PROJECT SELECTION RIGHT TOOLS RIGHT TIME RIGHT PROJECT

PROJECT SELECTION RIGHT TOOLS, RIGHT TIME, RIGHT PROJECT Presented by Joe Ririe, PE PAVEMENT ENGINEERING INC. September 9, 2015

PRESENTATION GOALS • Pavement basics • Pavement preservation principles • Project selection • Pavement evaluation and testing • Cost analysis and life cycle cost benefits • Quality control and quality assurance

PAVEMENT BASICS

Pavement Design Loading ESALS = Traffic Index or TI Soils (R-value) GE = 0. 0032 (TI)(100 -R) PAVEMENT BASICS

Pavement Deterioration Cycle PAVEMENT BASICS

Pavement Deterioration Asphalt concrete deteriorates in two ways: Oxidizing effects of sun and water PAVEMENT BASICS Fatigue from heavy wheel loads

The Impact of Sun and Water PAVEMENT BASICS

The Impact of Heavy Loads PAVEMENT BASICS

What is a Traffic Index? The projected equivalent single axle loading that a pavement will experience over its design life PAVEMENT BASICS

Equivalent Single Axle Load ESAL = (Axle Wt / 18, 000 lbs)4. 2 PAVEMENT BASICS

Traffic Index vs. ESALs PAVEMENT BASICS TI ESALs 4. 0 1, 098 4. 5 2, 954 5. 0 7, 160 5. 5 15, 950 6. 0 33, 136 6. 5 64, 924 7. 0 121, 020 7. 5 216, 092 8. 0 371, 676 8. 5 618, 596 9. 0 1, 000

Common Pavement Distresses • Alligator cracking • Block cracking • Distortions • Longitudinal / transverse cracking • Patches / utility cuts • Rutting / depressions • Weathering / raveling PAVEMENT BASICS

Common Pavement Distresses Weathering or Raveling PAVEMENT BASICS Transverse or Longitudinal Cracking Block Cracking Alligator Cracking

PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES

Applying the RIGHT TREATMENT to the RIGHT PAVEMENT at the RIGHT TIME using the RIGHT MATERIALS PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES

Pavement Preservation Timing PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES

Good Pavement Management • Best-First “Top Down” Management: focuses maintenance and rehabilitation on the best streets in the system. Interim procedure. • Worst-First “Bottom Up” Management: focuses maintenance and rehabilitation on the worst streets in the system. Interim procedure. • Critical-Point Management: focuses maintenance and rehabilitation on streets above rather than below a critical PCI. Most economical in the long run. PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES

Pavement Condition vs. Maintenance / Rehabilitation Cost PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES

Pavement Condition vs. Maintenance / Rehabilitation Cost PAVEMENT PRESERVATION PRINCIPLES

PROJECT SELECTION

Project Timing • Time of year • Proximity to schools • Day or night • Traffic control needs PROJECT SELECTION

Selecting the Right Streets • PMS data • Multi-year plan • Visual conditions • Grouping streets • Public input • Staff input PROJECT SELECTION • Budget • Utility coordination • Grants • Drainage • ADA

Selecting the Right Treatment Visually dividing your street list Project Street List Maintenance Streets Rehabilitation Streets • Environmental determination • Extent of loading failures • Extent of ADA improvements • Physical testing to determine structural adequacy • If adequate, consider maintenance option PROJECT SELECTION

PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Rehabilitation Streets Design controlled by Reflective Cracking PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING Structural Adequacy

Deflection Testing and Coring PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Deflection Testing and Coring PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Deflection Testing and Coring PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Deflection Testing and Coring VISUAL DESCRIPTION FOR THIS SECTION OF ROAD The pavement exhibits continuous severe alligator cracking. Previous maintenance includes a slurry seal and patching with cold mix. PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

NOTES: • NTS • ACTUAL ROAD MAY NOT BE STRAIGHT • NOT ALL ROADS CONNECTING TO THIS STREET ARE SHOWN • WIDTH OF ROAD MAY VART WITHIN THE BOUNDARY SECTION • ALL LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATED Lana Street (Section of Road – 1, 400 ft) PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING N TRAFFIC LAYOUT: • 2 -WAY STREET • 1 LANE EACH WAY Miles Road Melody Drive Deflection Testing and Coring

Deflection Testing and Coring CORING LOG Symbol Location West of Miles Road 450 ft AC AB 4. 25” 5. 25” 9 West of Miles Road 1, 100 ft AC AB 3. 00” 5. 00” 22 West of Creston Road 800 ft AC AB 3. 00” 6. 75” -- PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING Core Data R-value

