Wis DOT Cold InPlace Recycling Pavement Rehabilitation Barry
Wis. DOT Cold In-Place Recycling Pavement Rehabilitation Barry Paye, PE Chief Materials & Pavement Engineer Wisconsin DOT
Presentation Outline q Introduction to Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) q Types of CIR Equipment q Benefit of CIR q Pavement distresses addressed by CIR q Overview of Wis. DOT CIR Projects q CIR Projects Short Term Performance Data q Public Relations 2
Cold In-Place Recycling (CIR) q CIR uses mechanical process to produce RAP from the existing pavement, add a stabilizing agent, relay & compact into a stabilized base. q. Typical CIR process treatment depth - 3 to 4” 3
Types of CIR Equipment Multi – Unit CIR Train Pick Up Machine/Paver Pug mill Crushing/Sizing Milling n AC Tank ing k r o tio c e r i D W 4
Types of CIR Equipment Single-Unit CIR Train AC Tank Water Cutting chamber 5
Benefit of CIR q Cost Savings ü Potential cost savings compared to equivalent mill/overlay rehabilitation methods. q Engineering ü Addresses actual distress rather than symptoms. ü Cracks eliminated/reduced – CIR act as crack relief layer. 6
Benefit of CIR q Construction Time ü CIR layer can be opened to traffic within a couple of hours. ü Minimal Traffic disruption and user delay. q Environmental Benefit ü Using in-place materials minimizes hauling cost & use of virgin material. 7
Pavement Distresses addressed by CIR Ruts Crack < ½ in > ½ in Fatigue Longitudinal Transverse Reflective Block Potholes (surface only) ? 1 Poor Ride Poor Drainage Structural Deficiency Base/subgrade Failure no ? 2 no Questions? 1. Provided not base, subbase or subgrade related. 2. In conjunction with Overlay to increase structural capacity 8
CIR Projects Map (Since 2012) Construction Year Project Length (Lane-Mile) 2012 26 2014 24 2015 50 2016 58 Total 158 9
STH 27(Sparta – Black River Falls) CIR Construction – 2016 ü Design AADT 11, 000, 15. 2% Truck ü ESALs 20 years – 1, 598, 700 ü 4” CIR Layer + 2. 5” HMA Overlay ü Project Length = 8. 402 miles 10
STH 27 - Placing/Compaction CIR Non-CIR Finished CIR Layer 11
STH 48 (Grantsburg – Frederic) Pavement History – Before CIR ü Last Resurfaced 3”- 4” inch 1994 ü Various Maintenance activities CIR Construction – 2012 ü Design AADT 1, 100, 5. 2% Truck ü ESALs-20 years – 131, 400 ü 4” CIR + 2” HMA Overlay ü Project Length = 12. 56 Miles 12
STH 48 (Grantsburg – Frederic) After construction After 3 Years 13
Transverse Cracking 300 2015 250 200 Non-CIR 150 CIR 100 CIR 50 0 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 Survey Location (mile) 10 11 Roughness 100 Non-CIR 80 IRI (Inch/mile) 4 12 2015 2016 CIR 60 40 20 Longitudinal Cracking 600 500 2015 400 300 200 Non-CIR 100 CIR 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Survey Location (mile) 10 11 12 0. 40 Rut Depth (Inches) Transverse Cracking (ft/mile) 350 Longitudinal Cracking (ft/mile) STH 48 (Grantsburg – Frederic) Performance Data Four years in service 2015 2016 0. 30 0. 20 Non-CIR CIR 0. 10 0. 00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Survey Location (mile) 10 11 12 14
STH 64 (Gilman-Medford) CIR Construction – 2014 ü Design AADT 10, 800, 17. 5% Truck ü ESALs = 1, 708, 200 ü 4” CIR + 2” HMA Overlay ü Initial Project Plan 13. 3 miles (appr. 30% CIR completed) 15
STH 64 (Gilman - Medford ) CIR Operation Before CIR WB Lane Mill&Overlay CIR – Both Lanes 2016 EB Lane CIR WB Lane Mill&Overlay EB Lane CIR 2016 Mill & Overlay – Both Lanes 2016 Finished CIR Layer 16
STH 64 (Gilman – Medford) Performance Data two year in service Transverse Cracking 2015 250 2016 200 150 Non-CIR 100 2015 2016 0. 30 Non-CIR 0. 20 CIR 0. 10 50 0. 00 0 1 2 100 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Survey Location (mile) 11 12 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Survey Location (mile) 10 11 12 13 Roughness 80 IRI (Inch/mile) Average Rut Depth 0. 40 Rut Depth (inch) Transverse Cracking (ft/mile) 300 60 Non-CIR 3 10 2015 40 20 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 Survey Location (mile) 11 12 13 17
Summary of CIR Projects IRI and Rut Depth Values Average IRI Value (inch/mile) 2016 Survey Average Rut Depth (inches) 2016 Survey 70 49 40 37 41 STH 95 CTH H STH 48 STH 64 STH 48 (Const_2015) (Const_2014) (Const_2012) 0. 08 0. 06 0. 07 0. 06 STH 95 CTH H STH 48 STH 64 STH 48 (Const_2015) (Const_2014) (Const_2012) 18
Design Criteria & Considerations Distressed Layer & Distress Types Traffic Volume Historical Information Geometric Considerations Roadway, Subgrade & Drainage Layer Coefficient - 0. 30 -0. 35 Mix Design Considerations Curing Time 19
Wis. DOT Experience 17% Let savings vs 4” mill & overlay 10 x reduction in cracking compared to mill & overlay Minimal disturbance to traveling public 20
Public Benefits 21
Public Benefits 22
Public Benefits 23
Questions/Contact Barry Paye, PE Materials Management Section Phone: 608 -246 -7945 Email: Barry. paye@dot. wi. gov
- Slides: 24