Pavement Performance Specifications Research

Asphalt Pavement Facts FDOT: 5 million tons asphalt per year Approximately $500 million 300 construction projects 96% of pavements in Florida are asphalt 93% of pavements in US are asphalt It’s 100% recyclable (RAP) Typical life-span in Florida is 17 years

Statewide Pavement Performance Deficient Pavements (%) Criteria 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Ride 3.5 3.2 2.6 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.0 Crack 14.6 14.9 13.0 10.9 9.7 7.9 6.8 6.0 6.4 Rut 0.9 1.0 0.6 0.5 0.4 Section 334.046 of Florida Statutes: “Ensuring that 80% of the pavement on the SHS meets Department Standards”

Statewide Pavement Performance

Deficient Roadways Some may think that we are getting better and better due to the fact that we are resurfacing more and more. This actually shows that not to be true. We are resurfacing about the same # lane miles per year (bar chart) and our # deficient lane miles is declining (line graph). With the new system of the resurfacing program being 25 years, and more of the work program being focused on capacity, the line may go up slightly; the bar graph will decrease.

Asphalt Specifications Update July 2014 – January 2016

July 2014 Workbook Section 300 - Prime and Tack Coats Removed cut-back prime coats and emulsion grades not being used any more Added two new trackless tack products Section 320 – Hot Mix Asphalt – Plant Methods and Equipment Added language "For warm mix asphalt, the Contractor may produce the first five loads of the production day and at other times when approved by the Engineer, at a hot mix asphalt temperature not to exceed 330°F for purposes of heating the asphalt paver

July 2014 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete Added clarification for SP-19.0 mixtures: "Type SP-19.0 - May not be used in the final (top) structural layer below FC-5 mixtures. Type SP-19.0 mixtures are permissible in the layer directly below FC-9.5 and FC-12.5 mixtures." Set time limit of 60 days for how long a LOT can be left open.

July 2014 Workbook Section 916 – Bituminous Materials Removed cut-backs, some emulsions, and added trackless tacks Emulsions now approved and monitored like binders. Added to the QPL. For PG 76-22 (ARB), provide a certification statement that a minimum of 7.0% GTR is used in the formulation of the binder.

January 2015 Workbook Section 300 – Prime and Tack Coats Refers to 916 Section 916 – Bituminous Materials Trackless Tack Exclusively Department will be monitoring tracking nature and will remove products from the QPL that track "excessively". Qualified Products List (QPL)  Approved Products List (APL)

July 2015 Workbook General language clarifications to correspond to the Materials Acceptance and Certification (MAC) direction QC Plan clarification

July 2015 Workbook Section 916 – Bituminous Materials Materials Manual Volume II Binders (Section 3.5) Emulsions (Section 3.4) Section 919 – Ground Tire Rubber Allowance of pelletized rubber

January 2016 Workbook Section 300 – Prime and Tack Coats All tack rates have been increased by 0.01 Table 300-2 Tack Coat Application Rates Asphalt Mixture Type Underlying Pavement Surface Target Tack Rate (gal/yd2) Base Course, Structural Course, Dense Graded Friction Course Newly Constructed Asphalt Layers 0.04 Milled Surface or Oxidized and Cracked Pavement 0.07 Concrete Pavement 0.09 Open Graded Friction Course 0.06 Milled Surface 0.08 *All tack rates are listed as minimums

January 2016 Workbook Section 320 – Hot Mix Asphalt - Plant Methods And Equipment Temperature measurement frequency and location for windrow paving Section 330 – Hot Mix Asphalt - General Construction Requirements Segregation density criteria 89.5% Gmm

January 2016 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete SP-19.0 mixture layer thickness increased from 3.5” to 4.0” Mandatory use of Core Dry Method (FM 1-T 166) Change in Density MPR Table 334-5 Master Production Range Characteristic Tolerance (1) Asphalt Binder Content (%) Target ±0.55 Passing No. 200 Sieve (%) Target ±1.50 Air Voids (%) 2.30 – 6.00 Density (minimum % Gmm)(2) 89.50 (1) Tolerances for sample size of n = 1 from the verified mix design (2) Based on an average of 5 randomly located cores

