NEW MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

–-

RESEARCH BUREAU
Innovation in Transportation

Developing Statewide Standard Practices for

the Use of Asphalt Millings for Maintenance
Projects in New Mexico

Prepared by:

University of New Mexico

Department of Civil Engineering
Albuquerque, NM 87131

Prepared for:
New Mexico Department of Transportation
Research Bureau
7500 Pan American Freeway NE
Albuquerque, NM 87109

In Cooperation with:

The US Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Report NM12SP-03

MAY 2017
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
1. Report No. NM12SP-03 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date.
Developing Statewide Standard Practices for the Use of Asphalt May 20th 2017
Milling for Maintenance Projects in New Mexico 6. Performing Organization Code.
456A
7. Author(s): 8. Performing Organization Report No.
Rafiqul A. Tarefder and Mohiuddin Ahmad 456-388
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
University of New Mexico
Department of Civil Engineering
MSC01 1070
1 University of New Mexico 11. Contract or Grant No.
Albuquerque, NM 87131 456-388

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Research Bureau Final Report
7500B Pan American Freeway July 1, 2013 to May 20, 2017
PO Box 94690
Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

New Mexico DOT
15. Supplementary Notes
This project is funded by New Mexico Department of Transportation

16. Abstract
This research project evaluated the feasibility of use of millings in maintenance projects in New Mexico through
literature review, survey, life cycle cost analysis, performance evaluation, and field and laboratory performance
testing. From survey and literature review, it is observed that New Mexico mostly uses chip seal for their
maintenance work. Therefore, further analysis was made for mostly chip seal. From survey, it is obtained that
millings perform as well as virgin chips. Cost-effectiveness analysis yielded that millings are more cost-effective
than virgin chips. Field performance data shows that millings perform the same as virgin chips. Laboratory tests
evaluated that the shear strength, skid resistance and texture depth of millings are the same as virgin chips. It is
observed from case studies of millings in chip seal, sand seal and thin overlay that millings can successfully be used
in chip seal. Therefore, this study recommends the use of millings in chip seal. A best practices manual is developed
that includes the detailed procedure to construct chip seal with millings.

17. Key Words

Performance, millings, pavements, shear strength 18. Distribution Statement
Available from NMDOT Research Bureau
19. Security Classi. of the 20. Security Classi. of this page 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Report None 114 N/A
None
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 PROJECT NO. NM12SP-03

DEVELOPING STATEWIDE STANDARD PRACTICES FOR THE USE OF

ASPHALT MILLINGS FOR MAINTENANCE PROJECTS IN NEW
MEXICO

Final Report
July 1, 2013 – May 20, 2017

A Report on Research Sponsored by,

Research Bureau
New Mexico Department of Transportation
7500B Pan American Freeway NE
PO Box 94690
Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690
(505)-841-9145
[email protected]
http://NMDOTResearch.com

Prepared by:

Rafiqul A. Tarefder and Mohiuddin Ahmad

University of New Mexico

Department of Civil Engineering
1 University of New Mexico
MSC01 1070
Albuquerque, N.M. 87131

© New Mexico Department of Transportation

 PREFACE

The research reported herein describes the applicability of millings instead of virgin chips in
maintenance projects specially chip seal based on literature review, survey, LCCA and
mechanical testing.

NOTICE

The United States government and the State of New Mexico do not
endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufactures ‘names
appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the
object of this report. This information is available in alternative
accessible formats. To obtain an alternative format, contact the
NMDOT Research Bureau, 7500B Pan American Freeway NE, PO
Box 94690, Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690, (505)-841-9145

DISCLAIMER

This report presents the results of research conducted by the authors

and does not necessarily reflect the views of the New Mexico
Department of Transportation.

ABSTRACT
This research project evaluated the feasibility of use of millings in maintenance projects in New
Mexico through literature review, survey, life cycle cost analysis, performance evaluation, and
field and laboratory performance testing. From survey and literature review, it is observed that
New Mexico mostly uses chip seal for their maintenance work. Therefore, further analysis was
made for mostly chip seal. From survey, it is obtained that millings perform as well as virgin
chips. Cost-effectiveness analysis yielded that millings are more cost-effective than virgin chips.
Field performance data shows that millings perform the same as virgin chips. Laboratory tests
evaluated that the shear strength, skid resistance and texture depth of millings are the same as
virgin chips. It is observed from case studies of millings in chip seal, sand seal and thin overlay
that millings can successfully be used in chip seal. Therefore, this study recommends the use of
millings in chip seal. A best practices manual is developed that includes the detailed procedure to
construct chip seal with millings.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the project advocate Ms. Lisa Vega, Project Manager, Mr. Virgil
Valdez, and the Project Technical Panel, Mr. Stanley Crespin, Anwar Parveez, Pete Dominguez,
Ms. Kelly Montoya and Naomi Gaede for their support and guidance. The authors acknowledge
the help of Mr. Mohammad Moabed and Henry Smith for their continuous support throughout
the project duration. The authors thank NMDOT Research Bureau for funding this study.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1
Research Need.............................................................................................................................1
Goals and objectives:..................................................................................................................2
Report organization.....................................................................................................................3
LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................................................................................5
Introduction.................................................................................................................................5
Review of Literature....................................................................................................................5
Milling Materials....................................................................................................................5
Type of Maintenance Work.....................................................................................................5
Preventive Maintenance..........................................................................................................6
Corrective Maintenance..........................................................................................................8
Millings in Maintenance Projects................................................................................................9
Review of Milling Materials in New Mexico.............................................................................9
Synthesis of Information...........................................................................................................12
summary....................................................................................................................................21
RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY..............................................................22
DEFINE DATA ELEMENTS AND IDENTIFY PROJECTS..................................................24
Introduction...............................................................................................................................24
Define Data Elements................................................................................................................24
Identify Projects........................................................................................................................32
Summary...................................................................................................................................33
COLLECT AND GATHER NMDOT DATA............................................................................36
Introduction...............................................................................................................................36
Literature Review and Setting up the Questionnaire................................................................36
Synthesis of Survey Response...................................................................................................39
Chip Sealing..........................................................................................................................39
Sand/Fine Seal......................................................................................................................45
Scrub seal..............................................................................................................................45
Slurry Seal............................................................................................................................46
Patching................................................................................................................................46
Thin Overlay.........................................................................................................................48
summary....................................................................................................................................50
PERFORM COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS.................................................................53
Introduction...............................................................................................................................53
Some Definitions.......................................................................................................................53
LCCA....................................................................................................................................53
Discount Rate........................................................................................................................53
Costs.....................................................................................................................................53
Risk Analysis........................................................................................................................53
Analyze and Interpret Results...............................................................................................54
Decision Making...................................................................................................................55
LCCA Of Chip Seal Project from New Mexico........................................................................55
Methodology.........................................................................................................................56
Selection of Candidate Pavements........................................................................................56
 LCCA....................................................................................................................................57
Cost Estimation.....................................................................................................................57
Expenditure Stream Diagram (ESD)....................................................................................58
Deterministic Output from LCCA........................................................................................59
Probabilistic Output from LCCA..........................................................................................60
Determination of Present Serviceability Index (PSI)...........................................................61
PSI for Different District......................................................................................................62
Effectiveness Index...............................................................................................................63
Calculation of EI...................................................................................................................64
Summary...................................................................................................................................66
MONITOR FIELD PERFORMANCE......................................................................................67
Introduction...............................................................................................................................67
Brief Description of Performance Parameters..........................................................................67
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)..........................................................................................67
Slope Variance (SV)..............................................................................................................67
International Roughness Index (IRI)....................................................................................67
Present Serviceability Rating (PSR).....................................................................................68
Present Serviceability Index (PSI)........................................................................................68
Mean Ruth Depth..................................................................................................................68
Result and Discussion...............................................................................................................68
Performance Calculated from different PSI Models.............................................................68
Performance for Chip Seal with or without Millings...........................................................69
PSI before and after Chip Seal..............................................................................................69
Comparison of PSI for different Maintenance Projects............................................................70
District 1...............................................................................................................................70
District 2...............................................................................................................................71
District 4...............................................................................................................................71
District 5...............................................................................................................................71
District 6...............................................................................................................................71
Case Studies..............................................................................................................................75
Case Study I: Use of Millings as Thin Overlay....................................................................75
Case Study II: Use of Fine Millings As Fine Seal................................................................79
Case Study III: Use of Millings in Chip Seal.......................................................................88
summary....................................................................................................................................91
MECHANISTIC EVALUATION...............................................................................................92
Introduction...............................................................................................................................92
Tests Performed.........................................................................................................................92
Sand Patch Test.....................................................................................................................92
Skid Resistance Test.............................................................................................................94
Direct Shear Test of Chip Seal..............................................................................................95
Cohesion and Angle of Friction............................................................................................96
Results and Discussions............................................................................................................97
Mean Texture depth..............................................................................................................97
Skid Resistance.....................................................................................................................97
Shear Strength of Millings and Virgin Chips........................................................................98
Cohesion and Angle of Friction............................................................................................99
 Constitutive Relationship....................................................................................................100
Shear Strength on Old Vs New Overlay.............................................................................102
summary..................................................................................................................................103
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.....................................................................105
Conclusions.............................................................................................................................105
Recommendations...................................................................................................................105
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................107
 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 Research Approach......................................................................................................22
FIGURE 2 Computation of NPV using Monte Carlo simulation (© Realcost manual, FHWA). .54
FIGURE 3 An example of the output in normal distribution form. (© FHWA)..........................55
FIGURE 4 Flowchart to determine effectiveness index................................................................56
FIGURE 5 Expenditure stream diagram........................................................................................59
FIGURE 6 NPV from probabilistic analysis.................................................................................61
FIGURE 7 Benefit obtained from pavement maintenance............................................................63
FIGURE 8 PSI plot for chip seal with time...................................................................................65
FIGURE 9 Cost-effectiveness of millings over virgin chips.........................................................66
FIGURE 10 PSI calculated by different models on FR1020 MP 0-3...........................................69
FIGURE 11 Comparison of PSI values for chip seal with and without millings..........................70
FIGURE 12 Comparison of before and after PSI value................................................................70
FIGURE 13 Stock pile of coarse millings.....................................................................................75
FIGURE 14 Stock pile of fine millings.........................................................................................76
FIGURE 15 100% millings after adding 1% emulsion.................................................................77
FIGURE 16 Different stages of using millings as overlay............................................................78
FIGURE 17 Use of fine millings as thin overlay..........................................................................78
FIGURE 18 Existing pavement condition.....................................................................................79
FIGURE 19 Fine millings used for the fine seal...........................................................................80
FIGURE 20 Emulsion shot rate adjustment..................................................................................81
FIGURE 21 Surface condition after compaction...........................................................................81
FIGURE 22 Raveling of US54 MP233-242 at different phases....................................................83
FIGURE 23 Cracking condition at different phases of US54 MP233-242...................................84
FIGURE 24 Aging of US54 MP 233-242 at different stages........................................................85
FIGURE 25 Bleeding issue on US 54 NM233-242.......................................................................86
FIGURE 26 Other distresses on US 54 MP233-242 one year after sand seal...............................87
FIGURE 27 Construction of chip seal...........................................................................................89
FIGURE 28 Surface condition at different stages.........................................................................90
FIGURE 29 Present condition of the pavement NM114 MP16-12...............................................91
FIGURE 30 Sand patch test...........................................................................................................93
FIGURE 31 A laboratory sand patch test sample..........................................................................94
FIGURE 32 British pendulum test in progress..............................................................................95
FIGURE 33 Different stages of direct shear test...........................................................................96
FIGURE 34 Direct shear testing device........................................................................................96
FIGURE 35 MTD of chip seal with millings and virgin chips......................................................97
FIGURE 36 Skid resistance of chip seal with and without millings.............................................98
FIGURE 37 Shear strength of chip seal with and without millings..............................................99
FIGURE 38 Changes of cohesion and angle of friction with change in MTD............................100
FIGURE 39 Direct shear test result for chip seal........................................................................102
FIGURE 40 Qualitative load-deformation relationship for direct shear of chip seal..................102
FIGURE 41 Ultimate shear strength of chip seal at different conditions....................................103

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Questions on review of using milling materials in New Mexico..................................10
TABLE 2 Use of asphalt emulsions for chip seal projects in the USA.........................................13
TABLE 3 Use of aggregates for chip seal projects in the USA.....................................................14
TABLE 4 Use of asphalt emulsions for slurry seal projects in the USA.......................................15
TABLE 5 Use of aggregates for slurry seal projects in the USA..................................................16
TABLE 6 Use of mineral filler for slurry seal projects in the USA..............................................16
TABLE 7 Use of patching materials in the USA...........................................................................17
TABLE 8 Laboratory tests recommended for asphalt binder or emulsions used for maintenance
work with milling materials...........................................................................................................17
TABLE 9 Laboratory tests recommended for milled aggregates used for maintenance work......18
TABLE 10 Laboratory tests recommended for milled aggregates mixed with asphalt binder or
emulsion.........................................................................................................................................19
TABLE 11 Laboratory tests recommended for milled aggregates mixed with soil.......................20
TABLE 12 Questions on binder or emulsion.................................................................................25
TABLE 13 Questions on aggregates..............................................................................................26
TABLE 14 Question on fog seal....................................................................................................27
TABLE 15 Questions on processing of milling materials.............................................................27
TABLE 16 Question on preparation of road surfaces....................................................................28
TABLE 17 Questions on traffic control.........................................................................................29
TABLE 18 Question on roller........................................................................................................30
TABLE 19 Summary of costs associated with a milling project (excluding material cost)..........31
TABLE 20 Question on life span of maintenance work................................................................32
TABLE 21 Identify projects..........................................................................................................33
TABLE 22 Survey questionnaires for chip seal.............................................................................37
TABLE 23 Documents on chip seal..............................................................................................39
TABLE 24 Distresses for which chip seal is applied.....................................................................40
TABLE 25 Chips size and rate......................................................................................................41
TABLE 26 Oil type and application rate.......................................................................................41
TABLE 27 Surface condition and preparation..............................................................................42
TABLE 28 Construction sequence of chip seal.............................................................................42
TABLE 29 QA/QC........................................................................................................................43
TABLE 30 Thickness, life and cost...............................................................................................44
TABLE 31 Candidate chip sealed pavements for cost analysis.....................................................44
TABLE 32 Documentation on sand sealing..................................................................................45
TABLE 33 Distress type for which scrub seal is preferred...........................................................45
TABLE 34 Documents on patching...............................................................................................46
TABLE 35 Distresses for which patching is preferred..................................................................46
TABLE 36 Site condition and preparation....................................................................................47
TABLE 37 Distresses for which a pavement to be overlaid..........................................................49
TABLE 38 Selection of candidate pavements...............................................................................51
TABLE 39 List of pavements selected for cost-effectiveness analysis.........................................56
TABLE 40 Cost and life cycle of chip seal with virgin chips.......................................................57
TABLE 41 Input values for RealcostTM LCCA..............................................................................58
TABLE 42 Deterministic output from LCCA...............................................................................59
TABLE 43 PSI of selected pavements...........................................................................................62
TABLE 44 Calculation of effectiveness index..............................................................................65
TABLE 45 Severity corresponding to different rut depth.............................................................68
TABLE 46 PSI for different projects from District 1....................................................................72
TABLE 47 PSI for pavements from District 1 for which maintenance treatment dates are not
known............................................................................................................................................72
TABLE 48 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 2...............................................73
TABLE 49 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 4...............................................73
TABLE 50 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 5 for which maintenance dates
are not known yet...........................................................................................................................73
TABLE 51 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 6...............................................74
TABLE 52 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 6 for which maintenance dates
are not known yet...........................................................................................................................74
TABLE 53 Gradation of coars millings.........................................................................................75
 INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH NEED

Millions of tons of millings are produced in the USA every year during reconstruction and
resurfacing of asphalt pavements. About 80% of the millings are recycled, but 20% are unused
and stockpiled throughout the country (1, 2). The use of millings in construction saves mining
quarry and natural resources, conserves energy and reduces landfill (3). Milling materials,
millings, and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) materials are synonymous terms. This report
will use the term “millings”, which is a by-product when an old or distressed pavement surface is
milled (4).

Millings are successfully used in base and subbase applications by many states (5). Several states
use it in the surface mix. California uses it in slurry seal and chip seal construction (6). The use
of millings in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) can save 30% to 40% of the material (2, 5). According to
Arpad Horvath, the use of one ton of millings can save more than $41 when considering the
tipping fees for landfill and excluding processing and hauling costs (1). Millings have potential
to be used in the maintenance projects as described below.

 Chip Seal

 Sand seal

 Scrub seal

 Microsurfacing

 Thin overlay

 Shoulder widening

Maintaining a pavement costs millions of dollars and may be a total waste if proper maintenance
type is not applied (7,8). If pavements are constructed following standard specifications but they
are not maintained following any uniform standard or procedure, their performance will be
jeopardized. NDMOT Districts are conducting maintenance work based on the experience of
their crew. If all the maintenance is done based on experience, it is possible that the procedure
can be lost after the retirement of expert crew or personnel. Also, different District crew might be
doing a specific maintenance work (say, chip seal) differently. Therefore, documentation of the
maintenance procedures of different Districts across New Mexico and identifying similarities and
dissimilarities among District maintenance procedure for a specific type of maintenance
treatment is important. Also, if different Districts are doing maintenance work differently, some
may use less manpower and money and come up with a higher service life. The opposite is also
possible. Therefore, a comparative study may reveal the best maintenance procedure that is less
expensive and more effective. For example, one District may find a specific type of emulsion or
binder does not work with a certain type of aggregate and/or maintenance treatment, and if that
information is documented, it can be very useful to other Districts. In such cases, a face to face
interview or survey of District crew can be very useful, which is what has been done in this
study.
The use of millings in maintenance projects can save a lot on maintenance cost. Although
NMDOT Districts have used asphalt millings over the years, it is not known which Districts have
used millings in what type of maintenance projects, nor it is known whether a specific
maintenance procedure (say, chip seal) differs when using virgin aggregates versus millings. It is
also not known whether millings are preferable to virgin rock or vice versa. There is a need for
determining the optimum use of millings specific to a maintenance method considering the
practices, materials, traffic, and environmental conditions in New Mexico. To this end, an
attempt is made in this study to examine some of these issues and options of milling in
maintenance projects through conducting District interviews. In addition, case studies on trial use
of millings is included herein to assess current practices in New Mexico regarding the use of
millings in maintenance treatments.

As use of millings is a very new concept, it is not known whether the use of millings is cost-
effective or not. It is easier to determine cost but difficult to quantify the exact benefit.
Researchers have used performance over time to evaluate the benefit (9-12). It is necessary to
evaluate the cost effectiveness of asphalt millings in maintenance projects.

Maintenance treatments are performed using different types of binder and aggregates. Binder
commonly used are asphalt emulsion with or without polymer and performance grade (PG)
binders. For aggregate, limestone, sand stone, granite, basalt or millings are used. Emulsions are
cold applied whereas PG binder is hot applied. Sometimes coatings are used and sometimes not.
The presence of water sometimes enhances bonding between binder and aggregate whereas the
opposite case is also observed. The electric charges in aggregate and binder are also an important
consideration as they may affect the bonding or strength of the maintenance procedure. If the
aggregate is dusty, it will reduce the strength, however, some binder may work good in this case.
There is a need for evaluating which binders work best for which aggregate with which process
with the least issues and problems.

Maintenance treatment such as chip seal and slurry seal requires specific aggregate gradation.
Aggregate in millings should meet the gradation criteria required for each maintenance type.
However, millings are mostly coated with binder. The binders are differently aged and the
aggregate are differently polished. The standard gradation available for maintenance work might
need some modification when millings materials are used.

The performance of millings materials compared with the standard approach has not been
determined for New Mexico mixes. For example, the chip loss with millings may be higher than
with virgin chips. Millings might have different skid resistance, shear strength and texture than
the virgin chips. Over time, chip seal with millings may degrade faster than virgin chips. Similar
parameters for millings are unknown for other maintenance procedures. There is a need for
evaluating the performance of maintenance projects with millings and compare it with virgin
chips.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:

The primary goal of this research is to evaluate the performance of current and future
maintenance projects using millings and develop a standard practice for the use of asphalt
millings in maintenance treatments in the State of New Mexico.
The specific objectives of this study are to:

1. Assess the current practices regarding the use of millings in maintenance treatments
(Literature review).

2. Gather and collect data, procedures, standards, construction method, bases of

measurement, costs, performance and related factors with millings materials and
standard methods (Synthesis of survey data).

