1 / 25

Enhancing Pavement Durability: Insights from 2015 Oklahoma Report

Dive into findings, costs, and future work from pavement projects in Oklahoma between 2000-2015. Explore research on Superpave, skid resistance, and aging effects, alongside implementation details for improved longevity. Discover the impact of design choices on maintenance and performance through the years. Reflect on innovative solutions and ongoing experiments like traffic preservation group studies. Uncover key acronyms and asphalt terms. Stay informed for sustainable pavement practices.

lenam
Download Presentation

Enhancing Pavement Durability: Insights from 2015 Oklahoma Report

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2015 Pavement Test Track Conference Oklahoma Report By Kenneth Ray Hobson, P.E. March 4, 2015 Auburn, AL

  2. Outline • Review of Projects • Findings/Implementation • Future Work

  3. Review of Projects - Costs • 2000 - $621,158 • 2003 - $450,000 • 2006 - $900,000 • 2009 - $1,200,000 • 2012 - $1,020,000 • 2015 - $1,020,000?

  4. Review of Projects - Research • 2000 • Compare Hveem Type B vs. ½" NMS Superpave • Compare Skid Resistance • 30% vs. 40% Insoluble Residue • TRZ vs. ARZ

  5. Review of Projects - Research • 2003 • Continue Traffic • Traffic to 20 MESALs Total • 2 Years More Aging

  6. Review Projects - Research • 2006 • Compare Perpetual Designs • On simulated Okla. Soil Base • SMA surface and RBL • 10" vs. 14" • N8 vs. N9

  7. Review Projects - Research • 2009 • Continue Traffic N9 (14") Perpetual • Mill/Replace 5.5" N8 (10") + 2 Fabrics to Retard Cracking • Group Experiment Participant

  8. Review Projects - Research • 2012 • Continue Traffic N9(14") Perpetual • Continue Traffic N8(10") HPM Rehabilitation • Preservation Group Experiment Participant • New OGFSC on E1 • Two NT Tack Coat Types and Rates

  9. 2000 Findings/Implementation • Superpave (S13) Performed Similar to Hveem (S12) • Higher Insoluble Residue = Better Skid Resistance • TRZ (S12) vs. ARZ (S13) Performed Similarly

  10. 2000 Findings/Implementation S12 S13

  11. 2000 Findings/Implementation S13 S12 S12 S13

  12. 2003 Findings/Implementation • Same As 2000 • Hveem and Superpave Performance Similar • APA Adopted by ODOT

  13. 2006 Findings/Implementation • N8's 10" design was not perpetual • Bottom-up cracking • N9's 14" design was perpetual • Designed and Built SH-152 near Airport

  14. 2009 Findings/Implementation • N8's fabrics retarded cracking for a bit • Significant failure at 3.4 MESALs • Geogrid repair failed at 3.6 MESALs • HPM design successful • RIL designed • 2012 HPM Design & Constructed I-40 Caddo Co. • PG 76E-28 (HPM) 1st MSCR Binder

  15. 2009 Findings/Implementation

  16. 2012 Findings/Implementation • N8 (10") repaired due to longitudinal joint • 16.4 MESALs with cracking at end • N9 (14") a bit more wheel path surface cracks • E1 OGFSC performed well • Use High Friction OGFSC on N9 2015

  17. 2012 Findings/Implementation • APA R2 = 0.70 • Hamburg R2 = 0.75 • Hamburg Adopted 2009

  18. 2012 Findings/Implementation N8 May 11, 2011

  19. 2012 Findings/Implementation E1 Tack Coats

  20. Future Work - 2015 • N9 • Fill Cracks 100' • Micro-Mill 100' • Overlay High Friction OGFSC • E1 • Fill Longitudinal Joint • Continue Traffic Experiment

  21. Future Work - 2015 • Sponsor 2nd Cycle of Traffic for Preservation Group Experiment • Sponsor New Cracking Group Experiment • The Undiscovered Country

  22. I hope this was fascinating. LLAP • khobson@odot.org – (405) 522-4986

  23. Acronyms • P.E. – Professional Engineer • AL – Alabama • TRZ – Through Restricted Zone • ARZ – Above Restricted Zone • MESALs – Million Equivalent Single Axle Loads • SMA – Stone Matrix Asphalt

  24. Acronyms • RBL – Rich Bottom Layer • RIL – Rich Intermediate Layer • HPM – High Polymer Mixture • OGFSC – Open Graded Friction Surface Course • NT – Non-Tracking or Nearly Trackless

  25. Acronyms • APA – Asphalt Pavement Analyzer • ODOT – Oklahoma Department of Transportation • MSCR – Multiple Stress Creep Recovery (AASHTO M 332) • NMS – Nominal Maximum Size • LLAP – Live Long and Prosper

More Related