1

2 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION ON HIGH

3 TRAFFIC VOLUME ROADWAYS
4
5 Word Count = 5250 + 250 * 9 = 7500
6
7
8
9
10
11 Kelly L. Smith (corresponding author)
12 Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
13 115 W. Main St., Suite 400
14 Urbana, IL 61801
15 Phone: (217) 398-3977
16 Fax: (217) 398-4028
17 Email: [email protected]
18
19 David G. Peshkin, P.E.
20 Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
21 115 W. Main St., Suite 400
22 Urbana, IL 61801
23 Phone: (217) 398-3977
24 Fax: (217) 398-4028
25 Email: [email protected]
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Submitted for publication and presentation at the 2011
33 Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting
34 January 23-27, 2011
35 Washington, D.C.
36
37
38
39
40
41 Re-submission date: November 15, 2010
42 Original submission date: August 1, 2010

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 1

1 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION ON HIGH

2 TRAFFIC VOLUME ROADWAYS
3
4 ABSTRACT
5
6 Extending the life of roadway pavements with the timely use of preservation techniques has been
7 an important strategy for highway agencies for many years. However, while preservation
8 strategies for low to moderate volume roadways are widely accepted, fairly commonplace, and
9 have generally been successful, implementation of those same strategies on high traffic volume
10 roadways involves greater challenges.
11
12 The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) 2 Project R26 was performed to examine
13 pavement preservation strategies for high traffic volume applications and to develop guidance on
14 which preservation treatments are appropriate, and under what circumstances. Under this project
15 the state-of-the-practice for preservation approaches for high traffic volume roadways was
16 identified through a national and international literature search and a detailed survey of highway
17 agencies and other pertinent organizations. This project also involved developing a set of best
18 practices and guidelines for the selection of preservation treatments at the project level, based on
19 careful and complete assessments of factors such as traffic volume, pavement condition, climatic
20 condition, costs, expected performance, and work zone requirements.
21
22 This paper presents findings from the highway agency survey and discusses how those results
23 were used in conjunction with the literature review results to develop the key deliverable for the
24 study—the stand-alone Guidelines document.
25
26 Key words: Pavement preservation, preventive maintenance, traffic volume, pavement
27 condition, pavement distress, pavement performance, treatment performance, treatment cost, cost
28 effectiveness, climate, work zone restriction
29

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 2

1 INTRODUCTION
2
3 The practice of pavement preservation (i.e., preventive maintenance [PM] and some forms of
4 minor rehabilitation and corrective maintenance) is a growing trend among transportation
5 agencies around the United States (1). However, the practice of preservation on high traffic
6 volume roadways is not nearly as common as it is on lower volume roadways. There are several
7 possible explanations for this:
8
9  Agencies may associate the use of specific PM treatments solely with low volume roads,
10 thereby assuming that they are not appropriate for other uses.
11  Agencies may have concerns over the liability and risk associated with failure (when a
12 treatment fails on a higher volume roadway, more people are affected and more people
13 complain).
14  The benefits of preservation on higher traffic volume roadways might not be as readily
15 recognized or as well-documented.
16  Preservation treatments may not be as effective because they may deteriorate in different
17 ways than on low volume roadways due to the different standards used in design and
18 construction.
19
20 Nonetheless, the preservation of high traffic volume roadways is as important as the preservation
21 of lower traffic volume roadways, as many of the same conditions hold true:
22
23  Agency resources are limited and pavement preservation can save money in the long run.
24  Preservation provides benefits to the traveling public, including safer, smoother roads.
25  Preservation can be performed more rapidly than rehabilitation, with fewer adverse
26 effects on the traveling public.
27
28 Admittedly, there are also challenges to the use of preservation strategies on high traffic volume
29 roadways (e.g., smaller toolbox of treatments that can be used successfully, more difficult
30 treatment construction due to shorter available closure times, less available information on
31 treatment performance/life, increased risk, less available guidance on preservation strategies).
32 Nonetheless, it is believed that the benefits of practicing preservation on high traffic volume
33 roadways outweigh the challenges, and it is worthwhile to take steps to increase or improve the
34 practice of pavement preservation on these roadways.
35
36 The main objective of the research performed under SHRP 2 Project R26 was to develop
37 guidelines on pavement preservation strategies for high traffic volume roadways that can be
38 implemented and used by public agencies. A secondary objective was to identify promising
39 pavement preservation strategies for application on high traffic volume roadways that might not
40 commonly be used, and to make recommendations for further research opportunities.
41
42 To accomplish these objectives, the following tasks were performed:
43
44 1. An extensive literature search and review was undertaken to identify practices and
45 experiences relating to preservation on high traffic volume roads.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 3

1 2. A comprehensive survey of preservation practices was developed and distributed to all