3. Determine cost effectiveness of maintenance procedures with and without millings

(Cost effectiveness analysis).

4. Monitor performance of different maintenance procedures in different field locations

(Field performance).

5. Determine the mechanical performance of different maintenance procedure with and

without millings (Laboratory performance).

6. Perform engineering analysis to develop a workbook and a quick reference matrix

documenting a statewide standard methodology for processing and using asphalt
millings in maintenance treatments in state of new of New Mexico (Workbook and
Reference Matrix Development).

REPORT ORGANIZATION

This report consists of ten sections. Section 1 describes the research need and objectives of this
study. Section 2 contains a literature review on current practices of different maintenance
procedures, processing and use of millings materials, different design methods, etc. New Mexico
practices as well as nationwide and worldwide practices were considered. Section 3 contains an
experimental plan or methodology for this study. Section 4 describes the procedure to determine
the data elements, identify projects and selection of candidate pavements. Section 5 contains the
collection and gather of New Mexico data by literature review and survey. The synthesis of
survey responses are also presented in this section. Section 6 contains cost effectiveness analysis
of maintenance procedure with and without millings materials. The performance of different
maintenance projects are investigated in section 7. Case studies of different project implemented
with millings materials are also added in this section. Section 8 includes the field and laboratory
tests performed on millings and virgin materials to evaluate mechanical behavior of millings and
to compare it with virgin chips. Section 9 summarizes the findings of this study.
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 LITERATURE REVIEW
INTRODUCTION

The authors conducted a comprehensive search of database and various information sources
(e.g., journals, research reports, and standards) to build a solid base of knowledge on current
research and specifications on different maintenance procedures. The first section describes the
current practices using standard materials. The second section describes the practices using
millings materials. A review on the design and construction process are also included.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Milling Materials

Unlike other civil engineering structures, pavements are designed to deteriorate and fail. Failure,
which is expected to occur after design period, is reached when a pavement condition falls below
pre-established performance criteria. Failed pavements must be renewed by reconstruction or
rehabilitation includes recycling. Materials from the failed pavement can be removed by milling
or full depth removal. Milling entails removal of the pavement surface using a milling machine,
which can remove up to 50 mm thickness in a single pass. Full-depth removal involves ripping
and breaking the pavement using a rhino horn on a bulldozer and/or pneumatic pavement
breakers. The milled or remove materials contain asphalt and aggregates. When properly
crushed, and screened, they consist of high-quality, well-graded aggregates coated by asphalt
cement, termed as RAP.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has estimated that close to 100 million tons of HMA
are milled and removed each year, and 90% of it is used in highway applications in one form or
another, including pavements, subbase and fill. About 1/3 of this 90 million tons is used in
asphalt recycling either in hot or cold asphalt mix. These include its use as an aggregate
substitute and asphalt cement supplement in recycled asphalt paving (hot or cold mix), as a
granular base or subbase, stabilized base aggregate, or as an embankment or fill material (13).
None of these usages, other than milling in HMA, take advantage of the monetary values of this
product. Additionally, with the increased use of milling machines to remove unwanted pavement
materials, there is a growing supply of milling materials, which in most states belong to the
contractors. The contractor wants to use this material in the most-effective way and that is in
HMA mixtures.

Type of Maintenance Work

Generally, maintenance activities are divided into two categories such as preventive
maintenance, and corrective maintenance. Preventive maintenance is that group of activities
performed to protect the pavement, decreases the rate of deterioration of pavement, and maintain
or improve the functional condition of the system. Corrective maintenance is that group of
activities performed to correct a specific pavement failure or area of distress. This research work
is limited to using milling materials in maintenance work. Maintenance works that require
aggregate with asphalt emulsion/binder and/or apply on HMA are described below.
Preventive Maintenance

Chip Seals

This type of maintenance work consists of single or multiple applications of asphalt and
aggregate over a weathered surface or a prepared base course as the original surface (14). The
thickness of such applications is generally limited to 1 in. maximum. Chip seal is done for the
maintenance work of block cracking, over polished aggregate, raveling and weathering and
bleeding (with less binder). Chip seal does not expect to provide structural capacity. Chip seal
can be classified as single seal, double seal, and single seal with chock stone. A single chip seal
consists of a spray application of asphalt emulsion followed by an application of aggregate chips,
preferably one stone layer thick; double chip seal is two application of a single chip seal; single
seal with chock stone is a single chip seal but with crushed fine aggregate applied to the surface
of the chip seal prior to rolling. A fog seal may be applied to a fresh chip seal to provide slightly
more asphalt to account for possible deficiency in emulsion application rate, to provide a higher
contrast between pavement marking and the surrounding surface and to provide possible
improved cracking performance. Chip seal design is based on binder/emulsion application rate
and can be expressed as,

Bd = [ Bb �EF �PF ] + As + Ae + Aas + Aaa

(1)

where Bd = design binder/emulsion application rate (gal/yd 3), Bb = basic binder/emulsion

application rate (gal/yd3), EF = emulsion factor, PF = polymer factor (for polymer modified
emulsion only), As = adjustment for substate texture (gal/yd3), Ae = adjustment for aggregate
embedment (gal/yd3), Aas = adjustment for binder absorption into substrate (gal/yd3), Aaa=
adjustment for binder absorption into cover aggregate (gal/yd3)

Again, Bb = VF * ALD

where VF = design void factor (gal/yd2/in) , ALD = average least dimension of cover aggregate

Again, VF = Vf+Va+Vt

where Vf = basic void factor, Va = aggregate shape adjustment factor, Vt = traffic effect
adjustment factor

Thus, the design binder application rate is:

{
( Vf + Va + Vt ) �ALD �
Bd = �
� }
�EF �PF + As + Ae + Aas + Aaa
� (2)

It should be noted that bonding/adhesion of aggregate with substate, durability and toughness of
aggregate are important factors for designing chip seal. It is essential to determine the bonding
strength of aged binder coated aggregate with virgin emulsion/binder. Also, the durability of
virgin and aged aggregate mix needs to be determined. It is also required to investigate the use of
fog seal on chip seal since milling materials contains aged binder and could results bleeding.
Sand/fine seals

Sand seal is a bituminous-sand application to an existing pavement surface to seal the surface
and to function as light-wearing course (15). In sand seal, emulsion is sprayed first and then sand
is applied on top of the emulsion, similar to chip seals. Sand seal is used to fill an intermediate
use between fog seals and full chip seals, which are often used where an HMA pavement has
raveled to the extent that there is significant fine aggregate missing from the surface. A sand seal
is used instead of a fog seal to fill in the lost fine aggregate. A sand seal is also used as a
pavement preparation treatment to provide a uniform surface before constructing a chip seal and
to seal low severity fatigue cracks before constructing an overlay. The maximum thickness of
sand seals is about 3/16 in.

Scrub seals

This is placed in situations very similar to that of sand or chip seals. Scrub seals can be applied
when the distress level is greater than what would normally be used as a criterion for the
application of a sand seal. The major difference in sand seals and scrub seals is: for scrub seal, an
initial sweeping is done over the applied emulsion before application of the sand or aggregate,
and after application of sand or aggregate another sweeping is done, forcing the sand into the
emulsion filled cracks and voids. The scrub seal method can fill cracks up to 0.5 in. wide that
would normally filled by crack sealing.

Slurry seals

A slurry seal is a homogeneous mixture of emulsified asphalt, water, well-graded fine aggregate
and mineral filler which has a creamy, fluid-like appearance when mixed in proper proportions.
The layer thickness is approximately equal to the maximum aggregate size. Generally, slurry seal
is used for the distress type block cracking, on polished aggregate, raveling and weathering.
Three types of slurry seals named as I, II and III are generally used. The classifications are based
on distress type, aggregate gradation, residual asphalt content and application rate (16). Type I is
finer than type II and type III. Type I is suitable for seal cracks, fill voids, and correct surface
erosion conditions; type II is suitable for fill surface voids, correct severe surface erosion
conditions, and provide a minimum wearing surface; type III is suitable to provide a new
wearing surface or build up a crown.

Residual asphalt, slurry seal consistency, setting time, curing time and abrasion against moisture
are some important consideration for designing slurry seal mix. Residual asphalt content is the
amount of asphalt collected from the asphalt emulsion after removing the emulsion from the mix.
When asphalt emulsion is mixed with aggregate, aggregate absorbs water or the water evaporates
and the bond breaks between the asphalt, water, and emulsion. The residual asphalt gives the idea
of remaining asphalt available for aggregate to make effective bonds within the mix. Type I
requires residual asphalt of 10-16% weight of dry aggregate; type II requires 7.5-13.5% weight
of dry aggregate; type III requires 6.5-12% of dry aggregate. A 1 in. consistency is required for a
workable slurry mix. Properly mix-designed slurry should be set at the end of 12 hours. Cure
time is important to determine initial cohesion of slurry mat and resistance to traffic. Abrasion
against moisture is important to measure for the wearing quality of slurry seal under wet
conditions.
Micro-surfacing

Microsurfacing is an enhanced polymer-modified slurry sealing system that is used for much of
the same purposes that slurry seals are used, but may provide larger aggregate size and, with
more construction and curing control, be placed in a greater thickness. The aggregate shall be
totally crushed. The major difference between slurry seal and micro-surfacing is that slurry seal
is mono-layered and microsurfacing is multi-layered. With these attributes, micro-surfacing is
commonly used for rut filling, minor leveling, and restoration of skid resistant surfaces, as well
as providing a slurry seal system that can be used on higher volume roadways. The mixture
should maintain a high friction surface, and variable thick sections throughout the service life of
the mixture.

Types of micro-surfacing are classified as type II and type III, similar to slurry seal. Type II is
suitable for urban and residential streets and airport runways. Type III is suitable for primary and
interstate routes and to fill wheel ruts (17). Cohesive behavior, setting time, and abrasion against
moisture are the primary requirements for the mix. Cohesion test and setting time is similar to
the slurry seal mix. The moisture sensitivity of coated aggregate used in virgin mix might
influence the mix and performance of the maintenance work.

Corrective Maintenance

Patching

Patching is one of the most common methods for repairing of localized areas of intensive
cracking, whether the cracking is load associated (alligator) or environmental or construction
related (transverse or longitudinal). Patching can be either partial or full depth. Partial depth
repairs usually involve removing the surface layer and replacing it with HMA or cold mix
prepared with emulsified asphalt. Full depth repair involves removal of the complete pavement
down to the subgrade or to an intermediate subbase layer in intact. Full depth patching is the
most common procedure used for the repair of localized alligator cracking and potholes.
Emergency repairs of potholes frequently involves the use of cold-mix materials under severe
environmental conditions.

Thin Overlays

The traditional method for protecting a deteriorating pavement, reducing roughness, restoring
skid resistance, on alligator cracking, on block cracking, strengthening the pavement structures
and improve reliability of a flexible pavement with an overlay of HMA or cold mix. The
maximum thickness of overlay is 1.5 in. thick. Most of the time DOTs use a milling machine to
level up an existing pavement surface and then place relatively thin overlays on the surface.

Thin overlay is not suitable for structural strengthening and there are issues on the de-bonding
between existing pavement layers. Another issue with the overlay is the propagating of reflective
cracking through the overlays. The bottom of the overlays experiences additional horizontal
strain due to expansion of crack tip present in the existing pavements. This horizontal strain
initiates bottom-up crack in the overlays; bottom-up cracks are known as reflective cracks.
MILLINGS IN MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

A comprehensive literature review on preventive and corrective maintenance projects and the
potential use of milling materials for these maintenance projects has been conducted. It is
observed that, few researches are done under in academic setting and some maintenance works
are done in the USA using milling materials in pavement construction and maintenance projects.
According to the literature, the short-term performance of the milling materials in the
maintenance projects seems outstanding but long-term performance data are not available yet.
One of the major concerns for the maintenance projects with the milling materials is the
interaction between virgin asphalt emulsions with the aged binder coating on the milled
aggregate. Until now, only qualitative assessments are done on the projects that are implemented
in the USA. The Long-term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program database is searched to see
the use of milling materials in the maintenance projects. Maintenance projects completed with
virgin materials are studied from the LTPP database.

REVIEW OF MILLING MATERIALS IN NEW MEXICO

Survey questions have been prepared to collect information regarding practices followed by
NMDOT maintenance personnel for doing maintenance work using millings. One of the major
objectives of the survey questions are to record the NMDOT practices on using millings since
until now no written documents were found on this issue. The survey questions were sent to the
technical committee members.

Question 1, as shown in Table 1, is asked to see the current trends of using milling materials in
the districts. Total lane miles maintained in the years 2011, 2012, and 2013 are selected to see the
use of Millings in the Districts. Also, the projects are separated into “with” and “without
millings”. The number of differences in lane miles in with and without millings will indicate the
millings availability in the corresponding districts. In the future task, field investigations will be
done on both with millings and without millings maintenance projects to compare their
performance.

Districts responses are given in the table. Specific District names are given in parenthesis such as
D1 represents District-1 and so on. In addition, any comments given by the specific districts are
given at the bottom of the table.

Question 2, as shown in Table 1, is asked to see the preconditions of road structures that are
evaluated and given priority by the District Engineers for selecting one maintenance project over
another. Based on the District Engineers priority, future field evaluations and investigations plans
will be formulated. The field investigations will be performed before and after construction using
both with and without millings maintenance projects.

Question 3, as shown in Table 1, is asked to see the standard design procedure followed by the
District Engineers. In the literature review, it has been mentioned that, chip seals, slurry seals,
micro-surfacing, and thin overlays have design standards. There are no design standards found
for the fine seals, scrub seals, and patching. District Engineers might have followed their own
standards in addition to their experiences and it is necessary to record the standards and keep that
as a base for developing the future standard and specifications for milling materials.
TABLE 1 Questions on review of using milling materials in New Mexico

Question 1: Specify approximate lane miles (Cubic yard for Patching) in your district were gone through or will
be treated using following:

Year 1: 2011
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
357 (D1)
7989 (D1)
Without millings 50 (D2) 24 (D5) 90 (D5)
900 (D5)
183 (D5)
With millings 150 (D2) 11202 (D1) 6.5(D6)
Year 2: 2012
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
323 (D1)
8252 (D1)
Without millings 50 (D2) 28 (D5) 88 (D5)
950 (D5)
172 (D5)
With millings 150 (D2) 7180 (D1)

Year 3: 2013
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
266 (D1)
18 6726 (D1)
Without millings 140 (D2) 100 (D5)
(D5) 850 (D5)
169 (D5)
With millings 80 (D2) 9511 (D1) 11394 (D1)

Question 2:
Assuming each year, you evaluate all your district pavements and decide to apply maintenance treatments to
worst few miles of roads depending on the available funding of the year, then what are the criteria to select one
maintenance treatment (say chip seals) over other (say fine seals)
(Please check appropriate box for each maintenance work and for funding specify low or high)

Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance

Criteria Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
D1
D1
Improve skid resistance D2 D5 D1
D5
D6
D1
D2 D5 D5 D1 D1
Pavement cracking
D5 D6 D6 D5 D6
D6
D1
D1
Eliminating surface rutting D2 D6 D5
D6
D6
Pavement water infiltration D1 D6 D5 D5 D6 D1 D1
D2 D6 D6 D5 D6
 D5
D6
D6
D1
D1
Oxidation D2 D6 D6 D1
D6
D6
D1 D1
Moisture damage D2 D5 D5 D5 D1
D5 D6
D1 D1
D5 D1
Provide a wearing surface D2 D6 D6 D5
D6 D5
D6 D6
D2 D1
Raveling/ pot holes D5 D5 D1
D5 D6
Improve night vision D2
Seal
Minor Assuming
Other (please specify) another
cracking no patching
treatment
H
(D1) H (D5) H (D1) L (D1)
H (D5) L (D5)
Funding (low or high) H L(D6) Unknown L (D5) L (D5)
H(D6) H(D6)
(D5) (D6) L(D6) H(D6)
L(D6)

Question 3: Is there any design procedure/ standard your district follows for each maintenance work?
(Please answer Yes or No, if yes, specify ASTM, NMDOT, NCHRP, AASHTO specification No,)

Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance

Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
NMDOT
NMDO NMDOT NMDOT
Without millings Yes(D6) NMDOT(D6
T Yes(D6) Yes(D6)
)
NMDO NMDO NMDOT
With millings NMDOT
T T Yes(D6)
Notes:
D1: Shoulder work with milling included with patching not considered overlay but blade patch on all three years

SYNTHESIS OF INFORMATION

LTPP database shows no evidence of using milling materials in the maintenance projects.
Valuable information has been collected from the database for maintenance projects completed
with virgin materials. In the following sections, the asphalt or emulsion and different types of
aggregates used in different states are for chip seal, slurry seal, and patching projects are
summarized. LTPP database does not have any record of using sand seals, scrub seals,
microsurfacing, and thin overlay. However, some rehabilitation sections use overlay but those are
out of scope from this study.

Table 2 shows the type of asphalt emulsions used for chip seal projects in the different states of
the USA. The recorded emulsions are: Cationic Rapid Setting-type 2 (CRS-2), Cationic Rapid
Setting-Harder Asphalt Base (CRS-2H), CRS-2 with latex modified, extended oil-Sundex 790,
High Float Rapid Setting-type 2 (HFRS-2), Hot mix asphalt rubber, and emulsion with latex
polymer and emulcol modifier. There are a total of fifty states and the District of Columbia. A
total of eighteen states use CRS-2, nine states use CRS-2H, one state uses CRS-2 with latex
modifier, extended oil, HFRS-2, HMA rubber, and emulsion with latex polymer. There is no
record for New Mexico in the chip seal category in the LTPP database.

Cationic refers to an asphalt emulsion containing elector-positive charged asphalt droplets.

Cationic asphalt emulsion is suitable for electro-negative charged aggregates such as sandstone
and quartz. Rapid setting emulsion contains fewer free charges compared with the medium
setting emulsion. The H designation means that harder base asphalt cement is used in the
emulsion. The HF designation refers to a high float residue, which is an indication of chemical
gelling of the emulsion residue. Latex is a water-based dispersion of polymer, which is
particularly suited to the modification of emulsions. Latex comes in anionic, nonionic, and
cationic forms, and it is important that the latex type should be compatible with the emulsion.
Styrene butadiene rubber (SBR), polychloroprene, and natural rubber latex are most commonly
used in paving grade emulsion. Normally, rubber is used to provide more elasticity in the
emulsion. Rapid setting grades are suitable for surface treatment, penetration macadam, and tack
coat. 1 means low viscosity and 2 means high viscosity.

TABLE 2 Use of asphalt emulsions for chip seal projects in the USA

Materials Name
With Latex
CRS-2 Hot mix Polymer
Extended oil-
CRS-2 CRS-2H with Latex HFRS-2 asphalt and
Sundex 790
modifier rubber Emulcol
modifier
Alabama Arizona Ohio Texas Pennsylvan Texas New York
Arkansas California ia
Florida Colorado
Illinois Idaho
Indiana Montana
 Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Minnesota Nevada
Mississippi Utah
Missouri Washington
Nebraska Wyoming
New York
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Texas
Wyoming

Table 3 shows the type of aggregates used by different states for chip seal maintenance projects.
LTPP database listed crushed river gravel, granite or sandstone, combination of granite and
sandstone, dolomite or limestone, combination of dolomite and limestone. Seven states uses
crushed river gravel, seventeen states use granite or sandstone or a combination of both and four
States uses dolomite or limestone or a combination of both. There is no record for New Mexico
on aggregates used for chip seal maintenance projects. It should be noted that sandstone is an
electro-negative charged aggregate that is best for electro-positive charged emulsion, and the
states that use CRS emulsion also use sandstone aggregates.

TABLE 3 Use of aggregates for chip seal projects in the USA

Materials Name

Crushed river gravel Granite/Sandstone Dolomite/Limestone

Alabama Arizona Minnesota

Arkansas California Ohio
Florida Colorado Pennsylvania
Mississippi Idaho Virginia
Oklahoma Illinois
Tennessee Indiana
Texas Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Michigan
 Minnesota
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Utah
Washington
Wyoming

Table 4 shows the types of asphalt emulsion used by different states for slurry seals projects.
According to the LTPP database, Cationic Rapid Setting-type 1 (CRS-1), Cationic Slow Setting-
Harder asphalt base (CSS-1H), Cationic Quick Setting (CQS), Cationic Quick Setting-Harder
asphalt base (CQS-H), latex modified emulsion, and polymer modified emulsion are used for
slurry seal projects. Only one state uses CRS-1, thirteen states use CSS-1H, sixteen states use
CQS, one state uses CQS-H, latex modified emulsion, and polymer modified emulsion. No
record is found for New Mexico practices on slurry seals emulsion. Quick setting emulsion
designated specifically for slurry seals and microsurfacing. Quick setting allows quicker opening
to traffic. Microsurfacing uses polymer modified emulsion since LTPP database does not
separate slurry seals and microsurfaceing, therefore, no separation is done in this study. Later,
slurry seals and microsurfacing will be treated separately.

