committee on materials & pavements...hall geoff [email protected] md hanna amir...

Tech Section 5b

of 4

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS 2018 - 2019 Mid Year Meeting (Webinar)

Thursday November 15, 2018 1:00 – 3:00 PM EST

TECHNICAL SECTION 5b

Bridge and Pavement Preservation

I. Introduction and Housekeeping (AASHTO Liaison)

II. Call to Order and Opening Remarks A. Brief summary of activities

III. Roll Call Last Name First Name Email Address State/Org Babish Andy [email protected] VA Barezinsky Rick [email protected] KS Bettis Graham [email protected] TX Bush Anita [email protected] NV(COM) Dietz Jason [email protected] FHWA Donahue John [email protected] MO Egan Brian TN Mellons Jason TN Smith Tracy TN Black David TN Gaw Derek TN Hall Heather TN Kerstetter Joseph TN Flournoy Monica [email protected] GA Fraisure Casey [email protected] WA Gordon Rick [email protected] SD Hacker David [email protected] KY Hall Geoff [email protected] MD Hanna Amir [email protected] NAS Ilg Larry [email protected] OR Lane Becca [email protected] ON Morrison Clark [email protected] NC Nener-Plante Derek [email protected] ME (C) PAN CHANGLIN [email protected] NV Pfeifer Brian [email protected] IL Salomon Delmar [email protected] Shoger Jeff [email protected] Stacks Dan [email protected] TX

Tech Section 5b

of 4

Staton John [email protected] MI Stewart Robert [email protected] UT Walbeck Travis [email protected] WV (VC) Welter Jim [email protected] OH Woods Mark [email protected] TN angles gary [email protected] OH (COC) dougherty eric [email protected] MD franco colin [email protected] RI Holt Anne [email protected] ON Soneira Casey [email protected]

IV. Approval of Technical Section Minutes

Mid-year minutes distributed with this agenda as Appendix A. • Motion by WV second by VA motion carried to have minutes approved.

V. Old Business

A. COMP Ballot Items (Including any ASTM Changes/equivalencies) 1. No 5b related COMP ballot items besides reconfirmation

B. TS Ballots – TS 5b 2018 Ballot #2 Ballot Results and all comments are included as Appendix B & C.

1. Item 1 - PP XX - Emulsified Asphalt Content of Full-Depth Reclamation Mixture Design i. Ballot Results – 21 affirmative/2 negative/3 not returned

ii. Negative from Alabama & Kansas and comments from Tennessee, South Carolina, Maine, Nevada, Georgia, Illinois, Alabama, Kansas, and West Virginia.

iii. Request Emulsion Task Force to address negative votes and comments from the TS ballot and incorporate as necessary for another TS ballot in early 2019.

• There are some concerns about the definition of FDR – is it only limited to emulsions or may it include other materials? The negatives are considered persuasive and will go back to the ETF for revision.

2. Item 2 - MP XX - Materials for Full-Depth Reclamation Mixtures with Emulsified Asphalt i. Ballot Results – 17 affirmative/1 negative/3 not returned

ii. Negative from Alabama and comments from Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, Maine, Alabama, and West Virginia.

iii. Request Emulsion Task Force to address negative votes and comments from the TS ballot and incorporate as necessary for another TS ballot in early 2019.

• There are some concerns about the definition of FDR – is it only limited to emulsions or may it include other materials? The negatives are considered persuasive and will go back to the ETF for revision.

C. Reconfirmation Ballots Ballot Results and standards

1. Item 1 – M 224 - Use of Protective Sealers for Portland Cement Concrete i. Ballot Results – 19 affirmative/0 negative/8 not returned

ii. Comment from Ohio: In Section 5.2 for Surface Preparation, a statement could be added that says, "For coatings to adhere to a concrete surface, a profile or roughness may be specified."

2. Item 2 – MP 22 - Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Materials for Highway and Bridge Structures

i. Ballot Results – 19 affirmative/0 negative/8 not returned ii. No comments received.

Tech Section 5b

of 4

• Jim Welter (OH) weighed in to discuss reconfirmation ballot item #1. His concern will be addressed in future ballots and revisions.

D. Task Force Reports 1. Task Force 18-1: Construction Guide Layout and Format

i. Work completed and two final documents are attached as appendices a. A .pdf copy of ‘COMP 5b Construction Guide Spec Layout and Format’.

(Appendix D) b. A .pdf file containing all of the TF meeting agendas and minutes.

(Appendix E) • Travis gave a summary of the activity in task force 18-01. This TF was for giving guidance for those

who wanted to write a construction guide spec and what it would look like coming from the Materials world. The TS received two standards that looked very different and so the TF was initiated. A template was ultimately made so that a construction guide spec made from the materials group would be useful to anyone who needed to use it. The template is broken down into 5 sections. It also includes instructions for how to submit the spec. • The template has been uploaded to the materials website

https://materials.transportation.org/guidance-documents/ • Amir Hanna (NAS) and Colin Franco (ETF) weighed into congratulate the group on a job well done.

VI. New Business A. Research Proposals B. AASHTO Re:source/CCRL C. NCHRP Issues D. Correspondence, calls, meetings

1. Update from the Emulsion Task Force – Colin Franco, RIDOT • Colin updated the group on the ETF. Industry plays a strong role in their group and they’ve

contributed heavily. This is a good thing as they have expertise. o There are a few draft standards coming through and will be sent to Derek. o The next big thing they will be working on are quality assurance specs. They will probably

have to fit into the construction specs and design guides. They are writing a QA requirement for chip seals.

o They are now looking at rejuvenators and working with the binder and mix ETG. • They have submitted problem statements to NCHRP on the following topics

o Construction guide specs for tack and slurry seals o Development of Materials specs, design practices, and construction guide specs for Emulsion

Based Rejuvenating sealers • Hopefully the states can take the lead on using the new standards. Smaller municipalities look to the

States so they should set the example and get the specs in use. E. Presentation by Industry/Academia F. Revisions/Work on Standards for Coming Year (Appendix F) • Derek asked for volunteers to be stewards of the standards that will need to be revised or

reconfirmed. There were no volunteers on the call so the Chair and VC will reach out again to try to get stewards of these standards. Colin encouraged people to use these standards in their labs, get them tested out, submit feedback for them.

• The following list of standards need to be reviewed to determine whether changes need to be made. If you would like to volunteer to help with this review, please get in touch with the Chair. Full Standard for Reconfirmation in 2019

1. M 224-91 – Use of Protective Sealers for Portland Cement Concrete Provisional Standards for Reconfirmation in 2019

1. MP 22-13 – Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Materials for Highway and Bridge Structures

https://materials.transportation.org/guidance-documents/

Tech Section 5b

of 4

2. MP 27-16 – Materials for Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seals 3. MP 28-17 – Materials for Micro Surfacing 4. MP 34-18 – Materials for Sand Seals 5. MP 35-18 – Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and Aggregate for

Concrete Surfaces 6. PP 82-16 – Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seal Design 7. PP 83-16 – Micro Surfacing Design 8. PP 90-18 – Sand Seal Design 9. PP 91-18 – Emulsified Asphalt Scrub Seal Design

G. Proposed New Standards 1. Construction guide specification in process:

i. Diamond Grinding for Pavement Preservation ii. Application of Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and

Aggregates for Concrete Surfaces iii. Revisions being made to the documents by their respective writers to bring

them into conformance with the recent Task Force 18-1: Construction Guide Layout and Format guidance.

2. Constructive guide specifications from NCHRP 14-37: Guide Specifications for the Construction of Chip Seals, Microsurfacing, and Fog Seals

i. Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seals ii. Hot Asphalt Chip Seals

iii. Microsufacing iv. Emulsified Asphalt Fog Seals v. How will the documents be updated to conform to the recent Task Force 18-

1: Construction Guide Layout and Format guidance? • These specs were initially prepared for the COC and they should already be in conformance.

They should not be too far out of this format and may take minimal work. These 4 will be handled by the TS with a TS ballot ahead of the annual meeting.

• Charlie (NV) asked if the micro and slurry will be separate. Yes, they will be separate. • How will we get more standards? Should we seek them out? It would be ideal for the ETG

and ETF to continue feeding TS 5b new standards as they reach levels of completion. H. Proposed New Task Forces – none proposed I. New TS Ballots – none currently but will likely come up in the new year J. Technical Subcommittee membership – no major changes. Please email Derek and cc Casey if you