2 state highway agencies (SHAs) and selected other agencies to obtain information on
3 current preservation practices for hot-mix asphalt (HMA) and portland cement concrete
4 (PCC)-surfaced pavements on high traffic volume roadways located in rural and urban
5 settings.
6 3. Information from the compiled literature and the questionnaire survey was summarized
7 and analyzed to identify the current state of the practice.
8 4. Criteria were developed and applied in order to focus on preservation approaches that are
9 currently successfully implemented and others that have the potential to be successful but
10 have not been regularly deployed.
11 5. Detailed guidelines on pavement preservation strategies for high traffic volume roadways
12 were developed using the state of the practice and a comprehensive treatment selection
13 framework/process.
14
15 This paper examines findings of the highway agency survey and how those results were used in
16 conjunction with the literature review results to develop the key deliverable for the study—the
17 stand-alone Guidelines document.
18
19 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW
20
21 A comprehensive literature search was conducted at the outset of the study and focused on
22 pavement preservation practices and experiences, in general. This search was geographically
23 broad, but largely limited to work reported in the last 5 years. Key aspects emerging from the
24 review of the collected literature included the following:
25
26  Definition of Pavement Preservation—A planned system of treating pavements at the
27 optimum time to maximize their useful life, thus enhancing pavement longevity at the
28 lowest cost (2). A proactive approach to maintaining existing highway pavements that
29 enables highway agencies to reduce costly, time consuming rehabilitation and
30 reconstruction projects and the associated traffic disruptions (3).
31
32  What Constitutes Pavement Preservation—Preservation is comprised of preventive
33 maintenance (PM), some forms of minor (non-structural) rehabilitation, and some forms
34 of routine maintenance (3). The general philosophy of pavement preservation is to apply
35 preventive (actions intended to prevent, stop, or slow down deterioration), restorative
36 (actions intended to improve conditions or restore conditions to acceptable levels), and/or
37 limited corrective (actions intended to fix defects or re-establish structure integrity)
38 treatments to pavements that are in relatively good condition and have little or no
39 structural deterioration.
40
41  Available Preservation Treatments and Their Capabilities and Functions—There is a
42 broad range of treatments that may be used in the preservation of HMA- and PCC-
43 surfaced pavements, ranging from simple low-cost treatments, such as rejuvenators and
44 fog seals, to more involved and costly treatments, such as in-place recycling and full-
45 depth PCC repair. It is not the treatment alone that defines preservation; rather, the
46 purpose of the treatment and when it is used (i.e., the condition of the pavement) are key

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 4

1 components in defining a preservation treatment. Each preservation treatment has unique

2 capabilities and functions that enable it to:
3
4  Prevent or delay the occurrence of new distresses and/or slow the development of
5 existing distresses, or
6  Restore the integrity and functionality/serviceability of the pavement and/or improve
7 its surface characteristics.
8
9  Preservation Treatments and Existing Pavement Condition—While it is difficult to
10 establish optimal timings (in terms of the overall condition of the existing pavement) for
11 the application of individual treatments, the timings of treatments grouped according to
12 similar goals/purposes can be easier to construct. Nevertheless, the selection of
13 appropriate preservation treatments should be based not only upon the overall condition
14 of the roadway, but also the specific visible distresses. In some instances, it may even be
15 appropriate to consider the potential for future distress (e.g., low HMA density at
16 construction eventually leading to raveling and cracking).
17
18  Preservation Treatments on High Traffic Volume Facilities—A 2004 survey conducted
19 under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 20-07
20 revealed that most agencies practice preservation on all types of facilities (4), as indicated
21 by the response rates listed below.
22
23 General ADT Range
24 Associated with Different
25 Roadway Roadway Classifications No. of Respondents Using Preservation
26 Classification (vehicles per day [vpd]) Rural Urban
27 Freeway 30,000 and above 29 of 35 (83%) 26 of 35 (74%)
28 Arterial 12,000 to 40,000 29 of 35 (83%) 27 of 35 (77%)
29 Collector Road 2,000 to 12,000 29 of 35 (83%) 27 of 35 (77%)
30 Local Road ≤ 2,000 24 of 35 (69%) 22 of 35 (63%)
31
32 Results from this survey suggest that preservation is occurring as frequently, or even
33 more frequently in the case of rural roads, on higher volume roadways than on lower
34 volume roadways. The results suggested that the more important distinction is between
35 rural and urban roadways for any traffic volume.
36
37  Preservation Treatments and Climate—Climatic conditions impact preservation treatment
38 usage in at least two ways: determining construction timing and affecting treatment
39 performance. Some treatments, especially those using asphalt emulsions, are best applied
40 under restricted temperature and humidity conditions. Climate can directly affect curing
41 time, which in turn impacts treatment feasibility and opening to traffic. While some
42 preservation treatments, such as diamond grinding on PCC pavements, may not be too
43 affected by differences in climate, most treatments do experience climate-related
44 performance effects. For example, one particular agency has determined that severe
45 climatic conditions, as opposed to traffic volume, have a greater effect on performance of
46 certain treatments, such as microsurfacing (5).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 5