TABLE 4 Use of asphalt emulsions for slurry seal projects in the USA

Materials
Latex modified Polymer modified
CRS-1 CSS-1H CQS CQS-H
emulsion emulsion
Florida Illinois Alabama Utah New York Missouri
Indiana Arizona
Iowa Arkansas
Kansas California
Kentucky Colorado
Maryland Florida
Michigan Idaho
Minnesota Mississippi
Missouri Montana
Nebraska Nevada
New York Oklahoma
 Tennessee
Texas
Pennsylvania
Utah
Virginia
Washington
Wyoming

Table 5 lists the use of aggregates for slurry seals in the USA. As per the LTPP database, ARC
furnace, ARC furnace slag, granite or sandstone or combination of both, limestone screening,
slag and type-3 limestone is used for the slurry seal maintenance projects. Only one state uses
ARC furnace, seven states use ARC furnace slug, nine states use granite or sandstone or
combination of both, one State uses limestone, one state uses slag, and four states use type-3
limestone. There is no record for New Mexico’s use of slurry seals. ARC furnace, ARC furnace
slag or slag is a by-product of steel producing industries. Usually, any waste materials produced
from steel production are called slag, but if the steel production is done by heating the furnace
using electric arc, then they are called ARC furnace or ARC furnace slag. In many states, this
slag might be cheaper compare to the fine aggregates. Limestone screening is fine limestone with
¼ in. size and has white to rusty color. On the other hand, type 3 limestone has the highest
density of 160 lb/cubic ft, with 3% absorption by weight, and minimum compressive strength is
8000 psi. Whereas, the type 1 limestone has density of 110 lb/cubic ft, with 12% absorption by
weight, and minimum compressive strength is 1800 psi.

TABLE 5 Use of aggregates for slurry seal projects in the USA

Materials
ARC Granite/ Limestone
ARC Furnace Slug Slag Type 3 Limestone
Furnace Sandstone Screenings
Arizona
Alabama
California
Arkansas Maryland
Colorado
Florida New York
Idaho
Mississippi Tennessee Pennsylvania
Texas Montana New York
Oklahoma Virginia
Nevada
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Washington
Wyoming

Slurry seals also use mineral fillers, as noted in table 6. According to LTPP data base, Portland
cement type I, aluminum sulfate, aluminum sulfite, and hydrated lime have been used by
different states as mineral filler in the slurry seal projects. Seven states use Portland cement type
I, nine states use aluminum sulfate, one state uses aluminum sulfite, and four states use hydrated
lime.

TABLE 6 Use of mineral filler for slurry seal projects in the USA

Materials
Portland cement type I Aluminum Sulfate Aluminum Sulfite Hydrated Lime
Arizona
Alabama California
Arkansas Colorado Maryland
Florida Idaho New York
Mississippi Montana Idaho Pennsylvania
Oklahoma Nevada Virginia
Tennessee Utah
Texas Washington
Wyoming

Table 7 lists the patching materials uses in the different States. According to the table, HMA,
plant mix with cutback asphalt-cold laid, road mix with cutback asphalt, and road mix with
emulsifies asphalt have been used for patching materials. Cutback asphalt is liquid asphalt,
which is manufactured by adding petroleum solvents to cut back the asphalt cement. It is made to
reduce asphalt viscosity for lower application temperatures. Cutback asphalt can be classified as
Rapid Curing (RC), Medium Curing (MC), and Slow Curing (SC). Usually, MC and SC are used
in the patching materials. Twenty-one States use HMA, three states use plant mix with cutback
asphalts-cold laid, twenty two states use road mix with cut back asphalt, and one state uses road
mix with emulsified asphalt. New Mexico uses HMA patching materials.

TABLE 7 Use of patching materials in the USA

Materials
Plant mix with cutback Road mix with cutback Road mix with emulsified
HMA
asphalt, cold laid asphalt asphalt
Alabama Illinois Arizona Arkansas
Arkansas Iowa Arkansas
California Tennessee California
Florida Colorado
Illinois Florida
Iowa Illinois
Kansas Iowa
Maryland Kentucky
Minnesota Minnesota
Mississippi Mississippi
Missouri Nebraska
Nebraska Nevada
New Mexico New York
North Dakota North Carolina
 North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Washington
Virginia

Table 8 lists the laboratory test required for asphalt binder and emulsion, Table 9 lists the
laboratory test required for aggregate, Table 10 lists the laboratory tests required for asphalt
concrete mix, and Table 11 lists the laboratory tests required for subgrade soil. More tests will be
added in these tables when the authors complete more literature review and receive NMDOT
current practices on milling materials.

TABLE 8 Laboratory tests recommended for asphalt binder or emulsions used for
maintenance work with milling materials

Standard Test description Applicable for

AASHT ASTM Others
O
R-28 Accelerated aging of asphalt binder using a All maintenance
pressurized aging vessel (PAV) work with milling
materials
T-40 D-140 Sampling of bituminous materials Chip seals,
Overlays
T-50 D-139 Standard method of test for float test for
bituminous materials
T-302 Polymer content of polymer-modified emulsified All maintenance
asphalt residue and asphalt binders work with milling
materials
T-315 Determining the rheological properties of asphalt All maintenance
binder using a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR) work with milling
materials
T-316 Viscosity determination of asphalt binder using All maintenance
rotational viscometer work
M-140/ D-977 Specification for emulsified asphalt Patching,
T-59 Slurry seal
M-208 D-2397 Specification for cationic emulsified asphalt Slurry seal,
Patching,
Micro-surfacing
D-2026 Specification for cutback asphalt (slow-curing Patching
type)
D-2027 Specification for cutback asphalt (medium-curing Patching
type)
D-2028 Specification for cutback asphalt (rapid-curing Patching
type)
D-2172 Test methods for quantitative extraction of Patching
bituminous paving mixtures
D-2995 Standard Practice for Estimating Application Rate Chip seal
of Bituminous Distributors
 D-3628 Selection and use of emulsified asphalt All maintenance
work
D-6934 Test method for residue by evaporation of Patching
emulsified asphalt
D-7226 Test for viscosity of emulsified asphalt All maintenance
work
NCHRP Test for determining the strain sensitivity of Chip seals
680 asphalt emulsion residue using strain sweeps
performed on a dynamic shear rheometer (DSR)
NCHRP Test for recovery of asphalt from emulsion by Chip seals
680 stirred-can method

TABLE 9 Laboratory tests recommended for milled aggregates used for maintenance work

Standard Test description Applicable for

AASHTO ASTM
T-19 Bulk density (unit weight) and voids in aggregate All maintenance work
T-27 C-136 Sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregate All maintenance work
T-30 Mechanical analysis of extracted aggregate All maintenance work
T-104 C-88 Test method for soundness of aggregates by use of All maintenance work
sodium sulfate or magnesium sulfate
T-85 C-127 Test method for density, relative density (specific Chip seals, Patching,
gravity), and absorption of coarse aggregate Overlay
C-128 Test method for density, relative density (specific Patching, Slurry seal,
gravity), and absorption of fine aggregate Overlay
C-131 Test method for resistance to degradation of small All maintenance work
coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los
Angles machine
D-242 Specification for mineral filler for bituminous Patching, Slurry seal
paving mixtures
D-1073 Specification for fine aggregate for bituminous Patching, Slurry seal
paving mixtures
D-1139 Specification for aggregate for single or multiple All maintenance work
bituminous surface treatments
D-2419 Test method for sand equivalent value of soils and Slurry seal, Micro-surfacing
fine aggregate

TABLE 10 Laboratory tests recommended for milled aggregates mixed with asphalt binder
or emulsion

Standard Test description Applicable for

AASHT ASTM Others
O
T-167 Compressive strength of HMA Overlay, Shoulder
widening
T-283 Resistance to compacted HMA to moisture Patching, Overlay,
induced damage Shoulder widening
T-305 Drain down test Overlay
M-320 Performance-graded asphalt binder Chip seal, Overlay
R-28 Accelerated aging of asphalt binder using Chip seal,
pressure aging vessel (PAV) Overlay
R-29 Grading or verifying the performance grade (PG) Chip seal,
of an asphalt binder Overlay
D-1188 Test method for bulk specific gravity and density Patching
of compacted bituminous mixtures using coated
samples
D-2041 Test method for theoretical maximum specific Patching
gravity and density of bituminous paving
mixtures
D-2489 Practice for estimating degree of particle coating Patching
of bituminous-aggregate mixtures
D-2726 Test method for bulk specific gravity and density Patching
of non-absorptive compacted bituminous mixtures
D-3515 Specification for hot-mixed, hot laid bituminous Patching,
paving mixtures Overlay
D-3910 Design, testing, and construction of slurry seal Slurry seal,
Patching,
Micro-surfacing
D-4215 Specification for cold-mixed, cold-laid Patching
bituminous paving mixtures
D-6372 Design, testing, and construction of micro- Micro-surfacing,
surfacing Patching
D-6704 Test method for determining the workability of Patching
asphalt cold mix patching material
D-6925 Test method for preparation and determination of Patching, Overlay
the relative density of HMA specimens by means
of the superpave gyratory compactor
D-7000 Sweep test of bituminous emulsion surface Chip seal
treatment samples
D-7196 Test method for raveling test of cold mixed Patching
bituminous emulsion samples
D-7229 Test method for preparation and determination of Patching
bulk specific gravity of dense-graded cold mix
asphalt specimens by means of superpave
gyratory compactor
ISSA-100 Test method for wet track abrasion on slurry Patching, Micro-
surfaces surfacing
ISSA-109 Test method for measurement of excess asphalt in Micro-surfacing
bituminous mixtures by use of a loaded wheel
tester and sand adhesion
ISSA-139 Test method for measurement of excess Micro-surfacing
asphalt/aggregate mixture systems by modified
cohesion tester, measurement of set and cure
characteristics
ISSA-144 Test method for classification of aggregate filler- Micro-surfacing
bitumen compatibility by Schultze-Breuer and
Ruck procedures
ISSA-147 Test method for measurement of stability and Micro-surfacing
resistance to compaction, vertical and lateral
displacement of multilayered fine aggregate cold
mixes
K-26816 Test method for determining the susceptibility of Overlay
bituminous mixtures to reflective cracking using
the overlay tester

NCHRP- Test for embedment depth of chip seal aggregates Chip seal
680 in the lab and the field
 NCHRP- Test for laboratory chip loss from emulsified Chip seal
680 asphalt chip seal samples
NCHRP- Test for measuring moisture loss from chip seals Chip seal
680

TABLE 11 Laboratory tests recommended for milled aggregates mixed with soil

Standard Test description Applicable for

AASHTO ASTM
D-698 Laboratory compaction characteristics of soil Subgrade sweetening
using standard effort
D-4318 Test methods for liquid limit, plastic limit, and Subgrade sweetening
plasticity index of soils
D-4546 One-dimensional swell or collapse of cohesive Subgrade sweetening
soils
D-4609 Evaluating effectiveness of admixtures for soil Subgrade sweetening
stabilization
T-193 The California bearing ratio Subgrade sweetening
D-6951 Test method for use of the dynamic cone Subgrade sweetening
penetrometer in shallow pavement applications
D-7181 Test method for consolidated drained triaxial Subgrade sweetening
compression test for soils
D-7263 Test method for laboratory determination of Subgrade sweetening
density (unit weight) of soil specimens
T-215 Permeability of granular soils Subgrade sweetening
T-307 Determining the resilience modulus of soils and Subgrade sweetening
aggregate materials
T-311 Grain-size analysis of granular soil materials Subgrade sweetening

SUMMARY

The overall work of this section can be summarized as:

 Literature review was conducted on different maintenance procedures followed by

different agencies, DOTs, national and international organizations- definition, materials,
procedures and test methods with or without millings.

 Districts were asked to provide information on road miles maintained with or without
millings in past three years. Summary of their results provides the current trend of use of
millings by NMDOT for maintenance.

 Literature review concluded that millings were used by different districts for chip seal,
shoulder widening and patching, although there was no specification on the use of
millings. From literature review it was observed that several states use millings in their
maintenance projects. To use millings in maintenance projects, no special training or
equipment was necessary in addition to that required for virgin chips except a millings
processing unit (portable screen), which is similar to a rock processing unit to prepare
aggregates.
 RESEARCH APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
The objectives of this study will be accomplished through five different steps: (i) Literature
review and survey to evaluate different maintenance procedure with and without millings, (ii)
Perform cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate millings, (iii) Perform field and laboratory testing
to evaluate millings performance over chip seal, (iv) Case studies of maintenance projects with
millings, and (v) Develop best practices and workbook. The research methodology is shown in
Figure 1.

Type of maintenance work, Millings in Maintenance, Millings

Is it feasible to materials in NM
use millings in maintenanc
Yes/
Literature review

Variables of cost effectiveness analysis are identified, Different projects with millings are identified
Define data elements and identify projects

Collect information of the current practices of different maintenance procedure in Different District of NMby literature
Does different NMDOT Districts use millings in their ma
Collect and gather NM data Y

Are millings more cost effective than virgin

LCCA, Use of PSI as benefit, Determine Effectiveness Index (EI)
Cost-effectiveness analysis Y

Determine PSI of different projects

Evaluate field with and without milling, perform case studies of different projects completed
performance Are millings performing same as virgin ch
Ye

Do millings provide same strength surface texture and skid

Perform Direct
Mechanistic evaluation shear test, sand patch test and skid resistance test

FIGURE 1 Research approach

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
 DEFINE DATA ELEMENTS AND IDENTIFY PROJECTS
INTRODUCTION

The following work has been done in this section:

 Define the data elements that will contribute to cost and benefit calculation.

 Identification of maintenance projects that were completed with or without millings.

 Selection of NMDOT projects: 3 projects for each type of maintenance from each district.

DEFINE DATA ELEMENTS

In this task, the essential data elements required for cost effectiveness analysis are defined.
Literature review is performed to establish the essential data elements. Technical committee
members’ feedback was asked in the quarterly meeting for addition or subtraction on any data
element as appropriate.

Question 1, as shown in Table 12, was asked on binder or emulsion in maintenance projects.
Question 1(a) was asked to identify type of binder or emulsion used for different maintenance
types. It has been observed that the interaction of virgin binder or emulsion with aged binder
coated on the milled aggregate is one of the important factors for this project. Also, the cost will
vary depending of the type of binder or emulsion used in the project. In addition, not all type of
binder or emulsion is used or suitable for all maintenance work. Question 1(b) was asked to
identify the application rate of binder. The application rate would be different for chip seals, fine
seals and scrub seals, since chip seals contain coarser aggregates compared to fine and scrub
seals.
TABLE 12 Questions on binder or emulsion

Question 1(a): What type of emulsion/binder generally consider for the following maintenance type?
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Thin
Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals Surfacing (HMA
only)
HFE-300
(D1)
HFE-100 (D1) CSS-IP HFE-90 (D1)
CSS- PME
Without millings HF (D5) HFE90 HFE300P(D6
1P(D6) (D5)
HFE100P (D6) (D6) )
PG70-22
(D6)
HFE-100 (D1)
HFE-90 (D1)
HFE-100p (D2, HFE-90 HFE-300
With millings HFE-90 (D2)
D6) (D2) (D1)
HFE300(D6)
HF (D5)

Question 1(b): What is binder/emulsion application rate (gal/square yard) use for the following maintenance
type?
Material type Protective maintenance
Chip seals Fine seals Scrub seals
Without 0.54 (D1) 0.40 (D2) 0.70 (D5)
millings 0.50 (D2) 0.2-0.25 (D6)
0.50 (D5)
0.45(D6)
With millings 0.45 (D2, D6)) 0.40 (D2)

Question 1(c): How do you determine emulsion/binder application rate?

Procedure Districts
Compute using design procedure
Based on experience D1, D2, D6
Other (please specify) D5, depends on road condition

Question 2, as shown in Table 13, was asked on the aggregate used in maintenance projects. The
sources of aggregates are milled pavement or virgin aggregates. Question 2(a) was asked for the
maximum size of the aggregate uses in the various maintenance projects. The size of aggregates
depends on the types of maintenance and also the grinding and screening of the milled
aggregates. There is a cost associated with milling, grinding, and screening of aggregates to
make it usable for a particular maintenance type. In addition, the amount of binder required to
coat the aggregate is also important. The finer the aggregate, the more binder or emulsion is
required.
TABLE 13 Questions on aggregates

Question 2(a): What is the nominal maximum aggregate size generally used for the following maintenance type?
(Please attach aggregate gradation for each maintenance type, for both with and without milling materials in a
separate sheet)

Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance

Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
3/8 (D1)
3/8 (D2) 3/8-1/2 (D1) 3/8 (D1)
½ (D5) 3/8 (D5)
Without millings ½ (D5) ¼ (D6) 3/8 (D2) 3/8 (D5)
3/8 (D6) #4 (D6)
½ &3/8 ½ (D5, D6) ¾ (D6)
(D6)
3/8-1/2 (D1)
With millings ½(D6) 3/8 (D1)
3/8 (D2)

Question 2(b): What is the aggregate application rate (lb/square yard) for the following maintenance type?

Protective maintenance
Material type
Chip seals Fine seals Scrub seals
18 (D1)
24 (D5)
Without millings 24 (D5)
20 (D6)
28(D6)
With millings 28 (D6)

Question 2(c): How do you determine aggregate application rate?

(Please check)

Procedure Districts
Compute using design procedure
Based on experience D1, D2, D6
Other (please specify)

Literature review indicates that fog seal is not used for maintenance projects with milling
materials. The Technical Committee members also comply with the statements. However,
maintenance projects without milling materials sometimes use fog seal based on the project type.
Question 3, as shown in Table 14, was asked since this project compares the performance of
maintenance projects with and without millings and some projects without millings might use
fog seal. There is a cost associated with the application of fog seal and that needs to be
considered in the cost benefit calculations.

TABLE 14 Question on fog seal

Question 3(a): Do you use fog seal for the following maintenance work?
(Please answer Yes or No)
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Thin
Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro-
Patching overlay
seals seals seals seals surfacing
(HMA only)
Yes (D2)
Yes (D1) Yes (D1)
Yes (D5) D2 Yes (D5) No (D5)
Without millings No (D6) No (D5) No (D5)
Yes (not all) No (D6) No (D6) No (D6)
No (D6) No (D6)
(D6)
Yes (D1)
Yes (D1) Yes (D1)
Yes (D2) D2
With millings No (D6) No (D6) No (D6) Yes (not Yes (not all)
Yes (not all) No (D6)
all) (D6) (D6)
(D6)

Question 4 in Table 15 is related to the processing of milling materials. A major cost share will
come in consideration from the processing of the materials. The cost items are considered after
the aggregates are milled from the old pavement. Question 4(a) and (b) is related to the
processing type and cost. These are the essential cost items of a maintenance projects constructed
with milling materials and need to compare with the projects completed without milling
materials.

TABLE 15 Questions on processing of milling materials

Question 4(a): How do you process milling materials for using maintenance work?
(Sample answer: crushing, screening and grading)
D1: Crushing, screening, and grading
D2: Crushing
D6: Crush, screen and mix in a pug mill cold mix material. Crush and screen for chip seal material.

Question 4(b): What is the average cost ($/unit) of processing milling materials for maintenance work?

Process D1 D2 D6
Crushing 11/ Ton 9/ CY
Screening 7.25/ Sq. Yd
Grading 42.2 /hr
Other 1 Loader + 15
Mobilization
Question 4(c): Assuming maintenance crews haul milling materials from the storage, then what is average cost
($/unit) of hauling?
Process D1 D2 D6
By internal crew 500/Ton 37/hr 12/CY
By contractor 870/ton 3.6/mile 87/hr
Notes: D1: Hauling by internal crews: Per day X 3 trucks average; Hauling by contract trucking: per day
depending on how far. This is average of 5-10 miles daily.
Question 5, as show in Table 16, is related to road surface preparation for maintenance work.
Both with and without milling projects need road surface preparations. Some maintenance
projects might require multiple surface preparations. Technical committee members added
Patching and Mill and Fill to the list. Sometimes patching is done to repair pot holes and then
maintenance work is performed. In addition, old surface is milled and then filled with the same
materials and then additional maintenance work is performed. Each road surface preparation has
a cost associated with it. For this reason, it is important to consider the cost of road surface
preparation.

