Pavement Treatment Effectiveness,

1995 SPS-3 and SPS-4 Site

EvaIuati0 ns, NationaI Report 1111111111111111111111111111111

PB97-156897

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-RD-96-208

u.s. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Research and Development

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

Mclean. VA 221Ql-~296

.. ,.

. . . . .. . ' . ..:

.:'

. '.'

REPRODUCED BY: I'!DlI U.S. Depilltment of Commerce

National Technicallnformation Service

Springfield, Virginia 22161

MAY 1997
FOREWORD

During the conduct of Strategic Highway Research Programs (SHRP) on highway operations,

flexible and rigid pavement preventive maintenance treatments were placed on pavements in

the United States and Canada. The placement and performance monitoring of these Specific

Pavement Studies (SPS-3 and SPS-4) has been conducted under the SHRP and Federal

Highway Administration (FHWA) Long-Term Pavement Performance Program (LTPP).

Field performance reviews of the preventive maintenance treatments have also been conducted

by Expert Task Groups (ETG) organized by the Pavement Division of the FHWA. The ETG

performance surveys conducted after 5 years of service are summarized in this report and are

intended to provide early performance information and guidance to public agencies utilizing

preventive maintenance techniques.

This report is prepared as part of an FHWA-sponsored study titled Pavement Maintenance

Effectiveness on SHRP Experimental Pavement Sections and 'conducted for the Long-Term

Pavement Performance and Pavement Divisions of the FHWA. The final report for the study

will be available in early 1997.

Charles J. Nemmers, P.E., Director

Office of Engineering Research

and Development

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in

the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for

its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or

regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and

manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the

object of the document.
111111111111111111 III

III II IiIII ~age -=-

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3

FHWA-RD-96-208 PB97-156897

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

May 1997

PAVEMENT TREATMENT EFFECTNENESS, 1995 SPS-3 and SPS-4 6. Performing Organization Code

SITE EVALUATIONS, NATIONAL REPORT

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No.

D.A. Morian, I.A. Epps, S.D. Gibson

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAlS)

3C6A

Nichols Consulting Engineers, Chtd. 11. Contract or Grant No.

Reno, NV 89509 DTFH61-93-C-00060

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type ofReport and Period Covered

Office of Engineering Research and Development National Report

Federal Highway Administration May 1995-September 1996

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HNR-30

15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR) - William Y. Bellinger, HNR-30

16. Abstract

This report presents an evaluation of the performance of SHRP SPS-3 and SPS-4 experiment sites based on field

reviews after 5 years of performance. Condition evaluation of the sections and Expert Task Group performance

estimates are the basis for treatment assessments.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

Preventive maintenance, crack seal, slurry seal, chip No restrictions. This document is available to the

seal, thin hot-mix overlay public from the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 85

Form DOT F 1700.7 ReproductIOn of completed page authonzed

PROTECTED UNDER INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
• I •

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know MUltiply By 

LENGTH LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 

ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 

yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 

AREA AREA

ina square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2 mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 

yrJl square yards 0.836 square meters m2 m2 square meters 1.195 

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 

mil square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2 km2 square kilometers 0.386 

VOLUME VOLUME

floz fluidounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 

~.

III gal gallons 3.785 liters L L litlli"s 0.264 

~. ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.71 

yd' cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 

NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 I shall be shown in m3 •

MASS MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g 9 grams 0.035 

Ib pounds ,0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 

T shorttons(2000lb) 0.907 megagrams Mg Mg megagrams 1.103 

(or ·metric ton·) (or .r) (or ·t·) (or ·metric ton·)

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (ex

DF Fahrenheit 5(F-32)19 Celcius DC DC Celcius 1.8C + 32 

temperature or (F-32)11.8 temperature temperature 

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux Ix Ix lux 0.0929 

fI foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cdlm2 cdlm2 candela/m2 0.2919 

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE o

Ibf poundforce 4.45 newtons N

III

N newtons 0.225 

Ibflin' poundforce per 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 

square inch 

• SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate 

rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BACKGROUND 2

Study Objectives 2

Preventive Pavement Maintenance Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Limitations of the Report 2

Experiment Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Placement of Sections 3

State Supplemental Studies 6

Performance Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

SHRP and LTPP _ 6

SHRP Program History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

LTPP Program History 7

STATUS OF TEST SECTIONS 7

Asphalt Pavement Sites (SPS-3) 7

Portland Cement Concrete Sites (SPS-4) 8

ETG SITE EVALUATIONS 8

Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Participation 8

Evaluation Forms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

SPS-3 ETG REVIEW RESULTS 9

Performance Relationships 9

Performance Life Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 13

TREATMENT PERFORMANCE 14

Crack Seal Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Results ofReviews 14

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition 14

Effect of Climatic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 14

Performance Life 19

Slurry Seal Treatment 19

Results ofReviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Effect of Climatic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 19

Performance Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . . 23

III
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Chip Seal Treatment 23

Results ofReviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Effect of Climatic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Performance Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Thin Hot-Mix Overlay Treatment 28

Results ofReviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Effect of Climatic Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Performance Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Observations Related to Specific Pavement Distress Types 32

Crack Seal 32

Slurry Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Chip Seal 32

Thin Overlay 33

Assessment of SPS-3 Supplemental Sites 33

Slurry Seals 33

Chip Seals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Thin Overlays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

SPS-4 ETG REVIEW RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

SPS-4 Supplemental Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

OTHER FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Construction Lessons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Asphalt Emulsion Handling 35

Crack Routing Reservoirs 36

Crack Seal Blotting 36

Aggregate Characteristics 36

Moisture Sensitivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Reflection Cracking 37

Treatment Timing 39

SPS-3 Treatments 39

SPS-4 Treatments 40

SUMMARy 41

SPS-3 Experiment 41

SPS-4 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDIX A. Test Section Information 43

APPENDIX B. Crack Sealing Specifications 47

APPENDIX C. Field Review Trip Participants and Highway Operations Task Group 55

APPENDIX D. Field Survey Forms 61

APPENDIX E. Summary of ETG Distress Ratings 67

APPENDIX F. Supplemental Site Ratings 75

APPENDIX G. ETG Recommendations 77

REFERENCES 79

v
Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Figure 10.

Figure 11.

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

Figure 14.

Figure 15.

Figure 16.

Figure 17.

Table 1.

Table 2.

LIST OF FIGURES

SPS-3 locations 4

SPS-4 locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Climatic zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10

Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for control sections .. 12

Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for crack seal sections 15

Treatment vs. control performance for crack seal sections . . . . . . . . . . .. 16

Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for

crack seal sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for slurry seal sections 20

Treatment vs. control performance for slurry seal sections 21

Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for

slurry seal sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for chip seal sections . 24

Treatment vs. control performance for chip seal sections 25

Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for

chip seal sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for thin overlay

sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Treatment vs. control performance for thin overlay sections . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for thin

overlay sections 31

Transverse reflection cracking for Idaho section 16C300 38

LIST OF TABLES

Number of test sections visited by LTPP region 43

Test sections removed from experiment 44

VI
INTRODUCTION

Pavement maintenance operations can be conveniently grouped into two categories: "corrective" and "preventive." "Corrective" pavement maintenance operations, including patching,

are performed to restore distressed areas to an acceptable condition. "Preventive" maintenance operations are applied to pavement surfaces to prevent the development of damage or to

reduce the rate of damage developed. (1) Preventive maintenance operations are intended to

preserve, rather than improve, the structural capacity of the pavement. (2) Preventive mainte··

nance operations are the subject of this report.

Several preventive maintenance operations are available for treatment of both asphalt and

portland cement concrete surfaced pavements. Typical asphalt pavement preventive maintenance treatments include: thin hot-mix overlays, slurry seals, chip seals, fog seals, and crack

sealing. Joint sealing, crack sealing, undersealing, and hot-mix overlays are typical preventive

maintenance treatments for portland cement concrete pavements. The selection of the

appropriate preventive maintenance treatment is generally made based on the experience of rhe

maintenance supervisor or engineer with responsibility for a region of the roadways within a

public agency. The decision is often made without documentation that clearly defines what is

the appropriate treatment, when the treatment should be applied during the life of the roadway,

and what is the life expectancy of the treatment.

Since billions of dollars(3) are expended for pavement reconstruction, rehabilitation, and

maintenance, and since the optimization of the selection of the treatment type could result in

substantial savings, a portion of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was devoted

to the study of preventive pavement maintenance activities for both asphalt and portland

cement concrete surfaced roadways. This preventive maintenance program was performed as

part of the project H-101, "Pavement Maintenance Effectiveness" and the Long-Term

Pavement Performance (LTPP) study. These studies were responsible for placing preventive

pavement maintenance treatments on pavement sections throughout the United States and

Canada beginning in 1990.

The performance of these sections (after 5 years of service) has been recently evaluated by

expert task groups assembled by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The results of

these surveys are summarized in this report and are intended to provide early performance

information and guidance to the public agencies using preventive maintenance techniques.

1
BACKGROUND

Study Objectives

Preventive pavement maintenance treatments selected for study under SHRP project H-101

were placed under the LTPP program as specific pavement studies (SPS)-SPS-3 for flexible

pavements and SPS-4 for portland cement concrete surfaced pavements (PCCP). The purpose

of the research experiments were as follows:

• Define the most effective timing for the application of various treatments.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of treatments in prolonging the life of the pavement.

• Share information and experience among highway agencies and industry. (4)

Preventive Pavement Maintenance Treatments

The flexible pavement preventive maintenance treatments studied included:

• Crack sealing.

• Slurry seal.

• Chip seal.

• Thin hot-mix asphalt overlay.

The portland cement concrete surfaced pavement preventive maintenance treatments studied

included:

• Joint/crack sealing.

• Undersealing.

These preventive pavement maintenance treatments were selected to represent the most

commonly used techniques and the techniques most likely to be cost-effective.

Limitations of the Report

The information presented in this report is based on the collective opinions of four regional

Expert Task Groups (ETG) composed of State, industry, and academic representatives. As a

result, the findings of this report are subjective in nature and should not be construed as

otherwise. In certain areas, it has been necessary for the project study team to supplement

these data with engineering judgment.

The number of sites physically reviewed in the field was limited by the logistics of the trip

length and travel time required to visit the 57 SPS-3 and 8 SPS-4 sites reviewed. Of the

original 81 SPS-3 sites constructed, some 55 test sections at 19 sites now have some or all of

the test sections out of service (appendix A).
Initial construction problems, failure/safety-driven rehabilitation activities, and the sections

being included within the limits of a larger rehabilitation project are among the reasons

identified by the States for removing sections. Section performance evaluated in this report is

based entirely on information from the 57 SPS-3 and 8 SPS-4 sites reviewed in the field during

the past summer by the ETGs.

As a result, the treatment performance observations for this subset of sites may be skewed

when compared to the performance of the total set of sites.

Experiment Design

The field experiment was designed in 1987 by the Texas Transportation Institute(l) to evaluate

the effectiveness of the various preventive maintenance treatments. The main variables in the

experiment design for asphalt pavements were climate (wet-no freeze, wet-freeze, dry-no

freeze, dry-freeze), subgrade type (fine and coarse grained), traffic volume (low and high),

pavement condition (good, fair, and poor), structural number (adequate and inadequate), and

treatment type (crack seal, slurry seal, chip seal, thin overlay, no treatment). A total of 96 test

sites were desired for the asphalt pavement preventive maintenance study.

The main variables in the experimental design for the portland cement concrete pavements

were climate (wet-no freeze, wet-freeze, dry-no freeze, dry-freeze), subgrade type (fine and

coarse grained), base type (aggregate and stabilized), pavement type (plain and reinforced),

and treatment type Goint/crack sealing, undersealing, and no treatment). A total of 24 test

sites were desired for the portland cement concrete preventive maintenance study.

A total of 81 SPS-3 sites and 31 SPS-4 sites actually were placed in the United States and

Canada in 1990 and 1991 (figures 1 and 2).

Placement of Sections

To reduce construction and material variability on the flexible pavement sections, the same

materials placement crews and placement supervision were used throughout each of the four

LTPP regions of the United States and Canada for the slurry seals and chip seals. The crack

sealing material was the same for all the regions; however, the crack sealing installation

procedure differed. Crack seal specifications are provided in appendix B. Four regional

crews applied the crack sealant. Since each State provided the thin overlays, a different hotmix asphalt and placement crew were used for the thin overlay sections on each project.

Individual States were responsible for placement of the portland cement concrete pavement

preventive maintenance test sections. Most of the test sites were placed from 1990 to 1991.

Colorado placed an SPS-4 site in 1995.

3
...::::::{{.\.{:\II\·Ir

W'estern

Region

North Centro.l

Region

.... ::::·1::::::::·'" ................

Figure 1. SPS-3 locations.

.. ..

.:-:-:-:-:-:.:.:-:.:-:-:-:.

.............

,

North A

Regi
(JI \v'estern

Region

North Central

Region

\ ..... i . , .I .. . i ! ;.: (' •• •••••

Figure 2. SPS-4 locations.

North A

Regi
State Supplemental Studies

Since the experiment did not vary binder type, aggregate type, or design quantities (except by

region) and since other types of preventive maintenance treatments were not included, several

States placed "supplemental" sections to study some of these variables. State supplemental

sections included such treatment variations as rubber-modified chip seals, thin overlays, and

alternative joint and crack sealant materials. These special State studies, located adjacent to

the standard sites reviewed in the field, are included in the SPS-3 and SPS-4 LTPP evaluation

presented in this report.

Performance Evaluation

The performance of each of the SPS-3 and SPS-4 sites is being evaluated under the LTPP

program and by an Expert Task Group for each LTPP region. The LTPP program determined

the condition of the pavement before the preventive maintenance treatment was applied and at

regular intervals after the treatment was applied. The evaluation tools used as part of the

LTPP effort include the following:

• Visual condition using the SHRP distress identification manual.

• Photo log using the PASCO, USA device.

• Deflection using the falling-weight deflectometer.