1
2 PAVEMENT PRESERVATION SURVEY
3
4 The literature search was supplemented with survey distributed to SHAs, Canadian provinces,
5 highway agencies of several large cities, international practitioners, and several industry
6 representatives. The purpose of this survey was to identify pavement preservation practices on
7 rural and urban roadways, distinguished by surface type—HMA or PCC—and high traffic levels
8 (as defined by the reporting agency). The survey focused on the following topics:
9
10  Successful techniques for preservation on high traffic volume roadways currently in use.
11  Potentially successful techniques for pavement preservation approaches that are not yet
12 fully deployed.
13  Challenges and solutions to implementation on high traffic volume roadways.
14  Special considerations for quality control/quality assurance (QC/QA).
15
16 Recognizing that the definition of “high traffic volume roadways” is perhaps as much or more a
17 matter of perception as it is a matter of policy, the survey also asked the respondents to define
18 what traffic volumes fell in that category for them.
19
20 The questionnaire included a comprehensive listing of preservation treatments. It called for
21 respondents to link the treatments to roadways, differentiating by traffic volume and rural versus
22 urban use, as well as matching closure time scenarios to treatment, indicating which pavement
23 performance issues are addressed by each treatment, and which contracting mechanisms are used
24 to ensure quality. Further, it sought feedback concerning why certain treatments are not used by
25 the responding agency (e.g., lack of experience, bias against, previous failures, cost, safety
26 issues, and so on).
27
28 To reduce the time required to fill out the twenty-four page questionnaire form, it was developed
29 and administered using InstantSurvey, an online software tool that creates, distributes, manages,
30 and analyzes online surveys.
31
32 A total of fifty highway agencies responded to the pavement preservation questionnaire, as well
33 as a handful of other organizations. A review of the survey responses revealed that there was a
34 wide range of experience in preservation practices. Among the 28 agencies that responded to the
35 opening question on pavement preservation experience/background, one-half reported having
36 more than 10 years of experience and one-quarter reported having more than 20 years
37 experience.
38
39 The following sections highlight the more notable findings of the survey.
40
41 Treatment Selection Considerations
42
43 In identifying the important considerations in selecting preservation treatments, highway agency
44 survey respondents collectively reported the following hierarchy:
45
46

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 6

1 High Priority: 1. Safety concerns (76 percent of respondents)

2 2. Treatment cost (74 percent)
3 3. Durability/expected life of treatment (64 percent)
4
5 Medium Priority: 1. Availability of experienced contractor (60 percent)
6 2. Work zone considerations (59 percent)
7 3. (tied) Risk associated with treatment failure; closure time (57
8 percent)
9
10 Low Priority: 1. Availability of alternate route(s) (40 percent)
11 2. Noise issues (39 percent)
12 3. Public perception (36 percent)
13
14 Traffic volume was considered of high priority by just over half of respondents, and of medium
15 priority by approximately 40 percent.
16
17 Responses regarding the most successful treatments indicated that they have low cost, good
18 durability/long life expectancy, and rapid application (important in getting work crews quickly
19 out of harm’s way and in minimizing impact on road users). These responses show the influence
20 of the noted priority factors on treatment selection. On the other hand, the common complaints
21 against the least successful preservation treatments that agencies have used were related to high
22 cost and poor performance.
23
24 Traffic Level and Treatment Use
25
26 An important consideration affecting which preservation treatments are used on high traffic
27 volume roadways is how the agency defines “high” traffic volumes. While some survey
28 respondents wanted the researchers to provide a definition for “high” traffic volumes, it was
29 recognized that different agencies use markedly different definitions and that it would be better
30 for respondents themselves to provide this value. Accordingly, in order to better characterize the
31 range of volumes considered, the questionnaire asked respondents to provide their own threshold
32 criteria for “low” (less than or equal to…), “medium” (a range), and “high” (greater than or equal
33 to…) traffic volumes for both rural and urban roadways. In order to make further distinctions
34 concerning treatment use on high traffic volume roadways, the agency-defined minimum
35 threshold values for “high” traffic volume were exclusively examined. These values were
36 grouped into one of three minimum threshold categories for both rural and urban roadways—
37 “low threshold” (ADT < 10,000 vpd [vehicles/day]), “medium threshold” (ADT = 10,000 to
38 19,999 vpd), and “high threshold” (ADT ≥ 20,000 vpd).
39
40 The “high” traffic volume thresholds reported by agencies were then analyzed for trends
41 concerning the use of different preservation treatments. A summary of the most-used (≥ 50
42 percent of respondents) treatments for high traffic volume rural and urban roads, based on the
43 three threshold categories (low [L], medium [M], high [H]), are as follows:
44
45
46