TABLE 16 Question on preparation of road surfaces

Question 5(a): Prior to each maintenance work what type of road preparation methods are typically performed
for existing surface?
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Preparation type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
D1 D1
Surface brooming D5 D5 D5
D5 D6
Fog seal D1
D1
Tack coat D6
D6
Prime coat D5 D5
D1
D5
Crack sealing D5 D5 D5 D1
D6
D6
D1
D5
Patching D5 D6 D6 D1 D6
D6
D6
Mill and fill D1
Other (please
specify)
Question 5(b): What is the average cost ($/lane mile) ($/cubic yard for patching) of road preparation? (Specify
other unit if applicable)
154.00/Day (D1) Surface brooming
1566.00 (D1)
Fog seal
3640.00 (D2)
1768.00 (D1)
Tack coat
0.50/Sq.Yd (D2)
0.75/Sq.Yd (D2) Prime coat
3500.00/mile (D2)
Crack sealing
7500-8900 (D5)
14742.00 (D1)
Patching
11.00/yard (D2)
11.00/yard (D2) Mill and fill
Notes: D1: Fog seal price includes Oil; Patching price is for total preparation

Question 6, as shown in Table 17, is related to the traffic control required for maintenance work.
Both with and without millings projects need traffic control. Traffic control has two cost
components associated with it. One is the time the traffic is controlled and that is directly related
with the delay of traffic on the route that is under maintenance. Another is the manpower and the
equipment required to control the traffic. Time of traffic control depends on the type of
maintenance projects. Average cost component can be determined from the contractor payment
datasheet.

TABLE 17 Questions on traffic control

Question 6(a): What traffic control is typically required for each maintenance work? (Please check)
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Preparation type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
D1 D1 D1
D5 D5
Reduced speed D5 D5 D5
D6 D6
D6 D6 D6
D1
D1 D1
Flaggers D5 D5 D5
D5 D5
D6
D1 D1
D5 D5 D1
Pilot vehicles D5 D5
D6 D6 D5
D6 D6
Others (please specify) DMS DMS DMS DMS

Question 6(b): What is the average cost ($/hour) of traffic control for each maintenance work? (Specify other
unit (i.e. $/lane mile) if applicable)

Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance

Material type Chip Micro-

Fine Scrub Slurry Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals (HMA only)
seals surfacing

With or without milling 75-200 75-200 90-200 90-200

Notes: D1: Cannot breakdown traffic control unless done by a contractor separately.

Question 7, as shown in Table 18, is related to the type of roller that is used to compact newly
laid materials on the old pavements. Not all maintenance types use similar types of rollers since
different rollers have different tire configurations and that is associated with different compaction
pressure on the pavements. In addition, there is a cost associated with the rolling time and type of
roller used for the project.

TABLE 18 Question on roller

Question 7(a): What type of roller your agency uses for each maintenance type?(Please check)
Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance
Roller type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
Pneumatic-tire roller D1 D5 D1 D1
 D5
D6
D6
Static wheel roller D6 D6
D5
Vibratory roller D5 D5
D6
Others (please D1 (Steel D1 (Steel
specify) wheel) wheel)
Question 7(b): What is the average rental cost ($/hr) of roller?
6000.00/Month (D2)
Pneumatic-tire roller
Don’t know (D6)
6000.00/Month (D2) Static wheel roller
6000.00/Month (D2) Vibratory roller
Others (please specify)

The summary of costs associated with different component of a maintenance project is shown in
Table 19 excluding the material cost. All costs for processing of millings and hauling are
converted to $/ton except few with $/hr or $/mile. To convert them in $/ton, several other
information are needed, e.g., the average speed and capacity of the hauler and the average mile
driven from storage to site. District 1 spends much more on processing and hauling than other
districts. All costs associated with road preparation is converted to $/mile. Costs associated with
traffic control and roller are converted to $/hr.

TABLE 19 Summary of costs associated with a milling project (excluding material cost)

Districts Processing ($per ton) Hauling ($/ton)

By internal
Crushing screening grading Loader mobilization by contractor
crew
D1 24.74 $15/mile 500 870
D2 11 0 42.2/hr 37.6/hr 3.6/mile
D4
 D5
D6 5.5 5.5 0.57 6.82409 87/hr
Districts Road preparation ($/lane mile)
Surface prime
fog seal tack coat crack sealing patching mill and fill
brooming coat
D1 154/day 1566 1768 14742
D2 3640 3520 5280 3500 19360 19360
D4
D5 8200
D6
Districts Traffic control ($/hr) Roller ($/hr)
micro
thin Pneumatic Static wheel
Chip seal scrub seal surfacin Vibratory roller
overlay tire roller roller
g
D1 75-200 75-200 90-200 90-200
D2 75-200 75-200 90-200 90-200 8.33 8.33 8.33
D4 75-200 75-200 90-200 90-200
D5 75-200 75-200 90-200 90-200 At least for a month
D6 75-200 75-200 90-200 90-200

Question 8, as shown in Table 20, is related to the life of maintenance projects constructed with
and without milling materials. Milling materials used for maintenance projects do not have any
life span data in the literature, though the life span of maintenance projects without milling
materials have some data, but the life span of the maintenance projects depends on several
factors such as weather and traffic conditions. For this reason, the life span for the maintenance
projects with respect to New Mexico conditions was asked. In addition, life span is a key input
for the cost-benefit analysis and the life cycle analysis.

TABLE 20 Question on life span of maintenance work.

Question 8: What is the typical life span (in years) for the following maintenance type?

Protective maintenance Corrective maintenance

Material type Chip Fine Scrub Slurry Micro- Thin overlay
Patching
seals seals seals seals surfacing (HMA only)
Without milling materials 3 (D1) 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 5 (D1) 6 (D1)
 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 6 (D2)
5-7 (D5) 5-7 (D5)
5-7 (D5) 2 (D5) 3-5 (D5)
5 (D6) 4 (D6)
8 (D6) 2 (D6) 5(D6)
3 (D1) 3 (D1)
6 (D2)
With milling materials 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 6 (D2) 6 (D2)
8 (D6)
2 (D6) 5 (D6)

IDENTIFY PROJECTS

In this task, with the help of District Engineers, the current maintenance projects completed with
and without milling materials were selected from Districts. Survey questionnaires were sent to
the Technical Committee Members. Table 21 shows the survey questionnaire emailed to the
Technical Committee Members.

TABLE 21 Identify projects.

Existing Projects Completed with Milling Materials (2012-13 projects are preferable)
No. Maintenance type Road Name Mile Post (MP)
1 Chip seals D2: 207, 284, 176, 8, 246, 60, 70 D2: 0-4.3, 0.2-6.0, 28.1-34.0, 0-15.5, 79.8-
0.0, 268.9-263.4, 245.2-259
2 Sand/fine seals
3 Scrub seals
4 Slurry seals
5 Microsurfacing
6 Patching D1: FR 1020 D1: 0.0-2.8
7 Thin overlay D1: NM 418 D1: 14.0-5.0
8 Shoulder widening D1: NM 418 D1: 14.0-5.0
Existing Projects Completed with Virgin Materials (2012-13 projects are preferable)
No. Maintenance type Road Name Mile Post (MP)
1 Chip seals D2: 249, 60, 70, 532 D2: 32-43.5, 368.9-
263.4, 245.2-259,
12-0
2 Sand/fine seals
3 Scrub seals
4 Slurry seals
5 Microsurfacing
6 Patching
7 Thin overlay
8 Shoulder widening
New Projects Planned with Milling Materials (2013-14 projects are preferable)
No. Maintenance type Road Name Mile Post (MP)
1 Chip seals
2 Sand/fine seals
3 Scrub seals
4 Slurry seals
5 Microsurfacing
6 Patching D1: FR 1019 D1: 0.0-13.5
7 Thin overlay D1: NM 418 D1: 5.0-0.0
8 Shoulder widening D1: NM 11 D1: 34.0-23.0

SUMMARY

This section is summarized as below:

 Data elements were established based on literature review and feedback from technical
committee members. The data elements are: Binder or emulsion, aggregate, fog seal,
processing of milling materials, preparation of road surface, traffic control, roller, and life
span.

 Districts were asked to provide a list of maintenance projects they completed with or
without using millings. Their responses were gathered and summarized.

 Conducting face-to-face surveys with district maintenance personnel from each district, a
list of pavements was selected from each district. As all districts do not use all types of
maintenance, the total number of projects selected were less (36) than the total expected
(126).
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

33
 COLLECT AND GATHER NMDOT DATA
INTRODUCTION

During this part of the study, the following efforts were made:

 Review of documents on the projects selected in the previous section

 Conduct a detailed survey if less documents are available

LITERATURE REVIEW AND SETTING UP THE QUESTIONNAIRE

Different states in the USA prefer six types of maintenance: chip seal, sand seal, scrub seal,
slurry seal, thin overlay and patching. Arizona (ADOT) collects quantitative distress data on
cracking and rutting of their pavements before applying any maintenance (18). Chip seal is a
surface treatment constructed by applying one or multiple layers of stone chips over asphaltic
emulsions. Montana (MDT) and California DOT (Caltrans) have well written documents on chip
sealing including detailed procedure and specification limits (19). MDT does chip sealing
between May 01-August 20 when the air temperature is more than 65 °F. Caltrans described the
different distress conditions for which a pavement should be chip sealed. Chip sealing should not
be done on roads with Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) > 40000. Caltrans uses an equation
to determine chip and binder application rates. They use the “ball penetrometer test” to test for
punching strength and the “sand patch test” to determine the texture depth of the seal. In 2005,
NCHRP released “Chip Seal Best Practices”, which includes procedure and specifications of
chip seal. According to this report, 18% of the chip seal in the USA is constructed using some
kind of method/equations, while 82% is constructed using experience only.

If sand is used instead of stone chips, it is known as sand seal. For sand seal, FHWA has
specification limits; however, they don’t describe any procedure or method (20). Binder
application rate varies from 0.15 to 0.20 gallons per square yard (gsy) and sand application rate
is in between 10 to 15 pound per square yard (psy). Sand size varies from ¼ in. to 3/8 in (21).

If scrub broom is used after emulsion spray and chip spreading, it is known as scrub seal.
Montana and Utah have documents on scrub seal specifying limits and procedure (22, 23).
Aggregate size for scrub seal is similar to sand seal or chip seal. Application rate of emulsion
varies from 0.22 to 0.45 gallons per square yard. Cost varies from $0.9 to 1.05 per square yard
and expected life is 4 to 10 years.

If sand and emulsion are mixed before spraying on the pavement, it is known as slurry seal.
International Slurry Surfacing Association has guidelines for slurry seal construction (24). They
proposed three gradations with maximum aggregate size 1/4'' and the residual asphalt content
vary from 6.5% to 16%. The application rate varies from 8-30 psy. Slurry seal should not be
used if the pavement temperature is below 50°F and no freeze in 24 hours. VDOT, Caltrans and
ADOT also use slurry seal and have specification on it (25). Caltrans, ADOT and VDOT
specification are very much similar to the International Slurry Seal Association (ISSA) procedure
with three types of gradation and other properties.

34
If a maintenance overlay is constructed less than 1.5 in. thick, it is known as thin overlay. The
life of thin overlay varies from 4 to 6 years (26). Iowa uses PG 76-34 binder for their overlay
construction (27). Crack greater than 0.25 in. should be crack sealed before thin overlay.

One of the most expensive maintenance is patching. It is used for potholes, cracks and edge
damages. HMA, cold mix and granular base materials are used for patching (26).

Based on the literature, key factors governing each maintenance procedure are identified and
classified in seven distinct categories. They are: i) documents, ii) selection of pavement to
maintain, iii) materials, iv) site condition and preparation, v) construction, vi) QA/QC, and vii)
life and cost. Survey questions on these seven categories were developed. The questionnaire for
chip seal looks as shown in Table 22. Questionnaire for other types of maintenance are similar.

TABLE 22 Survey questionnaires for chip seal

Section 1: Document, with/without Millings Yes/no

1. Do you have any document on chip seal?
2. Do you use millings in chip seal?
If such, do you have any document about millings in chip seal?
Section 2: Pavement selection Answer
1. Do you collect your own data or use pavement condition data collected by Santa Fe to
determine which roads to chip seal?
2. For what distresses, do you use chip seal? Tick mark
Alligator Transverse Longitudinal Improve skid Moisture
Rutting Raveling bleeding
cracking cracking cracks resistance infiltration

What value do you use to decide when to use chip seal? (e.g., MDOT’s values are shown below)
Improve
Alligator Transverse Longitudina Moisture
Rutting Raveling skid bleeding
cracking cracking l cracks infiltration
resistance
Low/med Low/me
Extent Severity Severity 3/4''
ext. d ext.
(<15%) (1/4'') Ext <10%
<30% 10%
3/8''
NMDOT
Section 3: Materials Answer Comments
1. What is your chip application rate? (typical range 15-40 lb/square yard)
Do you use formula or experience to determine chip application rate?
2. What are the chip sizes? (typical values 1/4'' to 1/2'' depending on traffic) Single or
(typically NMDOT uses 3/8'' aggregate) dual size?
3. Do you pre-coat or damp your chip? (typically, NMDOT damp)
4. What tests do you use to control chip aggregate quality? (e.g., ADOT uses the tests/values below)
Flat and elongated
Bulk specific gravity Water absorption Fractured faces (> particles LA abrasion
(2.3 – 2.85) (< 2.5%) 85%) (< 20%, NMDOT (< 40%)
<30%)
5. What type of emulsion do you use? (SC or MC or RC emulsion) Answer Comments
6. What is your binder application rate?
(typical value 0.35 to 0.5 gallon/ sq. yard )
Do you use formula or experience to determine binder application rate?
7. Do you do any laboratory test for chip seal?
(e.g., chip loss, chip-binder adhesion, chip embedment depth etc.)

35
 Value or
Section 4: Chip seal season, temperature and site preparation
Yes/no
1. What is your chip seal season? (typically, May –August)
2. What is the minimum air temperature required for chip seal construction? (typical 60°F
for NMDOT)
3. Do you use “Chip seal test strip” prior to use in the road? (Montana DOT does it)
4. Do you calibrate the binder distributor?
5. Do you calibrate the chip spreader?
Brooming
What are the surface preparation methods that your district
6. Crack seal
uses before chip seal?
Patching
Value or
Section 5: Construction Yes/no

Flaggers
What is the common traffic control methods Signs
1.
employed for a chip seal project?
Pivot vehicle
2. How much distance do you keep between emulsion distributor and chip spreader? (Usually
less than 100 ft. for NMDOT)
Speed (<5 mph for NMDOT)
What are the typical roller speed, tire pressure and Pressure (≥ 90psi)
3.
number of passes for chip seal project? No. of passes (>2 passes for
NMDOT)
Section 6: QA/QC Yes/no
1. Do you measure binder and chip application rates for QC?
2. Do you measure chip embedment depth for QC? (>70% for NMDOT)
Ball Penetrometer
3. Do you conduct field tests for QA? Sand Patch
FWD
Section 7: Chip seal thickness, design life, and cost Value
1. Typical thickness of chip seal (maximum = 1 in.)
2. Life of new chip seal (e.g., 5-8 years for NMDOT)
3. Price per square yard (typically, $0.75 to $0.90)
4. What is the number of your district crew?
How many square yards can this crew finish in a day?
Chip
5. Who are your chip and emulsion suppliers?
Emulsion
With millings (old)
Without millings
Please provide names of three chip seal projects?
6. (old)
(Road and Mile Post)
With Millings
(new)

36
SYNTHESIS OF SURVEY RESPONSE

Chip Sealing

Documents

Each district was asked whether they follow any specification for chip seal, if they have any
written procedures on chip sealing, or if they have anything written about chip sealing. They
were also asked about the use and documents on millings. Table 23 summarizes the survey
response obtained about the documents on chip seal. Two out of four participating Districts have
documents on chip sealing. District 1 provided the procedure they follow. All the Districts use
millings for chip sealing, although they started it very recently. Districts 1, 4 and 6 are using it as
an experiment. It is not known, if they will be performing well or not as they are still under
observation. District 1 has some documents (picture and application rate) on the millings project.

TABLE 23 Documents on chip seal

Question D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
Any Documents x x x 0 o
Use millings? x x x 0 x
Docs with millings? x o o 0 o
x = yes, o = no

Selection Criteria for Chip Sealing

Every District follows the same procedure to identify the pavements to be chip sealed. They
divided their districts in several continuous sectors. Each year, the maintenance patrol roams
around the sector and identifies the pavements that have distress levels that fit for the chip seal.
That is, pavements over a District are maintained for chip sealing by cyclic order. Each District
has its own choice of distresses for chip sealing. Table 24 shows the distresses for which
different Districts do chip sealing. For cracking (any kind of), skid resistance and water
infiltration, all Districts prefer to use chip seal. For bleeding, only District 4 uses chip seal. For
moisture damage, only D1 uses chip seal.

TABLE 24 Distresses for which chip seal is applied

37
 Distress Type D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
Cracking x x x x x
Oxidation x x o o x
Rutting o x x o o
Wearing Surface x o o o x
Skid resistance x x x o x
Bleeding o o x o o
Raveling o x x x o
Moisture infiltration x x x x x
Moisture damage x o o x o

Most of the Districts don’t follow a severity and extent level for which the pavement should be
chip sealed. They select the pavement solely based on experience. For too much cracking, D1
uses blade patch prior to chip seal. Chip sealing is done after 6 months of blade patch to give
enough time to cure. D2 uses crack sealing prior to chip sealing, for larger cracks. Crack sealing
is done at least three months before chip sealing for proper curing. For other distresses, they use
blade patch at least one month before the chip seal. District 6 uses crack sealing at least one year
before chip sealing, for cracks larger than 1/4 in. If smaller cracks and oxidation more than 50
exist, chip seal is used. Only for oxidation, fog seal is preferred by D6.

Materials

As shown in Table 25, D1, D2 and D4 use 3/8 in. chips whereas D6 uses 1/2 in. chips. The
application rate ranges from 15 to 40 psy. D6 uses 28 psy whereas D1 uses only 18 psy. All
Districts determine the application rate based on experience and trial rate in the field. They damp
the aggregate before or during the day of construction. This action controls the dust and enhances
better bonding between chips and oil. None of the Districts pre-coat the chips. None of the
Districts do laboratory testing for quality assurance of the chips. They completely rely on the test
results provided by the contractors. Sometimes they do sieve analysis to cross check the chip
size.

TABLE 25 Chips size and rate

38
 Criteria D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
Maximum Size 3/8'' 3/8'' 3/8'' 1/2'' and 3/8'' 1/2''
Application rate (lb/sq.yd) 18 15-20 15-40 24 28
Determined by Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp.
Damp x x x x x
Pre-coat o o o o o
Tests performed o o o o o
Oil (emulsion)

All Districts use High Float Emulsion 100 with Polymer (HFE100P). They determine the
application rate based on experience. They distribute the oil on the road at a certain rate. If the oil
is not distributed uniformly, they adjust the height and pressure of the nozzle. The typical rate
ranges from 0.4 to 0.56 depending on the pavement condition as shown in Table 26. Pavement
with more cracks/distress requires more oil. Some of the Districts started using milling as chip
seal. D6 says that use of millings doesn’t have significant effect on binder application rate. On
the other hand D2 says that use of millings reduces the binder application rate.

TABLE 26 Oil type and application rate

Criteria D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
Type HFE100P HFE100P HFE100P HF HFE100P
Application rate 0.5
0.42-0.56 0.45M-0.5V 0.35-0.5 0.45-0.51
(gal/sq.yd)
Determined by Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp. Exp.
Site Condition and Preparation

Investigation of the existing pavement condition during the time of construction is very
important for a successful chip sealing. The temperature during the day of construction and the
following day is very significant. If temperature is below 60 °F, it will take a long for the binder
to cure. Surface binder may become harder while leaving unbroken oil inside. This may cause
bad bonding between chips and oil and results in premature failure in chip sealing, which was
observed in some pavements in New Mexico. Therefore, chip sealing is done during late spring
and summer, typical May to August. Depending on the territory, some of the Districts may start
earlier or end later months. For example, D1 starts chip sealing as early as in April and continues
as late as September. Chip sealing should not be done if there is forecast for rain during and after
several days of construction. It may wash out the chips before firmly boded. If there is a freezing
temperature warning during or the following day of constructing, the crew should not proceed
with chip sealing.

