1. Pavement Performance
Specifications
Research

2. 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

3. 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 of Florida Statutes:
“Ensuring that 80% of the pavement on the SHS meets Department Standards”

4. Statewide Pavement Performance

5. 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.

6. Asphalt Specifications Update
July 2014 – January 2016

7. 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

8. July 2014 Workbook Section 334 – Superpave Asphalt Concrete
Added clarification for SP-19.0 mixtures: "Type SP 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.

9. 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 (ARB), provide a certification statement that a minimum of 7.0% GTR is used in the formulation of the binder.

10. 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)

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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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):
, (1)
Density, static mode (1) (percent of Gmm)
, (1)
(1): No vibratory mode in the vertical direction will be allowed. Other vibratory modes will be allowed, if approved by the Engineer.

18. 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

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

20. Materials Acceptance and Certification

21. 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

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

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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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!

27. Materials Acceptance and Certification (MAC)
Implementation 1: MB / DCE Memo Company Profiles June 29 – Industry Builds Profiles SMO MAC Information Site:

28. Hot Topics & Research Notables

29. 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 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

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

31. NCAT Test Track
PG (PMA) with 20% RAP (this is the FDOT standard)
PG (PMA) with 25% RAP
  PG (PMA) with 30% RAP
 PG (PMA) with 30% RAP
Florida Department of Transportation

32. 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.

33. 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

34. 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.

35. 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 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.

36. 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 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.

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. Recycling Program

40. 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%

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

42. NCAT: High RAP versus RAP/RAS
PG (PMA) with
25% RAP
PG (PMA)
with
20% RAP & 5% RAS

43. Pavement Segregation January 2012 specification Texture Meter
Pave-IR System

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

45. Bonded Friction Course
eTac
UltraFuse
Conventional
Trackless
Florida Department of Transportation

46. 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

47. Questions/ Comments? Thank You!