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 7

1 HMA-Surfaced (Rural) HMA-Surfaced (Urban)

2 Crack Sealing and Filling (L,M,H) Crack Sealing and Filling (L,M,H)
3 Single-Course Microsurfacing (L) Single-Course Microsurfacing (L)
4 Thin Bonded Wearing Course (L,M) Multi-Course Microsurfacing (M)
5 Thin HMA Overlay (L,M,H) Thin Bonded Wearing Course (L,M)
6 Cold Mill and Thin HMA Overlay (L,M) Thin HMA Overlay (M)
7 Profile Milling (M) Cold Mill and Thin HMA Overlay (L,M,H)
8 Drainage Preservation (L,M,H) Drainage Preservation (L,M,H)
9
10 PCC-Surfaced (Rural) PCC-Surfaced (Urban)
11 Joint Resealing and Crack Sealing (L,M,H) Joint Resealing and Crack Sealing (L,M,H)
12 Diamond Grinding (L,M,H) Diamond Grinding (L,M,H)
13 Partial- and Full-Depth Repair (L,M,H) Partial- and Full-Depth Repair (L,M,H)
14 Dowel Bar Retrofit (L,M) Dowel Bar Retrofit (L,M,H)
15 Drainage Preservation (L,M,H) Drainage Preservation (L,M,H)
16
17 Performance Issues Addressed by Preservation Treatments
18
19 Survey responses regarding what pavement deficiencies are addressed by preservation treatments
20 in general indicated the following:
21
22  For HMA-surfaced pavements, the top three deficiencies addressed are light and
23 moderate surface distress (i.e., random surface cracking), raveling, and friction loss.
24  For PCC pavements, the top three pavement performance issues addressed are related to
25 smoothness/ride quality and surface distress, with some concern about noise issues.
26
27 Considering the “most used” treatments for HMA-surfaced pavements, the primary deficiencies
28 targeted by crack sealing and filling activities are light and moderate surface distress. For thin
29 HMA overlays with and without cold milling, other more significant deficiencies are targeted,
30 such as raveling, oxidation, bleeding, smoothness, and friction.
31
32 Among the “most used” treatments for PCC pavements, joint resealing is primarily targeted for
33 light and moderate surface distress, full-depth patching is targeted for smoothness and moderate
34 to high surface distress, and diamond grinding is targeted for smoothness, friction, and noise
35 concerns.
36
37 Work Zone Requirements
38
39 For most of the preservation treatments, an overwhelming number of respondents reported using
40 single-shift or overnight lane closures for application. That is, the treatments are applied using a
41 temporary work zone, with opening to traffic occurring within hours of application. Ultra-thin
42 whitetopping on HMA-surfaced pavements and thin PCC overlays on PCC pavements were
43 exceptions requiring extended closure times. Responses for cold in-place recycling on HMA-
44 surfaced roads and partial- and full-depth repairs on PCC roads suggested mixed work zone
45 requirements; some reporting single-shift/overnight lane closures, some weekend closures, and
46 others extended closures.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 8

1
2 Preservation Guidance Needs
3
4 In prioritizing the types of guidance needed for the successful implementation of preservation
5 strategies on high traffic volume roadways, survey respondents indicated the following:
6
7 Areas in which the most guidance is needed (≥ 40 percent of respondents)
8  Durability and expected life of treatment.
9  Applicable traffic volume.
10  Appropriate climatic conditions for treatment.
11
12 Areas in which some guidance is needed (≥ 40 percent of respondents)
13  Other agency experience.
14  Typical noise associated with treatment.
15  Treatment production rate.
16  Treatment costs by region.
17  Obtaining experienced contractors.
18  Material availability.
19  Typical closure time information.
20  Opening to traffic.
21
22 ANALYSIS OF HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME CRITERIA AND IMPACT ON
23 PRESERVATION TREATMENT USAGE
24
25 One of the steps taken in developing the preservation guidelines was to arrive at a definition of
26 “high” traffic volume roadways. There is no national or American Association of State Highway
27 and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) definition of high traffic volumes, probably because it
28 is very much a local issue: what one agency defines as high traffic volume could very easily be
29 considered low traffic volume by another. The survey responses confirmed this variability and
30 showed the need for a standard definition, upon which treatment selection could be based.
31
32 Analysis of High Traffic Volume Threshold Criteria
33
34 The highway agency survey responses regarding ADT levels for “low,” “medium,” and “high”
35 traffic categories were analyzed to generate a numeric definition of high traffic volume ADT for
36 rural and urban roadways. Using descriptive statistical analyses, histograms of ADT minimum
37 threshold levels were created and used to identify the ADT level at which at least 50 percent of
38 reporting agencies were represented (see figures 1 and 2). Based on the analysis, it was
39 determined that a reasonable definition of high traffic volume is 5,000 ADT for rural roadways
40 and 10,000 ADT for urban roadways.
41
42
43
44
45
46

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 9

1
2 14 100.00%
90.00%
3 12
80.00%
4
10 70.00%
5
No. of Agencies
60.00%
6 8
50.00%
7 6
40.00%
8
4 30.00%
9 20.00%
10 2
10.00%
11 0 0.00%
12
20 to 99
30 to 99
40 to 99
50 to 99
60 to 99
70 to 99
80 to 99
90 to 99
00 to 99
00 o 1 99
00 1 9
00 o 1 9
00 o 1 9
00 o 1 9
00 1 9
00 o 2 9
00 o 4 9