would like to change your status. VII. Open Discussion

A. None

VIII. Adjourn

Tech Subcommittee 5B

Page 1 of 5

COMMITTEE ON MATERIALS & PAVEMENTS 2018 Annual Meeting – Cincinnati, OH

Thursday August 10, 2018 11:30 AM – 12:30 PM EST

TECHNICAL SUBCOMMITTEE 5b


I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks

A. Brief summary of activities (to ensure all attendees up to speed)

II. Roll Call

First Name Last Name Company Designation Type

Derek Nener-Plante Maine DOT Chair Voting X

Travis Walbeck West Virginia DOT Vice Chair Voting X

Jason Dietz FHWA Ex Officio Non-Voting

Morgan Kessler FHWA Ex Officio Non-Voting

Lyndi Blackburn Alabama DOT Member Voting X

Scott George, P. E. Alabama DOT Member Non-Voting

Stewart Linz Arkansas DOT Member Voting

Kyle Lester Colorado DOT Member Non-Voting X

Jay Goldbaum Colorado DOT Member Voting

Bartholomew Sweeney Connecticut DOT Member Non-Voting X

Ian Rish Georgia DOT Member Voting X

Brian Pfeifer Illinois DOT Member Non-Voting X

LaDonna Rowden Illinois DOT Member Voting

Richard Barezinsky Kansas DOT Member Voting X

Tracy Nowaczyk Kentucky Trans.Cabinet Member Voting X

Sejal Barot Maryland DOT Member Voting X

John Staton Michigan DOT Member Voting

Curt Turgeon Minnesota DOT Member Voting X

John Donahue Missouri DOT Member Voting X

Kent Miller Nebraska DOT Member Voting

Changlin Pan Nevada DOT Member Voting X

Anita Bush Nevada DOT Member Non-Voting

Paul Hanczaryk New Jersey DOT Member Voting

Clark Morrison North Carolina DOT Member Voting X

Gary Angles Ohio DOT Member Voting X

Bruce Johnson Oregon DOT Member Voting

Jose Lima Rhode Island DOT Member Non-Voting

Mark Felag Rhode Island DOT Member Voting

Temple Short South Carolina DOT Member Voting X

Brian Egan Tennessee DOT Member Non-Voting X

Danny Lane Tennessee DOT Member Voting

Mark Woods Tennessee DOT Member Non-Voting

Michael Lee Texas DOT Member Voting X

James Stevenson Texas DOT Member Non-Voting

Charles Babish Virginia DOT Member Voting X

Jeffrey Milton Virginia DOT Member Non-Voting


Page 2 of 5

First Name Last Name Company Designation Type

Christopher Ohm Wisconsin DOT Member Voting

Greg Milburn Wyoming DOT Member Voting X

Becca Lane Ontario Ministry Of Transportation

Ass.Member Voting X

Amir Hanna Transportation Research Board Ass.Member Non-Voting

Robert Horan Asphalt Institute Friend Non-Voting

Larry Tomkins Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc.

Friend Non-Voting

Jeff Shoger Flint Hills Resources Friend Non-Voting

Larry Scofield International Grooving and Grinding Association

Friend Non-Voting

Delmar Salomon Pavement Preservation Systems LLC

Friend Non-Voting

Katheryn Malusky AASHTO Liaison Non-Voting

Casey Soneira AASHTO Re:source Liaison Non-Voting x

John Malusky AASHTO Re:source Liaison Non-Voting

III. Approval of Technical Subcommittee Minutes

Mid-Year Minutes distributed with this agenda as Appendix A. No comments or discussion. CT; TN. Minutes approved.

IV. Old Business A. Construction Guide Specifications – Approved AASHTO Joint Resolution included as

Appendix B. COC, COM, and COMP had discussions about how best to handle the relationship between committees and the pavements. A resolution was passed at the Spring meeting. 5b has been tasked with the approval and publication of construction guide specifications. 3-5 members of COC and COM will serve as members on 5b to represent their respective committees. Chair is seeking input for how we will go about doing this. COMP is exclusively charged with overseeing development/revisions of the documentation. The other committees weigh in on the ballots through their representatives on the tech subcommittee. The construction guide specs will eventually go through full COMP ballot. NE: we are looking to this group to weigh in on and coordinate within their agency departments to communicate ballot items.

B. COMP Ballot Items 1. Materials for Emulsified Asphalt Scrub Seal - Removed from the publication

process after the Emulsion Task Force raised a significant concern with one of the specification items in Table 1 of the standard. To summarize, the technical issue with the draft standard is with the MSCR Percent Recovery at 3.2 kPa, 10°C (50°F) specification limit of minimum 55% on the distilled residue. It was determined after the standard was submitted for review that, technically, an unmodified CRS-2 residue could potentially pass this minimum 55% recovery limit at the 10C/50F test temperature. As written the standard could potentially allow for an unmodified emulsion to be used in the application, and the standard specifically calls for the use of a polymer-modified rejuvenating emulsion (PMRE). In is understood in practice that the successful performance of this


Page 3 of 5

product in the field is linked to the use of a PMRE. The pulling of the standard from the publication process was authorized by the Steering Committee as has been done in the past. The ETF will look to resolve this issue and resubmit the standard in the future.

C. 2018 5B TS Ballot #1 Ballot Results and all comments are included as Appendix C & D. 1. Item 1 - Guide Construction Specification for Diamond Grinding for Pavement

Preservation i. Ballot Results – 20 affirmative/1 negative/6 not returned ii. Negative from Alabama and comments from Alabama, Kansas, Maine,

Michigan, Nevada, Ontario, South Carolina, West Virginia, & Wisconsin iii. Request Larry Scofield to address negative votes and the comments

from the TS ballot and incorporate as necessary for another TS ballot in September 2018. MO: Larry Scofield will follow up with John Donahue ME(C): there are too many substantial comments to comfortably put this to COMP ballot. There’s a need to harmonize the layouts of the design specs. They look like materials standards but include construction information. Will people from construction know how to use a design guide that is in a format that’s written more like a materials spec?

2. Item 2 - Guide Construction Specification for Application of Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and Aggregates for Concrete Surfaces

i. Ballot Results – 19 affirmative/2 negative/6 not returned ii. Negative from Nevada, Ohio and comments from Arkansas, Kansas,

Maine, Nevada, Ohio, Ontario, South Carolina, Tennessee & West Virginia

iii. Request Danny Lane to address negative votes and the comments from the TS ballot and incorporate as necessary for another TS ballot in September 2018.

D. Task Force Reports

V. New Business A. Research Proposals

1. Quick turnaround RPS 2. Full NCHRP RPS

B. AASHTO Technical Service Programs Items 1. AASHTO Re:source Updates – Casey Soneira

AASHTO re:source has 22 accredited labs for slurry surfacing and micro surfacing mix designs. There are 30 labs participating in PSP samples. We’re continuing to grow slowly.

C. NCHRP Issues Amir Hanna:

D. Correspondence, calls, meetings E. Presentation by Industry/Academia F. Proposed New Standards

i. Emulsion Task Force Update ME and IL attended the ETF. The ETF is developing standards and doing research that is feeding standards into 5b.


Page 4 of 5

G. Proposed New Task Forces i. Do the guide specifications need to have standard headings and sections

of some sort? ME (Nener-Plante) proposed a TF to flush out the details of what these new guide specs should look like and what sections to include; what needs to be included for them to be used in contracts. Walbeck (WV – VC) volunteered to chair; AL volunteers; MO, GA, CT, Deb Kim (AASHTO), Casey Soneira (AASHTO); OH; VT (other committees will be solicited to weigh in)

H. Standards Requiring Reconfirmation Full Standards

i. AASHTO M 224-91 Use of Protective Sealers for Portland Cement Concrete

Provisional Standards i. AASHTO MP 22-13 (2017) Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite

Materials for Highway and Bridge Structures - Promote or 1 year extension

I. COMP Ballot Items (including any ASTM changes/equivalencies/harmonization)

VI. Open Discussion

TN: will we resolve the comments for the current guide spec before moving on to balloting the new one? ME: Hopes that the task force will have answers by September so that we can move forward in the right direction with this.

VII. Adjourn TN; MD adjourn


Page 5 of 5

Technical Subcommittee 5B Standards

M 224-91 (2014) Use of Protective Sealers for Portland Cement Concrete

MP 22-13 (2017) Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Composite Materials for Highway and Bridge Structures

MP 27-16 (2018) Materials for Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seals

MP 28-17 (2018) Materials for Micro Surfacing

MP 32-17 Materials for Slurry Seal

MP 33-17 Materials for Emulsified Asphalt Fog Seal

MP 34-18 Materials for Sand Seals

MP 35-18 Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and Aggregate for Concrete

Surfaces

PP 82-16 (2018) Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seal Design

PP 83-16 (2018) Micro Surfacing Design

PP 87-17 Slurry Seal Design

PP 88-17 Emulsified Asphalt Fog Seal Design

PP 90-18 Sand Seal Design

PP 91-18 Emulsified Asphalt Scrub Seal Design

Tech Section 5b

Page 1 of 4

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MATERIALS 2017 Mid-Year Webinar Meeting

Minutes November 15, 2017 1:00 - 3:00 pm EST

TECHNICAL SECTION 5b


Derek Nener-Plante (ME) Chair and Travis Walbeck (WV) Vice Chair

AASHTO Support – Casey Soneira and John Malusky

I. Call to Order and Opening Remarks Casey Soneira briefly covered the Meeting Guidelines for web meetings. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 PM.

II. Roll Call Roll call of members of the Technical Section was done by voice. The following names and contact information were exported from the webinar. They are in alphabetical order by State or Company

State/Company Last Name First Name

Email Address

AASHTO Knake Maria [email protected]

AASHTO Malusky Katheryn [email protected] AASHTO Smith Greta [email protected] AL Blackburn Lyndi [email protected] ERGON Tomkins Larry [email protected] FHWA Kessler Morgan [email protected] FLINT HILLS RESEARCH Shoger Jeff [email protected] GA Flournoy Monica [email protected] GA Rabun JT [email protected] IL Pfeifer Brian [email protected] ME (Chair) Nener-Plante Derek derek.nener-

[email protected] MI Kennedy Kevin [email protected] MO Donahue John [email protected].

gov

Tech Section 5b

Page 2 of 4

NC Morrison Clark [email protected] NC Peoples Chris [email protected] NE Miller Kent [email protected] NJ Hanczaryk Paul [email protected] NV Pan Charlie [email protected] NV Tedford Darin [email protected] OR Johnson Bruce [email protected]

e.or.us PA Ramirez Timothy [email protected] SC Short Temple [email protected] SD Hodges Darin [email protected] TECHNOPAVE Salomon Delmar [email protected] TN Hall Heather [email protected] UT Andrus Scott [email protected] VA Babish Charles [email protected].

gov WI Paye Barry [email protected] WV (Vice Chair) Walbeck Travis [email protected]

III. Approval of Technical Section Meeting Minutes Minutes from the last meeting in August were distributed electronically. A motion was made by Virginia and a second by Alabama to approve the minutes. The motion passed unopposed.

