Michigan Department of Transportation Pavement Demonstration Program

1
Michigan Department of TransportationPavement
Demonstration Program

• Rep. Rick Olsons 2012 Best Practices Conference
  on Road and Bridge Maintenance
• Curtis Bleech
• Pavement Operations Engineer
• August 16, 2012

2
Pavement Demonstration

• LCCA Law
• Legally Can Not Perform Demonstration Project
• No Equivalent Pavement Design
• No Performance Data
• Development of Pavement Demonstration Law
• Allows Demonstration Projects Without Performing
  LCCA

3
Pavement Demonstration Law

• Allows four demo projects per year without having
  to go through life-cycle
• to evaluate new construction methods,
  materials, or design
• Each demonstration project shall include
  measurable goals and objectives for determining
  the success of that project
• The department shall make a final report for
  each demonstration projectthat assesses the
  cost-effectiveness and performance

4
Pavement Demonstration Law

• Criteria for selection
• Designs intended to increase pavement life
  expectancy
• Designs intended to improve performance,
  including
• Friction
• Surface stress
• Noise reduction
• Improved ride quality
• Comparisons of performance of various types of
  pavement

5
Pavement Demonstration Law

• Pavement costs for demo projects must balance
  within 20 between the two paving materials over
  a two year period
• Director has to provide an annual report on
  demonstration projects to the State House and
  Senate Transportation Committees

6
Pavement Demonstration

• Examples of Project Types
• White-topping (concrete over HMA)
• Thin un-bonded concrete overlay (4)
• Low-volume concrete reconstruct (6)
• Perpetual HMA pavement (40 year design)
• Perpetual HMA pavement on rubblized concrete (40
  year design)

7
Demonstration Projects
8
Demonstration Projects

• I-75 near West Branch
• 6 unbonded concrete overlay on NB
• Rubblize and HMA resurface on SB
• Both projects constructed concurrently
• Several test sections involving undoweled and
  doweled joints, 10 and 12 joint spacing, sealed
  and unsealed joints
• Minor longitudinal cracking

9
Demonstration Projects
10
Demonstration Projects
11
Demonstration Projects

• M-84 between Saginaw and Bay City
• 40 year HMA perpetual pavement design on SB
  (existing roadbed) 6.5 HMA, 12 agg. base, 14
  sand subbase
• Normal 20 year HMA design on NB (new roadbed)
• 6.5 HMA, 6agg. base, 18 sand subbase
• Perpetual pavement HMA polymerized
• Very few distresses on SB

12
Demonstration Projects
13
Demonstration Projects

• M-3 (Gratiot Ave.) in Detroit
• Thin unbonded overlay (4)
• Existing composite, HMA milled down and new 1
  separator layer placed
• Four test sections two separator layers and
  sealed and unsealed joints
• Joint spacing 5 to 6
• Potential 15 year fix
• Some panels have been replaced due to cracking

14
Demonstration Projects
15
Demonstration Projects
16
Demonstration Projects
17
Demonstration Projects

• M-13 in Pinconning
• Low-volume concrete design
• Reconstruct with 6 of concrete, 6 of
  dense-graded agg. base, and 12 of sand subbase
• 5.5 joint spacing in both directions
• No dowel bars at transverse joints
• Unsealed joints
• 15 to 20 year expected life
• Performing very well
• New cracks at approach to structure at Pinconning
  River

18
Demonstration Projects
19
Demonstration Projects

• I-96 WB in Detroit
• 40 year perpetual pavement design
• 14 HMA, 16 OGDC, 8 sand subbase, 12 lime
  stabilized subgrade
• Normal 20 year JPCP design on EB
• Not a side by side comparison
• No distresses in the perpetual pavement

20
Demonstration Projects

• M-99 in Springport
• Low-volume concrete
• Reconstruct with 6 of concrete, 6 of
  dense-graded agg. base, and 12 of sand subbase
• 6 joint spacing in both directions
• No dowel bars at transverse joints
• Unsealed joints
• 15 to 20 year expected life
• Early age cracking (possibly late sawing)

21
Demonstration Projects
22
Demonstration Projects

• I-75 NB in Cheboygan County
• 40 year HMA perpetual pavement design on NB over
  rubblized concrete 8.0 HMA
• NB also had concrete reconstruct and unbonded
  overlay
• Unbonded overlay on SB the previous year
• Not a side by side comparison

23
Demonstration Projects

• M-1 (Woodward Ave.) in Detroit
• Thin unbonded overlay (4)
• Existing composite, HMA milled down and new 1
  separator layer placed
• Joint spacing 5 to 6 and sealed

24
Results

• Some observations at early ages
• Sealing of joints appears beneficial to help
  prevent water infiltration
• Perpetual HMA pavement showing less cracking than
  comparison section
• For thin un-bonded concrete overlays, drainable
  HMA interlayer showing less cracking than dense
  graded interlayer
• Low-volume concrete design has little cracking to
  date

25
Candidate Process

• Can be just a portion of a larger project
• Typically get buy-in from industry groups
• Candidate project is submitted to Engineering
  Operations Committee with a workplan
• Experimental feature
• Potential benefits
• Monitoring plan
• Reports to be written

26
Candidate Process

• If EOC approves, it becomes an official
  Demonstration Project
• Candidate projects must be submitted before any
  life-cycle documents are submitted
• Currently no extra funding for demonstration
  projects

27
Plan For Future Demos

• Types of projects
• White-topping (regular and ultra-thin)
• Thin un-bonded overlay
• Low-volume concrete reconstruction
• Perpetual pavement on rubblized concrete
• Long life concrete reconstruction
• HMA over stabilized base
• Others?

28
Questions?