January 2016 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete Table 334-6 Between-Laboratory Precision Values Property Maximum Difference Gmm 0.016 Gmb (gyratory compacted samples) 0.022 Gmb (roadway cores) 0.014 Pb 0.44% P-200 FM 1-T 030 (Figure 2) P-8

January 2016 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete Table 334-8 Specification Limits Quality Characteristic Passing No. 200 sieve (percent) Target ± 1.0 Asphalt Content (percent) Target ± 0.40 Air Voids (percent) 4.00 ± 1.20 Density, vibratory mode (percent of Gmm): 93.00 + 2.00, - 1.20 (1) Density, static mode (1) (percent of Gmm) 92.00 + 3.00, - 1.50 (1) (1): No vibratory mode in the vertical direction will be allowed. Other vibratory modes will be allowed, if approved by the Engineer.

January 2016 Workbook Section 916 – Bituminous Materials Increased allowance of PPA to 0.75% MSCR added to neat binder requirements Moved emulsion product tables from 916 to Producer QC Plans Materials Manual Section 3.4 – Emulsions 100 psi bond strength requirement for tack

January 2016 Workbook Section 341 – Asphalt Rubber Membrane Interlayer ARB-20 replaced with PG 76-22 (ARB) Section 336 – Asphalt Rubber Binder Deleted

Materials Acceptance and Certification

What is it? What goes in? Why? Materials Acceptance and Certification System LBR for $3.2M State Materials Office & Business Systems Support Office What goes in? All LIMS Material Acceptance & Material Certifications IA Evaluation (active technicians) Why? LIMS Support will expire in Dec 2015 No off the shelf product to meet the Department’s needs

How does this affect industry? Company, Lab and Producer Profiles QC Plans (Producer / Contractor) Sampling and Testing Dashboards and Reporting

Company Profile I manage what belongs to me. Company Profile Labs Plants / Terminals Users Mix Designs I manage what belongs to me.

In a nutshell Sampling and Testing (ST) MAC = APW online If it has data, it goes in MAC Project samples (CQC) Mix Designs Binder / Emulsions Samples IA Samples Research How do we get it out? Same reporting as we have now Mix Design Summary Control Charts Extensive standard reports CTQP interface for technician qualifications. Construction data In a nutshell MAC = APW online

Sampling and Testing – “The New Stuff” Data Entry and Reviewer Process Comparisons and CPF Comparison / Resolution Internal PF/CPF Calculations Robust Audit Trail Project Information Site Manager “Live” Qualification Checks Technicians (CTQP) Labs (CMEC/AMRL) Products (RAP, Aggregate, Liquid) Producers (QCP) Mix Designs (Approval / Expiration / Assignment) Conflict of Interest CTQP interface for technician qualifications. Construction data

NOTABLE DIFFERENCES Web-based No more APW – no more uploads Automatic comparison and CPF calculation Data Reviewer capability Detailed audit trail Non-Compliance (DDM / EAR) process PA’s responsible for finalizing EVERYTHING!

Materials Acceptance and Certification (MAC) Implementation 1: MB 10-15 / DCE Memo 13-15 Company Profiles June 29 – Industry Builds Profiles SMO MAC Information Site: http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/mac/

Hot Topics & Research Notables

NCAT Test Track 20” of asphalt base  insures all failures are in the top 4” asphalt structural layers. One truck = six fully loaded 18- wheelers (152,000 lbs.) Five trucks are operational at one time. ≈ 45 mph. Load 5 AM to 11 PM. Two shifts per day. 340 miles per driver per day. 6 days per week. 3 year research cycle 10 million ESALs applied over two years. (10.36 ESALs per pass) Forensics and reconstruction on 3rd year. Florida Department of Transportation