IV. Old Business

A. COMP / TS Ballot – review comments All ballots passed both the tech section ballot and the COMP ballot. Comments were received, many of which were of an editorial nature. The documents will be sent to AASHTO publications staff for clarification on what is editorial and what is not. Redline changes will be sent to the Tech Section for full review of changes being made.

Ballot Item COMP Tech Section

Positives Negatives/No Vote Positives Negatives

/No Vote Standard Specification for Materials for Sand Seals

MP 27 will be changed to new material specification wherever it appears. Wording changes suggested in Section 5.2.1, and 5.2.2. Table 1 Title was noted as not being descriptive enough. Language in Section 5.2.5 will be updated so that it does not conflict with 5.3.1 and 5.3.2.

44 0/7 22 0/5

Standard Specification for Materials for Emulsified Asphalt Scrub Seal 44 0/7 22 0/5

Tech Section 5b

Page 3 of 4

Many comments were received on Table 1, including listing the standard that each material property comes from. Other minor changes made throughout. A question was asked if rejuvinators should be mentioned as an additive (section 5.5.9).

Standard Specification for Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and Aggregate for Concrete Surfaces

There was discussion about being more clear in the summary what materials this standard applies to. Footnote a in Table 3 was suggested that this be changed to “Polyester Resins with low viscosities” Decimal place inconsistencies will be addressed in Section 7. Unit is missing in 7.1.9.3 (should be hours). In Section 7.1.10, strength should be changed to 24 h instead of 7 days. Wording in Section 6.1.16 will be softened from “rejection” since this is a contract issue that should be left up to each state in terms of acceptance.

44 0/7 22 0/5

Standard Specification for Sand Seal Design

M 82 will be added to Referenced Documents There was discussion around M82 took place, and whether it should actually be referenced in this standard at all, since it is a specification for medium curing cutbacks, not emulsified asphalt and should be removed. Members indicated that the reference to M82 could be removed. This would have to be sent to TS ballot.

44 0/7 22 0/5

Standard Practice for Scrub Seal Design

There was a question as to whether the MNDOT manuals needed to referenced in the standard. The term “traffic whip-off” was not known to some members, and will be changed to more commonly understood wording. Change “emulsion” to “emulsified asphalt” throughout

44 0/7 22 0/5

V. New Business

VI. Open Discussion

Diamond Grinding and Application of Overlay Systems were not balloted on the last COMP ballot, since they are more constructions-related. The Subcommittee on Maintenance passed a resolution to take over responsibility for these standards. More updates will come from the chair as AASHTO figures out how this will be handled and how these standards will be published and logistics of how Maintenance will work with TS 5b. TS 5b will likely still play an active role.

Tech Section 5b

Page 4 of 4

Note from TN: States should realize that specifications should be handled by each state individually, especially in regards to calcine bauxites used in high-friction surface courses. Manufacturers will begin using these specs when published. NTPEP is looking closely at these products. This Tech Section has taken over newly approved provisional standards. The chair will be developing a survey to send to members regarding who is using these standard. If there are standards that are working well, there is no need to wait the full 8 years for the life of a provisional standard, and they can be made into a standard. If you have new standards to propose, proposing them as early as possible in the balloting process so that they can be vetted and changed early. In addition to Diamond Grinding, there are other (5-6) repair-type standards that will be considered for ballot in the future.

VII. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 2:17 PM EST

AASHTO Committee on Maintenance Administrative Resolution

Title: Establish a Collaborative Review Process for Pavement Preservation Treatment Construction Guidance Specifications

WHEREAS, The AASHTO Highways Committee on Maintenance is seen as a leading technical resource for extending pavement life through the timely use of pavement preservation, a proven strategy used throughout the nation to keep highways, roads, and streets in good condition; and WHEREAS, Many AASHTO member departments look to their maintenance staff to construct pavement preservation treatments using in-house personnel, or when contracted, perform construction inspection; and WHEREAS, The AASHTO TSP2 has created a Pavement Preservation Emulsion Task Force and a Concrete Pavement Preservation Task Force consisting of technical experts from AASHTO member agencies, material suppliers, contractors, consultants, academia, and FHWA to develop specification documents for Design, Materials, and Construction that will improve the reliability and performance of pavement preservation treatments; and WHEREAS, The Pavement Preservation Emulsion Task Force and Concrete Pavement Preservation Task Force have submitted and received approval on many Design and Material Specifications from the Committee on Materials and Pavements; and WHEREAS, AASHTO approved construction guidance specifications for preservation treatments are needed by agencies and industry alike to ensure uniform application techniques and construction practices; and WHEREAS, The Committee on Materials and Pavements has recently formed a Technical Subcommittee-5b that routinely meets to review Bridge and Pavement Preservation specifications related to design and materials; and WHEREAS, Maintenance input is critical in the review and approval process of construction guidance specifications for pavement preservation treatments; and WHEREAS, The AASHTO member departments can be best served by a collaborative effort with the Committees on Maintenance (COM), Materials and Pavements(COMP), and Construction (COC) to implement a thorough and timely review process for pavement preservation construction guidance specifications; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the AASHTO Highways Committee on Maintenance recommends to the Highways and Streets Council of the AASHTO Transportation Policy Forum to assign to the Committee on Materials and Pavements, Technical Subcommittee 5b, for a five year period, the responsibility for reviewing, maintaining, and publishing pavement preservation materials standards and pavement preservation treatment construction guidance specifications to the corresponding publications (e.g. AASHTO Materials Book or AASHTO Construction Guide); and that the COMP Technical Subcommittee 5b add 3 to 5 voting representatives from each of the Committees on Maintenance and Construction for the development and review of preservation construction guidance specifications.

Appendix C: Technical Subcommittee 5B Ballot #1 Comments

Diamond Grinding for Pavement Preservation

Agency Individual Name

Comments

Alabama Department of Transportation

Lyndi D Blackburn

This standard does not appear complete. The reference section is not completed. It appears that some references to AASHTO standards may be beneficial in this standard. Please see the attached document with tracked changes for more comments and suggestions.

Kansas Department of Transportation

Richard A Barezinsky

3.2.2 Suggested rewording: blade spacing—Refers to the separation between cutting blades mounted in series on the cutting head (measured as the number of blades per ft) spaced along the drum (rotating shaft) on the grinding equipment. The blade spacing is impacted by the hardness and size of the aggregate of the material being diamond ground; particularly for concrete pavement. 3.2.x Add a definition: grinding cutting head —Refers to the location of diamond blades mounted in series on the drum (rotating shaft) on the grinding equipment. The cutting head width typically ranges from 48-50 inches. 3.2.3 Add "Portland cement" before "concrete" 3.2.4 DMI stands for Distance Measuring instrument. To be consistent with 3.2.6 add the word "longitudinal" before "distance" in the definition 3.2.7 International Roughness Index (IRI): Suggest using the same definition as AASHTO R435.1: Add "(DBR)" after Dowel Bar Retrofit since the abbreviation is used in 8.3. 5.3 & 5.4 & 8.6 & 8.7: Suggest changing "ensure" to "verify" 8.9 Why not use 125 inches per mile to be consistent with IGGA guide spec? 160 in/mi is awfully rough. Table 1: I prefer the 0.35 factor that's in IGGA guide spec be used in lieu of the 0.6

Maine Department of Transportation

Derek John Nener-Plante

- ASTM reference needs to be addressed in Section 3.1 - Recommend making the headings more general to cover construction specifications (i.e. description, materials, construction, acceptance, method of measurement, basis of payment etc.)

Michigan Department of Transportation

John F Staton

Comment. Suggest adding a note to section 9.2 discussing that the width of feather grinding should be a minimum 2 ft and may be increased to up to 4 feet based on site conditions. The intent is to provide positive cross drainage. The additional feathering width into the shoulder may be required if the shoulder elevation is greater than the mainline pavement elevation, which would then provide for a better cross slope transition to get the water away from the longitudinal joint.

Nevada Department of Transportation

CHANGLIN PAN

Several AASHTO Standards should be referenced for IRI measurement and inertial profiling system. Are "method of measurement" and "basis of payment" sections needed in the AASHTO Standard? Section 1.4 is not needed since no SI unit values in the specification.

Ohio Department of Transportation

Gary Edward Angles

The specification is very similar to Ohio's 257 spec. which mirrors the IGGA spec.

Ontario Ministry Of Transportation

Becca Lane

Diamond Grinding – slurry disposal for larger projects is a significant environmental requirement - may need a settlement pond. Smoothness - need to check out improvements proposed.

South Carolina Department of Transportation

Temple Short

Section 2.2 - Add ASTM E1926 and also add a placeholder of ASTM XXXX Section 3.2.1 - Add "at least" before "...a continuous 25-ft length of IRI..." Section 8.2 - Rewrite the next to last sentence to remove both trademarked names from the standard. Sections 8.7 & 8.8: This all sounds like contract language that should be left up to the states/owners and not part of the standard. Section 8.9: Do we need to specify the ProVAL software?

Texas Department of Transportation

James Russell Stevenson

There has been increased use of diamond grinding for preservation in Texas. This is an excellent topic for review.

West Virginia Department of Transportation

Travis Blake Walbeck

We would like to make the suggestions made in the attached (track changes) document.

Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Christopher Alan Ohm

7.1 In rural areas slurry can be placed on gravel shoulders. 9.2 Why pay extra for the feathering into adjoining pavement? Their isn't any extra effort to do the match into non-diamond ground pavement.

Standard Specification for


AASHTO Designation: M xxx-191

Technical Subcommittee: 5b, Bridge and Pavement Preservation

Release: Group 1 (April)

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249

Washington, D.C. 20001

TS-5b M xxx-1 AASHTO

Guide Specification for





1. SCOPE

1.1. This specification covers the requirements for diamond grinding pavements to improve the ride characteristics, texture, and frictional properties of the roadway surface. The specifications are intended for use when continuous diamond grinding is required. These specifications are applicable to either asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete pavements.