• Ride quality using the K.J. Law-type profilometer.

• Rut depth using the "dip stick" and PASCO data.

• Friction number as collected and submitted to LTPP by individual States.

The frequency of these measurements is on a biannual basis. The information from the LTPP

data files is currently being analyzed by a contractor to the Federal Highway Administration.

A report will be available in the winter of 1996-1997.

Expert Task Groups are composed of highway agency practitioners, and industry and academia

representatives; they are organized on an LTPP regional basis to perform SPS-3 and SPS-4 site

evaluations. The western region ETG conducted site reviews in 1991 and 1992. All four

LTPP regions conducted evaluations in 1993. A summary report from the 1993 site reviews is

available. (5)

The four LTPP regions conducted site reviews in 1995. The results of these reviews, together

with an analysis of the data collected during the tours, are presented in this report.

SHRP and LTPP

This report is based on SHRP and LTPP research efforts. Background information on SHRP

and LTPP is provided to add context to the study effort contained in this report.

6
SHRP Program History

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) was created to support highly focused

technical advances in highway research that would improve the way highway systems are

operated and maintained. Initiated in 1987, the program provided funding over a 5-year

period in four specific areas of research: Long-Term Pavement Performance, Concrete and

Structures, Highway Operations, and Asphalt Materials. (5) Each of these program areas

pursued technology advancement throughout the 5-year duration of the SHRP program.

LTPP Program History

Unlike the other program areas, the Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program was

originally envisioned as continuing for 20 years, with the objective of collecting a full cycle of

pavement performance data. Since the first 5 years of research, which were funded under

SHRP, the LTPP program has been under the Federal Highway Administration.

The LTPP program was developed to evaluate the long-term performance of pavements

consisting of various material and layer compositions. Originally established as a 20-year

project, LTPP has necessarily outlived the SHRP program funded under the Intermodal

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Under the guidance of FHWA, the

primary emphasis to date has been on data collection activities. Data analysis efforts have

begun more recently. (6)

The Specific Pavement Studies related to maintenance activities (SPS-3 and SPS-4) and

reported upon in this study were developed under the Highway Operations field and continued

under the LTPP program. These two experiments were designed to evaluate the effectiveness

of standard preventive pavement maintenance activities for asphalt (SPS-3) and portland

cement concrete (SPS-4) pavements. A prior field review was conducted in 1993.(7)

STATUS OF TEST SECTIONS

Prior to the start of the regional Expert Task Group SPS-3 and SPS-4 site tours in 1995, an

inventory of site status was performed and LTPP data for each site were summarized for the

tour participants. The site inventories were prepared by a consulting firm with support from

LTPP regional contractors.

Asphalt Pavement Sites (SPS-3)

A number of asphalt pavement SPS-3 sites have "gone out of service" since original construction for a variety of reasons. Problems, including treatment failure during construction, the

development of excessive distress, and safety concerns, have resulted in a number of sections

no longer being available for the experiment. Section performances evaluated for this report

are based entirely on the 57 SPS-3 sites reviewed in the field during the summer and fall of

1995 by the ETG. The site data reflected in this report represent only those sections that are

still active and were evaluated in the field.

7
Portland Cement Concrete Sites (SPS-4)

All 31 SPS-4 test sites remain in service. The majority of these test sites contain only the joint

seal treatment and a control section having unsealed joints. Eight sites included both joint seal

and undersealing treatment sections. Nine SPS-4 sites were evaluated by the ETG in the

summer and fall of 1995. The evaluation information from those nine sites is the basis for the

information in this report.

ETG SITE EVALUATIONS

Coordination

The ETG site tours to evaluate the SPS-3 and SPS-4 test sections were coordinated by a

consulting firm under contract to the Federal Highway Administration. Each of the four LTPP

regional offices arranged and participated in the tours for their region. LTPP regional office

personnel were responsible for documenting construction activities, materials sampling, and

evaluation of the sections. One individual participated in all four regional tours and was

responsible for developing uniformity among the evaluators from the different regions. The

regional tours were conducted on the following dates:

North Atlantic

North Central

Southern

Western

Participation

September 17 - 22, 1995

August 14 - 17 and September 11 - 16, 1995

September 24 - 29, 1995

October 2 - 8, 1995

ETG tour participants are given in appendix C. State highway authority, Federal Highway

Administration, and industry representatives participated.

Evaluation Forms

Evaluation forms were utilized to collect data from the ETG during the site visits (appendix

D). The forms made use of a 0- to lO-point scale (0-2 very poor, 2-4 poor, 4-6 fair, 6-8

good, 8-10 very good) to capture the expert opinions of the ETG members. Specific information obtained from these forms for each section within a site included:

• Overall pavement condition.

• Overall treatment condition.

• Overall treatment effectiveness.

• Future performance life predictions with and without future maintenance

treatments.

• Appropriateness of treatment.

8
• Presence of individual distress types (longitudinal cracking, transverse crackir.g,

fatigue cracking, bleeding, raveling, snowplow damage).

• General comments.

Data recorded for each treatment type for each site were consensus opinions of the ETG

members. The project research team developed a standard questionnaire to be completed at

each site. Overall, a consensus response was developed for each test section at each site to the

items on the questionnaire. Strong minority opinions were accepted as well.

The purpose of the data form was to provide a numerical quantification of relative pavement

performance that could be analyzed. In addition, the forms recorded the opinions of the ETG

members regarding expected continued performance lives and the suitability of the individual

treatments with respect to the original pavement condition.

In addition, each ETG group prepared a regional report expressing the observ~tions and

recommendations of the group regarding the treatment sections they observed on the trip.

These regional reports are listed as references 8 through 11 of this report. These data have

been analyzed and are used in this report to support performance observations as determined

by the ETG.

Treatments are purposely not compared with each other in this report. Any comparisons are to

control pavement sections.

SPS-3 ETG REVIEW RESULTS

Performance Relationships

The performance evaluations of the SPS-3 sections contained in this report are based on the

expert opinions expressed by the tour groups as well as the evaluation forms completed by the

tour groups. The data are divided into climatic regions, LTPP regions, condition of the

pavement upon which the preventive maintenance treatments were placed, and the type of

treatment.

Four climate or environmental zones were used to evaluate some of the data sets. The four

environmental zones are shown on figure 3 and are identified as wet-no freeze, wet-freeze,

dry-no freeze, and dry-freeze by the SHRP-LTPP study. It should be noted that the four

LTPP regional contractors who were responsible for data collection are associated with

geographic regions of the United States and Canada and not necessarily with environmental

regions. Thus, expert task groups from an LTPP region sometimes evaluated performance in

more than one environmental zone. Results of the tour team evaluations are therefore

presented both in terms of LTPP regions and environmental regions.

The condition of the pavements upon which the preventive maintenance treatments were placed

has been defined as good, fair, and poor. The criteria for good, fair, and poor pavement

conditions were originally defined by the SHRP-LTPP contractor and can be found in

9
-

"

..

.. - +'" + + + .. + ..

+ + .. .. + .. .. + + + + .. + 

.. + + + 

If + + + + + + + 

+ + + + + 

+ + + + .. +

+ + + + + .. + + + + 

mm

+ .. + + + .. .. + + + + + + + .. + + .. .. .. .. 

.. + .. .. .. + + + + + + + 

+ + .. + .. + .. .. + .. + 

+ + .. + .. + + + .. + + .. + 

.. .. + + + + + + + + + + .. 

.. ~+.. + + + + +

+ + + + + + + .. + ..

+ + .. +.. .... + +

+ + + + + .. + .. + + .. + + .. .. .. II I I I I

..

I"'"

M

""

..........

\W1

I

...

"

~~

l-'

o

X)<

..........@~~ .........

.. . .... V,'tPJ~..AA1')

....

'-.:.....:...l.

\.Jet-No Freeze

\.Jet-Freeze

Dry-Freeze

Dry-No Freeze

rGl

m

C7:1.. B

Figure 3. Climatic zone.
reference 1. Performance of the treatment, by treatment type, is included in the report. The

order of presentation of the results is crack seal, slurry seal, chip seal, and hot-mix overlay.

Figures 4, 5, 8, 11, and 14 show the average performance after 5 years of each treatment type

and the control sections by LTPP region and initial (or pretreatment) condition of the pavement. Figure 4 indicates that the nationwide average for the condition of the control section at

each site was nearly the same as the average condition of the control sections within each

region when the data are subdivided to consider the initial condition of the pavements. These

data (as shown in figure 4) suggest that the condition evaluation of the pavements was

reasonably uniform from LTPP region to LTPP region. Grouping of data by environmental

regions, which cross LTPP regional boundaries, is therefore reasonable.

Figures 6, 9, 12, and 15 show the 5-year treatment performance versus the 5-year performance

of control sections by environmental region. Relative performance relationships above the

equality line (dashed line) indicate that improved performance was obtained with the treatment

identified for the environmental region or specified zone.

The histograms include information on the number of sections and data pairs used in calculating or formulating the graphs. Discrepancies that appear in the number of sections between

the different graphs are due to the number of individual treatment sections that actually exist in

the field. All available data were used in generating the material shown.

The 1995 site evaluations visited 57 SPS-3 sites nationwide. If State supplemental sections are

not included, the SHRP experiment alone would have resulted in a total of 290 individual

sections (5 treatments x 57 sites). However, there were data for only 259 sections provided

from the site visits. This is due to a variety of reasons as previously discussed. In some

cases, the ETGs considered the application of the treatment inappropriate so no rating was

provided. Not all treatments within each site have survived for the 5 years they have been in

place. Some treatments failed immediately, while others were removed over time. The

breakdown by treatment for survivors at the 57 sites visited is as follows:

Control 55

Crack Seal 40

Slurry Seal 56

Chip Seal 51

Thin Overlay 51.

Total 259

For crack-sealed sections, only 40 ratings were obtained out of the 57 sites visited. This was

due primarily to the inappropriateness of the application in some regions. In the Southern

region, for example, there were nine sites where there were no cracks to be sealed within the

crack seal sections. Neither were the crack-sealed sections maintained at many sites as

originally intended.

11
Poor 'Contro

are Ave

10

9

0- 8 I

0

-C)

C

;l 7 ca

Ir:

c

0 6 ;l

=s

c

0 5 0

- CD N

C)

l! 4 CD

3

2

1

o ,

No. of Sections 2 6 13 5 26 0 3

Good Fair

Pretreatment Condition

Figure 4. Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for control sections.
Performance Life Estimates

Estimates of remaining test section performance life were provided by the ETG groups for all

test sections. These estimates were based on the condition of the sections 5 years after

placement. A number of other factors influenced the determination of the estimates, in

addition to the condition of the pavement.

The first factor is the composite past experience of the group members. Normally, with these

groups there is an initial divergence of opinion. However, after several sites, the members

became calibrated to each other and consensus estimates were consistently obtained. The past

experience of the individual members is strongly influenced by their experience in their own

State. This experience includes factors for environmental differences and State practices. In

addition, not all States use all the treatments, and consequently, some of the members are not

very familiar with these treatments.

Once a group develops a consensus in making performance estimates, they remain fairly

consistent. However, each regional group does this individually, with no relationship to how

it is accomplished in the other regional groups. Reviewing the performance life estimates, it

becomes evident that there is poor agreement between predicted performance life estimates and

the subjective and numerical rating scores provided in some instances.

Figures 7, 10, 13, and 16 summarize the expectations of performance life-without additional

maintenance-provided by the ETG groups. For example, the estimates shown in figure 7

represent the average performance life estimates for the crack seal treatment provided by the

ETGs. This figure represents the estimates of the remaining life of the test section, with no

further maintenance, and with the 5 years since construction added on. The range bars

representing plus or minus one standard deviation from the mean value indicate the variability

present in these estimates. The numbers below the histograms indicate the number of sections

represented. Where no sections were reviewed in a region that fell within a given condition

level, a zero appears. No range bars appear when the number of sites was one or all site

estimates were the same.

This information is provided to give maintenance practitioners in the various regions a feel for

what they can expect in terms of performance from properly applied maintenance treatments in

their area. The information represents subjective opinions and should be considered representative of a region and not site-specific.

The data contained in figures 4 through 16 were developed to evaluate the subjective opinions

of the tour groups as expressed in the tour reports. (8-11) Additional analyses are being performed on the numeric ratings provided by the tour members and will be included in the final

report for the project.

13
TREATMENT PERFORMANCE

The following section of this report discusses results by treatment type: crack seal, slurry seal,

chip seal, and thin hot-mix asphalt overlay. The general performance results by LTPP region,

together with the influence of initial pavement condition and environment or climate, are

included. Performance life estimates are summarized.

Crack Seal Treatment

Results ofReviews

Figures 5 through 7 present ETG evaluation data for crack seal treatments in terms of pretreatment condition, climatic region, and predicted performance life. The SHRP test sections

in the North Atlantic and North Central LTPP regions utilized a 38-mm-wide by 9.5-mm-deep

reservoir. Although the North Central regional construction contractor reportedly did not

control the routed depth well and frequently produced a 16-mm-deep reservoir, the wide,

shallow crack seal design performed well on pavements in all conditions. The treatment was

observed to have slowed the rate of pavement deterioration in several cases. This crack seal

treatment design was effective in the wet-freeze environmental zone.

The wet-no freeze region also experienced good performance from the crack seal treatment

using an overband design. Although the ETG hypothesized that in some cases, routing would

have improved section performance where larger cracks existed, the crack sealing worked

well. In this region, crack sealing was not effective on fatigue-cracked pavements.

The crack seal treatment did not perform well in the dry regions of the country, as reported by

the Western LTPP Region ETG. The routed crack sealing applied in the dry regions utilized a

1-by-1 reservoir shape factor. This application has evidenced a propensity toward adhesion

failure after 5 years, although the sealant material itself remained functional. The performance

of these test sections has deteriorated accordingly.

