Download
1 / 28
280 likes | 508 Views
Michigan Department of Transportation Pavement Demonstration Program. Rep. Rick Olson’s 2012 Best Practices Conference on Road and Bridge Maintenance Curtis Bleech Pavement Operations Engineer August 16, 2012. Pavement Demonstration. LCCA Law Legally Can Not Perform Demonstration Project
E N D
Michigan Department of TransportationPavement Demonstration Program Rep. Rick Olson’s 2012 Best Practices Conference on Road and Bridge Maintenance Curtis Bleech Pavement Operations Engineer August 16, 2012
Pavement Demonstration LCCA Law Legally Can Not Perform Demonstration Project No Equivalent Pavement Design No Performance Data Development of Pavement Demonstration Law Allows Demonstration Projects Without Performing LCCA
Pavement Demonstration Law • Allows four demo projects per year without having to go through life-cycle • “…to evaluate new construction methods, materials, or design” • “Each demonstration project shall include measurable goals and objectives for determining the success of that project” • “The department shall make a final report for each demonstration project…that assesses the cost-effectiveness and performance…”
Pavement Demonstration Law • Criteria for selection: • Designs intended to increase pavement life expectancy • Designs intended to improve performance, including: • Friction • Surface stress • Noise reduction • Improved ride quality • Comparisons of performance of various types of pavement
Pavement Demonstration Law • Pavement costs for demo projects must balance within 20% between the two paving materials over a two year period • Director has to provide an annual report on demonstration projects to the State House and Senate Transportation Committees
Pavement Demonstration Examples of Project Types White-topping (concrete over HMA) Thin un-bonded concrete overlay (4”) Low-volume concrete reconstruct (6”) Perpetual HMA pavement (40 year design) Perpetual HMA pavement on rubblized concrete (40 year design)
Demonstration Projects • I-75 near West Branch • 6” unbonded concrete overlay on NB • Rubblize and HMA resurface on SB • Both projects constructed concurrently • Several test sections involving undoweled and doweled joints, 10’ and 12’ joint spacing, sealed and unsealed joints • Minor longitudinal cracking
Demonstration Projects • M-84 between Saginaw and Bay City • 40 year HMA perpetual pavement design on SB (existing roadbed) 6.5” HMA, 12” agg. base, 14” sand subbase • Normal 20 year HMA design on NB (new roadbed) • 6.5” HMA, 6”agg. base, 18” sand subbase • Perpetual pavement HMA polymerized • Very few distresses on SB
Demonstration Projects • M-3 (Gratiot Ave.) in Detroit • Thin unbonded overlay (4”) • Existing composite, HMA milled down and new 1” separator layer placed • Four test sections – two separator layers and sealed and unsealed joints • Joint spacing 5’ to 6’ • Potential 15 year fix • Some panels have been replaced due to cracking
Demonstration Projects • M-13 in Pinconning • Low-volume concrete design • Reconstruct with 6” of concrete, 6” of dense-graded agg. base, and 12” of sand subbase • 5.5’ joint spacing in both directions • No dowel bars at transverse joints • Unsealed joints • 15 to 20 year expected life • Performing very well • New cracks at approach to structure at Pinconning River
Demonstration Projects • I-96 WB in Detroit • 40 year perpetual pavement design • 14” HMA, 16” OGDC, 8” sand subbase, 12” lime stabilized subgrade • Normal 20 year JPCP design on EB • Not a side by side comparison • No distresses in the perpetual pavement
Demonstration Projects • M-99 in Springport • Low-volume concrete • Reconstruct with 6” of concrete, 6” of dense-graded agg. base, and 12” of sand subbase • 6’ joint spacing in both directions • No dowel bars at transverse joints • Unsealed joints • 15 to 20 year expected life • Early age cracking (possibly late sawing)
Demonstration Projects • I-75 NB in Cheboygan County • 40 year HMA perpetual pavement design on NB over rubblized concrete 8.0” HMA • NB also had concrete reconstruct and unbonded overlay • Unbonded overlay on SB the previous year • Not a side by side comparison
Demonstration Projects • M-1 (Woodward Ave.) in Detroit • Thin unbonded overlay (4”) • Existing composite, HMA milled down and new 1” separator layer placed • Joint spacing 5’ to 6’ and sealed
Results Some observations at early ages Sealing of joints appears beneficial to help prevent water infiltration Perpetual HMA pavement showing less cracking than comparison section For thin un-bonded concrete overlays, drainable HMA interlayer showing less cracking than dense graded interlayer Low-volume concrete design has little cracking to date
Candidate Process • Can be just a portion of a larger project • Typically get buy-in from industry groups • Candidate project is submitted to Engineering Operations Committee with a workplan • Experimental feature • Potential benefits • Monitoring plan • Reports to be written
Candidate Process • If EOC approves, it becomes an official Demonstration Project • Candidate projects must be submitted before any life-cycle documents are submitted • Currently no extra funding for demonstration projects
Plan For Future Demo’s • Types of projects: • White-topping (regular and ultra-thin) • Thin un-bonded overlay • Low-volume concrete reconstruction • Perpetual pavement on rubblized concrete • Long life concrete reconstruction • HMA over stabilized base • Others?