1.2. These specifications are not intended for use with bump grinding which is conducted during the new construction process to eliminate discrete location roughness. Although the use of these specifications for that application will still provide satisfactory results, it may eliminate equipment which may otherwise satisfactorily accomplish the intended goal.

1.3. These specifications are not intended for application on local streets that contain utilities such as water valves, man holes, and curb and gutter. Often these roadway features as well as intersecting roadway grades prevent achieving the smoothness tolerances.

1.4. The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded separately as the standard; the SI units are shown in brackets. The values stated in each system are not exactly equivalent; therefore, each system must be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the specification.

2. REFERENCED STANDARDS

2.1. AASHTO Standards:

2.2. ASTM Standards:

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. The terminology section of ASTM XXXX is applicable to this specification

3.2. Definition of Terms Specific to this Standard:

3.2.1. area of localized roughness—Any point with a continuous 25-ft length of IRI exceeding specification requirements.

3.2.2. blade spacing—Refers to the separation between cutting blades (measured as the number of blades per ft) spaced along the drum (rotating shaft) on the grinding equipment. The blade spacing

Commented [BL1]: Negative vote is really based on this standard appears to be incomplete.

Commented [BL2]: See Note above.


is impacted by the hardness of the aggregate of the material being diamond ground; particularly for concrete pavement.

3.2.3. diamond grinding—Diamond grinding is the removal of a thin layer of hardened concrete or asphalt concrete pavement surface using a self-propelled machine outfitted with a series of closely spaced diamond saw blades mounted on a rotating shaft.

3.2.4. distance measurement device (DMI)—A device used to measure the distance between two points.

3.2.5. effective wheel base—The effective wheel base is defined as the distance from the front wheel assembly transverse pivot point to the transverse pivot point of the profile/depth control/ground drive wheels.

3.2.6. inertial profiler—A commercial device produced to measure pavement profile. The device uses an accelerometer to form an inertial reference, a laser-height sensor to measure the pavement surface location relative to that reference, and a DMI to measure the longitudinal distance traveled during the testing. These sensor outputs are used by the equipment to produce the pavement profile.

3.2.7. international roughness index (IRI)—A roughness statistic that summarizes the impact of pavement profile on vehicle response for a passenger car, of specified properties, traveling at 50 mph. The IRI is computed from a single longitudinal profile using a quarter-car simulation as described in ASTM E1926.

3.2.8. mean roughness index (MRI)—A roughness statistic calculated by averaging the IRI values computed for the left and right wheelpath profiles, respectively.

3.2.9. pavement preservation—In the context of this specification, refers to in-service asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete pavements in need of surface modification to improve ride quality, enhance frictional properties, increase texture, improve roadway template, or reduce tire-pavement noise generation. Diamond grinding for these activities is generally conducted as a continuous grinding operation throughout the entire project.

3.2.10. percent ride improvement—A measure of the change in ride quality as a result of the diamond grinding operation. Percent improvement is determined by measuring the roadway profile before and after the grinding operation. The equation is: Percentage of Improvement= (Sb – Sa)/Sb × 100, where Sb is the smoothness (IRI) before grinding and Sa is the smoothness (IRI) after grinding.

4. EQUIPMENT

4.1. Grinding shall be performed using diamond blades mounted on a self-propelled machine designed for grinding and texturing pavement. The grinding equipment shall be a minimum 35,000 pounds including the grinding head, and of a size that will grind a strip at least 3 ft wide. The effective wheel base of the machine shall be no less than 12 ft.

4.2. The equipment shall have a positive means of vacuuming the grinding residue from the pavement surface, leaving the surface in a clean, near-dry condition.

4.3. Grinding equipment that causes raveling, aggregate fractures, or disturbance to the joints shall not be permitted.

4.4. The equipment shall be maintained to ensure it is in proper working order, with attention paid to the “roundness” of the match and depth control wheels. Commented [BL3]: If you want attention paid to it - then it

needs to be specific and not in slang language.


5. CONSTRUCTION

5.1. The construction operation shall be scheduled and proceed in a manner that produces a neat, uniform finished surface. Full- and partial-depth concrete repairs, slab stabilization and dowel bar retrofit shall be completed prior to any grinding. Joint sealing shall be completed subsequent to the diamond grinding operations.

5.2. Grind joint or crack faults so there is no more than a 1/16-inch differential between adjacent sides of the joints and cracks. Grinding will also address pavement conditions such as warp and curl to provide an acceptable ride.

5.3. Lateral drainage shall be achieved by maintaining a constant cross slope between grinding extremities in each lane. The finished cross slope shall match the pre-grind cross slope and shall have no depressions or misalignment of slope greater than 1/4-inch in 12 feet when measured with a 12-foot straightedge placed perpendicular to the centerline. Steps will be taken to ensure that wheel path rutting is removed to the agency requirementsWheel path rutting shall be removed to the agency or contract plan requirements. and that the gGrinding operations isshall not consist of simply not texturing the wheel path depressions. Areas of deviation shall be reground. Straightedge requirements will not apply across longitudinal joints or outside the ground area. Shoulder, auxiliary or ramp lane grinding shall transition from the edge of the mainline as required to provide drainage leaving no more than a 3/16-inch ridge and an acceptable riding surface.

5.4. Grinding shall begin and end at lines normal to the pavement centerline at the project limits. Passes of the grinding head shall not overlap more than 1-inch. No unground surface area between passes will be permitted.

6. FINAL SURFACE FINISH

6.1. The grinding process shall produce a pavement surface that is truemeets the contract plan requirements in grade. and Ground surface shall be uniform in appearance with longitudinal line-type texture. The line-type texture shall contain corrugations parallel to the centerline and present a narrow ridge corduroy type appearance. The peaks of the ridges shall be 1/8-inch +/- 1/16-inch higher than the bottom of the grooves with evenly spaced ridges.

6.2. It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to select the number of blades per ft to be used to provide the proper surface finish for the aggregate type and concrete present on the project.

Note 1— The number of blades used for grinding will range between 50 - 60 blades per ft as necessary to provide the designated texture. Harder aggregate may require the use of 55 – 60 blades per ft.

6.3. The engineer may require removal of unbroken fins at the contractor’s expense. Note 2— The project conditions may dictate that the contractor has to make multiple passes with the equipment to meet the specifications.

6.4. It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine the proper sequence of operations to meet the specification. If multiple passes of the grinding equipment are required, the area will only be considered for payment once. A minimum of 95 percent of any 100-ft section of pavement surface shall be textured. Depressed pavement areas due to subsidence or other localized causes will be exempted from texture and smoothness requirements.

Commented [BL4]: Define acceptable ride or put in a reference where acceptable ride is defined.

Commented [BL5]: Our FHWA will not let us match existing. What if the pre-grind slope is incorrect? Suggest wording - "….match the construction plan requirements…."

Commented [BL6]: Define acceptable ride or put in a reference where acceptable ride is defined.

Commented [BL7]: How would this be determined? I can see many arguments over this one but don't really see another way to write it.


7. SLURRY HANDLING AND REMOVAL

7.1. Slurry shall be collected, processed and disposed of in accordance with the agency's applicable requirements.

8. SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS

8.1. An initial MRI representative of portions of the project may be available. When available, this information represents the conditions that existed at the time the survey was made. The contractor is cautioned to note the survey date survey, since conditions may have changed over time. This profile is for informational purposes only, to give the contractor an idea of the conditions that existed at the time of the survey. The contractor assumes the risk of error if the information is used for any purpose other than as stated. Contractors are responsible for visiting the project site to make their own condition determination prior to bidding.

8.2. Prior to performing any grinding work, the contractor shall provide a control profile developed using an inertial profiler with a laser that simulates the tire footprint. Single point lasers shall not be used. Line laser equipment such as RoLineTM, GocatorTM or an approved equivalent shall be used. All equipment shall have current certification and be approved by the contracting authority.

8.3. The control profile will be used to identify the required smoothness for the project as indicated in Table 1. The control profile will be obtained after any, and all corrective work which impacts the pavement roughness such as slab repairs, DBR, spall repair, etc. The profile will shall be obtained in 0.1 lane mile long segments (528 ft), and the location of each segment accurately established, either through stationing or GPS coordinates.

8.4. The finished surface shall have a final MRI improvement in accordance with Table 1 and grinding will not be considered acceptable until the smoothness requirements are achieved. It is important that the sSegment locations from the control profile shall match the segment locations tested in the smoothness acceptance measurements.

8.5. Depressed pavement areas due to subsidence or other localized causes will be excluded from the smoothness requirements. These areas shall be reviewed by the engineer for approval.

8.6. The contractor shall measure profiles in both wheel paths and average the resulting IRI to determine acceptance (i.e. MRI). The profiles shall be measured 3 ft from each lane line. A guide shall be used to ensure proper alignment of the profile. The contractor shall notify the agency when profile testing will be conducted. The contractor shall provide the profile traces to the agency within 24 hrs after testing.

8.7. The engineer shall conduct comparison profiles on no less than 10 percent of the segments using the same type of certified inertial profiler equipment as the contractor. When light weight profilers are used, it is of great importance that a proper guide shall beis used to ensure that all testing is completed over the same track. The contractor and agency testing should be completed during the same time of day and under similar climatic conditions. The results of these verification profiles shall not vary more than 10 percent from the contractor profiles.

8.8. The engineer may choose to accept isolated sections if the variance between the two profiles is less than 15 percent. When the difference exceeds 15 percent on an isolated basis or 10 percent on a consistent basis, referee testing will be required to determine which device is providing an accurate evaluation of the pavement surface. The party found to have the inaccurate equipment will pay for the referee testing. The engineer may choose to withhold payment for segments that do not meet these criteria until the problem is resolved. The engineer may choose to obtain verification profiles on the entire project if the comparison profiles are constantly outside the

Commented [BL8]: Is there an AASHTO standard that can be referenced here?