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition

The wide shallow sealant reservoirs used in the North Atlantic and North Central regions

appear to be most effective for pavements in poor condition (figure 5). They also contributed

to the performance of good pavements, but not significantly (figure 5). The overband design

used in the Southern region performed similarly on good, fair, and poor pavements (no fair

sections were reviewed). The 1-by-l reservoir used in the Western region contributed only to

the performance of fair pavements based on a limited number of sites (two).

Effect of Climatic Region

Treatment performance trends for all the regions are similar for the crack seal treatment. Of

great significance is the consistency among the LTPP regional groups for each level of

pavement condition demonstrated in the control section evaluations (figure 4). This

14
Pretreatment Condition

Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for crack seal sections.

22

·Contro

are Av

6 4

Poor

I 

8 2 7 2 o

Fair

2 26

10

9

0-.- 8 I

0

-

OJ

C

:;:: 7 •

a::

c

0 6 :;::

:a

c

0 5 0 ......

Ul CD

OJ

f! 4 CD

>

<C

3

2

1

0

No. of Sections 2 6 6

Good

Figure 5.
0\

-

C)

c

+:;

as

0::

CD

(,)

c

as

E

.g

CD

0.

cCD

S

as

!

t-

"0 I •

o

o

C)

"0

o

o

C)

....

"m

lL.

....

o

o

a..

....

o

o

a..

Line of Equality' ••••

No Benefit Zone

Benefi

Dry No-Freeze

R2 = 0.5714, n=3

• R2 = 0.79

H~C?-Free

R2 = 0.6208:

Very Good Good Fair

Control Performance Rating

Poor V

Figure 6. Treatment vs. control performance for crack seal sections.
16 -r-"'"""'~- ••••---"--------------""-----.--.---------

"Error bars represent one (1) standard deviation

14 t-----------------------~

12 I I 

6 8 p 4 oor

2 2 2 F' 0 arr 1 1 6 Good 6

2

o , 2

No. of Sections

.! 10

:::i .. 

g 1 r... tIIl:I

t:i ca 8 T 

§ ~em:!I~e::1:3 

't:

6

Pretreatment Condition

Figure 7. Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for crack seal sectio
consistency provided a sound platform for comparing the sections across LTPP regional

boundaries and making climatic groupings of the data for discussion. The performance

evaluations represented in figure 6 reflect the contribution of crack sealing to pavement

performance by environmental regions. The figure provides curves representing the performance of the crack seal treatment sections after 5 years compared with the performance of the

control sections after 5 years in each climatic region. These curves represent a composite plot

of the performance at the three initial condition levels of good, fair, and poor. They were

generated using a quadratic regression of these data. Although there is little spread in the

regional performance data when applied to good condition pavements, the distinctions are

better defined when applied to poor pavements. In considering the performance of the crack

seal treatments, several factors must be recognized. Unlike the other maintenance treatments,

a new surface is not applied to the pavement. Crack sealing is intended to reduce the

infiltration of water into the pavement structure and thereby improves performance. A method

for evaluating the effectiveness of crack sealing is to compare the performance of the cracksealed section with an unsealed control section over a period of years. If the crack sealing is

truly effective at slowing the rate of deterior!ltion, the condition of the sealed section will show

improvement relative to the control section after several years. Unfortunately, the fact that the

crack sealing was not maintained at most of the SPS-3 sites clouds even the evaluation of the

change in pavement condition over time, since this permitted the entry of water into the

pavement.

Figure 6 indicates that the crack-sealed sections in the dry-no freeze and wet-freeze environments performed similarly. Those pavements with control sections in poor condition are better

than the controls. This trend is also true for the sections with fair control section conditions.

As expected, when the control sections are in good condition, little change is seen in the

performance of the crack-sealed pavement sections. To effectively prevent water from

entering and damaging the pavement structure, crack sealing must be undertaken early with the

onset of cracking.

The crack-sealed sections performed similarly in the dry-freeze and wet-no freeze environments. For the good condition control sections, the results are very similar to those noted for

the other climates; however, when the control sections are poor, so are the crack-sealed

sections. When control sections are fair, the treated sections are slightly better.

It is interesting to note that the pavement sections in the dry-no freeze and dry-freeze climates

resulted in very different performance, even though the cracks in these regions were routed

and sealed in the same manner and they were evaluated by the same review team. This

reflects the effect of a freezing climate vs. a no-freeze climate on the performance of crack

seals. Again, the better performance of the wide, shallow crack seal reservoir is evident in the

wet-freeze climate.

Although a marginal benefit is seen from the crack seal treatment in several cases, it is

reasonable to expect that the observed performance would have been better had the crack seal

been maintained. Specific examples of this were found at sites in Minnesota(9) in the wetfreeze climate.
Performance Life

Although the crack sealing treatment was applied in accordance with three different specifications, ETG remaining life estimates typically fall within a 2-year range. The performance of

the North Atlantic region sites for pavements in initially poor condition represents the

outstanding exception to this observation (figure 7). The higher performance expectation for

these pavements reflects the observation that the wide shallow crack seal reservoir design U)ed

in the North Atlantic region performed very well on these sections.

The expected remaining life for crack sealing varies from 6 years to just over 8 years for

pavements in good condition. For those in fair condition, the variation is about l l

h yearsfrom 6 to t l

h years. The greatest variation exists for the poor condition pavements. In this

case, the performance estimates vary from less than 6 years to more than 10 years (figure 7).

Slurry Seal Treatment

Results ofReviews

Figures 8 through 10 present ETG evaluation data for slurry seal treatments in terms of pretreatment condition, climatic region, and predicted performance life. Slurry seals have

improved pavement performance relative to the control sections at all levels of initial pavement

condition in the dry-no freeze environment. In all climatic regions, slurry seals performed

well on pavement sections with little initial cracking.

Moisture sensitivity problems were observed in the dry-freeze and wet-no freeze environments.

Accelerated fatigue cracking and severe wheel path rutting of the hot-mix pavements devel··

oped in some of the slurry seal sections in these two climates. This issue is discussed in detail

in the section on moisture sensitivity.

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition

Figure 8 shows the effectiveness of slurry seals as compared to control sections by initial

condition of the pavement and by LTPP region. For pavements in initially good condition, the

benefits of slurry seals as compared to control sections are minor. For pavements in initially

fair and poor conditions, improvements in pavement performance are noted primarily in those

sections in the southeast and west.

Effect of Climatic Region

Figure 9 shows the relative performance of slurry seals versus control sections after 5 years of

service. Slurry seals placed in the dry-no freeze region performed well regardless of the

condition of the control section.

19
22

'Contr

are A

Poor

11 3 2

Fair

26

Pretreatment Condition

Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for slurry seal sections.

I HHffII 

I 

10

9

0-... 8 I

0

-C)

C

= 7

c

0 6

==s

c

0 5 0

N CD 0 C)

I! 4 CD

>

et

3

2

1

0

No. of Sections 3 6 15

Good

Figure 8.
N

-

"0

o

o

C>

0)"0

C g ;::C>

CD

(J

C

ca

E'~ ou.

t

CD

c..

cCD

E~_0

ca 0

CDD.

t.

o

o

D.

No Benefit Zone

Very Good

Line of Equality

Good Fair Poor

Benefit Z

Dry-No Freeze

R2 =O.CXE6

Dry-F

R2 = 0

Wet-F

R2 = 0

V

Control Performance Rating

Figure 9. Treatment vs. control performance for slurry seal sections.
16 I 

*Error bars represent one (1) standard deviation

14 I T 

12 *

2 Fair 1 4

4

2

o

No. of Sections

G) 10

'too

G)

u

tv c 8

tv

'"

E

.g

G) 6 D..

Pretreatment Condition

Figure 10. Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for slurry seal section
The wet-freeze climate, again, is most severe in terms of the benefits provided to the pavement

by a treatment. Only marginal benefit is provided in this climate for pavements with control

sections varying from good to poor conditions (figure 9).

Slurry seal performance in the wet-no freeze and dry-freeze regions is quite similar (figure 9).

In these environmental regions for pavements with control sections now in poor condition, the

test section condition remains fair. Those pavements with control sections in fair condition

remain slightly better than fair. Pavements with control sections in good condition after 5

years have received little benefit from the treatment application.

In summary, there is a wide variation in the benefits derived in the four climatic zones. These

trends suggest selective application of the slurry seal treatment, depending on the local

environment and pavement conditions.

Performance Life

Figure 10 provides the performance life estimates for the slurry seal treatment. Slurry seals

placed on pavement sections in good condition are expected to last from 7 years in the Western

region to around 10 years in the other regions. Considerable variation is present in the

estimates of performance life when placed on fair condition pavement sections. Note that only

eight sections with fair condition pavements were reviewed, with only one in the Southern

region and two each in the North Atlantic and North Central regions. Excluding the stellar

estimate for the single Southern region site, the slurry seal when placed on fair condition

pavements is expected to perform for 6 to 8 years. When placed on pavement sections in poor

condition, the slurry seal treatment is estimated to perform for 7 to 8 years.

Chip Seal Treatment

Results ofReviews

Figures 11 and 12 present ETG evaluation data for chip seal treatments in terms of initial

condition, climatic region, and predicted performance life. The chip seal treatment performed

well throughout all of the environmental regions of the country. In the wet-no freeze region,

performance was quite good. In the dry-no freeze and dry-freeze regions, chip seals consistently performed well. In the wet-freeze region, chip seals performed well on good and fair

pavements.

As discussed in the section on construction lessons, some application problems were encountered in the Western and North Atlantic LTPP Regions as a result of excessive hauling and

storing of emulsions. Snowplow damage was observed at some sites in areas where plowing is

common.

In the Southern region, two site observations of special note were forthcoming. First, near'

Freer, TX, a severely fatigue-cracked test section was successfully held together with a chip

seal. Distress had not developed after 5 years. This lends itself to an observation that in

23
22 5 4

Poor ·Contro

are Ave

9

IItI±ltI 

10

9

-

0

""" 8 I

0

-

CD

C

; 7

l}.

c

0 6 ;

:s

c

0 5

N 0

CD

CD

l! 4 CD

>

c:r::

3

2

1

o ,

No. of Sections 2 8 10 4 26 1 2 2 3 7

Good Fair

Pretreatment Condition

Figure 11. Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for chip seal sections.
gI No Benefit Zone

o

~~

0..

• Wet No-Freeze B

o '.

(!) " " III L R2 = 0.2652, 0=11

r .

"'C...

....... 81 Dry No-Freeze

C) R2 = 0.3552, 0=5

C (!)

+I

ca

a::

CD

·ffi1 u ..

" Dry F

c .. ca .. R2 = 0.6

E Line of Equality

l- LL.

CD

N D..

Ul CCD

E ...

- 0

ca 0

CD o..t l- '.-,,"- Wet F

R2 = 0.

Very Good Good Fair

Control Performance Rating

Poor 

Figure 12. Treatment ys. control performance for chip seal sections.
16 I 

*Error bars represent one (1) standard deviation

14 I 

5 9 4

Poor

1 2 2

Fair

1 4

12

2

o

No. of Sections

10

::i

CD 

u

N C 

0'1 C'G 8

E T 

.g 

CD 6 D.

4

Pretreatment Condition

Figure 13. Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for chip seal section
warmer climates, chip seals can be effective in reducing the further development of fatigue

cracking. Second, at a sight near Colorado City, TX, it was noted that a deteriorating opengraded friction course was maintained by the application of a chip seal. In this case, loss of

the open-graded friction course was halted. Both of these observations identify further benefits

of chip seal applications.

The chip seal treatment was observed to have accelerated stripping of pavements in the dryfreeze, wet-no freeze, and dry-no freeze climates. This has been observed at six sites and

confirmed at two sites in Arizona by testing. It is likely that this moisture-related phenomenon

will occur in the wet-freeze region as well, if stripping potential materials are present. The

section discussing moisture sensitivity addresses this phenomenon in more detail.

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition

Figure 11 reflects chip seal performance by pavement condition level prior to applying the

treatments. The application of chip seals resulted in average performance ratings across all

pavement conditions that were better than the associated control sections. Benefits are evident

for pavements in nearly all conditions and regions.

Effect ofClimatic Region

As figure 11 shows, once again, the freeze environments have a more severe effect on the

pavement section performance, with the wet-freeze climate being the most severe. In the wetfreeze environment, pavements with control sections in fair and poor condition remain slightly

better than the control sections. In the dry-freeze region, slightly greater benefit is obtained.

Pavements with fair condition control sections remain in good condition, and those with

controls in poor condition remain in fair condition.

In the wet-no freeze climate, the benefit to the pavement appears to increase as pavement

condition gets worse (figure 12). This trend is based on site observations and demonstrates

some inconsistency in the ETG ratings and that distress has not become apparent at any

condition level in this climate. Likewise, in the dry-no freeze climates, the benefit of chip

seals is good for fair and poor condition pavements (figure 12). In the dry-freeze environment, there is significant benefit to pavements in the poor and fair conditions (figure 12). The

benefits of the chip seal treatment are certainly greatest in the no-freeze environments, but can

also be seen in the freeze environments.

Performance Life

Figure 13 provides the performance life estimates for the chip seal treatment. It can be seen

that the estimates decrease with decreasing initial pavement condition. The outstanding

exception to this is the performance estimate for the chip seal treatment in the Southern region.

Note that a limited number of sites in the North Atlantic region are represented.

27
Performance expectations for the chip seal when applied to good pavement sections are 9 to 10

years. For pavement sections in fair condition, the performance expectations are 8 to 9 years.

For pavement sections in poor condition, performance expectations are from 6 to 8 years. As

previously stated, the Southern region represents an exception. At all levels of pavement

condition, the Southern region expectations are highest (figure 13).

Thin Hot-Mix Overlay Treatment

Results ofReviews

Figures 14, 15, and 16 present ETG evaluation data for thin hot-mix overlay treatments in

terms of initial condition, climatic region, and predicted performance life. The thin overlay

sections were considered to have performed well by all the regional groups. Although there

were specific sections that provided performance anomalies, the thin overlays were reported as

improving ride quality, reducing rutting, and often reducing the severity of reflective cracking.