99 9
00 9
+
12 0 to 099
13 0 t 199
14 0 t 299
15 0 t 399
20 0 to 499
30 0 t 999
50 0 t 999

to 9
10 99
00
13
00 o 9
00 19
00 29
00 39
00 49
00 59
00 69
00 79

10 00 89
11 0 t 99

0 99
10 0 t

14
15 Rural ADT Levels
16
17 Figure 1. Histogram and cumulative percent of high traffic volume ADT on rural roadways.
18
19
20
21 16 100.00%
22 14
90.00%
23 80.00%
12
24 70.00%
No. of Agencies

25 10 60.00%

26 8 50.00%

27 6
40.00%

28 4
30.00%

29 2
20.00%
10.00%
30
0 0.00%
31
20 to 99
30 to 99
40 to 99
50 to 99
60 to 99
70 to 99
80 to 99
90 to 99
00 to 9
00 o 1 9
00 o 1 9
00 1 9
00 o 1 9
00 1 9
00 o 1 9
00 2 9
00 o 4 9

99 9
10 999

32
10 00 899
11 0 t 999
12 0 t 099
13 0 to 199
14 0 t 299
15 0 to 399
20 0 t 499
30 0 to 999
50 0 t 999

to 9

00
00 o 9
00 19
00 29
00 39
00 49
00 59
00 69
00 79

0 99

00
10 0 t

33
34 Urban ADT Levels
35
36 Figure 2. Histogram and cumulative percent of high traffic volume ADT on urban roadways.
37
38
39 Normalization of Treatment Usage
40
41 Table 1 shows the minimum threshold criteria for “high” traffic volume reported by highway
42 agency survey respondents. The criteria are grouped according to the three categories described
43 earlier—“low threshold” (ADT < 10,000 vpd), “medium threshold” (ADT = 10,000 to 19,999
44 vpd), and “high threshold” (ADT ≥ 20,000 vpd).
45
46

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 10

1
2 Table 1. Responding agencies’ high traffic volume minimum threshold criteria.
3
High Traffic Volume Threshold Criteria Categories
Low Minimum Threshold Medium Minimum Threshold High Minimum Threshold
(ADT < 10,000 vpd) (ADT = 10,000 to 19,999 vpd) (ADT ≥ 20,000 vpd)
Louisiana DOT (7,000) Alaska DOT (10,000) Connecticut DOT (30,000)
Michigan DOT (3,400 est.) Hawaii DOT (10,000) Rhode Island DOT (30,000)
Missouri DOT (1,000) Maine DOT (10,000) South Carolina DOT (20,000)
Montana DOT (6,000) Minnesota DOT (10,000) British Columbia (100,000)
New York DOT (4,000/lane) New Hampshire (10,000)
Pennsylvania DOT (2,000) Oklahoma DOT (10,000)
South Dakota DOT (1,500) Ontario (10,000)
Washington DOT (5,000)
Alberta (5,000)
FHWA-CFLHD (4,000)
For Agencies that make a distinction between rural and urban traffic volume categorizations:
Low Minimum Threshold Medium Minimum Threshold High Minimum Threshold
(ADT < 10,000 vpd) (ADT = 10,000 to 19,999 vpd) (ADT ≥ 20,000 vpd)
Georgia DOT Wyoming DOT Virginia DOT
(5,000 rural / 8,000 urban) (10,000 rural / 15,000 urban) (20,000 rural / 40,000 urban)
Iowa DOT (3,500 rural) Iowa DOT (11,500 urban)
Florida DOT (10,000 rural) Florida DOT (40,000 urban)
Kansas DOT (3,000 rural) Kansas DOT (20,000 urban)
Kentucky DOT (5,000 rural) Kentucky DOT (10,000 urban)
Mississippi DOT, Newton Mississippi DOT, Newton
(3,000-7,000 rural) (20,000 urban)
Mississippi DOT, Batesville Mississippi DOT, Batesville
(2,000 rural) (10,000 urban)
Mississippi DOT, Tupelo Mississippi DOT, Tupelo
(3,000-7,000 rural) (20,000 urban)
Nevada DOT (10,000 rural) Nevada DOT (100,000 urban)
New Mexico DOT New Mexico DOT
(5,000 rural) (15,000 urban)
North Carolina DOT North Carolina DOT
(5,000 rural) (10,000 urban)
Tennessee DOT Tennessee DOT
(5,000 rural) (10,000 urban)
Texas DOT (1,000 rural) Texas DOT (10,000 urban)
Manitoba (4,000 rural) Manitoba (10,000 urban)
Quebec (8,000 rural) Quebec (20,000 urban)
4
5
6