The surface is broomed properly and sometimes tack coat is applied. The edges are cleaned of
for vegetation if there is any. Sometimes crack sealing is done if it is open more than ¼ in. D6
does the crack sealing at least one year before the chip sealing to give enough time to cure. D2
wait about three months after crack sealing before chip seal. If there are other distresses as for
example raveling, rutting, moisture damage and bleeding, they use blade patch at least one
month prior to chip seal. District 1 waits about 6 months after blade patch and before chip seal. If
there are potholes, pothole patching is performed prior to chip seal. All the surface preparations
are performed by field maintenance patrol. They make the surface ready to chip seal for the chip

39
seal crew. Table 27 summarizes the field condition and preparation techniques followed by the
different NMDOT Districts.

TABLE 27 Surface condition and preparation

D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
April- May- May-September
Season May-August May- August
September September
Temperature 65F+ 60F+ 65F+ 60F+ 60F+
Test strip (ft) 250 o 200 x x
Calibration x x x I x
Brooming x x x x x
Crack seal x x o x x
Tack coat o o o o
Patching x x x x x
Fog seal x o o o o
Blade patch o o o o x
Shoulder clean o o o o x

Construction

Table 28 shows a summary of the work done during construction phase. The steps followed by
all districts for chip sealing are similar. Traffic control plan is prepared based on the traffic
condition of the pavement and number of lane and other characteristics. Usually, all districts
follow the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) with little or no modification.

TABLE 28 Construction sequence of chip seal

Steps D1 D2 D4 D5 D6

Traffic control MUTCD MUTCD MUTCD Own MUTCD

Roller type 3 tire 3 tire 3tire+1steel 3 tire 3-4tire

Roller speed 5mph 5mph I I 5mph

Pressure(psi) 90-120 I I I I

No. of passes 6-8 3 3 I 4

Brooming x x x x x

Chips and oil application rate are determined and calibrated on site by using a test strip. Initially,
binder is distributed at a lower rate. If it is uniformly distributed and covers all the area, this rate
is selected. Otherwise, the nozzle height, pressure and rate are adjusted. After selecting a rate for
the oil, the rate shown in the computer of the distributor is checked by comparing the rate
obtained by dividing the total gallons sprayed by the area sprayed. Chips are sprayed on the
pavement at a rate as low as 15 lb/sq. yd. If bleeding is observed, the rate is increased. If the

40
chips are loose, the binder rate in increased. After several trials and error, the chip and oil
application rate are adjusted.

All Districts except District 4 uses pneumatic tire roller. District 4 uses one steel roller in
addition to three pneumatic tire rollers. Steel tire rollers may crash the chips, that is why they are
not preferred. On the other hand, if the pavement surface is not uniform, steel tire will create an
inhomogeneous pressure under the wheel and the compaction will not be uniform. Pneumatic
tires are flexible and can compact uniformly even though the pavement surface is not uniform.
Although compaction densifies the chip seals, more compaction may damage the chip seal.
Therefore, an optimum number of passes is required to set. It is mainly done by visual inspection
of the crew. D1 uses 6-8 passes where D2 and D4 use only 3 passes for compaction. Brooming is
performed on the following day so that the chip seal is hard enough and chips will not be picked
up by the broom.

QA/QC

Table 29 shows the list of jobs performed for QA/QC. As described before chips and oil
application rate is adjusted and checked with computer rate of the distributor of the chip box. All
Districts check the application rate by manually measuring it. It is necessary to calibrate the rate
every time before the chip seal, as the computer may show the wrong rate (e.g., when pump
pressure is too high, it is possible that some of the oil return to the tank instead of going out
through the nozzles). The embedment depth must be checked. If it is not sufficient, more
compaction is required. D6 checks the embedment depth at three stages. Immediately after
spreading, it should be around 30 to 40%. After compaction, it is supposed to be around 50 to
60%. Several days after opened to traffic, the embedment depth should be more than 70%. D1
checks the embedment depth immediately after construction and it should be greater than 50%.
Embedment depth is checked by pulling out a chip from the pavement and visually inspecting.
D2 and D4 do not check the embedment depth by pulling out a chip. They just do a visual
inspection. Chip loss also needs to be measured to control broken windshields as well as to
reduce chip cost. None of the Districts perform any field test to evaluate the characteristics of the
chip seal. D1 fog seal the chip seal only if milling is used as it is already oxidized. Other
Districts do not fog seal the chip seal.

TABLE 29 QA/QC

Criteria D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
x
Check application rate x x x x
Embedment depth >50% o o o >50%
Measure chip loss <3% o o o o
Field tests o o o o o
Fog seal x o o x1 I
1
Not always

41
Thickness, Life and Cost

Statewide the thickness of chip seal varies from 3/8 in. to 1in. The maximum thickness of chip
seal for D1 is about 3/8 in. whereas for D4 it is 1 in. Life of chip seal varies from 3 to10 years.
As discussed before, chip sealing is done in a cyclic manner. Therefore, the time period for the
cycle equal to the life of chip seal for some of the districts. Some of the Districts, e.g., D1does
chip sealing if the pavement condition is bad regardless the cycle. The cost of chip sealing
increased in last few years as oil price increased a lot. It takes as much as $25000 to chip seal a
lane mile while it was only $10,000 a few years back. The number of field crew involved in chip
seal and the lane miles that can be completed in a day is important for cost analysis. D2 has 15
people whereas D4 has 23 people involved in chip seal. Both of Districts can finish 5 lane miles
in a day. D4 is capable of chip sealing more than 5 lane miles in a day. Because of the budget
issue, they cannot use more than 5 oil tankers in a day by which only five lane miles are possible
to chip seal. Table 30 summarizes the information about the thickness, life and cost.

TABLE 30 Thickness, life and cost

D1 D2 D4 D5 D6

Thickness 3/8'' 1/2'' 1'' 1'' 1/2''

Life (yrs) 3-5 6-7 5-11 5-7 7-10

Cost ($/sq.yd) 2.63 2.84-3.55 I I 1.99

No. of crew 21 15 23 30-35 17

I
Lane mile/day 3 5 5 8

Selection of Candidate Pavement

From each District, 3 pavements were selected for further cost effective analysis as shown in
Table 31. Pavement was selected as i) chip sealed with millings, ii) chip sealed with virgin
materials, and iii) will be chip sealed or chip sealed this year. Chip sealed is mainly used on state
roads where traffic volume is low.

TABLE 31 Candidate chip sealed pavements for cost analysis

D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
With millings NM284 MP0.2- NM371 MP
NM15 MP 0-1 I40 MP303
(old) 6 32.5-43
Without millings NM549 MP 4- NM249 MP32- NM537 MP
NM122 MP 0-5
(old) 5 43 24-38
With millings NM119 MP 0- NM554 MP?
NM102 I NM53
(new) 5.5

42
Sand/Fine Seal

Documents

All of the NMDOT Districts do not like to use sand seal because of the instrument and
manpower issue. Few sand seals were constructed by contractors. Recently D1 and D4 did some
fine sealing using milling materials. They used the chip box to spread the sand. None of the
Districts have any written documents or standards for fine seal. D1 has some information on the
oil and fines application rates they used. The use of millings as fine seal will be documented at
the end of this study. Table 32 represents the documentation on sand sealing by different
NMDOT districts.

TABLE 32 Documentation on sand sealing

Question D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
Any document? o o o o I
Use millings? x x x o I
Documents on o
x o o I
millings?

Materials

HFE90P is usually used for sand seal. This emulsion performs better in the presence of dust.
Typical application rate is around 0.4 gsy, which is determined based on experience and
experiment on the site by a test strip.

Scrub seal

D1 and D2 don’t use scrub seal and don’t have any information on scrub seal. In D4, NM219
MP15-0 was scrub sealed by contractors, but no information on that project is available by D4.
D6 did scrub seal on NM371 once by contractors and some of the information on that project is
available. Table 33 shows the distress type for which D6 would prefer to use scrub seal.

TABLE 33 Distress type for which scrub seal is preferred

Alligator
Transverse cracking Longitudinal Improve Moisture
cracking Oxidatio Wearing
(Typically Low cracks (Typically skid infiltratio
(Typically, Low n surface
severe) Low severe) resistance n
severe)
x x x x x x x

The maximum aggregate size for scrub seal is 3/8 in. and application rate is around 20 psy.
HFE90P oil is used at a rate around 0.2-0.25 gal/sq.yd rate. All the application rates are
determined based on experience.

43
Slurry Seal

None of the districts use slurry seal. There is no document available on slurry seal.

Patching

Documents

Like chip seal, patching is widely used by NMDOT districts. Only a few documents from D1 and
D6 are available. Other districts don’t have any written procedure or specification. All Districts
sometimes use millings for patching. D1 and D6 have some documents on patching with
millings. Table 34 shows the documentation status on patching.

TABLE 34 Documents on patching

Districts D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
Documents? x o o o x
Use millings? x x x y x
Any documents on o
x o o x
millings

Selection Criteria for Patching

As discussed before, each district has their own maintenance patrol who roams around to find
pavements to be patched. Table 35 shows the distress types for which different district prefer to
use patching. For rutting, pothole and edge damage, almost all Districts prefer to patch the road.
D2 uses patching for these three reasons only. D1 likes to use patching for other distresses and
conditions such as cracking, oxidation, moisture infiltration and moisture damage.

TABLE 35 Distresses for which patching is preferred

Distresses D1 D2 D4 D5 D6
x
Cracking o o x
x
Oxidation x o o o o
Rutting x x x x x
Skid resistance x o o o o
Potholes x x x x x
Edge damage o x x o x
Base damage o o x o o
Moisture infiltration x o o x x
Moisture damage x o o o x

44
Type of Patching and Materials

NMDOT Districts use three types of patching: pothole patch, dig-out patch, and blade patch,
depending on the pavement condition. D1 uses a thin blade patch which is known as skin patch.
If small potholes exist pothole patch is used. It is an emergency type of patching and lasts for a
very short time (as low as three days). If the pothole condition is very bad, that is pothole
continued to sub-base and subgrade; dig-out patch is used sometimes a few days after pothole
patch. For dig-out patch, the pothole is made square and dug out up to the subgrade. D6 always
use dig-out patches within few days after the pothole patching. D6 has three small milling
devices which can be attached to a bob CAT to mill down the pavement. For pothole patching,
ready mix bag material is used. Several brands of bag mix are available in the market such as
QPR and UPN. D1 and D6 use QPR and others use UPN. During winter, bags are stored inside a
room to keep it workable (D2 does it). Dig-out patching is mainly constructed using Hot Mix
Cold Lay (HMCL) material. The mixing is mainly done by contractors. Contractors collect the
millings from the districts and mix it in hot drums and supply it to districts. Braisher Asphalt in
preferred by D1 and D6 and Mesa Verde is preferred by D2. The main benefit of this mix is that
it can be stockpiled for a long time (as long as six months for millings and 8 months for virgin
materials). For larger area with distresses, blade patch is used. For blade patch, hot mix or
HMCL is used. Hot mix requires a lot of materials to be mixed. That is why districts buy HMA
from contractors instead of mixing.

Site Condition and Preparation

Table 36 describes the site condition and preparation for patching. Pothole patching has to be
done all over the year to meet the emergency need. If it is raining, it is not possible to clean the
hole. If possible, dry holes are cleaned for any debris and vegetation. D6 sometimes uses geo-
grid or geotextile on the base to increase capacity. Cold mix is normally used in the summer
season. D1 uses blade patch from March to October and D2 does it from March to August. All
districts do brooming, crack sealing, and tack coating before blade patching.

TABLE 36 Site condition and preparation

D1 D2 D4 D5 D6

Season for pothole Year round Year round Year round Winter Year round

Summer
Cold mix I I I I
season

March to
Blade patch March-October Year round Summer I
August

Pothole cleaning x x x x x
Surface Brooming x x I x x
Crack seal x o i I o
Tack coat x x i x x

45
Construction

Before construction, traffic control should be planned. For pothole patching, none of the Districts
uses any traffic control plan. For blade patch a traffic control plan is required. It includes flagger
control, signs and pilot vehicles. For pothole patching, there is no need for roller. The
construction truck and hand compactor will be enough. For blade patching, D1 uses pneumatic
tire and steel roller for compaction whereas D2, D4 and D6 use steel roller only. For steel roller,
water is sprayed on it continuously during compaction so that HMA/cold does not stick to the
roller. All districts keep a crown height to provide the patch enough room for compaction by
moving traffic. For D2, the crown height ranges from 1/4 in. to 1 in. D4 doesn’t have any exact
value for crown height. It may range from 1/8 in. to 1/4 in. D6 doesn’t keep any crown height is
the compaction is done by roller.

Design Life and Cost

The design life of patching varies from as low as 3 days to as much as 3 years depending on
patching type, weather condition and traffic volume. According to D1, the life of patching ranges
from 2 to 4 years. According to D2, pothole patches lasts around 3 months whereas blade patch
lasts around 3 years. D3 says that their pothole patch has almost no life and blade patch lasts
about a year. D6 says that their pothole patch last around three days, dig-out patch lasts about 1.5
years and blade patch last 3 to 5 years. It was not possible to estimate a cost for any of the district
as pothole or blade patch size and thickness varies over a wide range.

Selection of Candidate Pavements

The districts were asked to provide three pavements where they did any kind of patching. The
first patching should contain millings material, second pavement contains virgin materials and
third one contains millings and will be done or completed recently. Table 16 shows the list of the
pavements.

Thin Overlay

D2 and D4 don’t use any thin overlay therefore no information/documents are available. D6 used
thin overlay once, but it didn’t perform well. Hence, they stopped using it. D1 used thin overlay
several times (about 3'' thick) with and without millings. They may have some documents on
these projects.

Pavements to Be Overlaid

The criteria for selecting a pavement to be overlaid vary district to district. Table 37 shows the
distresses for which D1, D5 and D6 prefer to overlay a pavement. It is observed that both
districts may use thin overlay for cracking and rutting. They may also overlay for some other
distresses as shown in in Table 37. None of the district has any severity and extent limit. They
select the pavement based on experience.

46
TABLE 37 Distresses for which a pavement to be overlaid

Distress D1 D5 D6

Cracking x o x

Oxidation o o x

Rutting x o x

Skid resistance x x o

Bleeding o o o

Raveling x o o

Moisture infiltration x I I

Moisture damage x o o

I
Wearing surface I x

Material and Construction

The maximum aggregate size for D1 is 1'' and for D6 is 3/4''. As binder D1 uses HFE300P
emulsion whereas D6 uses PG70-22 asphalt. D1 constructs their thin overlay between May and
September. None of the district specified any pavement temperature requirement for thin overlay.
Both districts prepare the surface by brooming, tack coating and patching (if necessary).
MUTCD is used as traffic control plan by D6. After lying down the mix, D1 compacts it using
pneumatic tire roller and steel wheel roller. D6 uses vibratory roller and steel wheel roller for
compaction.

Life, Thickness and Cost

Life of the overlay depends on the materials used. According to D1, life of overlay is around 2-3
years if millings is used and may be 5-8 years if Nova Chips are used. According to D6, the life
of thin overlay is around 5 years. D1 uses 3/4'' to 2 '' thick overlay. The cost of thin overlay is
around $15.63 per square yard.

Selection of Candidate Pavements

Three pavements are selected from D1: NM418, MP14-5 (with millings-old), NM90 MP27-33.8
(with virgin materials-old) and NM418 MP5-0 (with millings –new). D6 once used thin overlay
on NM14, however, we need to know if it was constructed using millings or not.

Shoulder Widening

Most of the NMDOT pavements have unpaved shoulders except few US roads and interstate. To
repair or widen the shoulder all the districts use milling materials only. There is no written
document about procedure/standards available or used by the districts. All the collected
information are summarized in Table 38.

47
SUMMARY

The work performed under this section is summarized as below:

 All districts use millings for the maintenance purpose. They are at initial stage and have
not been investigated yet for performance and cost effectiveness.

 Although very few documents are available on maintenance work in New Mexico, none
of the document clearly specifies any design procedure for the maintenance job. All the
works are done based on experience.

 Chip seal and patching are the popular maintenance procedures in New Mexico. Chip
size varies from 3/8'' to 1/2'' and single layer of chip seal is used. All districts use HFE-
100P as binder for chip sealing. Life of chip seal in New Mexico varies between 3 to 10
years

 Pothole, dig-out and blade patch are preferred by all districts. The life of pothole patch is
as low as 3 day whereas blade patch may last for 3 years.

48
TABLE 38 Selection of candidate pavements

District 1 District 2 District 4 District 5 District 6

No Maintenance Witho Futur Witho Futur Witho Futur Witho Futur With Futu
With With With With With
. type ut e ut e ut e ut e out re
millin millin millin millin millin
millin projec millin proje millin proje millin proje millin proje
gs gs gs gs gs
gs t gs ct gs ct gs ct gs ct
NM3
US28 US70 NM1 NM53 NM5 NM1
NM1 NM54 I40 71
NM1 4 MP 19 7 MP 54 22 NM
1 Chip seals 5 MP 9 MP MP30 MP
02 MP 245.2 MP 24-38 MP? MP 53
0-1 4-5 3 32.5-
0.2-6 -259 0-5.5 0-5
43
NM1 NM3 US70 US54
NM9
5 5 MP33 MP23
2 Sand/fine seals MP35 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
MP6- MP0- 7-340 3
-34
7 8
NM21
9 NM3
3 Scrub seals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
MP15 71
-0
4 Slurry seals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
FR FR
NM34 NM4
1020 NM9 1019 US70 NM4
US83 4 MP 35
5 Patching MP MP70 MP MP11 I I MP
MP71 3-7 MP
0.0- -76 0.0- 4 2-2.5
0-4.5
2.8 13.5
NM
NM
NM90 418
418
6 Thin overlay MP27 MP
MP14
-33.8 5.0-
.0-5.0
0.0
NM
US38 US54 NM6
11
Shoulder MP14 0 MP2 02 NM
7 MP
widening .0-5.0 MP16 9.3- MP 371
34.0-
0-165 65.6 0-5
23.0

49
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

50
 PERFORM COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION

Cost benefit analysis and pavement performance evaluation are the two tasks that are supposed
to be performed in this research. However, FHWA and other researchers suggest that cost benefit
analysis should not be performed for pavements as the benefit parameters are difficult to estimate
in monetary value. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is a better tool to compare alternatives
suitable for a project in terms of cost and risk associated with cost. Therefore, LCCA was
performed instead of cost-benefit analysis. Also, all the required data was available only for chip
seal. Thus LCCA of chip seal with and without millings are performed.

SOME DEFINITIONS

LCCA

LCCA is a process for evaluating the total economic worth of a usable project segment by
analyzing initial costs and discounted future cost, such as maintenance, user, reconstruction,
rehabilitation, restoring, and resurfacing costs, over the life of the project segment. It is actually
used to make best choice among different alternatives that may be suitable for the project. As for
example, alternative A may require less initial cost, but over its lifetime, the total cost may be
higher than alternative B, which requires high initial cost. All future cost is calculated in present
value. A conversion factor termed as discount rate is used to convert future dollars in current
dollars. The total lifetime cost converted in current currency is termed as Net Present Value
(NPV).

Discount Rate

Discount rate is like an interest rate that converts the future money in current money. For
example, if one expects to buy an item for $100 one year later and the discount rate is 4%, he can
buy the item now for 100/(1+0.04) = $96.15. The discount rate is obtained from the historic data.
It varies between 3 to 5% with an average of 4%.

Costs

Costs are classified in two categories: User cost and Agency cost. User cost includes user
operating, delay and accident cost. All other costs are included in Agency cost. To compare the
two alternatives, costs common in both alternatives are not considered as they are cancelled out
during comparison.

Risk Analysis

Most of the input parameters for LCCA analysis are not constant. They are either estimated or
assumed and vary over a range. For example, AADT of a road can never be a constant value.
One of the principle input parameters, ‘Discount Rate’, is also a variable parameter. All the
variable parameters result variable cost estimation. The effect of variability of input parameters
on the cost estimation is known as sensitivity analysis for LCCA of pavements. Traditionally,

51
discount rate was considered as the variable parameter for sensitivity analysis. Now, probabilistic
approach of sensitivity analysis is used which uses Monte-Carlo simulation and variability of
different input parameter is considered. Monte-Carlo simulation picks random sets of input
parameters to determine output. With enough samples, the program can determine an overall
composite probability distribution of NPV. Figure 2 describes this concept.