Effect ofInitial Pavement Condition

The good performance of the thin overlays across all pavement condition levels is shown in

figure 14. In all cases, the average section condition is significantly better than the associated

control sections, indicating a benefit from the treatment. Note that there were no fair

condition pavements reviewed in the Southern region with thin overlays.

Effect ofClimatic Region

Examining the ETG ratings for the thin overlay treatment, the environmental trends previously

discussed hold true. As shown in figure 15, the benefit of the overlays compared with the

control sections is evident. In the freeze environments, pavements with control sections in

poor condition have remained in fair condition. Similarly, pavements with control sections in

fair condition remain in good condition; those with a good control section have performed only

slightly better than the controls.

In the no-freeze environments, even greater benefit is evident. After 5 years, the sections with

control sections in fair and poor condition remain in good condition. At the same time, the

sections with good control condition remain very good.

These trends clearly show the benefits of the thin overlay after 5 years of performance with

respect to pavement condition level. The benefit to poor condition pavements in the no-freeze

climates is almost two times the benefit received in the freeze climates.

Performance Life

Figure 16 shows the performance life estimates for the thin overlay treatment. Only a slight

difference is seen between estimates for the treatment placed on good and poor sections.

Estimates for sections placed on fair pavements are somewhat lower.

28
22 6 4

Poor ·Contro

are Av

11

=iii I=I#tI:n 

10

9

0-

- 8 I

0

-C)

c

:w 7 ftS

C

0 6 :w

:e

c

0 5 0

N Q)

\0 C)

l! 4 Q)

3

2

1

0

No. of Sections 1 7 14 4 26

Good Fair

Pretreatment Condition

Figure 14. Average overall pavement condition by LTPP region for thin overlay sections.
"0

o ...... o IC ac::::::::::::: 

C> r--:.:... Benefit 

"81 .. Dry-No Freeze . R2 =0.8215,n=5 .. C>

m

c

n:I

J . Wet-No Fre

r:r:: ... Q) .. R2 = 0.3879, 

(.) . C

n:I

E ·ffi I Line of Equality ...

.g u.

w Q)

0 Q.

c- L-l . Dry-Freeze Q) .. .§ .. R2 = 0.8998, n=14 0 . n:I 0

Q) a.. ...

tB I No Benefit Zone

o

a..

Very Good Good Fair Poor

Control Performance Rating

Figure 15. Treatment vs. control performance for thin overlay sections.

Very 
16 I 

*Error bars represent one (1) standard deviation

14 I I 

12 I * T I I T T 

11 Poor 4 1 2 7 14 Good

4

2

o

No. of Sections

J2 10

:.J

CD 

w u 

..... c 8 CIS

I E 

.g T 

CD 6 0.

Pretreatment Condition

Figure 16. Performance life by LTPP region and pretreatment condition for thin overlay sections
For pavement sections in good condition, the performance estimates for the thin overlay are

from 8 to 11 years. For pavement sections in poor condition, the estimates vary from 7 to 10

years. For those sections in fair condition, estimates are from 6 to 9 years. In all but the

North Atlantic region, a limited number of fair condition pavement sections are represented.

Observations Related to Specific Pavement Distress Types

Information was collected by the ETGs regarding the influence of the treatments in improving

specific distress types. These specific distress types were selected to provide more detailed

information about the effect of the maintenance treatments on the deterioration of the pavement. The distress types included were: longitudinal, transverse, and fatigue cracking.

Along with these were bleeding, raveling, and snowplow damage. The summary of ETG

performance ratings with respect to these distress types is provided in appendix E. The

following discussion summarizes the performance of the treatments with respect to these

distress types.

Crack Seal

The effect of the crack seal treatment in reducing the three types of cracking is marginal. This

is reflective of the fact that sealed cracks continue to be counted as distress in the LTPP

distress survey procedures.

The crack seal treatment has little effect on snowplow damage to the pavement. The same is

true of bleeding. The treatment is seen to have a positive effect on pavement raveling.

Slurry Seal

The slurry seal treatment appears to result in some improvement in the presence of the

cracking distresses. Forty percent of the sections have less cracking than the associated control

sections.

The slurry seal treatment also shows some benefit in reducing pavement raveling. No real

change is seen in bleeding or snowplow damage, as compared with the associated control

sections.

Chip Seal

The chip seal treatment significantly reduces the occurrence of cracking in the pavement

surface, with more than 60 percent of the sections having less cracking than the associated

controls.

The chip seal treatment provides some benefit in relieving pavement raveling in 36 percent of

the test sections. However, there is no clear trend in this area since the visual observations

provided by the ETGs indicate a greater number of sections with raveling after treatment.

32
This trend of having more sections distressed also holds true for bleeding and snowplow

damage.

Thin Overlay

The thin overlay treatment sections reduced the three types of cracking distress at more than 60

percent of the sites, as compared with the associated control sections.

The thin overlay treatment also has been of benefit in reducing raveling in 45 percent of the

test sections, relative to the associated control sections. It has improved bleeding in 38 pereent

of the sections, and snowplow damage in 27 percent of the sections.

Assessment of SPS-3 Supplemental Sites

Data for the supplemental sites that were collected during the field reviews have been compiled

in appendix F. The evaluation of the data was performed by recording the pavement performance ratings assigned to the supplemental, control, and companion sections at each site.

The companion sections are identified as the standard SHRP experimental section, which is

similar to the supplemental section. For example, the companion section for a microsurfacing

section is the standard SHRP slurry seal.

Since there are a limited number of supplemental sections, and an even greater limit on the

number of sites of the same type that were actually constructed, it became necessary to look at

individual sites. Where possible, similar treatment types are grouped together for commemary

about relative performance.

This assessment is limited to the supplemental sites that were reviewed in the field. Reviews

were made of supplemental sections that can be compared with the slurry seal, chip seal, and

thin overlay sections. In addition, the relative performances of the supplemental and companion sites are each compared with the performance of the site control section. The last two

columns at the right of appendix F present the difference in the section performance rating and

the control section performance rating. Comparing these two columns provides a relative

performance comparison between the supplemental and companion sections.

Slurry Seals

Supplemental sites using microsurfacing as a treatment were constructed in Florida, New

York, and Oklahoma. Of these, two were rated slightly higher than, one equal to, and one

lower than the companion slurry seal. The margin of difference in performance rating does

not appear to be significant in any of these cases.

Other State supplemental slurry seals were constructed by Michigan and Virginia. Again, no

major difference is seen in the performance ratings, with one being slightly better and the

other slightly worse than the standard slurry seals.

33
Chip Seals

Supplemental chip seal sections were constructed in three generic categories: those including

modified asphalts, standard State materials, and graded aggregates. In addition, Ontario

constructed two Dynapatch sections. One was a full surfacing and the other was applied only

in the wheel paths. The performance of these sections is discussed below.

Supplemental chip seal sections using modified asphalt materials were reviewed at six locations

in three States-California, Minnesota, and Texas (appendix F). Three of these sites were

rubber-modified and three were polymer-modified. Again, there is not a clear-cut trend in the

evaluation. The rubber-modified chip seal in Minnesota appears to be performing better than

the associated chip seal section. The two rubber-modified sites in California and Texas,

however, are not perceived as well as the associated chip seal section.

California constructed three chip seal sections with various polymer modifications. One of

these appears to be performing slightly better than the companion chip seal sections. These

three sections are all at one site.

Twelve supplemental sites were constructed with the standard State procedures, or some

variation thereof. Of these, four of the companion sections were evaluated as performing

better than the supplemental section, while three were rated as being the same. The remaining

five supplemental sites were rated as slightly outperforming the companion chip seal sections.

The two Dynapatch sections constructed in Ontario performed well relative to the control

section. The chip seal section at that site failed during construction, so there was no companion section for comparison.

Finally, six chip seal supplemental sites were constructed using graded aggregate. Of these,

the companion chip seal section outperformed the supplemental section at two sites. At one

location, the two sections were rated equally. Three of the sections in New York were rated

as slightly outperforming the standard chip seal. All three New York sections were at one

location.

Thin Overlays

Several thin overlays that included thickness variations or mixture additives were reviewed in

the field. One section that included Bonifibers was constructed in California. This section

was rated slightly better than the companion thin overlay section.

Of three supplemental thin overlay sections in Utah, two were rated slightly better than the

standard thin overlay, and one was rated as worse. These sections were a standard Utah

Department of Transportation overlay thickness (37 mm) and were all at different locations.

Neither a gap-graded rubber-modified section nor an adjacent open-graded section was rated as

well as the companion overlay at a California site.

34
A double overlay in Ontario experienced problems and was rated lower than the standard

overlay at that location.

SPS-4 ETG REVIEW RESULTS

Observations related to the performance of the SPS-4 projects were relatively limited after .5

years. There were significantly fewer sites constructed and only a sampling of these were

reviewed in the field. Based on the limited number of sites reviewed, the findings are:

• Unsealed joints in the control sections contain significantly more debris than

sealed joint sections.

• Unsealed joint sections have significantly more joint spalling than the sealed

joint sections.

• Minor amounts of debris have lodged in the sealed joint sections, with little or

no effect on pavement performance to date.

• No conclusions are evident regarding the performance of the undersealed

sections after 5 years. The sections continue to perform consistently well. Only

eight test sections that included this factor were originally constructed nationwide.

SPS-4 Supplemental Sections

The performance of supplemental SPS-4 sections was only reviewed in the field by the ETGs

at a site in Arizona and a site in South Dakota. Four joint sealant materials and five joint

reservoir sizes were constructed at the Arizona site. Joint reservoirs ranged from 3 mm to

9 mm in width. Joint sealants included silicon, compression seals, ASTM 3405, and

ASTM 3406 materials. All sections are performing well to date. Observations from the South

Dakota site indicate that diamond grinding, dowel insertion, and edge drains have all reduced

pavement pumping at transverse joints.(9)

OTHER FINDINGS

Construction Lessons

Several valuable lessons regarding construction of the preventive maintenance treatments have

been identified from the SPS-3 and SPS-4 experiment reviews. While some of these issues

may not be new, they are repeated here to emphasize their importance.

Asphalt Emulsion Handling

The construction of the SPS-3 sections identified definite problems with the placement of chip

seals that were related to handling and storage of emulsified asphalts. It is likely that these

observations are not exclusively applicable to chip seals, but warrant consideration whenever

these materials are being used.

35
The specific lesson learned is not to attempt to transport emulsions for excessive distances or

to expect to store them for long periods of time. Both the Western and North Atlantic LTPP

regional construction contracts experienced problems with chip seals that directly resulted from

unusual emulsion handling practices.

Crack Routing Reservoirs

Most recognizable among the "construction" lessons is the exceptional performance of the

wide shallow crack seal reservoir. This shape factor far outperformed the other crack sealing

techniques evaluated under the SPS-3 experiment.

Crack Seal Blotting

In the North Central region, tissue paper was used during SPS-3 construction to blot crack seal

material. This treatment was sufficiently effective and it has been adopted by the Kansas

DOT.

Aggregate Characteristics

Also of importance are the improved aggregate and construction specification requirements

used for the SPS-3 sections, as compared with common agency specifications. Better

requirements for aggregate durability and quality control of construction operations, such as

minimal time requirements between emulsion and aggregate applications and rolling, contributed to the success of the SHRP chip seal test sections.

The use of the coarser (Type III) slurry seal aggregates contributed to the performance

characteristics of the slurry seal treatment. Among these is the high level of friction quality

provided by the slurry seals nationwide.

Moisture Sensitivity

Some problem cases have been identified when surface seals are applied to pavements

containing moisture-sensitive aggregates. Specifically, chip seals and slurry seals have been

observed at SPS-3 test sites to have accelerated stripping action in asphalt pavements that

incorporate the potential for water sensitivity.

The application of seals to pavements produces a relatively impermeable membrane in the

pavement structures. This relatively impermeable membrane stops or slows down the

movement of water (solid or vapor) from the subgrade and base course through the hot-mix

asphalt. The amount of water moving from the natural soil and base course through the hotmix asphalt to the atmosphere is largely controlled by the level of the water table, the nature of

the natural soil and base course, and the temperature. Substantial quantities of water move

through pavements during the spring and early summer months.

36
The application of a seal to the pavement surface traps moisture in the hot-mix asphalt and

other layers. With the placement of the seal, the water content in the hot-mix asphalt is higher

and remains in the pavement over a longer period of time than the pavement ever experienced

in its previous history. High temperatures and high traffic accelerate the effect of the moisture

on the hot-mix asphalt. Moderately susceptible hot-mix asphalt, while not stripping in

pavements without seals, will strip in a few weeks with the placement of seals in the spring or

summer months. The sudden and extensive pavement failures resulting from the phenomena

are expensive to repair.

The ETGs recommend that a method be developed for identifying pavements that are potentially susceptible to moisture damage in the form of stripping. This can be done by evaluating

the existing pavement materials by performing stripping tests on existing pavement materials

prior to making a decision regarding the application of a maintenance treatment. Further

determination of the potential for stripping problems can be made by assessing the likely

impact of traffic level on potentially stripping pavements.

Procedures for performing this evaluation are discussed in a report prepared for the Nevada

Department of Transportation, entitled Chip Seal Induced Rutting. (10) Identification of

potential problems that can arise from placing a tight seal (either a slurry or chip seal) under

the wrong conditions can prevent serious accelerated pavement damage.

Reflection Cracking

One of the primary objectives for applying preventive maintenance treatments is to prevent the

intrusion of excessive moisture into the pavement structure by sealing the pavement surface.

The ability of a chip seal, slurry seal, or thin overlay to maintain a well-sealed surface has

been found to be marginally effective in eliminating reflective cracking. The performance

evaluations of the treatments applied to pavements in good, fair, and poor initial pavement

conditions indicate that reflective cracking returns to the surface within 1 year under most

conditions. This is evident from looking at the amount of cracking that is masked by the

treatments initially, and by the fact that most of the cracking has returned by the first annual

distress survey. A typical example is provided in figure 17, which shows that much of the

original cracking has returned within the first year after treatment. The figure reflects only the

extent of cracking, not the severity level.

