C.M.

, and Haider

S. W.

Strategy Analysis Using Treatment Transition Matrices of In-Service Pavement Condition Data. Presented at 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.