FIGURE 2 Computation of NPV using Monte Carlo simulation (© Realcost manual,

FHWA)

Analyze and Interpret Results

NPV is shown in normal distribution histogram form. Looking at the normal distribution, it can
be easily stated that which alternative is more uncertain over other alternative.

Risks are classified in two categories, upside and downside. For upside risk, estimated cost has a
risk to be more than the actual cost. For downside risk, estimated cost has risk to be less than the
actual cost. Figure 3 shows an example of the output. Looking at the plot, it can be easily stated
that alternate B is more uncertain compare to alternate A as B is more widespread. Also,
alternative B has very high probability of upside risk, which is an overestimate.

Tornado plot is used to demonstrate the effect of individual input parameters on output. The
value can be both positive and negative. Positive value of 0.5 of an input parameter indicates
that, one standard deviation movement of that parameter will result 0.5 of std. movement of the
result in the same direction. Negative value in the tornado plot indicates that movement of input
and NPV will be in the opposite direction.

52
Decision Making

A decision is made mainly based on the shape of the distribution curve, cost saving and the
upside or downside risk. It depends on the decision makers. Some agencies like to take risks.
They would prefer less costly but more risky options. As shown in Figure 3, the agency would
prefer alternate B.

FIGURE 3 An example of the output in normal distribution form. (© FHWA)

LCCA OF CHIP SEAL PROJECT FROM NEW MEXICO

Chip seal is the most popular maintenance treatment used in New Mexico. Information about life
and cost are available only for chip seal from the recent survey with five NMDOT Districts.
Therefore, all analyses are made on chip seal with or without millings. District 1 provided cost
information of thin overlay. Therefore, LCCA of thin overlay for District 1 were also made.
Information about the service life and cost of chip seal with virgin materials were provided by
the districts during the survey. Price agreement and other survey responses were used to calculate
the cost of chip seal with millings. Assumptions were made about the life of chip seal with
millings, as no information is available.

53
Methodology

A Survey Questionnaire about the cost of chip seal with and without millings was sent to
different transportation Districts in New Mexico. Three NMDOT Districts (District 1, 4 and 6)
responded. Collected information was used in FHWA RealcostTM software to perform life cycle
cost analysis (LCCA). Both deterministic and probabilistic approaches were used. Benefit for a
pavement is difficult to determine in monetary value. Performance plot over the time is used to
evaluate the benefit of a pavement. Using benefit and life cycle cost (LCC), Effectiveness Index
(EI) for each alternative (with and without millings) is determined. EI is a composite index that
considers cost and benefit. Figure 4 shows the flowchart of how EI is determined for chip seal
with and without millings.

Survey with NMDOT Districts NMDOT database

Collect performance data

Cost of virgin chips Cost of chip seal w/o millingsService Life
Cost to process millings

Evaluate benefits

Cost of chip seal with millings

Life cycle cost

Determine EI

FIGURE 4 Flowchart to determine effectiveness index

Selection of Candidate Pavements

Districts were asked to provide two pavements: one that was chip sealed using virgin chips and
other that was chip sealed using millings. Both pavements should have similar traffic, damage as
well as weather condition or terrain. Only three out of six NMDOT Districts use both millings
and virgin chips for chip sealing and other three use only virgin chips. Table 39 shows the list of
pavement sections selected for this study. All of them are state highways as chip seal is preferred
only for low volume roads in New Mexico. Some chip seal were constructed in different year
than others. This should not affect the analysis as performance data during its service life was
used.

TABLE 39 List of pavements selected for cost-effectiveness analysis

District Material Road Mile Post Chip seal date

1 with millings NM 15 0-1 2013
without millings NM549 4-5 2009
4 with millings NM119 MP 0-5.5 2014
without millings NM72 MP2.5-36.8 2014
6 with millings NM122 MP 0-5 2009
without millings NM371 MP32-43 2012

54
LCCA

LCCA is a process for evaluating the total economic worth of a usable project segment by
analyzing initial costs and discounted future cost. It is actually used to make best choice among
different alternatives that may be suitable for the project. For example, alternative A may require
less initial cost, but over its lifetime, the total cost may be higher than alternative B, which
requires high initial cost. All future cost is calculated in present value. A conversion factor
termed as discount rate is used to convert future dollars in current dollars. The total lifetime cost
converted in current currency is termed as Net Present Value (NPV). NPV is determined using
Eq. (3). If total cost is distributed uniformly throughout the service life, it is termed as Equivalent
Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) and determined using Eq. (4).

Net Present Value (NPV) = Initial construction cost (IC) + discounted future cost (FC)

1
NPV =IC + FC ×
(1+i)n (3)

EUAC=NPV
[ i(1+i)n
(1+i)n −1 ] (4)

where i = discount rate and n is year of FC from IC.

Cost Estimation

To perform LCCA, FHWA RealcostTM software was used. As this study is to compare chip seal
with and without millings, other factors except material cost should be similar in both cases.
Therefore, user cost was not considered for this study. Cost information was collected from
three districts for chip seal with virgin chips and processing cost of millings. Districts were asked
if they do any other treatments before and after chip seal. District 1 and 6 do crack seal 6 months
and one year before chip seal respectively. District 1 and 6 do fog seal in few months after chip
seal to protect it from aging as well as to seal it. Districts were also asked to provide life cycle
information of their chip seal. Table 40 shows the information collected from Districts on life
cycle and cost of chip seal with virgin chips including fog seal and crack seal. Fog seal cost was
obtained from the state price agreement; therefore, the same rate was used for both District 1 and
6.

TABLE 40 Cost and life cycle of chip seal with virgin chips

Districts Crack seal Applied Chip seal Fog seal Cost Life cycle Service
cost ($) before chip cost ($) cost ($) including (years) life
seal (years) fog seal ($) (years)
D1 2500 0.5 14000 790 14790 6 to 7 5.5-6.5
D4 Not used N/A 12000 Not used 12000 5 to 11 5-11
D6 6000 1 10500 790 11290 7 to 10 6-9

55
Costs of virgin chips were obtained from price agreement. Districts were also asked if they do
additional treatments if they use millings instead of virgin chips, whether Districts put an extra
layer of fog seal to decrease aging, whether millings require more or less emulsion. Cost of chip
seal with millings was then determined. Life cycle as well as discount rate is not a constant
value. Therefore, probabilistic LCCA analysis was performed in addition to deterministic
analysis. RealcostTM uses Monte Carlo simulation to perform probabilistic analysis. An analysis
period of 15 years was used for this analysis. Table 41 shows the input parameters as obtained
from the Districts. For initial construction cost with virgin chip, a single value is used. For
probabilistic analysis, normal distribution was used for initial construction cost with millings and
uniform distribution for life cycle and discount rate.

TABLE 41 Input values for RealcostTM LCCA

District Initial Cost Life cycle Discount rate

s With virgin chips With millings With virgin chips With millings
1 Deterministic Normal Uniform (5.5,6.5) Uniform (5.5,6.5) Uniform (3,5)
(14790) (14117, 176)
4 Deterministic Normal Uniform (5,11) Uniform (5,11) Uniform (3,5)
(12000) (9938,176)
6 Deterministic Normal Uniform (6, 9) Uniform (6, 9) Uniform (3,5)
(11290) (9228, 176)

Expenditure Stream Diagram (ESD)

ESD diagram is used to represent all cost information with time, that is, how much money is
spent at the different stage of analysis period. Figure 5(a), (b) and (c) shows the expenditure
stream diagram for District 1, 4 and 6 respectively. To construct this diagram, only deterministic
values are used. Average values are used for cost with millings and life cycle. From the plot it is
observed that District 1 has higher expenditure at the beginning but requires less for crack
sealing whereas District 6 has lower initial cost but higher crack sealing cost. District 4 does not
do any crack or fog sealing and it also has lower construction cost. Salvage value is another
important parameter that is shown in the figure by negative values. It is calculated based on the
remaining service life of last activity. Newly constructed chip seal has higher salvage value than
the old one. This value is deducted from total expenditure to determine NPV. Salvage value is
calculated using Eq. (5) as follows:

Remaining service life of last activity

Salvage value= ×Cost of last activity (5)
service life of last activity

For example, for District 1, cost of last activity is $14,790, service life is 5.5 to 6.5 years with an
average of 6 years. Remaining service life is obtained by deducting number of years the last
activity is in service from service life, which is 6-2 = 4 years. Then:

4
Salvage value= ×14,790=$ 9,860
6

56
 Object 9

Object 11

(a) District 1 (b) District 4

Object 13

(c) District 6
FIGURE 5 Expenditure stream diagram
Deterministic Output from LCCA

Table 42 shows the deterministic result obtained from LCCA using Realcost TM. Both NPV and
EUAC are shown for chip seal with millings and with virgin chips. It is observed that chip seal
with millings costs less than chip seal with virgin chips for all districts. NPV as well as EUAC is
very high for District 1. District 1 chip seal has service life of six year. Therefore, it has to chip
sealed three times during analysis period and crack and fog sealed twice. For District 4, life cycle
for chip seal is 8 years, therefore, chip seal was considered twice during the analysis period.
Also, no crack or fog seal is used for District 4 chip seal. These factors resulted in lower values
for NPV as well as EUAC for District 4.

TABLE 42 Deterministic output from LCCA

District NPV ($) EUAC ($)

With virgin chips With millings With virgin chips With millings
1 33424 32064 2669 2464
4 19936 16509 1793 1485
6 23087 19672 2077 1769

57
Probabilistic Output from LCCA

Figure 6(a), (b) and (c) shows the probabilistic output for NPV for District 1, 4, and 6
respectively. It is observed that chip seal with millings curve is located on the left of chip seal
with virgin chips curve in the probability distribution plot. This indicates, for any probability,
chip seal with millings costs less than chip seal with virgin chips. All peaks for chip seal with
millings are higher than virgin chips. That is, cost of chip seal with millings is more stable than
with virgin chips. Figure 6(d) shows the standard deviation of NPV. It is observed that, chip seal
with millings always has less standard deviation than with virgin chips. This means that less risks
are associated with the cost estimation of chip seal with millings than with virgin chips.

Object 17

Object 15

(a) District 1 (b) District 4

Object 20

Object 22

(c) District 6 (d) Standard deviation of NPV

FIGURE 6 NPV from probabilistic analysis
Determination of Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

The present serviceability index (PSI) is based on the original AASHO Road Test (28). Usually, a
PSI value of 2.0 or less represents the unacceptable range. Pavement must be maintained before
PSI reaches to 2.0.

58
Several models for calculating PSI are available. The original regression equation developed
during the AASHTO Road Test is as follows (28):

PSI=5.03−1.91 log ( 1+ SV ) −0.01 √ C+ P−1.38 RD2 (6)

SV= slope variance, C = crack length (linear ft. per 1000 ft2), P = patching area (square ft. per
1000 ft2), RD = mean Rut depth (in).

Recently, it was observed that measurement of International Roughness Index (IRI) only instead
of all cracking, rutting and patching is enough to determine PSI of a pavement. Some of the
equations are:
4 3 2
PSI=5−0.2397 x +1.1771 x −1.4045 x −1.5803 x (7)

where x=log ( 1+SV )∧SV =2.2704 IRI 2

PSI=5.671−1.714 √ IRI (8)

Eq. (7) is used in this study as it is recent and widely used.

PSI increased by single application of chip seal can be determined using the model by Al-
Mansour and Sinha (29),

∆ PSI =0.3325 ×( PSI i−1.433)

(9)

where ΔPSI = gain in pavement serviceability owing to chip seal activity, and PSIi = PSI
immediately before the chip seal application. Therefore, PSI value after chip seal is:

PSI f =1.3325 PSI i−0.476 (10)

where PSIf = PSI after chip seal application.

This equation can be used to determine PSI before chip seal, if PSI after chip seal is known.

Sometimes distress data are collected several years after chip seal construction. PSI calculated
from this data cannot be used directly with the model described by Eq. (10). Therefore, a new
model is developed during this study to predict PSI before and after chip seal construction, given
that one PSI any time after construction is known. This model combines Eq. (10) and design life
assuming that PSI before construction is same as PSI at the end of design life and PSI varies
linearly with time. Eq. (11) shows the model to determine PSI before chip seal

PSI t t d + 0.476(t d−t)

PSI i= (11)
1.3325 t d −0.3325 t

where td =life cycle, t = any time from construction, years; PSIt = PSI at any time t. It can be
noted that Eq. (10) is used for PSI after chip seal.

59
PSI for Different District

Table 43 shows the PSI before and after chip seal construction for selected pavement sections.
For NM15 MP 0-1, distress data were collected before chip seal and PSI before chip seal is
computed. After chip seal PSI is calculated using Eq. (10). For NM122 MP 0-5, distress data
were collected on 2013 whereas chip seal was constructed during 2009. Therefore, Eq. (11) was
used to calculate PSI before construction and Eq. (10) was used to calculate PSI after
construction.

TABLE 43 PSI of selected pavements

Districts Pavements Materials Before construction After construction

PSI Comments PSI Comments
1 NM15P MP0-1 with millings 2.36 Data collected 2.67 Using Eq. (8)
NM9M with virgin chips 2.32 Using Eq. (8) 2.62 Data collected
MP32-36
4 NM119 MP0- with millings 2.18 Data collected 2.43 Using Eq. (8)
5.5
NM72 MP 2.5- with virgin chips 2.15 Data collected 2.39 Using Eq. (8)
36.8
6 NM122 MP 0-5 with millings 2.59 Using Eq. (9) 2.97 Using Eq. (8)
NM371 MP 32- with virgin chips 2.53 Using Eq. (8) 2.89 Data collected
43
Effectiveness Index

Effectiveness Index (EI) is a parameter that is used to combine benefit with cost and to compare
different alternatives. Benefit from any project includes user, social, economic and
environmental benefit, etc. However, it is subjective to quantify those benefits in terms of
monetary value. For pavements, all benefits are related to its performance. A pavement with low
PSI value increases user cost, pollutes the environment and introduce social problems. A
pavement with higher PSI value reduces user cost. Other performance indices rather than PSI
may also be used to indicate benefit of a pavement. However, for simplicity, all analysis in this
paper is made using PSI value.

Peshkin’s Method

The total benefit of a maintenance activity is defined as the benefit area (A) divided by the do-
nothing area (B+C) of the performance curve as shown in Figure 7 and given by Eq. (12). The
benefit cost ratio is simply the total benefit divided by the EUAC (Eq. (13)). The benefit cost
ratio of an alternative divided by the maximum benefit cost ratio among all alternatives is the EI
for that alternative (Eq. (14)). EI values for all alternatives are determined and the alternative
with maximum EI the most cost effective maintenance procedure.

Benefit area A
Total Benefit= = (12)
Do nothing area B+C

60
 Total benefit
B−C ratio= (13)
EUAC

(B−C ratio)i
EI i= (14)
(B−C ratio)max

A
PSI

B
C

Time
FIGURE 7 Benefit obtained from pavement maintenance
Modification to Peshkin’s Method

This modification is useful when only performance of different maintenance activity is known
instead of entire performance history. When alternatives are considered for same project, the do-
nothing area in Eq. (14) is cancelled out for both alternatives. Suppose, ‘A1’ is benefit area for
alternative A and ‘A2’ is the benefit area for alternate B. Then total area below the curve of
alternate A is ‘A1+C’ and total area for below the curve of alternate B is ‘A2+C’. Where, ‘C’ is
the part of do-nothing area that is below the benefit area as shown in Figure 7. The alternative
that has higher EI value as determined by Eq. (14) has the higher EI value if ‘A1+C’ or ‘A2+C’ is
used instead of ‘A1’ or ‘A2’.

Prediction Model for PSI

To determine EI, the PSI must be obtained first. If enough past data is available to plot PSI with
respect to time for one cycle, there is no need for prediction model. Otherwise, the shape of the
performance plot is determined using the following prediction model:
β2
PSI ( t )=PSI (0)−β1 t (15)

where PSI (t) = PSI at time t; t = time in years; PSI (0) = PSI immediately after the treatment; β1
and β2 are fitting parameters. The value β2 depends on the Structural Number (SN) of the
pavement. β2>1 for lower SN value and the shape is convex, β2<1 for higher SN value and the
shape is concave, and shape is linear for β2 =1 . To use this model, at least two PSI values must
be known. For this study, β2 =1 is used as limited performance data is available.

61
Calculation of EI

Figure 8 (a), (b) and (c) shows the performance plot for chip seal with or without millings for
District 1, 4, and 6 respectively. It is observed that initial and terminal PSI for chip seal with
millings is higher than chip seal without millings for all Districts. Terminal PSI for all Districts is
set as the maximum PSI after service life. From Figure 8, it is observed that chip seal with
millings always have higher PSI at the end of service life. Service life of chip seal without
millings is calculated using terminal PSI as shown by blue lines in Figure 8. The trapezoidal
area below each line is used as benefit for each category.

Object 48

Object 46

(a) District 1 (b) District 4

Object 50

(c) District 6
FIGURE 8 PSI plot for chip seal with time
Table 44 shows the step by step calculation for EI. Benefit is calculated by taking area under the
curve of Figure 7. EUAC was determined previously in LCCA analysis. B-C ratio is determined
by dividing benefit by EUAC. EI is calculated using Eq. (14).

TABLE 44 Calculation of effectiveness index

Step Description District 1 District 4 District 6

1 Benefit with millings 16.35 18.44 23.93
without millings 13.70 16 17.61
2 EUAC ($) with millings 2464 1484 1769
without millings 2669 1793 2077

62
3 B-C ratio with millings 0.66 1.24 1.35
without millings 0.51 0.89 0.85
4 EI (%) with millings 100 100 100
without millings 77 72 63

Results from this study can be summarized as shown in Figure 9. For all districts, chip seal
millings have higher EI value compared to chip seal without millings. Therefore, chip seal with
millings is more cost-effective over chip seal with virgin chips. Difference of EI between chip
seal with and without millings for District 6 is higher than District 1. That is, chip seal with
millings is more cost effective for District 6 than District 1.

Object 52

FIGURE 9 Cost-effectiveness of millings over virgin chips

After evaluating life cycle cost, benefit and effectiveness index it is concluded that chip seal with
millings is more cost-effective than chip seal with virgin chips. Chip seal with millings is 23%
more cost effective than chip seal with virgin chips for District 1. For District 6, chip seal with
millings is 37% more cost effective than chip seal with virgin chips.

SUMMARY

Cost for chip seal with or without millings was obtained from survey and price agreement of
different NMDOT Districts. RealcostTM software was used to determine life cycle cost.
Performance plots over time were used to evaluate benefit of chip seal with and without millings.
Once benefit-cost ratios were known, they were used to calculate the EI. It is observed that, for
all three Districts, EI value for chip seal with millings is much higher than EI value with virgin
chips. Therefore, it is concluded that chip seal with millings is more cost-effective than chip seal
with virgin chips. Chip seal with millings is 23% more cost effective than chip seal with virgin
chips for District 1. For District 6, chip seal with millings is 37% more cost effective than chip
seal with virgin chips.

63
64
 MONITOR FIELD PERFORMANCE
INTRODUCTION

The main objective for maintaining a pavement is to keep it in serviceable condition. Therefore,
it is necessary to quantify the serviceability of a pavement to identify whether it requires
maintenance or not. Pavement serviceability is evaluated by quantifying distresses (both severity
and extent) and ride quality or roughness. Many indices are used to quantify the serviceability.
Some require manual measuring of the distresses and manual analysis. Some indices can be
measured directly or calculated from the automated data collected. This part of the report
includes the determination of those indices for the project selected from five NMDOT districts.

Life Cycles Cost was determined for all selected projects in previous quarter. However, a project
with low life cycle cost may have less benefit in the long run and vice versa. Therefore, benefit
cost ratio is mandatory to justify different alternative for a project. Benefit cost ratios of chip seal
projects from District 1were determined. Several assumptions were made during the calculation,
as enough data was not available.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PERFORMANCE PARAMETERS

Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a numerical index between 0 and 100 which is used to
indicate the general condition of a pavement, where 100 representing the best possible condition
and 0 representing the worst possible condition. PCI is calculated using the following equation:

PCI f =PCI i−∑ Deductions (16)

The deduction values are determined based on the severity and extent of each of the different
distresses. The type, extent and severity of pavement distress in each section are recorded
manually. Therefore, for a long pavement section, it is a difficult job to perform. To address this
problem, sampled locations are surveyed instead of the whole pavement section. With the
progress of technology, it is possible to quantify pavement distresses automatically and very
quickly and for the full pavement length instead of selected samples. Therefore, PCI is very
rarely used now-a-days.