In the wet-no freeze environment, the thin overlay treatment reduced the severity of reflective

cracking after 5 years. Similarly, the chip seal treatment reduced the extent of reflective

cracking after 5 years. Several test sections were crack sealed prior to application of a surface

treatment. These performed well in keeping the pre-existing pavement cracks sealed.

37
140 i 

Ch

Th

•

•

- ..:::. - Co

e-Cr

.. + .. Sl

--~...... _--- _----------------0 --_. -. -

•••••••••••• T - ..,.,.. - - - .... - ~...J:.......... . .. 

o I" I I I I 

80

60

40

20

120

100 C)

r:::

:.i2

u

ns

Lo

U

ns

r:::

w C)

00 "i:

0

....

0

0

o 1 2 3 4 

Age (years)

Figure 17. Transverse reflection cracking for Idaho section 16C300.
Treatment Timing

SPS-3 Treatments

One of the most critical and difficult questions regarding the application of maintenance

treatments is when (during the life of the pavement) to apply the treatment for best results.

Figures 5, 8, 11, and 14 indicate the relationships between treatment performance after 5 years

and the initial condition (condition of the pavement prior to placement of treatment) of the

pavement. Figure 4 suggests that the control sections in pavements in initially good condition

have largely remained in good condition without preventive maintenance. Similarly, the

control sections in pavements in initially fair or poor condition have, on average, remained in

fair or poor condition. On average, the ETGs evaluation has suggested that the control

sections in the pavements have experienced few changes from their initial conditions after 5

years.

Climatic effects on treatment timing are evident with respect to certain treatments in specifie

environments. Examples of this are the far better performance of the chip seal treatment in the

no-freeze climates and the slurry seal in the dry-no freeze climate across all three levels of

pavement condition.

Crack Seal

The benefit to pavement performance is greatest when this treatment is applied while the

pavement is in good condition and the cracking distress is minimal. The wide shallow sealant

reservoir used in the wet-freeze climate provided greater benefit to fair and poor pavements

than the other crack sealing specifications used. Only the performance ratings of crack seals in

the dry-no freeze climate compared well for sections with more extensive cracking.

Slum Seal

This treatment was observed to have performed best when applied to pavements in better

condition-before extensive cracking distress develops. The outstanding exception to this was

also observed in the dry-no freeze climate where the slurry seal performed very well across all

three levels of pavement condition.

Chip Seal

The application of the chip seal treatment was observed to provide good pavement performance for all levels of pavement condition in all climatic regions, except for the wet-freeze

climate. In the wet-freeze climate, chip seals worked best on pavement sections in good or

fair condition.

39
Tbjn Overlay

After 5 years of performance, the thin overlay treatment has been observed to provide benefits

at all three levels of pavement condition. These ETG observations indicate that thin overlay

performance is better in the no-freeze climates than in the freeze climates. However, benefits

exist in all four climatic regions. Since the thin overlays continue to perform well, the end of

their performance life cannot yet be accurately anticipated.

SPS-4 Treatments

Based on the performance observations made by the ETGs, no conclusions are forthcoming

with regard to application timing for the SPS-4 maintenance treatments. The larger set of data

from all 31 SPS-4 sites will be evaluated as part of the final project report.

~o
SUMMARY

SPS-3 Experiment

The observations presented in this report summarize the performance of the 57 SPS-3 and 8

SPS-4 test sections reviewed during 1995 by the Highway Operations ETG. Observations

after 5 years have provided some information about the effect of the four preventive maintenance treatments being studied and an estimate of their expected performance lives.

The materials and construction specifications used in placing the SPS-3 sections have resulted

in better maintenance treatment performance than is normally achieved using existing

practices. When the pavement performance of the standard treatments was compared with

those of the supplemental sections after 5 years, the performance was found to be similar. On

average, the SHRP sections performed as well as the supplemental sections, many of which

cost more than the standard sections. Since the usual expectations of flexible pavement

performance fall in the 6- to lO-year range, and since the majority of the test sections have not

reached the end of their performance life, further evaluation of these test sections appears

warranted. It is recommended that further assessment of the test sections be made at 7 and 9

years after placement. This will ensure that information is gathered as the sections near or

reach the end of their performance lives.

SPS-4 Experiment

More time is required to obtain meaningful results from the SPS-4 sections. To date, sealed

joints have incurred less distress than unsealed joints, and supplemental sections of diamond

grinding, load transfer, and pavement edge drains appear to be helpful in maintaining good

pavement performance.

41

APPENDIX A. TEST SECTION INFORMATION

Table 1. Number of test sections visited by LTPP region.

Projects Visited

Region SPS-3 SPS-4 SPS-l SPS-2 SPS-5 SPS-6 SPS··9

North

Atlantic 7 1 0 0 0 0 0

North

Central 18 1 0 0 1 0 0

Southern 19 3 0 0 2 0 0

Western 13 4 2 1 1 1 1

Totals 57 9 2 1 4 1 1

43
Table 2. Test sections removed from experiment.

SECTIONS REMOVED FROM SERVICE TO CORRECT DISTRESS

State/Province SHRPID Reason for Removal From Service as Reported by

LTPP Regional Office Personnel

Arizona 04B300 Extensive cracking, section worn out.

Arizona 04C320/350 Stripping problem.

Arizona 04D320/350 Stripping problem.

Colorado 08B300 Chip seal section rutted very early. Other sections rutted

within a couple of years. Stripping is suspected.

Florida 12A300 Had extensive fatigue cracking before treatment and is

worn out now.

Indiana 18A300 Mill and overlay due to rutting.

Iowa 19A340/350 Sections were overlaid in 1995 due to fatigue and block

cracking.

Kansas 20B300 Overlay planned for 1996. 3.5-m lanes have resulted in

edge fatigue.

Kentucky 21A340 An asphalt skin patch was placed because of fatigue

cracking.

Minnesota 27A300 All sections are fatigue cracked; no work yet.

Nebraska 31A300 All sections have rutting and fatigue cracking, no work

yet.

Nevada 32C300 Overlaid due to rutting.

New York 36B300 Scheduled for overlay this summer.

Oklahoma 40C300 25- to 50-mm transverse cracks and fatigue cracking.

Ontario 87A320/330 Overlaid due to severe rutting.

/340

Pennsylvania 42A300 Sections were overlaid because of severe rutting. Rutting

existed prior to treatment and continued to progress.

Saskatchewan 90B300 Medium and high transverse fatigue cracks, localized low

severity.

44
Table 2. Test sections removed from experiment

(continued).

SECTIONS REMOVED FROM SERVICE TO CORRECT DISTRESS

StatelProvince SHRPID Reason for Removal From Service as Reported by

LTPP Regional Office Personnel

Saskatchewan 90A330 Milled and overlaid in 1993 as a result of rutting and

fatigue and block cracking.

Texas 48E300 Sections developed excessive fatigue.

Texas 48F350 Section developed stripping after treatment.

Washington 53A300 All sections, except the control, were overlaid due to extensive cracking. Other sections are still pending removal

from service.

45

APPENDIX B. CRACK SEALING SPECIFICATIONS!

Section 409. CRACK SEALING - North AtianticlNorth Central Regions

Description

409.01. This work consists of furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor for sealing

cracks in the existing pavement in the treatment areas. Crack sealing shall be in accordancl~

with these specifications and in conformance with details and at the locations shown on the

plans. There is one treatment area for crack sealing at each project site and the demonstration

site.

Equipment

409.02. The equipment used by the Contractor shall include, but not be limited to, the

following:

(a) Hot-Compressed Air-Lance (RCA). The hot-compressed air-lance shall provide

clean, oil-free compressed air at a volume of 100 cubic feet per minute at a

pressure of 120 pounds per square inch and at a temperature of 2000 degree~ P.

(b) Application Wand. The crack sealant applicator wand shall be attached to a

heated hose, attached to a heated sealant chamber. Temperature controls shall

be capable of maintaining the temperature of the sealant within manufacturer's

tolerances.

(c) Heating Kettle. The equipment for heating the sealant materials shall be

constructed as an indirect heating-type double-boiler using oil or other heat

transfer medium and shall be capable of constant agitation. Additionally, the

heating equipment shall be capable of controlling the sealant material temperature within the manufacturer's recommended temperature range and shall be

equipped with a calibrated thermometer capable of ±5°P accuracy from 2000

P

to 6OOo

P. This thermometer shall be located such that the Engineer may safely

check the temperature of the sealant material.

(d) Router. A hand-controlled mechanical router specifically designed for routing

cracks in pavements. The router shall have the ability to rout random cracks to

the cross section specified at a minimum rate of 1,000 linear feet per hour.

lSpecification materials were taken from reference 13.

47
Materials

409.03. The crack sealant shall conform to the requirements of Subsection 705.01.

Acceptance of crack sealant is specified in Subsection 106.06.

Construction Requirements

409.04. Preparation of Cracks. The pavement area to be treated shall be clean and dry with

no standing or flowing water on the surface.

All cracks greater than 12 inches in length, and greater than 1/8 inch width shall be sealed.

Cracks less than 1/8 inch in width shall be routed to 1-1h inch wide and 3/8 inch deep. Sides

of the routed cracks shall be vertical. The router shall be guided so that the crack lies entirely

within the routed channel. The bits used to rout the cracks must be kept sharp and replaced

when dull. All cracks shall be thoroughly cleaned of all foreign material.

All cracks shall be blown clean and dry using the RCA lance. Care shall be exercised to keep

the RCA lance moving at a pace that will avoid burning the surrounding pavement.

409.05. Sealing the Crack. For each crack, the crack sealant shall be placed and finished

within 2 minutes after heating with the RCA lance. Each crack shall be slightly overfilled.

409.06. Acceptance. Following the application of the crack sealant and before opening the

roadway to traffic, the job will be visually inspected by the Engineer for area exhibiting

adhesion failure, damage to the sealant from construction equipment or personnel, missed

cracks, foreign objects in the sealant, or other problems that will accelerate failure or indicate

the job is not acceptable. Portions of the job identified by the Engineer that do not meet these

acceptable criteria will be prepared and resealed until satisfactory to the Engineer.

Method of Measurement and Basis of Payment

409.07. All materials and work required by this Section will be measured and paid for in

accordance with Section 410.

48
Section 409. CRACK SEALING - Southern Region

Description

409.01. This work consists of furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor for sealing

cracks in the existing pavement in the treatment areas. Crack sealing shall be in accordance

with these specifications and in conformance with details and at the locations shown on the

plans. There is one treatment area for crack sealing at each project site and the demonstration

site.

Equipment

409.02. The equipment used by the Contractor shall include, but not be limited to, the

following:

(a) Hot-Compressed Air-Lance (HCA). The hot-compressed air-lance shall provide

clean, oil-free compressed air at a volume of 100 cubic feet per minute at a

pressure of 120 pounds per square inch and at a temperature of 2000 degrees P.

(b) Application Wand. The crack sealant applicator wand shall be attached to a.

heated hose, attached to a heated sealant chamber. Temperature controls shall

be capable of maintaining the temperature of the sealant within manufacturer's

tolerances.

(c) Heating Kettle. The equipment for heating the sealant materials shall be

constructed as an indirect heating-type double-boiler using oil or other heat

transfer medium and shall be capable of constant agitation. Additionally, the

heating equipment shall be capable of controlling the sealant material temperature within the manufacturer's recommended temperature range and shall be

equipped with a calibrated thermometer capable of ±5°P accuracy from 2000P

to 600oP. This thermometer shall be located such that the Engineer may safely

check the temperature of the sealant material.

(d) Squeegee. A hand-held squeegee shall be used to ensure that the crack is filled

to the existing surface. The squeegee shall be of the size and shape to ensure

that a 3-inch-wide band is centered on the finished sealed crack.

Materials

409.03. The crack sealant shall conform to the requirements of Subsection 705.01.

Acceptance of crack sealant is specified in Subsection 106.06.
Construction Requirements

409.04. Preparation of Cracks. The pavement area to be treated shall be clean and dry with

no standing or flowing water on the surface.

All cracks greater than 12 inches in length, and greater than 1/8 inch width shall be sealed.

All cracks shall be blown clean and dry using the HCA lance. Care shall be exercised to keep

the HCA lance moving at a pace that will avoid burning the surrounding pavement.

409.05. Sealing the Crack. For each crack, the crack sealant shall be placed and finished

within 5 minutes after heating with the HCA lance. Each crack shall be filled flush and

squeegeed so that the finished sealed crack is approximately 3 inches wide and centered on the

existing crack.

409.06. Acceptance. Following the application of the crack sealant and before opening the

roadway to traffic, the job will be visually inspected by the Engineer for areas exhibiting

adhesion failure, damage to the sealant from construction equipment or personnel, missed

cracks, foreign objects in the sealant, or other problems that will accelerate failure or indicate

the job is not acceptable. Portions of the job identified by the Engineer that do not meet these

acceptable criteria will be prepared and resealed until satisfactory to the Engineer.

Method of Measurement and Basis of Payment

409.07. All materials and work required by this Section will be measured and paid for in

accordance with Section 410.

50
Section 409. CRACK SEALING - Western Region

Description

409.01. This work consists of furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor for sealing

cracks in the existing pavement in the treatment areas. Crack sealing shall be in accordance:

with these specifications and in conformance with details and at the locations shown on the

plans. There is one treatment area for crack sealing at each project site and the demonstration

site.

Equipment

409.02. The equipment used by the Contractor shall include, but not be limited to, the

following:

(a) Hot-Compressed Air-Lance (HCA). The hot-compressed air-lance shall provide

clean, oil-free compressed air at a volume of 100 cubic feet per minute at a

pressure of 120 pounds per square inch and at a temperature of 2000 degrees F.