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 11

1 Using the new definitions for high traffic volume (5,000 ADT for rural roadways, 10,000 ADT
2 for urban roadways), the agencies were re-categorized and their reported usages of preservation
3 treatments for high traffic volume facilities were adjusted (i.e., “normalized”) for a more
4 consistent understanding of traffic level application. The results of the re-categorization of
5 agencies are shown in table 2. The results of the re-evaluation of “most used” treatments for
6 rural HMA- and PCC-surfaced roads, respectively, based on the new definitions of high traffic
7 volume are shown in figures 3 and 4.
8
9
10 Table 2. Re-categorization of agencies based on new definitions of rural and urban high traffic
11 volume levels.
12
New High Traffic Volume Threshold Criteria Categories
Rural (ADT ≥ 5,000 vpd) Urban (ADT ≥ 10,000 vpd)
Louisiana DOT (7,000) Alaska DOT (10,000)
Washington DOT (5,000) Connecticut DOT (30,000)
Alberta (5,000) Hawaii DOT (10,000)
Maine DOT (10,000)
Minnesota DOT (10,000)
New Hampshire (10,000)
Oklahoma DOT (10,000)
Rhode Island DOT (30,000)
South Carolina DOT (20,000)
British Columbia (100,000)
Ontario (10,000)
For Agencies that make a distinction between rural and urban traffic volume categorizations:
Rural (ADT ≥ 5,000 vpd) Urban (ADT ≥ 10,000 vpd)
Georgia DOT (5,000 rural)
Wyoming DOT (10,000 rural) Wyoming DOT (15,000 urban)
Virginia DOT (20,000 rural) Virginia DOT (40,000 urban)
Iowa DOT (11,500 urban)
Florida DOT (10,000 rural) Florida DOT (40,000 urban)
Kansas DOT (20,000 urban)
Kentucky DOT (5,000 rural) Kentucky DOT (10,000 urban)
Mississippi DOT, Newton (3,000-7,000 rural) Mississippi DOT, Newton (20,000 urban)
Mississippi DOT, Batesville (10,000 urban)
Mississippi DOT, Tupelo (3,000-7,000 rural) Mississippi DOT, Tupelo (20,000 urban)
Nevada DOT (10,000 rural) Nevada DOT (100,000 urban)
New Mexico DOT (5,000 rural) New Mexico DOT (15,000 urban)
North Carolina DOT (5,000 rural) North Carolina DOT (10,000 urban)
Tennessee DOT (5,000 rural) Tennessee DOT (10,000 urban)
Texas DOT (10,000 urban)
Manitoba (10,000 urban)
Quebec (8,000 rural) Quebec (20,000 urban)
13
14
15

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 12

1
2
100
3
90
4
80
5 70
% of Agencies

6 60
7 50
8 40
9 30
10 20
11 10
12 0
13

g
y

ng
g
f.

e
f.

er
al

n
ng
al

la
ll

rla

rla

lin

lin
ur

rs
ur
Fi

tio
Se

er
lym
Se

pi
illi
c
ou
oS
os

ve

ve

c
14

va
k

op
v

cy

cy

M
c

O
ip
r

C
k

O
Po

O
r
ra

er
ic

Re

et
ic

Re
c

ile
A
g
ra

es
C

t
C

w/

hi
rin
15

of
HM

HM
C

ce
e

se

Pr
e

W
H

ac

Pr
ea
rs

al
rs

la
ur

in

in

e
l
Se
u

in

d
ou

-p
W

-p
16

ag
Co

ille

th
Co

th
Th

In

In
C

ed

a-
p

a-

in
M
le

hi
le

ot
ti

d
ltr

ra
ltr
nd
ul

ol
ng

d
ng

17

H
U

D
ol
M

C
Bo
Si

Si

C
in

18
Th

Treatment
19
20
21 Figure 3. Treatment use on rural HMA-surfaced roadways, based on revised definition of rural
22 high traffic volume (ADT ≥ 5,000 vpd).
23
24
25
26
100
27
28 90
29 80
30
31 70

32
% of Agencies

60
33
50
34
35 40
36 30
37
20
38
39 10
40 0
41 Joint Crack Seal Diamond Partial-depth Full-depth Dowel Bar Drainage
42 Resealing Grinding Patching Patching Retrofit Preservation
43 Treatment
44
45 Figure 4. Treatment use on rural PCC-surfaced roadways, based on revised definition of rural
46 high traffic volume (ADT ≥ 5,000 vpd).

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 13

1
2 The revised analysis of preservation treatment usage did not result in a substantial change in the
3 relative use of treatments, but it did help to organize and report on usage trends. A summary of
4 the most-used (≥50 percent of respondents) treatments for high traffic volume rural and urban
5 roads are as follows:
6
7 HMA-Surfaced PCC-Surfaced
8 Crack Sealing and Filling Joint Resealing and Crack Sealing
9 Thin HMA Overlay (rural only) Diamond Grinding
10 Cold Mill and Thin HMA Overlay Partial- and Full-Depth Repair
11 Drainage Preservation Dowel Bar Retrofit
12 Drainage Preservation
13
14 DEVELOPMENT OF PRESERVATION GUIDELINES FOR HIGH TRAFFIC VOLUME
15 ROADWAYS
16
17 The results of the literature review and the highway agency survey provided an excellent starting
18 point for identifying the state of the practice for preservation of high traffic volume facilities and
19 developing useful guidelines for selecting treatments at the project level. The information not
20 only indicated the types of treatments that can be successfully used on pavements with high
21 traffic volumes, it revealed much about other key factors that can influence the selection of
22 treatments. Specific insights obtained related to the following:
23
24 Performance Attributes
25  Effect of existing pavement condition (distress) and serviceability (smoothness) on
26 treatment performance.
27  Effect of traffic volume on treatment performance.
28  Effect of climate/environment on treatment performance.
29  Direct climatic/environmental stresses.
30  Stresses associated with snowplowing and studded or chained tire use.
31  Effect of treatment on pavement condition, serviceability, safety (friction, surface
32 drainage [splash/spray, cross-slope]), and noise.
33
34 Constructability Issues
35  Costs (agency and user).
36  Complexity of construction.
37  Availability of skilled and experienced/qualified contractors.
38  Need for specialized equipment and/or materials.
39  Availability of quality materials.
40  Environmental constraints.
41  Traffic disruption.
42  Traffic control constraints.
43  Restrictions on available time for lane closures to complete the work.
44