Commented [BL9]: Who certifies? Is this per agency requirements? We have extensive requirements for our profiler certification.

Commented [BL10]: For approval to exclude. This needs to be addressed in 6.4 that the Engineer will review and approve the depressed areas.

Commented [BL11]: Is this also done on the control profile - it was not mentioned.


allowable tolerance. The engineer will charge for additional testing if the contractor’s operation is found to be in error. Segments found not meeting the smoothness requirements will require regrinding at no additional cost to the department.

8.9. For roadways with posted speeds less than or equal to 45 mph, the finished ground surface shall not include any bumps exceeding 0.3-inch in 25 feet. For roadways with posted speeds greater than 45 mph, the localized roughness (IRI) will be less than or equal to 160 inches per mile, when determined using the ProVAL Assurance Module with a 25 ft baseline.

8.10. The conditions of smaller municipal projects may not be suited for the above type of smoothness requirements. In these cases, the only smoothness requirement may be 1/8-inch variance in a 12-foot straightedge test.

8.11. Incentives and disincentives can be used to increase the quality of construction.

8.12. Agencies are encouraged to develop their own smoothness requirements based on local conditions and pavement performance.

Table 1—Smoothness Requirements Posted Speed Limit (MPH) Existing MRI Required Post Grind MRI

<45 <230 <138 >230 < 0.6* (Existing Segment MRI)

>45 <130 <78 >130 < 0.6* (Existing Segment MRI)

9. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

9.1. Grinding will be measured by the square yard of area diamond ground. The measurement will be the final textured surface area regardless of the number of passes required to achieve acceptable results. Minor areas of unground pavement within the designated areas to be ground will be included in the measurement.

9.2. When conditions require a feather pass into the shoulder or auxiliary or ramp lanes, measurement for payment will be by the square yard based on a width of 2 ft times the length of the required feather pass. The minimum length of feather pass will be 100 ft.

10. BASIS OF PAYMENT

10.1. Grinding will be paid for at the contract price per square yard. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment, materials and incidentals to complete this work, including hauling and disposal of grinding residue.

11. KEYWORDS

11.1. Blades; concrete pavement preservation; diamond grinding; friction; inertial profiling; pavement preservation; roughness; slurry; smoothness; texture.

1 This full standard was first published in 2019.

Standard Guide Construction Specification for








Guide Construction Specification for





1. SCOPE

1.1. This specification covers the requirements for diamond grinding pavements to improve the ride characteristics, texture, and frictional properties of the roadway surface. The specifications are intended for use when continuous diamond grinding is required. These specifications are applicable to either asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete pavements.

1.2. These specifications are not intended for use with bump grinding which is conducted during the new construction process to eliminate discrete location roughness. Although the use of these specifications for that application will still provide satisfactory results, it may eliminate equipment which may otherwise satisfactorily accomplish the intended goal.

1.3. These specifications are not intended for application on local streets that contain utilities such as water valves, man holes, and curb and gutter. Often these roadway features as well as intersecting roadway grades prevent achieving the smoothness tolerances.

1.4. The values stated in either inch-pound or SI units are to be regarded separately as the standard; the SI units are shown in brackets. The values stated in each system are not exactly equivalent; therefore, each system must be used independently of the other. Combining values from the two systems may result in nonconformance with the specification.


2.1. AASHTO Standards: AASHTO R-54, AASHTO R-56

2.2. ASTM Standards:

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. The terminology section of ASTM XXXX is applicable to this specification

3.2. Definition of Terms Specific to this Standard:

3.2.1. area of localized roughness—Any point with a continuous 25-ft length of IRI exceeding specification requirements.

3.2.2. blade spacing—Refers to the separation between cutting blades (measured as the number of blades per ft) spaced along the drum (rotating shaft) on the grinding equipment. The blade spacing


is impacted by the hardness of the aggregate of the material being diamond ground; particularly for concrete pavement.

3.2.3. diamond grinding—Diamond grinding is the removal of a thin layer of hardened concrete or asphalt concrete pavement surface using a self-propelled machine outfitted with a series of closely spaced diamond saw blades mounted on a rotating shaft.

3.2.4. distance measurement device (DMI)—A device used to measure the distance between two points.

3.2.5. effective wheel base—The effective wheel base is defined as the distance from the front wheel assembly transverse pivot point to the transverse pivot point of the profile/depth control/ground drive wheels.

3.2.6. inertial profiler—A commercial device produced to measure pavement profile. The device uses an accelerometer to form an inertial reference, a laser-height sensor to measure the pavement surface location relative to that reference, and a DMI to measure the longitudinal distance traveled during the testing. These sensor outputs are used by the equipment to produce the pavement profile.

3.2.7. international roughness index (IRI)—A roughness statistic that summarizes the impact of pavement profile on vehicle response for a passenger car, of specified properties, traveling at 50 mph. The IRI is computed from a single longitudinal profile using a quarter-car simulation as described in ASTM E1926.

3.2.8. mean roughness index (MRI)—A roughness statistic calculated by averaging the IRI values computed for the left and right wheelpath profiles, respectively.

3.2.9. pavement preservation—In the context of this specification, refers to in-service asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete pavements in need of surface modification to improve ride quality, enhance frictional properties, increase texture, improve roadway template, or reduce tire-pavement noise generation. Diamond grinding for these activities is generally conducted as a continuous grinding operation throughout the entire project.

3.2.10. percent ride improvement—A measure of the change in ride quality as a result of the diamond grinding operation. Percent improvement is determined by measuring the roadway profile before and after the grinding operation. The equation is: Percentage of Improvement= (Sb – Sa)/Sb × 100, where Sb is the smoothness (IRI) before grinding and Sa is the smoothness (IRI) after grinding.

4. EQUIPMENT

4.1. Grinding shall be performed using diamond blades mounted on a self-propelled machine designed for grinding and texturing pavement. The grinding equipment shall be a minimum 35,000 pounds including the grinding head, and of a size that will grind a strip at least 3 ft wide. The effective wheel base of the machine shall be no less than 12 ft.

4.2. The equipment shall have a positive means of vacuuming the grinding residue from the pavement surface, leaving the surface in a clean, near-dry condition.

4.3. Grinding equipment that causes raveling, aggregate fractures, or disturbance to the joints shall not be permitted.

4.4. The equipment shall be maintained to ensure it is in proper working order, with attention paid to the “roundness” of the match and depth control wheels.


5. CONSTRUCTION

5.1. The construction operation shall be scheduled and proceed in a manner that produces a neat, uniform finished surface. Full- and partial-depth concrete repairs, slab stabilization, stitching, and dowel bar retrofit, and the like treatements shall be completed prior to any grinding. Joint sealing shall be completed subsequent to the diamond grinding operations.

5.2. Grind joint or crack faults so there is no more than a 1/16-inch differential between adjacent sides of the joints and cracks. Grinding will also address pavement conditions such as warp and curl to provide an acceptable ride.

5.3. Lateral drainage shall be achieved by maintaining a constant cross slope between grinding extremities in each lane. The finished cross slope shall match the pre-grind cross slope and shall have no depressions or misalignment of slope greater than 1/4-inch in 12 feet when measured with a 12-foot straightedge placed perpendicular to the centerline. Steps will be taken to ensure that wheel path rutting is removed to the agency requirements and that the grinding operation is simply not texturing the wheel path depressions. Areas of deviation shall be reground. Straightedge requirements will not apply across longitudinal joints or outside the ground area. Shoulder, auxiliary or ramp lane grinding shall transition from the edge of the mainline as required to provide drainage leaving no more than a 3/16-inch ridge and an acceptable riding surface.

5.4. Grinding shall begin and end at lines normal to the pavement centerline at the project limits. Passes of the grinding head shall not overlap more than 1-inch. No unground surface area between passes will be permitted.

6. FINAL SURFACE FINISH

6.1. The grinding process shall produce a pavement surface that is true in grade and uniform in appearance with longitudinal line-type texture. The line-type texture shall contain corrugations parallel to the centerline and present a narrow ridge corduroy type appearance. The peaks of the ridges shall be 1/8-inch +/- 1/16-inch higher than the bottom of the grooves with evenly spaced ridges.

6.2. It shall be the contractor’s responsibility to select the number of blades per ft foot to be used to provide the proper surface finish for the aggregate type and concrete present on the project.

Note 1— The number of blades used for grinding will range between 50 - 60 blades per ft foot as necessary to provide the designated texture. Harder aggregate may require the use of 55 – 60 blades per ftfoot.

6.3. The engineer may require removal of unbroken fins at the contractor’s expense. Note 2— The project conditions may dictate that the contractor has to make multiple passes with the equipment to meet the specifications.

6.4. It is the contractor’s responsibility to determine the proper sequence of operations to meet the specification. If multiple passes of the grinding equipment are required, the area will only be considered for payment once.

6.4.6.5. A minimum of 95 percent of any 100-ft section of pavement surface shall be textured. Depressed pavement areas due to subsidence or other localized causes will be exempted from texture and smoothness requirements.

Commented [WTB1]: We use a 10 ft straight edge for some testing, it's 12 ft the better number for this? Do we want language to allow for LiDAR or other measurement methods?

Commented [WTB2]: I suggest that we change this to "the grinding operation MAY not texture the wheel path.


7. SLURRY HANDLING AND REMOVAL

7.1. Slurry shall be collected, processed and disposed of in accordance with applicable requirements.

8. SMOOTHNESS REQUIREMENTS

8.1. An initial MRI representative of portions of the project may be available. When available, this information represents the conditions that existed at the time the survey was made. The contractor is cautioned to note the survey date survey, since conditions may have changed over time. This profile is for informational purposes only, to give the contractor an idea of the conditions that existed at the time of the survey. The contractor assumes the risk of error if the information is used for any purpose other than as stated. Contractors are responsible for visiting the project site to make their own condition determination prior to bidding.