Slope Variance (SV)

It is the variance of slopes of a road profile measured by any quarter car. Measurement of SV as
an indicator of pavement roughness was first introduced during AASHO road test and CHOLE
profilometer was used. Later International Roughness Index (IRI) was introduced as a measure
of pavement roughness.

65
International Roughness Index (IRI)

The international roughness index (IRI) was developed by the World Bank in the 1980. IRI is
used to define the characteristic of the longitudinal profile of pavement. The commonly
recommended units are meters per kilometer (m/km) or millimeters per meter (mm/m). The IRI
is based on accumulated suspension motion (in mm, inches, etc.) divided by the distance traveled
by the vehicle during the measurement (km, mi, etc.).

Present Serviceability Rating (PSR)

PSR is defined as the judgment of an observer as to the current ability of a pavement to serve the
traffic it is meant to serve. To generate the original AASHO Road Test PSR scores, observers
rode around the test tracks and rated their ride using the quantitative scale. This subjective scale
ranges from 5 (excellent) to 0 (essentially impassable). A PSR value of less than 2.5 was
indicated as unacceptable pavement condition by the raters.

Present Serviceability Index (PSI)

The present serviceability index (PSI) is based on the original AASHO Road Test PSR (28).
Basically, the PSR was a ride quality rating that required a panel of observers to ride in an
automobile over the pavement in question. Since this type of rating is not practical for large-scale
pavement networks, a transition to a non-panel based system was needed. A panel of raters
during 1958 to 1960 rated various roads in the states of Illinois, Minnesota, and Indiana for PSR.
This information was then correlated to various pavement measurements (such as slope variance
(profile), cracking, etc.) to develop PSI equations. Usually, a PSI value of 2.0 or less represents
the unacceptable range. Pavement must be maintained before PSI reaches to 2.0. The different
methods available for PSI are provided in previous section.

Mean Ruth Depth

Since 2013 NMDOT stopped using PSI and started using mean rut depth as performance
parameter. Mean rut depth is scaled from 0 to 3 depending on the severity. Table 45 shows the
severity values corresponding to different rut depth.

TABLE 45 Severity corresponding to different rut depth

Rut Depth Severity

Matrix 1 & 2 Matrix 3 & 4
0 – 1/8” 0 – 1/8” 0
1/8” – 0.25” 1/8” – 0.25” 1
0.25” – 0.50” 0.25” – 0.65” 2
>0.50” >0.65” 3

66
RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Performance Calculated from different PSI Models

Figure 10 shows the PSI value calculated for a pavement segment on FR1020 MP 0-2.8 using
three different models. All three models give almost same PSI values. For further analysis, model
2 (Eq. (7)) is used as it is recent and widely used. For the three mile segment, only one location
has PSI value less than 2.0, thus requires emergency maintenance. The average PSI for this
segment is about 2.5. Surface treatment should be applied if PSI falls below 3.0. If PSI
approaches to 2.0, it should be overlaid which may cost more than surface treatments (i.e., chip
seal).

Object 56

FIGURE 10 PSI calculated by different models on FR1020 MP 0-3

Performance for Chip Seal with or without Millings

Figure 11 compares two projects from District 1. NM15P MP0-1 used millings whereas NM549
P MP4-5 used virgin chips. Both performance curves are closer to each other, that is chip seal
with millings doesn’t affect the PSI of the pavement. However, it is necessary to make sure that
both pavements had same initial condition before applying chip seal to make a final conclusion.
Parameters necessary to evaluate initial condition are PSI value, structural number (SN) of the
pavement, etc.

PSI before and after Chip Seal

Figure 12 describes the PSI value before and after chip seal for NM15P MP0-1. PSI before the
treatment was measured and after treatment was predicted. It is more logical to measure
performance before and after chip seal than prediction. It is observed from Figure 12 that for
location with higher PSI gain higher performance due to chip seal than location with lower PSI.
That is, performance gain of chip seal is controlled significantly by initial PSI value of the
pavement.

67
 Object 58

FIGURE 11 Comparison of PSI values for chip seal with and without millings

Object 60

FIGURE 12 Comparison of before and after PSI value

COMPARISON OF PSI FOR DIFFERENT MAINTENANCE PROJECTS

District 1

PSI Value for different maintenance projects are shown in Table 46 and Table 47. Table 46 shows
pavements for which both maintenance date and performance data collection data are known. In
some cases, PSI before the treatment is known and after treatment PSI is determined using Eq.
(9) or (10) and vice versa. For the first three pavements in Table 46, chip seal is applied when
PSI value is less than 2.5. For these pavements, chip seal increased the PSI little bit and they are
still under 3.0. For last two pavements, chip seal were applied when PSI is little bit more than

68
2.50. In these cases, chip seal increased PSI little bit above 3.0. Table 47 shows the pavements
for which the treatment dates are not known yet. All these pavements have PSI less than 3.0 and
one of them has PSI as low as 2.5.

District 2

PSI values for different projects from District 2 are shown in Table 48. For first two projects
initial PSI was 3.16 and chip seal increased it to 3.72. For last two pavements, PSI is more than
4.0. It seems those pavements are recently overlaid or newly constructed.

District 4

PSI values for different maintenance projects from District 4 are shown in Table 49. It is
observed that both of the pavements were treated with slurry seal. In both cases PSI before
treatment is not known. PSI after treatment for both cases is 3.22.

District 5

PSI values for different maintenance projects from District 5 are shown in Table 50. For all
pavements, the maintenance date is not known yet. For all pavements, PSI values are little bit
less than 3.0.

District 6

PSI values for different maintenance projects from District 6 are shown in Table 51 and 52. Table
51 shows the pavements for which maintenance dates as well as performance data collection date
are known. Table 52 shows PSI for pavements for which maintenance date are not known yet.
From Table 51, it is observed that a double pen chip seal was applied for both of the pavements.
The PSI calculated from performance data is 3.34 for M-direction and 3.05 for P-direction. Eq.
(10) is used to determine the pavement condition before the chip seal. The PSI was 2.58 for N
direction and 2.40 for P direction. From Table 52, it is observed that one pavement has PSI as
low as 2.34 and one pavement has PSI as high as 3.38. As the maintenance history is not known
yet, it is not possible to conclude whether the PSI values are obtained before or after the
treatments.

69
TABLE 46 PSI for different projects from District 1

Project Treatment Project Performance PSI from performance PSI calculated by 2008 PSI
completed data data equation
From Survey From database on collected on before After before After
treatment treatment treatment treatment
NM15P Chip Seal with Chip Seal with 10/2/13 9/23/2013 2.36 x x 2.67 1.81
MP0-1 milling milling
NM9M Sand seal Chip seal 9/9/2013 2/11/2014 x 2.62 2.32 x
MP32-36 without millings without millings
NM9P Sand seal Chip seal 9/9/2013 2/11/2014 x 2.67 2.36 x 2.37
MP32-36 without millings without millings
NM90M Thin overlay Chip seal 10/1/2013 11/4/2013 x 3.16 2.73 x 4.14
MP27-32 without milling without millings
Fog seal 10/23/2013
NM90P Thin overlay Chip seal 10/1/2013 11/4/2013 x 3.16 2.73 x 3.53
MP27-32 without milling without millings
Fog seal 10/23/2013

TABLE 47 PSI for pavements from District 1 for which maintenance treatment dates are not known

Project Treatment PSI from performance data 2008 PSI

NM549 M MP4-5 Chip seal without millings 2.78
NM15M MP6-7 Sand seal with millings 2.52
NM15P MP6-7 Sand seal with millings 2.60
FR1020M MP 0-2.8 Patching with millings 2.56
FR1020P MP 0-2.8 Patching with millings 2.41
NM9M MP 70-76 Patching without millings 2.54
NM9P MP 70-76 Patching without millings 2.62 2.81
NM418M MP 14-5 Thin overlay with millings 2.85
NM418P MP 14-5 Thin overlay with millings 2.82 3.61

70
TABLE 48 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 2

Project Treatment Project Performance PSI from performance data PSI calculated by equation 2008 PSI
From Survey From database complet data before After before After treatment
ed on collected on treatment treatment treatment
US285 M Chip Seal Chip Seal with 2013 9/20/2013 x 3.73 3.16 x
MP 0.2-6 with milling milling
US285 P Chip Seal Chip Seal with 2013 9/20/2013 x 3.73 3.16 x 4.31
MP 0.2-6 with milling milling
US380M Shoulder Shoulder 2010 12/4/2013 4.41 x x
MP155-162 widening reconstruction
US380P Shoulder Shoulder 2010 1/22/2014 4.32 x x
MP155-162 widening reconstruction

TABLE 49 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 4

Project Treatment Project Performance PSI from performance data 2008 PSI
From Survey From database completed on data collected on before After
treatment treatment
NM219M Slurry seal Slurry seal 2011 1/7/2014 x 3.22
MP 15-0
NM219P Slurry seal Slurry seal 2011 1/7/2014 x 3.22 2.95
MP 15-0

TABLE 50 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 5 for which maintenance dates are not known yet

Project Treatment PSI from performance data 2008 PSI

NM537 M MP24-38 Chip seal without millings 2.90
NM537 P MP24-38 Chip seal without millings 2.81 3.60
NM344M MP 3-7 Patching without millings 2.94
NM344P MP 3-7 Patching without millings 2.96 3.18

TABLE 51 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 6

71
Project Treatment Project Performance PSI from performance data PSI calculated by equation 2008 PSI
From Survey From database completed data before After before After treatment
on collected on treatment treatment treatment
NM602M Shoulder Chip Seal – 6/10/2013 11/19/2013 x 3.34 2.58 x
MP 0-5 widening double pen
NM602P Shoulder Chip Seal – 6/10/2013 11/19/2013 x 3.05 2.40 x 4.16
MP 0-5 widening double pen

TABLE 52 PSI for different maintenance projects from District 6 for which maintenance dates are not known yet

Project Treatment PSI from performance data 2008 PSI

NM122M MP0-5 Chip seal with millings 2.83
NM122P MP0-5 Chip seal with millings 2.75 2.83
NM4M MP2-2.4 Patching without milling 3.38
NM4P MP2-2.4 Patching without milling 3.17 3.25
NM435M MP 0-4.5 Patching with millings 2.39
NM435P MP 0-4.5 Patching with millings 2.34 1.90

72
CASE STUDIES

Millings have been used in several maintenance projects in New Mexico. One thin overlay, one
fine seal, and one chip seal project are presented in this paper.

Case Study I: Use of Millings as Thin Overlay

Coarse and fine millings were collected from US Route 550 (US550). The millings were mixed
in pugmill with different percentages of HFE300 emulsion to determine the minimum percentage
of emulsion that gives a better bonding between particles.

Coarse Millings

The milling has the NMDOT base coarse gradation as shown in Table 53. Figure 13 shows the
stock pile of the coarse millings. It is observed that the crushed millings are black therefore
coated with asphalt that are not aged too much.

TABLE 53 Gradation of coarse millings

Sieve Size %Passing

1.0 in 100
3/4 in 90
No. 4 45
No. 10 32
No. 200 6

FIGURE 13 Stock pile of coarse millings.

Fine Millings

The maximum aggregate size fine millings are ¼ in. Figure 14 shows the stock pile of the fine
millings. The color of this milling is also dark, which indicates that the particles are also coated

73
with enough binders. As small particles have more surface compared to coarse particles, fine
millings contains more binders compared to coarse millings.

FIGURE 14 Stock pile of fine millings.

Procedure and Outcome

Thin Overlay by Coarse Millings

Trial 1- 100% Millings with No Emulsion Added

As millings are coated with binder on each particle, crush millings were used to see if it could be
used as an overlay without adding any additional binder. The millings were heated to a
temperature around 170 °F and compacted without any addition of binder. It is observed that the
aggregates don’t show any bonding between them. That is, the millings binder content is less
than the amount of binder required to bond particles together. Therefore, 100% millings without
any addition of binder cannot be used in the field as overlay.

Trial 2- 100% Millings with 1% Emulsion Added

As 100% millings with no added binder didn’t show any bonding, 1% emulsion was added to the
millings. During this time millings temperature was maintained 170 °F, emulsion temperature
was 212 °F and after mixing, the temperature was recorded as 144 °F. To see quickly if the
millings are showing any bonding, the mix was tested on a hand palm by hand squeezing as
shown in Figure 15. It is observed that the particles are now showing some kind of bonding
between them.

After initial investigation of bonding between particles, the millings were used as overlay on a
driving lane of NMDOT field patrol of District-6. A thin layer of CSS-1H emulsion was sprayed
as tack coat on the existing pavement. Figure 16(a) and 16(b) show the pavement before and
after the application of emulsion respectively. The emulsion looks brown when applied but
become dark with time as emulsion starts breaking (water evaporates from it). During hot and
dry season, emulsion dries out in about 10 minutes. However, this study was conducted during
winter and more time (around 30 minutes) was needed to break the emulsion. The millings were
transported to the site by a hauling truck. By the time the millings were transported to the site,

74
the temperature had gone down to 110 °F. The millings were distributed over the base using a
leveler vehicle. As the leveler is manually operated, it was expected that the millings were not
distributed to a uniform thickness. Figure 16(c) shows the leveling car. The millings are then
compacted using a 15 ton pneumatic tire roller for two passes and a 3 ton steel roller for one
pass. The overlay thickness was about 2.5 in. Figure 16(d) shows the compacted overlay.

FIGURE 15 100% millings after adding 1% emulsion

(a) Existing pavement before tack coating (b) Emulsion sprayed on existing
pavement

75
(c) Leveling vehicle (d) Compacted overlay

FIGURE 16 Different stages of using millings as overlay

Fine Millings as Thin Overlay

Initially, 1% emulsion was used with the fine millings, as it worked for coarse millings. It was
observed that the bonding between particles was not good. A lot of cracks were visible all over
the surface as shown in Figure 17(a). It was expected, because fine millings are composed of
small particles with more surface area compared to coarse mills, therefore, they require more
emulsion. For the next trial, 2% emulsion was used with the millings. This time the surface
looked good without any visible cracks as shown in Figure 17(b). The compacted layer of fine
millings was about ¾ in. thick.

(a) Fine millings with 1% emulsion (b) Crushed chips with 2% emulsion

FIGURE 17 Use of fine millings as thin overlay.

76
Case Study II: Use of Fine Millings As Fine Seal

Existing Pavement Condition

The last maintenance on this pavement was done around 8 years ago by a layer of Open Graded
Friction Coarse (OGFC). It was observed that the pavement is severely aged (gray to white
color) and OGFC is popping out in several locations. Some wide-open cracks were also visible.
The pavement condition is shown in Figure 18.

(a) Aged with popped out OGFC (b) Some wide-open cracks

FIGURE 18 Existing pavement condition.

Materials

HFE100P was used as emulsion (which is the popular emulsion for chip sealing in New Mexico).
The maximum size of the fine millings was 1/4 in. Unlike the previous project, these millings
looked gray instead of dark. This indicated that the millings were aged and contained a lot of
uncoated particles. Figure 19 shows the millings used for this project. The millings were damped
before using.

77
FIGURE 19 Fine millings used for the fine seal.

Operation and Observation

The initial shot rate for the emulsion was set to 0.16 gallon per square yard (gsy), as the
pavement did not have severe cracks. However, at this low shot rate, a significant portion of the
pavement was not covered by emulsion as shown in Figure 20(a). Shot rate was increased to 0.20
gsy and still the problem existed. Finally, the shot rate was increased to 0.24 gsy. This time, due
to the overlapping of nozzles, some areas had higher volume of emulsion compared to others as
shown in Figure 20(b). This happened because the distributor was used for the chip seal and it
worked perfectly for the shot rate as low as 0.35 gsy. To eliminate the overlapping of nozzles,
alternate nozzles were turned off and the pressure and height of the nozzles were increased. This
time, the emulsion sprayed on the pavement was almost uniform and covered the whole
pavement. The shot rate during this time was 0.28 gsy. Finally, this shot rate was used throughout
the project.

A chip box was used to spray the millings as shown in Figure 20(c). Initially, the spread rate was
13 pound per square yard (psy). After compaction, bleeding was visible as shown in Figure
20(d). To stop bleeding, shoot rate was increased to 17 psy. There was no bleeding; therefore,
this rate was used throughout the project.

After spreading, fine seal was compacted using pneumatic tire roller. The number of passes was
3 to 4. A steel wheel roller was used at the end to create a smooth surface. The surface was
broomed on the following day. Figure 21 shows the finished fine seal constructed using fine
millings. The surface looks good and performing well.

78
 (a) Very low shot rate (b) Emulsion overlapped

(c) Chip box spreading the fine millings (d) Bleeding due to low fines spreading rate

FIGURE 20 Emulsion shot rate adjustment

FIGURE 21 Surface condition after compaction

79
Performance of the sand seal after one year of construction

Raveling

The last maintenance on this pavement was done around 8 years ago by a layer of OGFC. The
pavement condition before sand seal, immediately after sand seal, and one year after sand seal is
shown in Figure 22(a), (b) and (c) respectively. As shown in Figure 22(a) it was observed that the
pavement is severely raveled and OGFC is popping out in several locations. Figure 22(b) shows
that OGFC is covered by milling fines and the surface looks smooth. Figure 22(c) shows that all
fines are popped out leaving some course aggregate after only a year of construction. That is the
pavement is severely raveled in one year of construction.

Cracking

Before sand seal, the pavement was severely cracked as shown in Figure 23(a). Both longitudinal
and transverse cracks were visible all over the pavement. It was expected that the cracks would
be crack sealed before sand seal, although it was not performed. Sand seal was directly placed
over the crack as shown in Figure 23(b) and the crack problem was temporarily solved.
However, within a year, half of the cracks propagated to the surface which is known as bottom-
up cracks, as shown in Figure 23(c).

Oxidation

Before sand seal, the pavement was severely aged and the pavement was very shinny as shown
in Figure 24(a). After sand seal, the problem was temporarily solved as shown in Figure 24(b).
However, as no fog seal was applied, the millings aged very quickly. Within a year, the pavement
looks shinny and very old again as shown in Figure 24(c).

Bleeding

Pavement before sand seal didn’t have any bleeding. During construction, binder distribution
was not uniform as shown in Figure 25(a). Clearly some overlaps were observed. Because of
excess binder in the overlapped region, bleeding occurred immediately after compaction as
shown in Figure 25(b). After one year, bleeding is still observed as shown in Figure 25(c).

Other Distress

After one year of sand seal, rutting was observed in several locations as shown in Figure 26(a).
As rutting was not measured during or before construction, it is not possible now to state whether
those rutting existed previously or not. Perhaps performance data from Kelly Montoya will
provide some clue. Shear rutting and few potholes were also observed as shown in Figure 26(b)
and (c).

80
 (a) Severely raveled pavement before sand seal

(b) Smooth surface after sand seal

(c) Raveled surface after one year of construction (raveling on paint is clearly visible)

FIGURE 22 Raveling of US54 MP233-242 at different phases

81
 (a) Wide opened crack before sand seal

(b) Sand seal directly placed on crack

(c) Wide open bottom up crack after 1 year of construction

FIGURE 23 Cracking condition at different phases of US54 MP233-242

82
 (a) Aged pavement before sand seal

(b) Aged pavement covered by sand seal

(c) Pavement oxidized again after a year of construction

FIGURE 24 Aging of US54 MP 233-242 at different stages

83
 (a) Non-uniform distribution of emulsion

(b) Bleeding after compaction

(c) Bleeding is observed after 1 year of construction

FIGURE 25 Bleeding issue on US 54 NM233-242

84
 (a) Rutting

(b) Shear rutting

(c) Potholes

FIGURE 26 Other distresses on US 54 MP233-242 one year after sand seal

85
Case Study III: Use of Millings in Chip Seal

Construction

The chip seal projects on NM124 used 100% recycled pavement materials. Millings were
collected from I-40 near Grants, NM. They were crashed and sieved by 3/8 in. size. That is, chip
sizes are 3/8 inch or greater. Usually chip seal is used for different distress condition of a
pavement to prevent it from further damage. However, the purpose of chip sealing for this
project was to seal the newly constructed pavement. Project work began weeks before this study
was conducted, therefore, the research team had a chance to observe the newly constructed chip
seal, and the one done a week earlier.

As other chip seal projects, chips were wet by spraying water. Figure 27(a) shows how the chips
from millings looks after soaking with water. Existing pavement surface was broomed and
HFE100P emulsion was sprayed at a temperature of 170 ℉. The application rate was about 0.43-
0.45 gsy. Chips were sprayed while emulsion started breaking as shown in Figure 27(b). Chip
box was about 200 ft. behind and started spreading chips as shown in Figure 27(c) at a rate of 23
pounds per square yard. Compaction was performed later. Figure 27(d) shows the pavement
surface before compaction.