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 14

1 Using the collected information, a treatment selection process was formulated for identifying the
2 preferred high traffic volume preservation treatment. The process originated with a simple
3 flowchart consisting of the following six steps:
4
5 1. Establish existing pavement condition.
6 2. Identify preliminary set of feasible treatments.
7 3. Determine project needs and constraints
8 4. Identify final set of feasible treatments
9 5. Perform cost-effectiveness analysis and evaluate economic and non-economic factors.
10 6. Identify preferred treatment.
11
12 The process then developed into a more detailed flowchart, which is shown in figure 5.
13
14 The selection process was developed specifically to address factors that are commonly
15 considered for high traffic volume roadways. Under the final approach, the functional and
16 structural performance of the existing pavement should first be established through condition
17 surveys and/or the agency’s pavement management system (PMS). The performance
18 information should include both current and historical trends of overall condition (i.e., an
19 aggregate/composite indicator of condition or serviceability); type, severity, and amount of
20 individual distresses; and ride quality/smoothness measurements. For pavements perceived as
21 having possible safety and/or noise issues, surface friction test results, crash data, and/or
22 pavement–tire noise data should also be compiled.
23
24 Based on the established performance information, a preliminary list of feasible preservation
25 treatments should then be identified. This list represents a first cut of treatments capable of
26 preserving the pavement structure and preventing or delaying future deterioration, given the
27 pavement’s current physical condition and rate of deterioration.
28
29 Next, the performance needs and construction constraints of the project should be assessed.
30 Based on the traffic and climatic characteristics of the project and an acceptable level of risk, the
31 list of feasible treatments can be narrowed to those whose expected performance satisfies the
32 required or targeted performance level. Further refinement of the list may occur after
33 considering constraints such as available funding, the expected timing and allowable duration of
34 the work, geometrics issues, and traffic control issues.
35
36 Once a final set of feasible preservation treatments has been identified, a cost-effectiveness
37 analysis should be performed to determine which treatment provides the greatest return for the
38 investment. This analysis may be done using either equivalent annual cost (EAC) or benefit-cost
39 ratio (BCR) techniques. The EAC is a simple analysis approach in which treatment unit cost is
40 divided by the expected treatment performance (treatment service life or pavement life
41 extension). The BCR is a more detailed approach in which the overall benefit (area-under-the-
42 performance-curve) is divided by total life-cycle cost. Results of the cost-effectiveness analysis
43 should then be evaluated in conjunction with other economic factors and any non-monetary
44 factors in order to select the preferred preservation treatment.
45

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 15

1 Current and Historical Pavement Performance Data

2 (from field surveys and testing and/or PMS database)
3
4  Overall Condition Indicator (e.g., PCI, PCR)
5  Individual Distress Types, Severities, and Extents
 Smoothness (e.g., IRI, PI, PSI/PSR)
6  Surface and Subsurface Drainage Characteristics Historical Design, Construction, and M&R Data
7  Safety Characteristics
8  friction/texture (e.g., FN, MPD/MTD, IFI)  Pavement Type and Cross-Sectional Design
9  crashes  Materials and As-Built Construction
 Pavement–Tire Noise  M&R Treatments (i.e., materials, thicknesses)
10
11
12
13
14 Pavement
Major Develop Feasible
15 Preservation
16 or Major Rehab Rehab Treatments
Rehab?
17
18
19 Pavement Preservation
20
Preliminary Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments
21
22
23 Assess Needs and Constraints of Project
24 Performance Needs Construction Constraints
25  Targeted/required performance  Funding
26  Expected performance of treatments  Time of year of construction

27  existing pavement condition effects  Geometrics (curves, intersections,

28  traffic effects (functional class and/or pavement markings/striping)

traffic level)  Work zone duration restrictions (i.e.,
29 facility downtime)
 climate/environment effects
30  construction quality risk effects (agency  Traffic accommodation and safety
31 and contractor experience, materials  Availability of qualified contractors and

32 quality) quality materials

 Environmental considerations (e.g.,
33
emissions and air quality, recycling/
34 sustainability)
35
36
37 Final Set of Feasible Preservation Treatments
38
39 Selection of the Preferred Preservation Treatment
40
41  Conduct Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
42 Equivalent Annual Cost (EAC)

 Benefit-Cost Ratio (including Life-Cycle Cost Analysis [LCCA])
43
 Evaluate Economic and Non-Economic Factors
44
45 Figure 5. Process of selecting the preferred preservation treatment for high traffic volume
46 roadways—final flowchart.