8.2. Prior to performing any grinding work, the contractor shall provide a control profile developed using an inertial profiler with a laser that simulates the tire footprint. Single point lasers shall not be used. Line laser equipment such as RoLineTM, GocatorTM or an approved equivalent shall be used. All equipment shall have current certification and be approved by the contracting authority.

8.3. The control profile will be used to identify the required smoothness for the project as indicated in Table 1. The control profile will be obtained after any, and all corrective work which impacts the pavement roughness such as slab repairs, DBR, spall repair, etc. The profile will be obtained in 0.1 lane mile long segments (528 ft), and the location of each segment accurately established, either through stationing or GPS coordinates.

8.4. The finished surface shall have a final MRI improvement in accordance with Table 1 and grinding will not be considered acceptable until the smoothness requirements are achieved. It is important that the segment locations from the control profile match the segment locations tested in the smoothness acceptance measurements.

8.5. Depressed pavement areas due to subsidence or other localized causes will be excluded from the smoothness requirements. These areas shall be reviewed by the engineer for approval.

8.6. The contractor shall measure profiles in both wheel paths and average the resulting IRI to determine acceptance (i.e. MRI). The profiles shall be measured 3 ft from each lane line. A guide shall be used to ensure proper alignment of the profile. The contractor shall notify the agency when profile testing will be conducted. The contractor shall provide the profile traces to the agency within 24 hrs after testing.

8.7. The engineer shall conduct comparison profiles on no less than 10 percent of the segments using the same type of certified equipment as the contractor. When light weight profilers are used, it is of great importance that a proper guide is used to ensure that all testing is completed over the same track. The contractor and agency testing should be completed during the same time of day and under similar climatic conditions. The results of these verification profiles shall not vary more than 10 percent from the contractor profiles.

8.8. The engineer may choose to accept isolated sections if the variance between the two profiles is less than 15 percent. When the difference exceeds 15 percent on an isolated basis or 10 percent on a consistent basis, referee testing will be required to determine which device is providing an accurate evaluation of the pavement surface. The party found to have the inaccurate equipment will pay for the referee testing. The engineer may choose to withhold payment for segments that do not meet these criteria until the problem is resolved. The engineer may choose to obtain verification profiles on the entire project if the comparison profiles are constantly outside the allowable tolerance. The engineer will charge for additional testing if the contractor’s operation is

Commented [WTB3]: Should we have the profiler be calibrated in accordance with the AASHTO R-56.

Commented [WTB4]: Should we reference Table 2 in AASHTO R-54…?


found to be in error. Segments found not meeting the smoothness requirements will require regrinding at no additional cost to the department.

8.9. For roadways with posted speeds less than or equal to 45 mph, the finished ground surface shall not include any bumps exceeding 0.3-inch in 25 feet. For roadways with posted speeds greater than 45 mph, the localized roughness (IRI) will be less than or equal to 160 inches per mile, when determined using the ProVAL Assurance Module with a 25 ft baseline.

8.10. The conditions of smaller municipal projects may not be suited for the above type of smoothness requirements. In these cases, the only smoothness requirement may be 1/8-inch variance in a 12-foot straightedge test.

8.11. Incentives and disincentives can be used to increase the quality of construction.

8.12. Agencies are encouraged to develop their own smoothness requirements based on local conditions and pavement performance.

Table 1—Smoothness Requirements Posted Speed Limit (MPH) Existing MRI Required Post Grind MRI

<45 <230 <138 >230 < 0.6* (Existing Segment MRI)

>45 <130 <78 >130 < 0.6* (Existing Segment MRI)

9. METHOD OF MEASUREMENT

9.1. Grinding will be measured by the square yard of area diamond ground. The measurement will be the final textured surface area regardless of the number of passes required to achieve acceptable results. Minor areas of unground pavement within the designated areas to be ground will be included in the measurement.

9.2. When conditions require a feather pass into the shoulder or auxiliary or ramp lanes, measurement for payment will be by the square yard based on a width of 2 ft times the length of the required feather pass. The minimum length of feather pass will be 100 ft.

10. BASIS OF PAYMENT

10.1. Grinding will be paid for at the contract price per square yard. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment, materials and incidentals to complete this work, including hauling and disposal of grinding residue.

11. KEYWORDS

11.1. Blades; concrete pavement preservation; diamond grinding; friction; inertial profiling; pavement preservation; roughness; slurry; smoothness; texture.

1 This full standard was first published in 2019.

Commented [WTB5]: Agency vs Department vs Contracting Authority It appears that they are all used, maybe interchangeably. Would it be better to use one term?

Commented [WTB6]: By what method?

Commented [WTB7]: Should this be the only method allowed? Do we need to establish a method or just say, "less that 160 in/mi"?

Commented [WTB8]: Should we move Table 1 closer to the reference to minimize confusion with localized roughness?

Appendix D: Technical Subcommittee 5B Ballot #1 Comments

Application of Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System

and Aggregates for Concrete Surfaces


Comments

Arkansas Department of Transportation

Stewart Linz

General consistency and flow of entire document: While the

document meets the required formatting most sections could be

condensed to fewer subsections. Reads like a bullet list with

several areas having duplicate information or stating same

information in a separate section.

2.: Include references for materials? M235M/M 235-13, MP 35-18

4.1.2: clarify that requirement is up to point of product achieving

final cure.

5.12.9.: the owner agency may allow the reuse of excess

aggregate……….

Why limit to semi-automated and fully automated applications. For

smaller areas manual mixing and hand broadcasting of

components can give quality results.

Kansas Department of Transportation

Richard A Barezinsky

1.2 & 4.4 Suggest removing Ramps as they can be on grade pavements 4.4.3 Suggest a CSP of 6-7 range. A weak CSP 5 doesn't always remove contaminants. 5.5 Remove "by the owner" as knowing what is compatible with the contractor's binder resin system is likely unknown until the contractor has secured the materials. 5.9 Remove "the owner agency may" 5.10 Remove "the owner agency may" and put "a" after "Apply". 5.14.7 Why the 5 seconds? What happens if the aggregate is not placed within 5 seconds? Should this be based on the gelling of the binder resin? Table 1 - Suggest adding a pull-off test to verify the bond with the underlying surface.



- Strongly recommend making the headings more general to cover construction specifications (i.e. description, materials, construction, acceptance, method of measurement, basis of payment etc.)

Nevada Department of Transportation

CHANGLIN PAN

Section 2.2, ASTM E1911 has been withdrawn in 2018 Section 7, Table 1, ASTM E965 should be English unit for consistency There is no definition, or reference of material properties for the binder resin system or aggregates. This is my main concern for the negative. AASHTO PP79 can be a good example to follow for this standard. I assume this application uses similar materials with two lift applications.

Ohio Department of Transportation

Gary Edward Angles

What is the spec being proposed for friction improvement or protection? Spec does not include any requirements for materials. Is this a performance spec. 5.6 - define gelled. 5.11.1 - Does this tolerance need to be specified since proportioning is per the manufacturer? 5.11.2 - How is the thickness of application measured? 5.11.7 - What are spiked shoes? 5.11.8 - Should a minimum cure period be specified? 5.12.1 & 5.12.6 - What is proper embedment? 5.12.5 - Where is multiple lifts specified? 5.14.5 - What kind of heating system? 5.14.12 & 5.15.6 - What data is being provided? I don't think this is ready for adoption.

Ontario Ministry Of

Transportation

Becca Lane

Thin Overlay – Binder Resin – Automated system is preferred. With semi-automatic or manual system it will be difficult to get good uniformity.

South Carolina

Department of Transportation

Temple Short

Section 2.2 - delete "1" at the end of the ASTM E965 title This standard practice doesn't mention anything about aggregate requirements. My question is, should it? I'm fine with it not and letting the owner specify. Section 2.2 - switch the order of the two ASTM standards to make them sequential. Section 2.3 - (1) Remove the "2013" from the ICRI document unless it absolutely has to be the 2013 version. (2) IRCI Guideline No. 310.2R is not referenced in this standard so either reference it in the body of the standard or remove it from this list. Section 4.2: is it necessary to have this here and also repeat it in Sections 5.2 and 5.3? Section 5.12.9: I think changing the wording to "reuse of excess aggregate" would be clearer. Section 6.1.1 - Add "a minimum of" before 250 yd2.

Tennessee Department of Transportation

Mark E Woods

Could the title of this be revised to avoid confusion with asphalt thin overlays? There seems to be room for confusion.

Texas Department of Transportation

James Russell

Stevenson

This type of work has been done is several TxDOT Districts. The work methods and procedures can be found in the TxDOT Standard Specifications for Construction and Maintenance of Highways, Streets, and Bridges (2014) under Item 439, Bridge Deck Overlays

West Virginia Department of Transportation

Travis Blake

Walbeck

We would like to make the suggestions made in the attached (track changes) document.

Standard Practice for the

Application of Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and Aggregates for Concrete Surfaces

AASHTO Designation: PP xxx-191





Commented [WTB1]: This should match with the other construction guide specifications. Or standard practice for…

TS-5b PP xxx-1 AASHTO

Standard Practice for the

Application of Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and Aggregates for Concrete Surfaces




1. SCOPE

1.1. This practice describes the application of thin overlay treatments using a binder resin system and aggregates for concrete surfaces. The application of the thin overlay is comprised of a minimum of two layers using a binder resin system and surface-applied aggregate.

1.2. Use the thin overlay in a double lift application (binder resin system and aggregate) for above grade concrete surfaces (bridges, ramps, overpasses, directional flyovers, stacked interchanges, and viaducts).