86
 (a) Soaked stockpile of chips (b) Emulsion started breaking

(c) Spraying of chips (d) Loose chips on emulsion

FIGURE 27 Construction of chip seal

Figure 28(a), (b) and (c) show the existing surface, chip sealed a week ago, and chip sealed a day
before. It is observed that the existing surface is not damaged or aged, as the purpose of this chip
seal is only sealing. Chip seal constructed a week earlier looks well compacted and very few
chips are loose/not bonded. Lots of loose chips were observed for the seal constructed a week
earlier. Figure 28(d) captured a week and a day old chip seal side by side. Therefore, a chip seal
may look bad immediately after construction, however, may be well compacted in several days
after opened to traffic.

87
 (a) Existing pavement surface (b) One day old chip seal

(c) One week old chip seal (d) One day( left) and one week (right) old
chip seal

FIGURE 28 Surface condition at different stages

Performance after One Year

The primary purpose of this chip seal was to seal the pavement. As there was no distress on the
pavement before chip seal, it was expected that the chip seal will undergo less distress over time.
When this pavement was investigated during this quarter (after 1 year of construction), it was
observed that there was almost no distress on the surface except a few loose and broken
aggregates as shown in Figure 29(a). The chip seal was still very dark indicating less oxidation as
shown in Figure 29(b). The IRI of this pavement was determined. The average IRI for the
segment that was not chip sealed is measured as 175 (in/mile) whereas average the IRI for the
segment that was chip sealed is 128 (in/mile). The corresponding PSI value on the without chip
sealed section is 2.52 and after Chip seal it is 2.93.

88
(a) Some broken and loose chips are visible (b) Color of the pavement is black

FIGURE 29 Present condition of the pavement NM114 MP16-12

SUMMARY

Case study I shows how District 6 tried to use both fine and coarse millings as thin overlay by
mixing them with emulsion in hot drum or pugmill. Coarse millings with 1% HFE 300 added
showed bonding between the particles hence compacted as an overlay on a driveway of NMDOT
field office. Fine millings required 2% emulsion to get bonding between the particles. Depending
on the millings type, the percentage may be different. However, this study gives an idea at which
percentage of emulsion to be used for trial mixes.

Case study II describes how fine millings were used as fine seal by District-4. It is observed that
an emulsion shot rate of 0.28 gsy and fine millings spread rate of 17 psy worked well for that
specific pavement. Depending on the pavement condition and millings type, the rate may be
different. However, this study gives an idea at which shot or spread rate one should start fine
sealing while using millings.

Case study III describes how millings may be used in chip seal. It is observed that millings
perform as good as virgin chips in chip seal.

89
 MECHANISTIC EVALUATION
INTRODUCTION

Survey with five NMDOT Districts provided information that chip seal with millings will last as
long as chip seal with virgin chips do. As chip seal with millings is a new procedure and none of
the projects completed its life cycle, it is necessary to evaluate whether performance of chip seal
with millings is same as performance of chip seal with virgin chips by laboratory and field
testing. Three different tests were performed, sand patch test, British pendulum test, and direct
shear test. It is obtained that there is no significance difference between shear strength, skid
resistance and texture depth between chip seal with millings and chip seal with virgin chips.

TESTS PERFORMED

Sand Patch Test

Existing pavement texture can easily be measured using sand patch test. It is performed
following “ASTM E965: Standard Test Method for Measuring Pavement Macrotexture Depth
(MTD) Using a Volumetric Technique” (30) Figure 30 shows the sand patch. Ottawa sand or
small spheres are used to fill the voids of the pavement surface in a circular pattern. Knowing the
area of the circle, microtexture depth can be calculated by the equation below.

4V
MTD= 2 (17)
πD

where V = volume of sand patch and D = diameter of the sand patch.

90
 21’’ 12’’
28’’
28’’
2 1
4 3

FIGURE 30 Sand patch test

At each station, 4 tests are performed in 4 locations as shown in Figure 30. Location 1 is left of
right wheel path, location 2 is on right wheel path, location 3 is in between wheel path and
location 4 is on left wheel path. No test was performed on left of left wheel path due to traffic.
These four locations are chosen because wheel path should have different texture compared to in
between wheel path and right of right wheel path. For each test volume of sand was kept constant
to 200 cm3. Therefore, changes in diameter was observed.

After chip seal, cores were collected from each location and sand patch test were conducted on
the collected cores. During this time, diameter of each core is constant to 15 cm. Depending on
the surface, a different amount of sand was needed. Figure 31 shows a laboratory sand patch test
sample. The unit weight of the sand used was determined using a pycnometer of known volume.
The bowl weight was determined beforehand. These two values were used to calculate the
volume of the sand retained on the bowl. Subtracting this volume from total volume used for the
test gives the volume of the sand in the sand patch.

91
FIGURE 31 A laboratory sand patch test sample

Skid Resistance Test

The skid resistance of field cores was determined using a British pendulum as per ASTM E303
(31). The instrument is shown in Figure 32. The pendulum is hold in one side and released. A
rubber slider attached to the bottom of the pendulum slides over the surface to be tested losing
some potential energy. The sliding length is 126-128 mm. The pendulum will lose more energy
on a rough surface than a smooth one. One the other side of the pendulum, it contains a ruler
with unit British pendulum number (BPN). The higher the number, the rougher the surface. BPN
is a good indicator of skid resistance for a vehicle moving at a speed of 10 mph. However, most
vehicles move faster than 10 mph.

FIGURE 32 British pendulum test in progress

92
Direct Shear Test of Chip Seal

Direct shear test on chip seal was conducted using the shear test device shown in Figure 33.
Twenty four cores from eight location of NM126 were collected and tested for direct shear. The
objective of these tests is to evaluate the ultimate shear strength as well as a constitutive equation
for chip seal shear.

Figure 33(a) to (e) shows the sequence of the testing. Cores are collected from NM126. As chip
seal is a very thin layer and chips are separate from each other, a cement mortar capping was
used. The device shown in Figure 33(c) was used to determine the shear strength. After the test,
the interface was separated to see the failure pattern. It is observed that the failure is mostly
cohesive (failure in the emulsion layer). Very few samples showed adhesive in addition to
cohesive damage.

(a) Mortar casting in the mould (b) Chip seal after capping

(c) Sample in the direct shear test device (d) Damaged sample after the shear test

93
 (e) Damaged plane

FIGURE 33 Different stages of direct shear test

Cohesion and Angle of Friction

A new shear testing device was used to evaluate the cohesive and friction part of shear strength
as it is done for soil. The purpose was to find out the effect of existing surface condition on the
interlocking of chip seal with the existing surface. It was necessary because from the case study
of NM126, strength was more on old surface than the newly constructed overlay (which will be
shown in details in results and discussion part). The device used is shown in Figure 34. Four
different surface textures were considered. For each type, three samples were tested at three
different normal load condition. Three different shear strength was obtained for three different
normal loading. A linear fit of the data provided the cohesion and angle of friction. Four different
cohesions and angle of frictions were obtained for four different texture depth.

FIGURE 34 Direct shear testing device

94
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Mean Texture depth

Figure 35 shows the texture depth of four different locations after chip sealing with millings and
virgin chips. It is observed that in one location millings has lower MTD. For other locations
millings have little higher texture depth than the virgin chips. A statistical analysis yielded no
significance difference between MTD value for millings and virgin chips (p-value of t-test is
0.71).

Object 64

FIGURE 35 MTD of chip seal with millings and virgin chips

Skid Resistance

Figure 36 shows the comparison of skid resistance between chip seal with millings and virgin
chips. For three out of four locations, chip seal with millings has higher skid resistance than
virgin chips. It was expected as asphalt coating increases friction. Statistically there is no
significant different between skid resistance of millings and virgin chips (p-value 0.27)

95
 Object 66

FIGURE 36 Skid resistance of chip seal with and without millings

Shear Strength of Millings and Virgin Chips

Figure 37 compares the shear strength of chip seal with and without millings. Four locations
from NM126 and four from NM197. Virgin chips showed higher strength in five locations.
Statistically there is no significant different between shear strength of chip seal with millings and
virgin chips (p-value = 0.85). Virgin chips are expected to have higher shear strength as they
have more electric charge on surface compared to virgin chips. However, they have more dust on
their surface compared to millings which nullify this expectation. After opening the failure
surface, both adhesive and cohesive failures are observed for virgin chips. That is, dust coating
on virgin chips resulted inadequate bonding between some chips with emulsion. In the case of
millings, a clear cohesive failure is observed.

96
 Object 68

FIGURE 37 Shear strength of chip seal with and without millings

Cohesion and Angle of Friction

Figure 38 (a) shows the shear vs normal stress plot for the 1 st location. The cohesion and angle of
friction are 216.38 KPa and 0.79 radians. Similar set data were obtained from other three
locations. The cohesion for four locations are plotted against the MTD values as shown in Figure
38(b). It is observed that shear resistance due to cohesion decrease with the increase of MTD. It
was expected. Because, with the increase of MTD, more binder will fill the voids resulting less
on the surface. Therefore, some chips will be loosely connected to the surface. On the other
hand, angle of friction increases with the increase of MTD as shown in Figure 38(c). It was also
expected as chips will penetrate more in the surface with the increase of MTD. The results are
shown only for virgin chips. Cores need to be collected to test the chip seal with millings. Cores
from 16 locations may provide enough data to get a better conclusion.

97
 Object 70

(a) Mohr-Columb failure envelop for location 1

Object 73 Object 76

(b) Change of cohesion with MTD (c) Change of friction with MTD

FIGURE 38 Changes of cohesion and angle of friction with change in MTD

Constitutive Relationship

The shear test results for the four conditions are shown in Figure 39(a) to 39(d). Figure 39(a)
represents the test result for chip seal with millings on the old existing pavement, 39(b)
represents shear test result for chip seal with virgin chips on old existing pavement, Figure 39(c)
shows the test result for chip seal using millings over new overlay, and Figure 39(d) represents
the chip seal using virgin chips over new overlay. From the figures, it is observed that load and
deflection maintain an almost linear relationship until an ultimate point. As the interface is forced
to deform by shear, the strength contribution comes from the strength of emulsion and
interlocking/friction between two layers. Until the ultimate point, the interface deforms

98
elastically. After the ultimate limit, emulsion starts failing causing a recession limb. Until the
failure, damage in emulsion continues and maintains a linear pattern. After the failure, the point
only friction between surfaces is left to provide some residual strength, thus a constant strength is
expected to be observed. As the equipment used has capacity to deform 12 mm only, it was not
possible to clearly see the frictional resistance phase. Therefore, the constitutive model of chip
seal shear should contain three phase together: (i) increase of load with deflection elastically
until ultimate point, (ii) declining of the load with deflection linearly and (iii) a constant load
with deflection. Load is applied at 0.4 inch per minute which is very fast and thus the chip seal
could be considered as elastic material. Based on the test results, the following constitutive
relations are proposed:

{ }
k e δ , for δ ≤ δ u
P= k e δ u −k p δ , for δ u < δ ≤ δ f -------------------------------------------------(18)
Pf ∨k e δ u −k p δ f , for δ>δ f

where ke is the slope of the elastic line which is analogous to shear rigidity or stiffness; kp is the
absolute value of the slope of the declining curve; δ u is the deformation during ultimate load;
δ f is the deflection at total failure. The qualitative plot for the equation is shown in Figure 40.

Further study will determine the effect of temperature, texture, normal load and material
properties on the constants k e , δ u , k p and δ f . Equation 18 is similar to the equation
for tack coat except it has no declining phase.

Object 95

Object 92

(a) Only millings (b) Only virgin chips

Object 97 Object 99

(c) Millings over new overlay (d) Virgin chips over new overlay

99
FIGURE 39 Direct shear test result for chip seal
P

Pu

kp
ke 1
Pf
1

δ
δu δf

FIGURE 40 Qualitative load-deformation relationship for direct shear of chip seal

Shear Strength on Old Vs New Overlay

Figure 41represents the effect of existing pavement condition on chip seal shear strength. A
newly constructed overlay is very smooth compared to old pavement. Therefore, a bad
interlocking between chips and pavement is expected for chip seal on newly constructed overlay.
This is what observed from the experiment as shown in Figure 41. For both west and east bound
lanes and milling or virgin chips, chip seal on old pavement has higher shear strength compared
to newly constructed overlay. Statistical analysis performed on this result also gave a p-value of
0.02 which is smaller than 0.05. That is, shear strength of chip seal on old pavement is always
higher than on newly constructed overlay.

Object 101

Comparison the effect of old and new overlay for chip seal shear strength

100
FIGURE 41 Ultimate shear strength of chip seal at different conditions
SUMMARY

Laboratory and field tests were performed on both chip seal with millings and virgin chips to
evaluate the mechanistic behavior. Direct shear tests were performed to determine shear strength,
sand patch tests were performed to evaluate surface texture and British pendulum tests were
conducted to evaluate skid resistance. It is observed that chip seal with millings has the similar
strength, texture and skid resistance as virgin chips.

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK

101
 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study:

 From literature review it is observed that several states use millings in their maintenance
projects. To use millings in maintenance projects, no special training or equipment is
necessary in addition to that required for virgin chips except a millings processing unit
(portable screen), which is similar to rock processing unit to prepare aggregates.

 The state database review and survey with different Districts reveled that millings are
used some of their maintenance project such as sand seal, chip seal, etc. Districts have the
equipment necessary to use millings or they took help from contractors regarding the
processing of millings.

 A cost-effective analysis has been performed to determine whether use of millings cost-
effective or waste of money. During this time, LCCA was performed. The only difference
during millings and virgin chips during LCCA is the material cost. Other variables remain
the same. In this study, area under the PSI plot over the life cycle is considered as benefit
obtained from a pavement. According to the response from District officials, life cycle of
chip seal with millings is same as life cycle of chip seal with virgin chips. It is obtained
from cost-effectiveness analysis that millings are more cost effective compared to virgin
chips.

 Laboratory and field tests were performed on both chip seal with millings and virgin
chips to evaluate the mechanistic behavior. Direct shear tests were performed to
determine shear strength, sand patch tests were performed to evaluate surface texture and
British pendulum tests were conducted to evaluate skid resistance. It is observed that chip
seal with millings has the similar strength, texture and skid resistance as virgin chips.

 Several case studies were performed on several maintenance projects completed with
millings. It is obtained that millings in chip seal performs as good as virgin chips. After
one year of chip seal there was no chip loss, bleeding, raveling, aging or any other
distresses. However, sand seal with millings showed all kind of distresses after a year of
construction. Therefore, it was not recommended to use millings in sand seal without
further studying.

 From all the criteria above, it is obtained that millings can be used cost-effectively in chip
seal without compromising its strength, skid resistance, texture, and other distress related
performances.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are made for further study:

102
 As asphalt binder is a viscoelastic material, it is rate dependent. In the laboratory, it is not
possible to test for a wide range of material properties and loading rate due to time
constraint and material availability. Numerical models can be developed for different
maintenance procedure. Once verified, the models can be used to evaluate the effect of
material properties and loading rate on the strength parameters.

 Although coarse millings may be used in chip seal, millions of tons of fine millings are
spread throughout the country. Inclusions of fine millings in chip seal may increase chip
loss. However, a slight increase of emulsion may solve the problem. Therefore, a study
on the use of fine millings is strongly recommended.

 The surface texture is an important parameter for many materials for interlayer bond
strength. For chip seal, no studies have been made to evaluate the effect of surface texture
on chip seal performance. It is recommended to evaluate chip seal strength under
different texture and material properties to determine an optimum value.

103
 REFERENCES
1. Horvath, A. (2003). “Life-Cycle Environmental and Economic Assessment of Using
Recycled Materials for Asphalt Pavements.” University of California Transportation
Center, Berkeley, California.

2. Hoover, B. (2013). “Team Up on Los Angeles County Recycled Asphalt Chip Seal Test
Project.” California Asphalt Magazine, Rehabilitation Issue, pp. 8–13.

3. Wilburn, D, and Goonan, T. (1998). “Aggregates from Natural and Recycled Sources.
Economic Assessments for Construction Applications – A Materials Flow Analysis.”
Circular 1176. Washington (DC): US Geological Survey.

4. Asphalt Millings Guidance Document. New Jersey Department of Environmental

Protection, New Jersey, 2001. < http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/rrtp/amgd.htm>

5. Hoppe, E. Z., Lane, D. S., Fitch, G. M., and Shetty S. (2015). “Feasibility of Reclaimed
Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Use as Road Base and Subbase Material.” Final Report VCTIR
15-R6.

6. Smith, R. D. (2012). “Pavement Preservation Workshop a Big Success.” Newsletter of

the California Pavement Preservation Center.

7. Town of Carefree (2012). Pavement Maintenance Plan. Carefree, Arizona.

8. Nebraska Department of Roads (2002). Pavement Maintenance Manual. Nebraska.

9. Dong, Q., Huang, B., and Jia, X. (2014). “Long-Term Cost-Effectiveness of Asphalt
Pavement Pothole Patching Methods.” In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 243, pp. 49–56.

10. Rajagopal, A. (2010). “Effectiveness of Chip Sealing and Micro Surfacing on Pavement
Serviceability and Life.” Ohio Dept. of Transportation, Final report, Job No. 134299.

11. Peshkin, D. G., Hoerner, T. E., and Zimmerman, K. A. (2004). “Optimal Timing of
Pavement Preventive Maintenance Treatment Applications.” Transportation Research
Board (TRB), National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 523,
Washington, D.C., 2004.

12. Walls III, J., and Smith, M.R. (1998). “Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design.”
FHWA publication No. 98-079.

13. Solminihac, H. T., Salsilli, R., Kohler, E., and Bengoa, E. (2003). “Analysis of Pavement
Serviceability for the AASTO Design Method: The Chilean Case.” The Arabian Journal
of Science and Engineering, Vol. 28, No. 2B, pp. 143–160.
14. Shuler, S., Lord, A., Epps-Martin, A., and Hoyt, D. (2011). NCHRP Report No. 680
Manual for Emulsio-Based Chip Seals for Pavement Preservation.

104
15. ASTM Designation No. D3628-08 Standard Practice for Selection and Use of Emulsified
Asphalts. (2008). 1–4.
16. ASTM Designation No. D3910-11 Standard Practices for Design, Testing, and
Construction of Slurry Seal 2007, 1-8.
17. ASTM Designation No. D6372-05 Standard Practice for Design , Testing , and
Construction of Micro-Surfacing. (2010). 1–8.
18. Baladi, G. Y., Svasdisant, T., Van, T., Buch, N., and Chatti, K. (2007). “Cost-Effective
Preventive Maintenance: Case Studies”. Transportation Research Record, paper no. 02-
3026.
19. MDT (2009). Maintenance Manual. Montana, USA.
20. FHWA (1992). An Overview of Surface Rehabilitation Techniques for Asphalt
Pavements. Washington, D.C., USA.
21. WSDOT (2003). Asphalt Seal Coats. Washington, USA.
22. MDT (2004). Scrub Seals Using Asphalt Emulsions. Montana, USA.
23. UDOT (2004). Scrub Seal Coat. Technical Bulletin MT-04.01. Utah, USA.
24. ISSA (2001). Recommended Performance Guidelines for Emulsified Asphalt Slurry Seal.
Maryland, USA.

25. VDOT (2011). Slurry Surfacing Certification Study Guide. Virginia, USA.

26. State of California Department of Transportation (2008). Maintenance Technical

Advisory Guide: Volume I – Flexible Pavement Preservation. Second Edition. California,
USA.

27. IowaDOT (2014). Developmental Specifications for Hot Mix Asphalt Thin Lift Overlay.
Iowa, USA.

28. Special Report 61E: The AASHTO Road Test. Report 5: Pavement Research. HRB,
National Research Council, Washington D.C., 1962.

29. Al-Mansour, A., and Sinha, K. (1994). An Economic Analysis of the Effectiveness of
Pavement Preventive Maintenance. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1442, pp. 31–37.

30. ASTM Designation No. E 965 – 15 Standard Test Method for Measuring Pavement
Macrotexture Depth Using a Volumetric Technique 2015, 1-4

31. ASTM Designation No. E303 Standard Test Method for Measuring Surface Frictional
Properties Using the British Pendulum Tester 2015, 1-5

105
106
New Mexico Department of Transportation
RESEARCH BUREAU
7500 Pan American Freeway NE
PO Box 94690
Albuquerque, NM 87199-4690