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 16

1
2 It should be noted that the preservation treatment selection process begins with the premise that
3 most treatment types can be considered for a high traffic volume project. It is during the
4 assessment of project needs and constraints that the effects of traffic level on treatment
5 performance (and, more importantly, extended pavement life as a result of treatment application)
6 are evaluated and treatments either remain feasible or are removed from consideration.
7
8 Key Components of Treatment Selection Process
9
10 Two key components of the preservation treatment selection process are the preliminary
11 identification of candidate treatments based on existing pavement conditions and the final
12 identification of candidate treatments based on treatment durability, performance (or pavement
13 life extension), cost, and work zone requirements. The highway agency survey results were of
14 particular value in the development of each of these components.
15
16 First, the respondents’ inputs regarding the types of deficiencies that individual treatments target
17 were used in creating a feasibility matrix like the one shown in table 3 for HMA-surfaced
18 pavements. The appropriateness indicators provided for each treatment were derived from a
19 combination of the survey responses and various tools found in the literature. In simple terms,
20 suitable treatment options are identified using the feasibility matrices, such that each option is
21 shown to be at least generally recommended () for all the identified distresses and surface
22 characteristics.
23
24 Second, the respondents’ inputs regarding treatment durability and work zone requirements for
25 preservation treatments were used in creating a feasibility matrix like the one shown in table 4
26 for PCC pavements. It is at this point in the process that the feasibility of treatments for high
27 traffic volume use is evaluated, along with climatic impacts and associated construction
28 constraints (i.e., work zone restrictions). The same set of symbols is used to further assess
29 treatment feasibility, and general performance and cost information is also provided for each
30 treatment. The expected performance ranges are based on high traffic volume application, but do
31 not take into account the effects of existing pavement condition and climate.
32
33 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
34
35 Under SHRP 2 Project R26, researchers developed guidelines for pavement preservation
36 strategies for high traffic volume roadways. The guidelines are presented in the form of a
37 comprehensive treatment selection process that takes into consideration several key factors in
38 identifying the preferred preservation treatment at the project level, including traffic volume,
39 existing pavement condition, climatic condition, costs, expected performance (treatment life or
40 extension in pavement life), and work zone requirements.
41
42 The guidelines were developed using state-of-the-practice information obtained through a
43 detailed review of literature and a survey of highway agency preservation practices. The
44 literature provided valuable information concerning many aspects of preservation, including
45 available treatment types and functions, treatment decision matrixes/trees (i.e., identifying
46 treatments to address existing pavement conditions and deficiencies), treatment performance
47
48

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 17

1
2
Table 3. Feasibility matrix for preliminary identification of candidate preservation treatments for HMA-surfaced pavements.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 18

1
2
3
4 Table 4. Feasibility matrix for final identification of candidate preservation treatments for PCC-surfaced pavements.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.

 Smith and Peshkin 19

1 capabilities, and treatment construction constraints/issues. The surveys also provided useful
2 insights to how agencies manage high traffic volume roadways, including the definition of what
3 constitutes high traffic volumes, the types of treatments used in high traffic volume situations,
4 the types of pavement deficiencies targeted by agencies by the various treatments, and the work
5 zone requirements of the various treatments.
6
7 Although an enormous amount of information on pavement preservation and preservation-related
8 topics was gathered and analyzed in the R26 project, several technical gaps in the treatment
9 selection process were also identified. Key among these were:
10
11  Develop a more comprehensive treatment-condition matching matrix.
12  Develop improved estimates of treatment performance (or pavement life extension) on
13 high traffic volume roadways.
14  More fully investigate the impact of pavement condition, traffic level, and, climatic
15 condition on treatment performance.
16  Develop improved estimates of treatment unit costs.
17
18 As the concept of pavement preservation continues to grow and the benefits of preservation
19 continue to be realized, it is believed that these technical gaps will be filled and that preservation
20 will be increasingly seen as a valuable tool for high volume roads.
21
22 REFERENCES
23
24 1. Sorenson, J. 2006. “Investing in the Future of Roads.” Pavement Preservation
25 Compendium II. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC.
26
27 2. Kuennen, T. 2006. “Pavement Preservation: Techniques for Making Roads Last.”
28 Pavement Preservation Compendium II. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC.
29
30 3. Geiger, D. 2005. “Memo on Pavement Preservation Definitions.” Federal Highway
31 Administration. Washington, DC.
32
33 4. Peshkin, D.G. and T.E. Hoerner. 2005. “Pavement Preservation: Practices, Research Plans,
34 and Initiatives.” Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-07(184). National Cooperative Highway
35 Research Program (NCHRP). Washington, DC.
36
37 5. Labi, S., M. Mahmodi, C. Fang, and C. Nunoo. 2007. “Cost-Effectiveness of
38 Microsurfacing and Thin Hot-Mix Asphalt Overlays: Comparative Analysis.” Paper presented
39 at 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
40
41
42

TRB 2011 Annual Meeting Paper revised from original submittal.