NCAT Test Track 2000-2003 Fine vs. Coarse (PG 67-22) 2003-2006 Continuation of 2000 cycle PG 76-22 vs. PG 76-22 Validation of SMO HVS 2006-2009 Validation of Energy Ratio 2009-2012 Bonded Friction Course 2012-2015 Thick tack coats Polymer vs. Rubber High RAP vs. Shingles Florida Department of Transportation

NCAT Test Track 2015-2018 PG 76-22 (PMA) with 20% RAP (this is the FDOT standard) PG 76-22 (PMA) with 25% RAP   PG 76-22 (PMA) with 30% RAP  PG 58-22 (PMA) with 30% RAP Florida Department of Transportation

Pavement Preservation Traditionally FDOT has focused on milling and resurfacing Higher traffic volume roadways Goal: Get in, get out, stay out… We technically do very little “traditional” pavement preservation. Mainly because of the high traffic levels. The public doesn’t understand why FDOT shuts down lanes, and works on a road (pavement preservation) and then five years later are out there again. Because of our good high quality subgrades and bases, our pavements generally function like perpetual pavements. Majority of the distress is within a few inches of the surface.

Hot-In-Place Recycling FDOT looking at alternatives… Hot-In-Place Recycling Microsurfacing We’ve done a bunch of HIPR since 2001 (we did HIPR prior to that, but it was really outdated technology in the 70’s and early 80’s.) Some turned out well – SR-471 in Sumter County was reworked in 2002 and is 11+ years old; some didn’t - CR-315 in Putnam County was reworked in 2001 and failed within a few months. Crack Sealing Fog Seal

Hot in-Place Recycling 12 projects* constructed to date: 11 as “Reworked Asphalt” 1 as “Repaved Asphalt” Every district except for Turnpike Earliest project* 2001 Four projects completed in 2012 * “Modern” Era We’ve done a bunch of HIPR since 2001 (we did HIPR prior to that, but it was really outdated technology in the 70’s and early 80’s.) Some turned out well – SR-471 in Sumter County was reworked in 2002 and is 11+ years old; some didn’t - CR-315 in Putnam County was reworked in 2001 and failed within a few months.

Microsurfacing First FDOT microsurfacing project: US-319 Leon County 2010 Worked with several Contractors & Suppliers on specification Based on ISSA requirements ISSA Type II mixture gradation Spread rate 20 – 26 lbs/sy Single course Required crack sealing We did a micro-surfacing job on US-319 in Leon County in 2010. Cracks have all reflected up through the surface. We may have selected a job that was too cracked to begin with, plus it was only a single course. March 2014 project in Gainesville on NW 39th Avenue. It’ll be double course.

Crack Sealing Five Crack Seal Test Decks were placed in March 2012 Leon, Baker, Sumter, DeSoto, and Miami-Dade Counties Several materials and construction techniques evaluated Performance will be monitored for three to five years We did a number of crack sealing projects around the state in 2012. We’re monitoring them to see if they are effective. Typically cracks are sealed to keep water out of the base, and since our cracking is generally top down, we’re not sure that it’ll do much good. But we’ll see if it slows the crack growth. Crack seal test decks were constructed at five locations statewide: SR 61, Leon County SR 121, Baker County SR 471, Sumter County SR 72, Desoto County SR 997, Miami-Dade County Each test deck is 1.25 miles in length and consists of only one lane. The test decks are divided into five 1/4-mile segments.  From south to north (or west to east) the five segments are the same at each location: Segment 1: Routing and sealing with asphalt rubber binder Segment 2: Crack filling with asphalt rubber binder Segment 3: Control (no work) Segment 4: Routing and sealing with polymer modified binder Segment 5: Crack filling with polymer modified binder Construction occurred at all five locations in March 2013. Monitoring of each location will occur annually for a period of 3-5 years. Initial project selection criteria included roadway segments that had a 2012 crack rating between 7.0 and 8.0, a ride rating of 7.2 or better, and a rut rating of 9 or 10.  Only dense graded friction courses were considered. Friction measurements were taken within 1-3 months of construction at all five locations.  In comparison with the previously recorded friction measurement for each roadway segment, the average reading for the five sections were: +3.6, -0.6, +1.4, +2.6, and -4.6.  I haven’t discussed the ramifications of these measurements with anyone, and I would hesitate to make any generalizations, but I do not see any discernable pattern with the data, and they all appear to be relatively close to the baseline measurements. Crack, ride, and rut measurements were taken for each segment (25 total) about three months prior to construction and about 2-3 months after construction.  A comparison of the before and after measurements for the 20 segments that received treatment follows: Average IRI for each segment increased by 5.1 after construction.  Over half of that increase came from four specific segments found in the first two jobs that were constructed.  It appears from the data (and it appeared to me in the field) that once the guy working the wand became comfortable with the process and what I was looking for, that we got a much smoother product.  The average IRI increase for segments found in the final three jobs was only 2.6. Average Ride Number (RN) for each segment decreased by 0.14 after construction.  This would correspond with an average decrease in ride rating of 0.28.  However, looking only at the final three jobs, the average RN for each segment decreased by only 0.07, which corresponds with an average decrease in ride rating of 0.15. Average rut rating was not affected by the installation of crack sealing. The final crack rating did not change for 18 of the 20 segments.  However, an improvement in crack rating would not be expected immediately for roads with generally light crack severity.  An improvement in crack rating would be evidenced over time, by comparison to the control section, which we would expect to deteriorate to moderate or severe cracking, while the test sections might be expected to maintain their “light cracking” status for a longer period of time.  