1.3. This standard may involve hazardous materials, operations, and equipment. This standard does not purport to address all of the safety concerns associated with its use. It is the responsibility of the user of this standard to establish appropriate safety and health practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations prior to use.


2.1. AASHTO Standard: T 242, Frictional Properties of Paved Surfaces Using a Full-Scale Tire

2.2. ASTM Standards: ASTM E1911, Standard Test Method for Measuring Paved Surface Frictional Properties

Using the Dynamic Friction Tester ASTM E965, Standard Test Method for Measuring Pavement Macrotexture Depth Using a

Volumetric Technique1

2.3. International Concrete Repair Institute Guideline: ICRI Guideline No. 310.2R-2013, Selecting and Specifying Concrete Surface Preparation for

Sealers, Coatings, Polymer Overlays, and Concrete Repair

Commented [WTB2]: Should match other documents.


3. QUALIFICATION OF INSTALLER

3.1. Quality Control (QC) Plan—The QC plan shall be project specific detailing installer's key personnel, equipment, materials, proposed methods of installation for binder and aggregate, materials blending procedures, and proposed curing table by temperature.

3.2. Key Personnel:

3.2.1. Provide contact information for key personnel.

3.2.2. Designate a project superintendent who shall have full authority to institute any action necessary for the successful operation of the QC plan.

3.2.3. Designate a lead technician who shall be present at the job site and be responsible for the required field quality control sampling and testing in conformance with the approved QC plan and contract documents.

3.3. Equipment:

3.3.1. Equipment calibration records of metering devices and application monitoring devices to ensure compliance with this specification.

3.3.2. Cleaning and maintenance schedule for application equipment.

3.4. Materials:

3.4.1. Provide procedures for storage and protection of materials both stockpiled and onsite.

3.5. Installation of Thin Overlay:

3.5.1. Provide procedures for mixing and placement of materials for thin overlay.

3.5.2. Provide procedures for monitoring, recording, and submittal of ambient conditions (air temperature, surface temperature, relative humidity).

3.5.3. Provide procedures for recording of quantities of materials installed.

3.5.4. Corrective Action: The quality control plan shall include corrective actions to address unsatisfactory installation, such as failure to cure, failure to meet friction values, spills, and job site hazards.

3.5.5.3.6. Submit the QC plan to the engineer for approval at least 30 days prior to the placement.

3.5.6.3.7. Any deviation from the approved QC plan shall be cause for immediate suspension of operations until corrective action is complete and approved by the owner agency.

4. RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

4.1. Storage of Materials:

4.1.1. Materials shall be stored in accordance to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

4.1.2. At no time shall the aggregate be exposed to rain, or moisture.

Commented [WTB3]: This is an incomplete sentence.

Formatted: Heading 2


4.1.3. Safety data sheet (SDS), product data sheet, and other information pertaining to the safe practices for the storage, handling, and disposal of the materials, and to their health hazards shall be obtained from the manufacturer and posted at storage areas.

4.1.4. A copy of such information shall be provided to the engineer.

4.2. Application Conditions:

4.2.1. Do not apply thin overlay on a wet surface or when the surface temperature is outside the manufacturer’s recommendation.

4.2.2. Do not apply when anticipated weather conditions would prevent proper application and curing of the thin overlay.

4.3. Preparation of Surfaces:

4.3.1. Utilities, drainage structures, curbs, and any other structure within or adjacent to treatment location shall be protected from the surface preparation and installation of the thin overlay.

4.3.2. Pavement markings that conflict with the thin overlay installation shall be removed by methods acceptable to the engineer.

4.3.3. Prepare all pavement surfaces immediately prior to the installation of thin overlay.

4.3.4. Pavement surfaces contaminated with oils, greases, or other deleterious materials not removed by the surface preparation shall be prepared according to the manufacture’s recommendation.

4.4. Concrete Surfaces above Grade (Bridges, Ramps, Overpasses, Directional Flyovers, Stacked Interchanges, Viaducts):

4.4.1. Clean concrete surfaces by shot blasting and air wash.

4.4.2. Shot blast all surfaces to remove all curing compounds, loosely bonded mortar, surface carbonation, and deleterious material.

4.4.3. The prepared surface shall comply with the International Concrete Repair Institute (ICRI) standard for surface roughness CSP 5.

4.4.4. After shot blasting, air wash, with a minimum of 180 cfm of clean and dry compressed air, all surfaces to remove all dust, debris, and deleterious material.

4.4.5. Maintain the tip of the air lance within 12 in. of the surface.

5. APPLICATION

5.1. Apply the thin overlay, in accordance with this specification.

5.2. Apply the thin overlay material on a prepared surface, when the surface temperatures are within manufacturer’s recommendation.

5.3. Do not apply the thin overlay material if the anticipated weather or pavement surface conditions would prevent the proper application of the surface treatment as determined by thin overlay installer.

Commented [WTB4]: Some rewording may be needed here.

Commented [WTB5]: Should we define "CSP 5"?

Commented [WTB6]: Some of the early parts of this section seem out of place with the later sections. We need to review the order.

Commented [WTB7]: Does this really need to be stated?


5.4. Pre-treat with the mixed binder resin system specified joints and cracks greater than 1/4 in. and less than 1/2 in. in width.

5.5. Cracks greater than 1/2 in. in width shall be repaired by the owner prior to thin overlay installation with a material compatible with the binder resin system.

5.6. Once the binder resin system in the pre-treated areas has gelled, the installation may proceed.

5.7. Use the thin overlay in a double lift application (binder resin system and aggregate) for concrete surfaces.

5.8. Both lifts of the thin overlay shall be applied to the full width of the structure per project documents.

5.9. On concrete surfaces with continuous concrete barrier rails the owner agency may apply the thin overlay to a minimum height of 6 in. above the concrete surface.

5.10. The owner agency may apply thin overlay to the barrier as each of the overlay applications is performed.

5.11. Binder Application:

5.11.1. Proportion and mix the binder resin system to the correct ratio as determined by the binder resin system manufacturer (±2 percent by volume).

5.11.2. The binder resin system shall be applied at a uniform thickness of 65 ± 5 mils (2.96 to 2.54 yd2 per gal) onto a prepared pavement surface.

5.11.3. Coverage rate is based upon expected variances in the surface profile of the existing pavement.

5.11.4. Ensure that any blushing (waxy surface coating on the epoxy) caused by a reaction of the moisture with the hardening agent does not occur during the application process.

5.11.5. Evaluate and remedy as needed any areas that show signs of blushing that typically cause adhesion issues to occur.

5.11.6. Operations should proceed in a manner that will not allow the binder resin system to separate, cure, dry, be exposed, or otherwise harden in such a way as to impair retention and bonding of the aggregate.

5.11.7. Walking, standing, or any form of contact or contamination with the wet uncured binder resin system prior to application of the aggregate without the use of spiked shoes to minimize the disturbance to the binder layer will result in that section of binder resin system being removed and replaced at the installer's Contractor's expense.

5.11.8. Contractor equipment and traffic is not permitted on the thin overlay treatment during curing period.

5.12. Aggregate Application:

5.12.1. The aggregate material must be properly embedded into the binder resin system.

5.12.2. The placement of this material does not require any compaction.

Commented [WTB8]: Could this be done by contract with the other work..?

Commented [WTB9]: Isn't this one of the lifts…? This seems out of place.


5.12.3. Aggregate shall completely cover the uncured binder resin system to achieve a uniform surface.

5.12.4. During the placement of the aggregate, by mechanical means, the aggregate will be dropped in a manner to not displace the wet binder resin system.

5.12.5. When placing in multiple lifts, ensure that the aggregate used is the same material as the final riding surface.

5.12.6. It is the responsibility of the installers Contractor to ensure proper embedment of the aggregate.

5.12.7. Immediately cover any wet spots of excess binder resin with aggregate prior to the gelling of the binder resin system to assure proper skid resistance and macro texture depth.

5.12.8. Remove the excess aggregate by sweeping or vacuuming before opening to traffic.

5.12.9. The owner agency may allow the reuse of excess aggregate if it is clean, dry, free from foreign matter, and meets gradation requirements.

5.12.10. It Recovered aggregate must be blended prior to reuse at a ratio of a minimum of three parts virgin material to one part recycled material.

5.12.11. All applications will require additional sweeping 3–7 days after installation is completed.

5.13. Application Methods:

5.13.1. Utilize one of the following methods to apply the binder resin and aggregate wearing course.

5.14. Fully-Automated Application:

5.14.1. Mechanically apply the thin overlay by a continuous self-contained application vehicle.

5.14.2. The application vehicle shall provide continuous pumping and proportioning devices.

5.14.3. The system shall mechanically mix, meter, monitor, and apply the thin overlay (binder resin system and aggregate) in one continuous pass without the use of squeegees or other tools to spread the binder.

5.14.4. Ensure the binder resin system manufacturer has approved the installer’s application equipment for spreading their material as stated in the installer’s QC plan.

5.14.5. Heating system may be necessary if required by the binder resin system manufacturer to ensure proper installation.

5.14.6. Limited touch-up of the resin with hand tools is permitted for areas less than 2 ft2.

5.14.7. Within 5 s after placing the binder resin system; the aggregate is applied at a minimum rate of 14–16 lb per yd2.

5.14.8. Hand application of aggregate is allowed only to assist in completely covering the binder resin system to achieve a uniform surface.


5.14.9. Apply the thin overlay so no seams are visible in the middle of the traffic lanes of the finished work after application of the surface aggregate.

5.14.10. Operations will proceed in such a manner that will not allow the binder resin system material to separate in the mixing lines, cure, dry, or otherwise impair retention bonding of the surfacing aggregate.

5.14.11. The application machine shall be equipped with flushing systems such that blockages of lines will not occur, and installation operations are not delayed, stopped, or otherwise compromised.