(b) Application Wand. The crack sealant applicator wand shall be attached to a

heated hose, attached to a heated sealant chamber. Temperature controls shall

be capable of maintaining the temperature of the sealant within manufacturer's

tolerances.

(c) Router. A hand-controlled mechanical router specifically designed for routing

cracks in pavements. The router shall have the ability to rout random cracks to

the cross section specified at a minimum rate of 1,000 linear feet per hour.

Materials

409.03. The crack sealant shall be a polymer-modified rubber asphalt and shall conform to the

requirements of ASTM Designation D3405 when tested in accordance with ASTM Designation

D3407. Crack sealant shall be obtained from a source selected by the Contractor in accordance with the requirements of Subsection 106.01. Crack sealant material shall be furnished

from one production lot.

Acceptance of crack sealant is specified in Subsection 106.06.

Construction Requirements

409.04. Preparation of Surface, General. The pavement area to be treated shall be clean and

dry with no standing or flowing water on the surface.

409.05. Cracks to be Treated. All cracks greater than 12 inches in length, and greater than

1/8 inch width shall be treated.

51
409.06. Preparation of Cracks. Cracks less than 3/4 inch in width shall be routed to 3/4 inch

wide and 1 inch deep. Sides of the routed cracks shall be vertical. The bits used to rout the

cracks must be kept sharp and replaced when dull. All cracks larger than 3/4 inch shall be

thoroughly cleaned of all foreign material.

409.07. Cleaning the Crack. All cracks shall be blown clean and dry using the HCA lance.

Care shall be exercised to keep the HCA lance moving at a pace that will avoid burning the

surrounding pavement.

409.08. Sealing the Crack. For each crack, the crack sealant shall be placed and finished

within 5 minutes after heating with the HCA lance. Each crack shall be filled to within JA

inch of the existing surface.

409.09. Acceptance of Crack Sealing. Following the application of the crack sealant and

prior to the Government opening the roadway to traffic, the job will be visually inspected by

the Engineer for areas exhibiting adhesion failure, damage to the sealant from construction

equipment or personnel, missed cracks, foreign objects in the sealant, or other problems that

will accelerate failure or indicate the job is not acceptable. Portions of the job identified by

the Engineer that do not meet these criteria will be prepared and resealed until satisfactory to

the Engineer.

Method of Measurement

409. 10. Crack sealant will be measured in pounds determined by the count of containers and

partial containers actually used and the weight of each.

Crack sealing will be measured by the each for the actual number of test sections completed

and accepted.

Basis of Payment

409.11. The accepted quantities, determined as provided above, will be paid for at the

contract price per unit of measurement, respectively, for each of the particular pay items listed

below and show in the bid schedule.

The unit contract price per pound for "Crack sealant for sealing" shall be full payment for all

costs for labor, tools, equipment, and materials necessary for furnishing the sealant to the

project site.

The unit contract price per each for "Crack sealing per site" shall be full payment to complete

the work as specified, including all costs for labor, tools, equipment, and materials. This

includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Brooming the base surface.

(b) Routing.

52
(c) Cleaning and drying the cracks.

(d) Placement of materials.

Payment will be made under:

pay Item

409(1) Crack sealant for sealing

409(2) Crack sealing per site

Pay Unit

Pound

Each

[Metric Equivalents: 1 in = 25.4 mm; 1 ft = 0.305 m; 1 ft3 = 0.028 m3 ; 1 psi = 6.89 kPa;

(F-32)/1.8 = °Cl

53

APPENDIX C. FIELD REVIEW TRIP PARTICIPANTS AND

HIGHWAY OPERATIONS TASK GROUP

Field Review Trip Participants

WESTERN REGION

Participants - Complete Tour

Michael Ray Smith, FHWA1

Arnold Korynta, Washington State DOT

Darrell Giannonatti, Utah DOT

Scott Gibson, Nichols Consulting Engineers

James Stevenson, Montana DOTI.2

Pete Pradere, Nichols Consulting

Engineersl

Ahmad Ardani, Colorado DOT1

Gray Hildebrand, Caltrans

Additional Participants - Specific State

Sites

California Sites

Dennis Jackson, Washington State

DOT1

Jim Sorenson, FHWA1

Arizona and Utah Sites

John Zaniewski, Arizona State University

Arizona Sites

Larry Scofield, Arizona DOT1

SOUTHERN REGION

Participants - Complete Tour

Bruce Thomasson, Alabama DOT1

Harold Beaver, Arkansas SHTDI.2

Don Quilio, Florida DOT1

Thomas Bohuslav, Texas DOT1

Jack Hardin, Mariani Asphaltl

Pete Pradere, Nichols Consulting

Engineersl

55

Patrick Bauer, FHWAI

Jerry Deleiden, Brent Rauhut Engineering

Additional Participants - Specific State

Sites

All Alabama Sites

Lynn Wolfe, Alabama DOT

John Sullivan, FHWAIAlabama Division

Gordon Brown, FHWAIAlabama

Division

Dothan, Alabama

Coleman Hatcher, Alabama DOT

Mobile, Alabama

Don George, FHWAIAlabama Division

Laurel, Mississippi

Al Crawley, Mississippi DOT

All Oklahoma Sites

David Ooten, Oklahoma DOT

Ginger McGovern, Oklahoma DOT

Chuck Donovan, Oklahoma DOT

Bill Barton, FHWAIOklahoma Division

Seminole, Oklahoma

Paul Rachael, Oklahoma DOT

Johnny Hayden, Oklahoma DOT

Colorado City, Texas

Doug Eichorst, Texas DOT

Notes: IExpert Task Group

2Lead States
Mullin, Texas

Cathy Griffith, Texas DOT

Crandeil, Texas

Jerry Jones, FHWA/Region 6

NORTH ATLANTIC REGION

Don Wide, Pennsylvania DOT

Jim McDougall, Ontario Ministry of Transportationl

John ScalIa, Maryland DOT

John Rondinaro, New York State DOT

Ed Lesswing, Pavement Management Systems

Michael Ray Smith, FHWA1

Pete Pradere, Nichols Consulting

EngineersI

Jose Garcia, FHWA

Bill Bellinger, FHWA

New York Sites

Ed Denehy, New York State DOT

Ron Brown, New York State DOT

Jack Hill, Midland Asphalt

NORTH CENTRAL REGION

Southern Part

Stan Hilderman, Manitoba Highways &

Transportationl

Norman Humphrey, South Dakota DOT

(TWG)

Herb Linne, Michigan DOT1

Bill Monhollon, Kentucky Department of

Highwaysl

John Selmer, Iowa DOT1

Ron Shuberg, Kansas DOT1,2

Jason Harrington, FHWA

Pete Pradere, Nichols Consulting

EngineersI

Ron Urbach, Braun Intertec

W. Allen Palmer, Asphalt Institute

Noel Schultz, Jebro, Inc.

56

Northern Part

Stan Hilderman, Manitoba Highways &

Transportationl

Herb Linne, Michigan DOT1

Bill Monhollon, Kentucky Department of

Highwaysl

John Selmer, Iowa DOT1

Ron Shuberg, Kansas DOT1,2

Patrick Bauer, FHWAI

Pete Pradere, Nichols Consulting

EngineersI

Ron Urbach, Braun Intertec

Abdul Qayyum, Saskatchewan Highways &

Transportation

Blaine Morien, Pounder Emulsions

Notes: IExpert Task Group

2Lead States
HIGHWAY OPERATIONS

EXPERT TASK GROUP

Western Region

James (Jim) Stevenson

Montana DOT

Dennis Jackson

State Materials Engineer

Washington State DOT

Ahmad Ardani

Colorado DOT

Larry Scofield

Arizona DOT

Cal Berge

LTPP Regional Engineer

North Atlantic Region

Edward Denehy

New York State DOT

Amar Bhajandas

Pennsylvania DOT

Gail Courtney

Maryland DOT

James I. McDougall, P.E.

Ontario Ministry of Transportation

Ivan Pecnik

LTPP Regional Engineer

57
Southern Region

Thomas Bohuslav

Texas DOT

Bruce Thomasson

Alabama DOT

A.F. (Don) Quilio

Florida DOT

Morris Reinhardt

LTPP Regional Engineer

North Central Region

Herb Linne

Michigan DOT

John Selmer

Iowa DOT

Ron Shuberg

Kansas DOT

Stan Hilderman

Manitoba Highways & Transportation

Norman Humphrey

South Dakota DOT

Dick Ingberg

LTPP Regional Engineer

58
UniversityIIndustry

Dr. Roger Smith

Texas A&M University

Dr. Jon Epps

University of Nevada

Larry Day

International Slurry Seal Association

Bill Ballou

International Slurry Seal Association

Jack Hardin

Asphalt Emulsion Manufacturer's Association

Pete Pradere

Consultant

Sanford LaHue

American Concrete Pavement Association

Clint Solberg

American Concrete Pavement Association

To Be Named

The Asphalt Institute

59
Jim Sorenson

Pavement Division

Michael Smith

Pavement Division

Patrick Bauer

Highway Operations Division

Bill Bellinger

LTPP Division

Federal ffighway Administration

60
APPENDIX D. FIELD SURVEY FORMS

SPS-3 Site Visit Test Section Summary

Section 10:------------- Treatment Type: _

Current Section Condition

Overall Pavement Condition

(Independent of Treatment)

Date:

Recorder:--------

o

10

.-,__v"'-e:.;,.ry:.,r'-'o..;;;or__--;I__:.;,.po,~:.;,.r __;I__",-Fe,ir I__.;;.GO'~Fd __-IIt-.....;..ve;;;.ry:"~F0;';;o,;;,d_-., 2 4 8 8 10

Comments -----------------------------

Overall Treatment Condition

(Has the treatment held up and remained in place?)

r-.__..:..Ve::.ry!.,.;..:Po:.::.or:...-._---1I_-.:.;po:.:;~r_r __-lII_-..:..F::.ra~r:...-.-_I--.:::GO:.;~:.::.d--_1II_-v.:..:e::..ry~~;::o:.::.O=.d_-, o 4 8 8

Comments -----------------------------

Overall Treatment Effectiveness

(Has the treatment improved the pavement condition and/or extended the pavement life?)

o

Very Poor Poor

4

Fair Good

8

Very Good

i i

10

Has the treatment improved the pavement condition?

Has the treatment extended the pavement life?

61

Yes/No

Yes/No
SPS-3 Site Visit Test Section Summary (continued)

Future Performance Predictions

Time to Next Maintenance Treatment

(How long before a maintenance treatment is required?)

i

o i

2

Time (Years)

4 i

8 i

8 >10

Type of Treatment Recommended

(Thin OL, Chip Seal, Slurry Seal, Crack Seal, None, Other)

i

>10 I8

I 4 8 i

o

Time to Next Rehabilitation With Maintenance Treatment

(How long before rehab if a future maintenance treatment is applied before end of service life?)

Time (Years) I i

Time to Rehabilitation Without Treatment

(How long before rehab if no future maintenance treatment is applied before end of service life?)

i

o I

2

Time (Years) I

8 I

8 I

>'0

Was this treatment appropriate for this pavement? Yes/No

Would any maintenance treatment have been appropriate?

Yes/No

What would have been the most appropriate treatment?

(Thin OL, Chip Seal, Slurry Seal, Crack Seal, None, Other)

General Comments:

62
SPS-3 Distress Evaluations

Section Identification Number: Date:

Evaluator:

Performance

Overall Very Poor I Poor Fair I Good I Very Good I

Thin Overlay 0 2 4 6 8 10

I i I i

Chip Seal 0 2 4 6 8 10

I i I

Slurry Seal 0 2 4 6 8 10

i i

Crack Seal 0 2 4 6 8 10

I i i

Control 0 2 4 6 8 10

Longitudinal

Cracking Very Poor I Poor I Fair Good

r Very Good

I I i

Thin Overlay 0 2 4 6 8 10

i i I

Chip Seal 0 2 4 6 8 10

I I i i

Slurry Seal 0 4 6 8 10

I i i I

Crack Seal 0 2 4 6 8 10

I I

Control 0 2 4 6 8 10

Transverse

Cracking Very Poor I Poor Fair Good I Very Good

i

Thin Overlay 0 2 4 6 8 10

i I I i i

Chip Seal 0 2 4 6 8 10

i I i i i i

Slurry Seal a 2 4 6 8 10

I i I , I

Crack Seal 0 2 4 6 8 10

I i I i

Control 0 2 4 6 8 10

Fatigue

Cracking Very Poor I Poor Fair I Good I Very Good

I i

Thin Overlay 0 2 4 6 8 10

i i I i

Chip Seal 0 4 6 8 1(.