Deflection Testing and Coring DEFLECTION ANALYSIS Lane Tolerable TI 80 th Percentile Percent Reduction HMA Overlay West Bound 25 7. 0 47. 04 46. 86 3. 60 inches East Bound 25 7. 0 44. 84 44. 25 3. 24 inches Overlay Required by Reflective Cracking PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING 2. 00 inches

Resistance R-Value Testing Speciman No. 1 2 3 Moisture Content (%) 10. 0 10. 9 9. 3 Dry Density (PCF) 125. 5 125. 0 127. 1 Resistance Value (R) 27 13 67 Exudation Pressure (PSI) 314 189 592 Expansion Pressure 87 17 130 As-received Moisture Content (%) 10. 0 RESISTANCE VALUE AT 300 PSI: 25 PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

R-Value Design PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Design Considerations • Previous overlays / existing crown • Road improvements • Shallow utilities PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Design Considerations for Sustainable Options • Cold-in-place recycling (CIR) • Pulverization and resurfacing / full-depth reclamation (FDR) • Milling and resurfacing requirements PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Cold In-place Recycling • Pavement must be structurally adequate. • Pavement must have a minimum HMA layer thickness. • Pavement must have a minimum existing base of 10 inches if R-value is less than 30. • CIR depth cannot extend to base layer. Why? • 1. 75 to 2. 50 -inch cap is not sufficient if a pavement is structurally deficient (may not meet HMA design). • A minimum depth ensures good CIR layer (3 -4 inches). • A minimum base thickness ensures heavy equipment doesn’t destabilize the grade. PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Pulverization and Resurfacing/FDR • • The preferred Traffic Index (TI) should be less than 7. 0. Pavement must have a minimum aggregate base of 12 inches or an R-value less than 30. Pavement must have a minimum aggregate base of 9 inches or an R-value greater than 30. Check crown. Why? Typical build-up is not feasible over 2 to 3 inches unless there are no vertical constraints. Pulverizing, grading and compacting will destabilize a grade if the R-value and corresponding base thickness do not meet minimums. The intent of pulverizing is to create a new aggregate base section. Generally, limiting the off-haul of the pulverized base is important to ensure a sufficient structural section. PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

Milling and Resurfacing • Pavement must be structurally adequate or only slightly deficient. • Pavement must have a minimum existing HMA depth of 5 inches. Why? • Milling reduces the in-place structural capacity and requires some replacement value. If the pavement is structurally deficient, the mill depth typically becomes excessive. • A minimum layer thickness is necessary to ensure milling equipment and loaded trucks do not break through the existing HMA. PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND TESTING

COST ANALYSIS LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSIS (LCCA)

COST ANALYSIS

Develop and Evaluate Recommendations Short-term pavement rehabilitation options These options are not available for this street because of structural deficiencies and/or pavement cracking condition. COST ANALYSIS

Develop and Evaluate Recommendations Long-term pavement rehabilitation options Overlay Option: RHMA For option 1, we recommend 4 -inch digouts for base failures, placing a 1/2 inch HMA leveling course and a 1 -3/4 inch RHMA overlay. Estimated Cost: $241, 000 COST ANALYSIS Estimated Life Expectancy: 10 -12 Years

Develop and Evaluate Recommendations Long-term pavement rehabilitation options Overlay Option: HMA An overlay using HMA is not recommended because the 3 -3/4 inch structural requirement exceeds the 3 -1/2 inch maximum overlay that is considered feasible to meet geometric constraints. COST ANALYSIS

Develop and Evaluate Recommendations Long-term pavement maintenance options Recycle and Mill and Replace Options These options are not available for this street because of the structural deficiencies and thin pavement layer. COST ANALYSIS

Develop and Evaluate Recommendations Long-term pavement rehabilitation options Reconstruction Option 1 For option 1, we recommend removing the pavement to a depth of 10 -1/2 inches and placing 10 -1/2 inches of new HMA. The HMA should be placed in 4 lifts. Estimated Cost: $631, 000 COST ANALYSIS Estimated Life Expectancy: 20 Years

Develop and Evaluate Recommendations Long-term pavement rehabilitation options Reconstruction Option 2 For option 2, we recommend removing 4 inches of the existing structure, lime treating the native soil and aggregate base to a depth of 13 inches and placing 4 inches of new HMA in 2 lifts. Estimated Cost: $292, 000 COST ANALYSIS Estimated Life Expectancy: 20 Years