Fog Sealing Test Sections Placed in 2013 US-27 & US-17 Polk County Placed on OGFC Attempt to reduce raveling & top-down cracking Age: 4 years old Good condition Multiple Test Sections Multiple Products We’re looking at fog sealing (at an early age) to see if it’ll extend the life of the pavement by either preventing raveling or top down cracking. The problem with fog sealing is the fairly dramatic loss of friction on the surface. It gets better in a few days/weeks but it’s a pretty high risk. Friction numbers can go down anywhere from 2 points down to 15 points (i.e., 40 to a 25), depending on the production.

Pavement Preservation Test Sections US-98 Gulf County Constructed 2012 Ten Test Sections: Control Section Micro-surfacing (Double course) 1/2” HMA overlays with 4.75 mm mix 3/4” HMA overlays with 4.75 mm mix 1” HMA overlay with 9.5 mm mix Hot-in-place recycling Bonded open graded friction course Mill and resurface 1.0” with 9.5 mm mix Mill and resurface 1.5” with 12.5 mm mix Control section We did a controlled experiment on US-98 in Gulf County. Construction was in Dec 2012 – Tried a number of things. Each section was 0.1 mile long. One Year PCS survey is coming up – they had equipment issues in December. This project will help guide FDOT’s direction on preservation.

Recycling Program

RAP Data Conditions FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FY 12/13 FY 13/14 FY 14/15 Unrestricted (No Maximum Limit) Average 25% 26% 24% Maximum 40% 38% 39% 41% 50% Restricted (Maximum 20%) 17% 18% 16% 15% 20%

Recycled Asphalt Shingles National Hot Topic FDOT pilot projects 0.85 Binder Availability Issues with the unknown

NCAT: High RAP versus RAP/RAS PG 76-22 (PMA) with 25% RAP PG 76-22 (PMA) with 20% RAP & 5% RAS

Pavement Segregation January 2012 specification Texture Meter Pave-IR System

Pave-IR Demo Oct. 2013 / Turnpike, Palm Beach Equipment: MOBA Pave-IR To detect Thermal Segregation

Bonded Friction Course eTac UltraFuse Conventional Trackless Florida Department of Transportation

Other Research Micro-milling Fiber Technology Volumetric refinement Alternative technique(s) to mitigate reflective cracking Increased RAP with Dense- graded FC Evaluation of FL mixes for using Overlay Tester Binder Rejuvenators Optimization of FC-5 characteristics Field test method to detect Polymer and/or GTR FC-5 image analysis for determination of optimum binder content Understanding mechanisms of OGFC raveling

Questions/ Comments? Thank You!