I i i

Slurry Seal 0 2 4 6 1(.

i I i , I

Crack Seal 0 2 4 6 B 1(1

I i i I

Control 0 2 4 6 8 III

63
64
SPS-4 Joint Seal Evaluation Form

Date:

------------ Section 10 Number:

------------ ETG Evaluator:

------------

Overall Section Very Poor I Poor I Fair I Good I Very Good i I I

Condition 0 2 4 e 8 10

Condition Very Poor I Poor Fair I Good I Very Good I I I

Near Joint 0 2 4 6 8 10

Sealant Very Poor I Poor I Fair I Good I Very Good i I I I

Condition 0 2 4 6 8 10

Excess Very Poor Very Good I I I I I I I

Sealant Material 0 2 4 6 8 10

Way Too Much Just Right

Insufficient Very Poor Very Good i I I i i i i

Sealant Material 0 2 4 6 8 10

Way Too Little Just Right

Adhesion Very Poor I Poor I Fair I Good I Very Good I I I

0 2 4 6 8 10

Permeability Very Poor I Poor I Fair I Good I Very Good I I I

0 High 2 4 6 8 Low 10

Joint Debris Very Poor I Poor I Fair I Good I Very Good I I

0 2 4 6 8 10

Full of Material No Debris. Seal Intact

General Comments:

65

APPENDIX E. SUMMARY OF ETG DISTRESS RATINGS

Crack Seal

Z Cll = Q)

ro Cll :::l ro c..> 0 .2> .... c: c: en Cll ro ....JE '0 .... ro Cl 0> Cll > E 0 c: ..-.. W :::l > U. o .... c: .~ c.. 00.. <{Cl I- 0.. .... .- 0.. -z en ro'O rom e:::: Cll ro '0, ro c: ro ~.g ro 0>1- Co a. c: .... .... Cll > 0

I Cll 0 Cll m Cll Cll Cll....J >. -Cll_Cll Cll ro Cll c: e::::_ Zl) en en I- Cl....J Cll- Cl Clo.. CleD Cle:::: Clen

NA G 24 A330 330 -0.10 -1.20 -0.70 -0.60 0.20 0.20 -0.40

NA P 36 A330 330 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00

NA F 36 8330 330 2.00 1.20 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00

NA G 51 A330 330 -0.50 -1.60 -0.30 1.00 0.70 0.80 -0.40

NA P 87 8330 330 1.50 4.00 0.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NC P 17 8330 330 0.40 0.00 0.00 -0.10 0.00 -0.10 0.50

NC P 19 A330 330 0.50 2.00 1.00 1.50 0.50 0.00 0.00

NC P 20 A330 330 0.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 1.00 -0.50

NC G 20 8330 330 0.00 -2.00 1.40 0.00 -3.00 0.00 0.00

NC G 21 8330 330 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NC G 26 A330 330 2.90 1.00 3.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.40

NC G 26 8330 330 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.10 0.00

NC G 26 C330 330 0.50 1.00 2.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00

NC F 26 0330 330 2.00 0.80 1.50 1.00 0.00 1.00 -9.00

NC F 27 A330 330 6.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

NC P 27 8330 330 2.00 4.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00

NC P 27 C330 330 5.00 4.50 6.00 6.00 0.00 3.00 0.00

NC P 29 A330 330 1.50 2.00 3.00 1.50 -1.50 1.50 0.00

NC G 31 A330 330 -0.20 1.50 0.00 0.90 -0.10 0.00 -0.90

NC P 83 A330 330 0.00 0.00 1.99 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

NC P 90 8330 330 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 3.00 0.00

S G 01 A330 330 0.00 -1.00 -1.00 -3.00 0.00 0.00

s P 01 C330 330 5.00 2.00 4.00 4.00 0.00 0.00

S G 12 A330 330 -4.00 -1.00 -3.00 0.00 0.00

s P 12 C330 330 -1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 -10.00

S P 28 A330 330 0.00 0.00 -3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 40 8330 330 -1.00 -1.00 -2.00 -2.00 3.00 -1.00 0.00

S P 48 8330 330

S G 48 0330 330 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

S G 48 H330 330 1.00 0.00 1.00 -2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 Q330 330 -1.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

w P 04 A330 330

W P 06 A330 330 2.50 3.00 3.50 2.00 0.00 3.00 1.50

W P 16 C330 330 1.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 -1.50 1.00 1.00

W F 30 A330 330 -1.00 -1.30 -1.00 -0.50 -0.50 -1.00 -0.50

W p 32 A330 330 1.00 1.00 0.50 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

w P 49 A330 330 1.00 0.00 1.00 -0.50 -6.00 -1.00 -1.00

W P 49 8330 330 0.00 -0.50 -2.00 -1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00

W F 56 A330 330 -1.00 -0.50 -1.50 -0.50 0.00 1.00 1.00

W G 56 8330 330 0.00 -1.00 0.00 -0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00

Average 0.87 0.92 0.83 0.86 -0.11 0.59 -0.54

67
Slurry Seal

z Q) = Q) ro Q) ::J 0 0 c: 0> Q) c:

....JE '0 :OJ > ro 0> 0) Q) ro c: --- W ::J > U. o E c: .5 0.. 00.. ~O I- 0.. - ro II) ... .- 0.. -z ro'O rom ro 3: c::: Q) ro .- 0)1- ~.g !:::o C. _0> _ c: - Q) > 0 I - c: - ro m - Q) Q)....J Q) 0 Q) ... Q) Q) Q)- Q) ro Q) c: c:::_ zu C/) C/) O....J 01- 0 00.. oec oc::: oc/)

NA G 24 A320 320 -0.40 0.10 0.10 0.50 0.30 1.20 -0.40

NA F 36 A320 320 1.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.00 2.00 -0.50

NA G 36 8320 320 1.00 1.00 1.20 1.00 0.00 1.50 -3.10

NA G 51 A320 320 -0.50 -0.70 -0.50 2.50 0.90 0.70 -0.40

NA P 87 A320 320

NA P 87 8320 320 1.50 2.00 0.50 1.50 0.00 1.00 -2.00

NC G 17 A320 320 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.60 0.00

NC P 17 8320 320 -0.60 -2.50 0.00 -1.60 -2.00 -2.60 -2.50

NC P 19 A320 320 -0.50 0.50 -0.10 1.00 0.00 0.00 -2.00

NC P 20 A320 320 0.00 -0.50 -1.00 0.50 -1.50 0.00 -3.00

NC G 20 8320 320 -3.00 -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -10.00 -10.00 0.00

NC G 21 8320 320 0.90 0.00 0.00 -0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00

NC P 26 A320 320 1.00 -1.00 -0.90 -0.50 -1.00 -2.00 -3.30

NC F 26 8320 320 0.50 -1.00 -1.50 -2.50 -2.00 -1.00 -0.50

NC G 26 C320 320 0.50 0.50 2.50 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.00

NC P 26 D320 320 0.50 0.30 -0.30 0.00 0.00 -1.00 1.00

NC F 27 A320 320 1.00 1.00 0.00 -2.00 1.00 -2.50

NC P 27 8320 320 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NC P 27 C320 320 0.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 2.00 0.00

NC P 29 A320 320 0.00 0.50 0.80 0.00 0.50 2.50 -1.50

NC G 29 8320 320 -1.00 -0.80 -0.70 -1.00 -0.90 -0.10 -0.80

NC G 31 A320 320 -2.00 -0.30 -1.70 0.40 -0.20 -0.20 -0.90

NC P 83 A320 320 0.00 -1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.26

NC P 90 A320 320 0.00 1.00 0.50 2.00 0.50 -1.00 -2.00

NC P 90 8320 320 -1.00 0.00 -2.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 -1.00

S G 01 A320 320 -1.00 0.00 -1.00 -1.00 0.00 0.00

S G 01 8320 320 1.00 1.00 -2.00 1.00 0.00 2.00

S G 01 C320 320 3.00 -1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

S G 05 A320 320 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

S G 12 A320 320 -6.00 0.00 -4.00 0.00 -2.00

S P 12 C320 320 0.00 -1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 -10.00

S P 28 A320 320 2.00 3.00 -2.00 5.00 -1.00 0.00

S G 40 A320 320 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 40 8320 320 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 -1.00

S G 48 A320 320 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

S P 48 8320 320

S F 48 D320 320 3.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 7.00 0.00

S G 48 F320 320 0.00 -1.00 0.00 -2.00 0.00 -6.00 0.00

S G 48 G320 320 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 H320 320 0.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 -1.00 0.00

S G 48 1320 320 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 K320 320 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 M320 320 1.00 -1.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00

68
Slurry Seal (continued)

c: - 00..

.- 0.. CllQ)...J 0::::_

s

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

z

o ...JE « 0 w

- Z lt: 0

z () (J)

G 48

F 04

P 06

G 16

G 16

P 16

F 30

P 32

G 32

P 49

G 49

P 56

F 56

0.. Q)

0:::: 0.

0320 320

A320 320

A320 320

A320 320

8320 320

C320 320

A320 320

A320 320

8320 320

A320 320

C320 320

A320 320

8320 320

Average

iii

c:

'6

.a lU .- ...... Cl - c: Q) 0

O...J

1.00

3.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

-1.00

4.50

-0.50

1.50

-0.50

-1.50

0.00

0.18

Q)

l!!

lU III ...... c: - lU Q) ....

01-

2.00

3.00

0.00

0.00

0.50

-0.80

4.50

-2.00

1.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.06

69

3.00

3.50

0.00

0.00

0.50

-3.50

3.00

0.50

2.00

-1.00

-2.00

0.00

0.00

B

Q) ffi

> E 0 ....

~.g Q) Q)

00..

1.00

4.50

0.00

0.00

0.50

-1.00

2.00

-0.50

1.50

-1.00

-2.00

1.00

0.54

Cl

c: lU'6

...... Q) -

Q)-Q)

Oal

1.00

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

0.00

1.50

-2.50

0.00

-2.00

-1.00

0.00

2.00

-0.25

Cl

.!:

lUG>

:=:. >

Q) lU

00::::

0.00

4.50

-0.20

-1.00

2.50

-1.00

0.00

-0.50

0.00

1.00

1.00

1.50

0.13

0.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

2.50

0.00

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

0.50

1.50

1.00

-0.63
Chip Seal

c - 00.

.- a.

0>1-

Q)....J 0:::_

NA

NA

NA

NA

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

NC

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

s

w

w

w

w

z

o ....JE «0

-zCo

zu

G

P

F

G

G

F

p

G

G

G

G

G

p

F

p

P

p

P

G

G

p

p

p

G

G

p

G

F

P

P

G

G

P

F

G

G

G

G

G

F

G

G

p

w a. S

C/) C/)

24 A350

36 A350

36 8350

51 A350

17 A350

17 8350

20 A350

20 8350

21 8350

26 A350

26 8350

26 C350

26 0350

27 A350

27 8350

27 C350

27 0350

29 A350

29 8350

31 A350

83 A350

90 A350

90 8350

01 A350

01 8350

01 C350

as A350

12 A350

12 C350

28 A350

40 A350

40 8350

48 8350

48 0350

48 H350

48 1350

48 K350

48 M350

48 Q350

06 A350

16 A350

16 8350

16 C350

Q)

c.

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

ro·

c

'5

.a

l'Il '0> :!: c Q) 0

O....J

1.00

2.00

1.50

1.20

0.70

0.90

2.50

1.00

0.90

3.00

1.50

2.50

3.00

1.00

0.00

3.00

2.50

-1.80

0.00

0.00

3.00

0.00

2.00

2.00

5.00

0.00

-1.00

0.00

3.00

0.00

0.00

2.00

2.00

0.00

1.00

3.00

1.00

2.50

0.00

0.00

1.00

Q)

l!?

Q)

> _l'Il cen - l'Il Q) ....

01-

1.30

0.50

1.20

1.00

0.60

1.00

2.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

1.40

1.00

2.80

1.00

0.00

1.50

3.00

-0.50

0.50

-0.50

4.50

1.00

1.00

1.00

3.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

6.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

3.00

3.00

-0.50

-0.50

1.00

70

1.70

1.50

1.50

1.70

0.00

0.00

1.00

1.00

0.00

4.00

2.00

4.00

3.00

0.00

5.00

4.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

3.50

0.00

1.00

1.00

4.00

0.00

1.00

8.00

1.00

0.00

-1.00

0.00

1.00

0.00

3.00

6.00

3.00

3.50

0.00

0.00

2.00

Q) C

> l'Il

o E ~.g Q) Q)

00.

0.60

1.00

0.50

2.00

0.10

0.90

1.50

-1.00

0.00

-6.00

0.10

2.00

2.00

1.00

0.00

2.00

2.00

-2.00

0.40

0.50

3.00

2.00

1.00

2.00

2.00

-1.00

7.00

6.00

0.00

-1.00

5.00

2.00

-2.00

3.00

4.00

1.00

4.00

0.00

-0.50

1.00

0>

C

l'Il'5

- Q) -

Q)-Q)

Oal

-0.20

2.00

-1.20

-0.40

-0.60

-1.00

-2.00

-3.00

-1.00

-4.30

-4.00

0.00

-1.00

-2.00

-4.00

-2.00

-0.50

-2.70

-1.00

-3.00

1.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

-1.00

3.00

-2.00

0.00

0.00

-1.00

2.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

-1.50

0>

.S

l'Ilo)

:!: >

Q) l'Il

00:::

0.90

3.00

4.30

-0.60

-0.40

-0.10

1.50

-1.00

0.00

1.00

2.00

0.50

0.00

1.00

-1.00

3.00

3.50

-0.20

-1.30

0.00

0.00

2.00

-1.00

1.00

-1.00

-2.00

0.00

0.00

-1.00

-1.00

-3.00

6.00

0.00

-5.00

-1.00

0.00

0.00

3.00

-0.50

-1.00

0.00

'i5..

.1!l

- 0 Q) C

OC/)

-1.10

0.50

-7.00

-0.50

-2.00

-1.50

-2.00

0.00

0.00

-0.10

-2.00

0.00

1.00

-1.00

-5.00

0.00

0.00

-5.30

-3.00

-1.00

0.00

-1.00

-3.00

-10.00

0.00

-2.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.50

0.00

-0.50

0.00
Chip Seal (continued)

c: - 00..

.- 0.. 0)1-

Q)..J 0::_

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

w

z

o

..JE «0

-zCo

zu

P

F

G

P

P

G

p

F

30 A350 350

32 A350 350

32 8350 350

49 A350 350

49 8350 350

49 C350 350

56 A350 350

56 8350 350

Average

(ij

.!:

"'C

.a lU .- ..... 0) - c: Q) 0

O..J

-0.50

5.00

1.00

1.50

0.00

0.00

-2.00

0.00

1.18

Q)

Q)

> lU II)

..... c: - lU Q) ....

01-

-1.30

5.00

0.50

1.00

0.00

-0.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.99

71

-1.00

4.30

0.50

2.50

-1.00

-1.00

-2.50

0.00

1.46

Q) c: > lU

o E ~.g Q) Q)

00..