Develop and Evaluate Recommendations HMA Overlay (10 -12 years) Street Construction Cost Yearly Cost RHMA Overlay (10 -12 years) Construction Cost Yearly Cost HMA Mill & Fill (12 -15 years) Construction Cost Yearly Cost RHMA Mill & Fill (12 -15 years) Construction Cost Yearly Cost CHAPEL ST $ 52, 000. 00 $ 4, 727. 27 $ 51, 000. 00 $ 4, 636. 36 CREMONA DR $ 99, 000. 00 $ 97, 000. 00 $ 8, 818. 18 DAWSON ST. $ 40, 300. 00 $ 3, 663. 64 $ 39, 500. 00 $ 3, 590. 91 DEARBORN PL $ 214, 000. 00 $ 19, 454. 55 $ 210, 000. 00 $ 19, 090. 91 $ 235, 000. 00 $ 17, 407. 41 $ 231, 000. 00 $ 17, 111. 11 DEBBIE RD $ 89, 000. 00 $ 8, 090. 91 $ 75, 000. 00 $ 6, 818. 18 $ 84, 000. 00 $ 6, 222. 22 $ 83, 000. 00 $ 6, 148. 15 EKWILL ST $ 133, 000. 00 $ 12, 090. 91 $ 130, 000. 00 $ 11, 818. 18 $ 139, 000. 00 $ 10, 296. 30 $ 137, 000. 00 $ 10, 148. 15 EKWILL ST $ 128, 000. 00 $ 11, 636. 36 $ 126, 000. 00 $ 11, 454. 55 $ 248, 000. 00 $ 18, 370. 37 $ 252, 000. 00 $ 18, 666. 67 FAIRVIEW AVE $ 117, 000. 00 $ 10, 636. 36 $ 99, 000. 00 $ 111, 000. 00 $ 8, 222. 22 $ 171, 000. 00 $ 12, 666. 67 GAVIOTA ST $ 93, 000. 00 $ 8, 454. 55 $ 91, 000. 00 $ 8, 272. 73 KELLOGG AVE $ 129, 000. 00 $ 11, 727. 27 $ 127, 000. 00 $ 11, 545. 45 $ 136, 000. 00 $ 10, 074. 07 $ 140, 000. 00 $ 10, 370. 37 KELLOGG PL $ 32, 000. 00 $ 2, 909. 09 $ 27, 000. 00 $ 2, 454. 55 KELLOGG WAY $ 80, 000. 00 $ 7, 272. 73 $ 67, 000. 00 $ 6, 090. 91 LA PATERA LN $ 239, 000. 00 $ 21, 727. 27 $ 234, 000. 00 $ 21, 272. 73 LOS CARNEROS WAY $ 34, 200. 00 $ 3, 109. 09 $ 33, 500. 00 $ 3, 045. 45 $ 36, 000. 00 $ 2, 666. 67 $ 37, 000. 00 $ 2, 740. 74 MAGNOLIA AVE $ 94, 000. 00 $ 8, 545. 45 $ 92, 000. 00 $ 8, 363. 64 MANDARIN DR $ 40, 300. 00 $ 3, 663. 64 $ 39, 500. 00 $ 3, 590. 91 NECTARINE AVE $ 123, 000. 00 $ 11, 181. 82 $ 121, 000. 00 $ 11, 000. 00 PINE AVE $ 176, 000. 00 $ 173, 000. 00 $ 15, 727. 27 $ 185, 000. 00 $ 13, 703. 70 $ 190, 000. 00 $ 14, 074. 07 RUTHERFORD ST $ 65, 000. 00 $ 5, 909. 09 $ 64, 000. 00 $ 5, 818. 18 $ 71, 000. 00 $ 5, 259. 26 $ 70, 000. 00 $ 5, 185. 19 ST. JOSEPH'S ST $ 82, 000. 00 $ 7, 454. 55 $ 80, 000. 00 $ 7, 272. 73 TECOLOTE AVE $ 93, 000. 00 $ 8, 454. 55 $ 91, 000. 00 $ 8, 272. 73 THORNWOOD DR $ 169, 000. 00 $ 15, 363. 64 $ 166, 000. 00 $ 15, 090. 91 $ 176, 000. 00 $ 13, 037. 04 $ 180, 000. 00 $ 13, 333. 33 COST ANALYSIS Cold In-Place Reclamation (15 -17 years) Construction Cost Yearly Cost $ 60, 000. 00 $ 3, 750. 00 $ 78, 000. 00 $ 4, 875. 00

QUALITY CONTROL AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

Vheem Mix vs. Superpave Mix QC / QA

Caltrans Section 39 (2010) • Method • Standard • QC/QA QC / QA

Mix Design Submittals • JMF – 3511, 3512 and 3513 • Production start-up QC / QA

Importance of Compaction QC / QA

QUESTIONS?