0.00

3.50

3.50

1.50

-0.50

-0.50

-0.50

1.50

1.14

C>

c:

lU:clB Q)-

oeo

-2.00

-3.00

0.00

-4.00

-1.00

-2.00

-1.50

4.00

-0.85

C>

.!:

lUG)>

Q) lU

00::

-4.50

0.50

-1.00

-3.00

-2.00

1.50

-5.00

0.50

-0.03

c..

lU

0 Q) c: 000

-2.50

0.00

-1.00

-3.00

-1.00

0.50

2.00

-0.50

-1.15
Thin Overlay

z Q) = Q) "'iii Q) :::J 0 0 0> .5 II) :0:- Q) C

.....JE "0 ...

Q) ro > ro 0> 0> C .-.. W :::J > U. o E C .5 a. 00. «0 0. .... ro II) ... Q) ro U roQ) ro .- .- 0. -z .... 0> ro Jg.g ;= 0>1- Co c. - C .... C .... .... Q) :!: > _ 0

:c - ro Q) - Q) Q)....J I- >. Q) 0 Q) ... Q) Q) Q)- Q) ro Q) C

~- zo 00 00 I- O.....J 01- 0 00. Oco O~ COO

NA F 24 A310 310 1.40 1.80 2.20 1.30 1.00 1.80 0.50

NA F 36 A310 310 2.40 3.50 3.50 4.50 1.50 3.00 0.00

NA F 36 8310 310 0.50 0.40 2.20 1.70 0.00 3.30 0.50

NA G 51 A310 310 1.50 1.00 1.50 3.00 1.10 0.70 -0.30

NA F 87 A310 310

NA p 87 8310 310 2.00 2.50 0.50 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

NC G 17 A310 310 0.70 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.60 0.00

NC G 17 8310 310 0.40 0.50 0.00 0.40 -0.50 1.40 0.50

NC p 19 A310 310 1.50 2.00 2.00 2.70 0.50 0.60 0.00

NC P 20 A310 310 3.00 2.00 1.00 2.50 0.00 1.00 0.00

NC F 20 8310 310 0.00 -2.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

NC G 21 8310 310 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 -0.40 0.00

NC P 26 A310 310 1.20 -0.30 3.00 0.00 0.00 -8.00 -9.60

NC G 26 8310 310 0.50 0.70 1.10 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

NC G 26 C310 310 2.00 1.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0.50 0.00

NC P 26 D310 310 4.00 1.30 4.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 1.00

NC F 27 A310 310 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 -10.00

NC P 27 8310 310 1.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 2.00 0.00

NC P 27 C310 310 5.00 2.50 5.00 3.00 -5.00 1.00 -1.00

NC p 27 D310 310

NC p 29 A310 310 1.00 2.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.00 0.00

NC G 29 8310 310 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.00 0.00 -0.40 0.00

NC G 31 A310 310 -2.70 -1.00 -3.50 -0.10 0.40 -0.60 -0.50

NC p 83 A310 310 0.00 -1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 -2.00 0.00

NC P 90 A310 310 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.00 1.00 -2.00 0.00

NC P 90 8310 310 2.60 3.00 3.80 3.00 1.00 3.80 -1.00

S G 01 A310 310

S G 01 8310 310 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 -1.00

S G 01 C310 310 2.00 -1.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 -1.00

S G 05 A310 310 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00

S G 12 A310 310 0.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00

S P 12 C310 310 0.00 1.00 8.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 -10.00

S p 28 A310 310 4.00 4.00 1.00 6.00 0.00 0.00

S G 40 8310 310 1.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 A310 310 2.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00

S P 48 8310 310

S G 48 D310 310 1.00 -1.00 -2.00 4.00 0.00 7.00 0.00

S P 48 F310 310 2.00 -1.00 5.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 G310 310 -2.00 0.00 -5.00 -1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 H310 310 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 1310 310 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 K310 310 1.00 0.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

S G 48 M310 310 1.00 -2.00 -1.00 -3.00 3.00 -3.00 0.00

72
Thin Overlay (continued)

z Q) = Q) m Q) ::s 0 0 c C) Q) C

...JE :0 1il > tv 0) 0) Q) c- w ::s > U. o E C .S c.. 00. «0 a. .... .- a. -z 0:::: Q) S '0, S ~.g S~ ~~ ~~ Co I- :::I: Q. -

Q) 0

C -

Q) ...

tv Q) Q) Q) a;~ Q) tv Q) C 0::::_ zu en en O...J 01- 0 00. om 00:::: 000

S G 48 0310 310 1.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 -7.00 0.00 0.00

W F 04 A310 310

W P 06 A310 310 3.50 4.50 4.50 5.00 0.50 4.50 1.50

W G 16 A310 310 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.50 0.50

W G 16 8310 310 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.50

W P 16 C310 310 1.00 0.70 2.50 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00

W F 30 A310 310 -1.00 -0.80 -2.00 -0.50 1.50 -2.00 0.00

W P 32 A310 310 4.00 3.50 2.50 2.00 -0.50 0.00 0.00

W G 32 8310 310 -1.00 -0.50 1.50 2.00 1.00 -1.50 -1.50

W P 49 A310 310 1.50 1.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 -1.00

W P 49 8310 310 -0.50 2.50 0.50 1.00 2.00 -2.00 -1.00

W G 49 C310 310 0.00 -0.50 -0.50 -0.50 0.50 1.00 0.50

W F 56 A310 310 0.00 .1.00 -0.50 1.50 1.00 1.50 1.50

W P 56 8310 310 0.00 -1.50 0.00 1.50 4.00 -1.00 0.50

Average 1.07 0.86 1.40 1.70 0.28 0.28 -0.56

73

Supplemental Sections on Tour by Treatment Type

.....:J

Ul

(I)

a.

1:

(I)

E

iii

(I)

....

Ipraek Seal

!slurry Seal

Phip Seal

~tate Chip Seal

(I)

(J)

ci

z

(J)

t24A311

6A321

68321

2A321

2C321

08360

1A351

1A321

60351

8H351

9A351

98351

9C351

80353

28351

9A352

98352

9C352

6A351

III

1:

(I) e

E

iii (I)

(I)::::

'=0

!State Overlay

iero Slurry

atex-Modified Slurry

ierosurfaeing

ierosurfacing

ierosurfacing

lurry

lurry

ubber Chip Seal

ubber Chip Seal

ubber Chip Seal

olymer

olymer with Hot Preeoated

olymer

egular

egular

egular

egular

egular

egular

egular

tate Slag Chip Seal

tate Natural Chip Seal

tate Slag Chip Seal

tate Chip Seal

'E(I)

E(I)

iU

a. e

=,g

nl .- .... -0 (I) e > 0

00

9.3

6.5

4.5

9

5

8

~o Info.

7

8

7.5

9

8.5

6.5

7.5

5

8

.6.5

7.5

8.5

8

6.5

8

7

8

8

(/)

a.

(/)

e

o

·c

[

E (I)

o:!:::

O(J)

310

320

320

320

320

320

320

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

'E(I)

E

(I)

iU

a. e

=,g

nl .- .... -0 (I) e

> 0 00

9

6

4

6

5

9

7.5

5

8

10

8

8

8

7

8

6.5

6.5

8

9

7.5

6.5

6.5

8

7

o

()

7.5

4.5

6.5

8

3

8

5

5

5

4

7

4

4

4

5

7

5

7

8.5

8

6

5

7

8.5

7.5

Be 0 (I)~

E § (1)0

a.,:

a.'t:(I)

(/)0.

1.24

1.44

0.69

1.13

1.67

1.00

1.40

1.60

1.88

1.29

2.13

1.63

1.88

1.00

1.14

1.30

1.07

1.00

1.00

1.08

1.60

1.00

0.94

1.07
Supplemental Sections on Tour by Treatment Type (continued)

-....l

0'1

0)

Co

>.

le

0)

E

Iptate Chip Seal

~hip Seal

lInin Overlay

0)

CA

UT

UT

NY

NY

NY

NY

CA

CA

UT

UT

UT

CA

Ontario

Ontario

Ontario

o

z

0)

06A363

49A390

498390

368352

368353

368351

368354

06A311

06A361

49A361

498361

49C361

06A362

878311

878361

878362

_ (J)

c: 0)

0) 0

c:

.E

C'll 0)

~~ 1-0

State Emulsion with Catalyst

Graded Aggregate

Graded Aggregate

Graded Aggregate

Graded Aggregate

Graded Aggregate

Graded Aggregate

80nifibers

Gap Graded with Rubber

Plant Mix Seal

Plant Mix Seal

Plant Mix Seal

OGAC

Double Overlay

Dyna Patch

Dyna Patch

c0)

E0)

>

C'll c:

Cl 0

=;

C'll .- L,;,"C

0) c:

> 0 00

7.5

5

6

6.5

7.5

8.5

7.5

9.5

7.5

7.5

9

9

7.5

8

7.5

6

C/)

a..

C/)

c:

o

'c

E 0)

o~

oen

350

350

350

350

350

350

350

310

310

310

310

310

310

310

e

0)

E0)

>

C'll c:

a.. 0 =:;:::;

~'5 0) c:

> 0 00

8

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

6.5

9

9

7

8

9

9

8.5

e

§

o

4

5

7

6

6

6

6

4

4

5

7

8.5

4

5.5

5.5

5.5

c

- 

~

e
APPENDIX G. ETG RECOMMENDATIONS

North Atlantic:

• Develop a user's manual documenting various treatments that are available.

The manual should be structured in a simple format that could be used at the

operational and individual project level. It should also clearly show under what

conditions each individual treatment is the most appropriate. In addition,

innovative agency-specific treatment would be presented for consideration.

• A Preventative Maintenance "Strategy Manual" should also be developed. ThIS

manual would focus on alternative network or system-level long-term pavement

management philosophies. The manual would outline how and under what

conditions various treatments could be programmed to provide for the most

cost-effective pavement service life for the highway system.

• Any sites that are not taken out of service should continue to be monitored as

well as the agency treatments that are performing well.

Southern Region:

• Additional time is needed to better determine the service life of many of the

treatments. It is recommended that two additional field reviews be conducted at

2-year intervals (Le., 1997 and 1999). Additional field reviews are important

as the treatments are just now beginning to yield vital data as they begin to

exhibit signs of distress.

• Develop a decision tree to provide guidance to maintenance personnel in the

selection of cost-effective treatments for conditions encountered in the field.

• An economic analysis of the different treatments, as well as a comparison to

rehabilitation (life-cycle cost). This document would support an agency's

request for preventive maintenance funds.

North Central Region:

• Continue a SHRP-type research program to evaluate other maintenance treatments and other materials.

• Crack sealing is effective, and SHRP procedures and materials should be

adopted by highway organizations.

• Emphasize the need to patch pavements and seal cracks prior to placing any

maintenance treatment, except crack sealing.

77
• Something more should come out of the SHRP effort than a "how to" publication. Public transportation agencies generally know how to perform these

SHRP treatments. We do not know the most effective time to apply the most

appropriate treatment.

Western Region:

• Continue the expert team review of SPS-3 and SPS-4 test sections.

• Similar team should review all SPS test sections.

• An annual performance report should be developed for site and test sections.

• FHWA and States need to do a better job ensuring reports distribution.

• Continue monitoring the performance of in-service SPS-3 and SPS-4 test

sections.

• Develop experiment to tie SPS-3 to SPS-5. This would allow for maintenance

treatments to be placed on SPS-5 as distresses begin to appear.

• A formal continuation experiment needs to be developed to allow for the

placement of a second maintenance treatment on the SPS-3 test sections. This

would allow for the further use of existing test sections and data and better

define when the second maintenance treatment can be effective. This experiment should also allow for the use of both local and new materials (polymers,

etc.).

• FHWA, in conjunction with States, should develop a forensic evaluation

procedure for the SPS test sections.

• FHWA, in conjunction with the States, should develop a national symposium on

hydrogenesis and its impact on maintenance rehabilitation strategies.

• FHWA should help champion the idea that maintenance activities need to

integrate pavement management, design, and evaluation.

• An in-depth forensic evaluation experiment should be required on those sites

exhibiting accelerated distress to determine the cause.

78
REFERENCES

1. Smith, R., Freeman, T., and Pendleton, Olga, Pavement Maintenance Effectiveness,

Report no. SHRP-H-358, Strategic Highway Research Program, November 1993.

2. Zaniewski, J.P. and Mamlouk, M.S., Preventive Maintenance Effectiveness - Preventive Maintenance Treatments, Participant's Handbook, Report no. FHWA-SA-96-027,

Federal Highway Administration, February 1996.

3. Teets, M.K. (Editor), Highway Statistics 1994, Report no. FHWA-PL-95-042, Federal

Highway Administration, October 1995.

4. Making Pavement Maintenance More Effective-Training Supplement, Report no.

SHRP-H-380, Strategic Highway Research Program, February 1994.

5. Strategic Highway Research Program, Research Plans, Final Report, May 1986,

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Federal Highway

Administration-U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Research BoardNational Research Council, National Cooperative Highway Research Program.

6. Raza, Hussan, Summary Report - 1993 Field Evaluations of SPS-3 and SPS-4 Test

Sites, Report no. FHWA-SA-94-078, Federal Highway Administration, October 1994.

7. Long-Term Pavement Peiformance Program (LTPP) - Status Report, Pavement

Performance Division, Federal Highway Administration, March 1966.

8. Rondinaro, John, Tour Report - North Atlantic Region SPS-3/4 Site Evaluations, New

York State Department of Transportation, November 1995.

9. Shuberg, Ron, Final Report ofNorth Central Region Tour of SPS-3 Projects - 1995,

Kansas Department of Transportation, November 1995.

10. Beaver, Harold, Southern Region SPS Tour, Arkansas State Highway Transportation

Department, November 1995.

11. Stevenson, Jim, Western Region - 1995 SPS Tour, Montana Department of Transportation, November 1995.

12. Stroup-Gardiner, M., Siddharthan, R., and Lee, Brenda. Chip Seal Induced Rutting,

Nevada DOT, November 4, 1991.

13. Development of a Procedure to Rate the Application of Pavement Maintenance Treatments, Report no. SHRP-M/FR-92-102, Strategic Highway Research Program,

National Research Council, 1992.

79