5.14.12. Data shall be provided to the engineer for each individual pass (start to stop) to compare manual depth checks for mil thickness to ensure equipment is properly calibrated.

5.14.13. In case of equipment malfunction, calibration can also be done by measuring the total gallons used divided by the number of square yards applied.

5.14.14. Coarse textured surfaces may cause tThe application rate to be adjustedmay be adjusted in order to achieve overall desired mil thickness of finished product.

5.14.15. Ensure that application equipment is capable of applying binder uniformly in one pass to obtain the desired mil thickness.

5.14.16. Ensure that operations proceed in a manner that does not allow the binder resin system to separate, gel, or set up in a way that would impair the retention of the aggregate.

5.14.17. The binder resin system manufacturer shall approve the use of their material with said automated continuous application device.

5.15. Semi-Automated Application:

5.15.1. Use a semi-automated application machine that mixes, meters, pumps, blends, and applies the binder resin system.

5.15.2. A heating system may be necessary if required by the binder resin system manufacturer to ensure proper installation.

5.15.3. The semi-automated application machine shall have positive displacement volumetric metering pumps.

5.15.4. Use motionless, in-line mixing so as to not overly shear the material or entrap air in the mix. Maximize material working time by mixing it immediately before dispensing.

5.15.5. After manually dispensing, spread the binder resin system with a serrated squeegee on to the prepared pavement surface to meet the required uniform application thickness.

5.15.6. Data shall be provided to the engineer for each individual pass (start to stop) to compare manual depth checks for mil thickness to ensure equipment is properly calibrated.

5.15.7. Maintain a “wet line” of resin without aggregate 2 ft wide ahead of the aggregate placement operation, then follow the resin manufacturer recommendations for dwell time for placement of aggregate on the wet line based on ambient and surface temperatures


5.15.8. Mechanically apply the aggregate at a minimum rate of 14–16 lb per yd2 onto the binder resin system by means of blower, spreader bucket, or suitable device in such a manner as to not displace the resin binder.

5.15.9. Hand application of aggregate is allowed only to assist in completely covering the binder resin system to achieve a uniform surface.

6. DEMONSTRATION OF THIN OVERLAY

6.1. Test Section:

6.1.1. The installer Contractor shall construct a test section of 250 yd2.

6.1.2. This test section shall be used to demonstrate the semi-automated or fully-automated application machine has been properly calibrated and to verify application rates and cure time.

6.1.3. The test section shall be part of the thin overlay quantity of the project and approved by the project engineer.

7. VERIFICATION TESTING

7.1. The verification of the thin overlay quantities used shall be based on data collected for each day’s production and for each individual pass (start to stop).

7.2. Verification testing shown in Table 1 may be performed by the installer or owner agency, as indicated in the project documents.

Table 1—Verification Testing

Property Test Method Requirement Frictional Properties T 242

ASTM E1911 Owner Agency-Specified Owner Agency-Specified

Macro Texture Depth (Sand Patch) ASTM E965 1.0 mm min

8. KEYWORDS

8.1. Binder resin system; concrete surfaces; thin overlay treatment.

1 This provisional standard was first published in 2019.

Technical Subcommittee 5B Ballot #2 Comments

Emulsified Asphalt Content of Full-Depth Reclamation Mixture Design


Comments

Tennessee DOT

Mark Woods

Section 3.1, Definition of FDR implies FDR can only be performed with emulsion. Are there other standards or guide specifications (or standards being considered) for FDR with cement? Definition should be revised to clarify that, while this specification is for FDR with emulsion, FDR with cement is also an option.

South Carolina DOT

Temple Short

Some formatting issues - 5.2.1, 6.1, 8.3.1, 8.4, 9.6.2, 10.1 Section 5.3.1: ref to M XX should be MP XX Section 6.1: do we need to add the temperature tolerances as in 5.3.1? Section 8.4: Curing temperature tolerance of 40 +/- 21 degrees C likely should be 40 +/- 1.1 degrees C.



Section 3.1 - perhaps make last sentence more general as to what happens over the FDR material.

Nevada DOT Changlin Pan

Section 2.1, add T-180 since reference in 6.3. Section 8.4, there is a typo on the temperature. The diameter of the plastic container needs to be better specified. Section 8.5.1 states "Immediately after curing, compact the specimens. Compact the specimens at 25 ± 2°C". How to achieve this with the material been cured at 40 ± 1°C for 30 min ? Is there a temperature requirement for emulsified asphalt for mixing?

Georgia DOT Monica Flournoy

Section 3.2 – Type 1 FDR mixtures containing less than 8 percent sieve passing No. 200 of the combined materials. Section 3.3 – Type 2 FDR mixtures containing greater than or equal to 8 percent sieve passing No. 200 of the combined materials. But the rest of procedure seems not differentiating Type 1 from Type 2 (by 8% criteria). In addition, Note 8 says If the percent passing N0. 200 sieve exceeds 20 percent, the use of a stabilizing additive such as cement or line may be required…. What are the definitive criteria for a mix design to use emulsified asphalt in FDR, or cement/lime in FDR?

Illinois DOT Gary Edward Angles

The formatting needs to be reviewed so the bullet levels are indented consistently. Should the scope mention underlying materials, similar to the definition for FDE in Section 3.1? Section 5.3 title needs to be changed to "Processing of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Materials:". Section 6.1: In the last sentence the tolerance for temperature should be added similar to the range in Section 5.3.1. Revise Section 8.2.3 to read: "Stir until thoroughly mixed, and continuously mix the slurry to prevent settling until it is used." Sections 8.2.3 and 8.2.4 contradict one another. You can't continuously mix the slurry and then cover to reduce evaporation. Section 8.4: In the first line the tolerance should be 40+/- 2 C. Section 8.6 title should be changed to "Curing After Compaction". Section 11: Have the editor review the punctuation at the end of each item to make it consistent.

Kansas DOT Richard A Barezinsky

Note 2 and Note 4 are identical and both are not needed. Section 5.2.3 is a duplicate of information in Note 1 and not needed. 2.1 Add AASHTO T 180 and T 245 to the reference list since they are cited in the text. 3.1 Disagree with the definition of FDR as it implies that emulsified asphalt is a required component of all types of FDR construction. It also implies that PCCP cannot be placed on top of FDR. (reason for the negative) 8.3.1 Suggest adding a note to explain the purpose for the different moisture contents in this section.

Alabama DOT Lyndi Blackburn

See attached document for comments. The negative is mainly due to the recommendation to incorporate Section 11 in the attachment.

Standard Practice for












Release: Group 3 (July)

1. SCOPE

1.1. This standard for mix design evaluation is used to determine the amount and composition of emulsified asphalt and other additives when using full-depth reclamation (FDR) of asphalt mixtures. The mix design is based on strength and other performance properties.

2. REFERENCED DOCUMENTS

2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 85, Portland Cement M 216, Quicklime and Hydrated Lime for Soil Stabilization M XX, Materials for Full-Depth Reclamation Mixtures with Emulsified Asphalt T 11, Materials Finer Than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing T 27, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates T 89, Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils T 90, Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils T 176, Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by Use of the Sand Equivalent Test T 166, Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using Saturated

Surface-Dry Specimens T 209, Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm) and Density of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) T 269, Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Asphalt Mixtures T 283, Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage T 312, Preparing and Determining the Density of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Specimens by

Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor T 331, Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) and Density of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)

Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method

2.2. ASTM Standards: D3549, Standard Test Method for Thickness or Height of Compacted Bituminous Paving

Mixture Specimens D6857, Standard Test Method for Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Asphalt

Mixtures Using Vacuum Sealing Method


2.3. Other References: LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, LTPPBind 3.0/3.1 Basic Asphalt Recycling Manual, Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association and

FHWA-HIF-14-001, Annapolis, MD.

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. full-depth reclamation (FDR)—the on-site rehabilitation technique in which the full thickness of the asphalt pavement and a predetermined portion of the underlying materials (base, subbase, subgrade, or some combination of the three) is uniformly pulverized and blended with an emulsified asphalt, with or without a combination of additives (lime, cement, aggregate), generating and reusing 100 percent of the reclaimed material, with the resulting pavement serving as a base layer overlaid with a surface treatment or asphalt mixture overlay.

3.2. Type 1 FDR— mixtures containing less than 8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material.

3.3. Type 2 FDR— mixtures containing greater than or equal to 8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material.

3.4. reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)—removed, processed, or removed and processed pavement materials containing asphalt binder and aggregate.

4. SIGNIFICANCE AND USE

4.1. The procedure described in this standard is used to produce FDR that satisfies mix design requirements.

4.2. Specifying an emulsified asphalt alone for FDR may not be satisfactory in producing a good-performing mixture. This method has successfully been vetted and is the baseline design procedure employed on numerous projects.

5. OBTAINING AND PREPARATION OF MATERIALS

5.1. Core Sampling Existing Pavement for FDR:

5.1.1. Obtain cores and underlying materials to the planned recycling depth from the areas to be recycled. The material provided must be representative of the material to be recycled. Where visual differences in the pavement surface are noted or where construction or maintenance records indicate differences, obtain additional cores to evaluate the difference. If these additional cores show significant material differences, perform a separate mix design or verify the mix properties from additional samples. Note 1—Take cores using a pattern that results in a representative sample of the pavement to be recycled including at or near lane lines, within and between wheel paths, at the pavement edge and within shoulders if shoulders are to be recycled. Provide at least 160 kg (350 lb) of material per design.

5.1.2. Crush cores at ambient temperature or colder to obtain materials for the mix design. Note 2—A jaw crusher, laboratory milling machine, or other suitable method is recommended for modeling the particle shape and gradation expected during recycling.

Commented [WTB1]: I'm not sure that this sentence is needed. This seems like a persuasive sentence used to convince someone that this is a good method. Being an AASHTO standard is good enough reason to use the method, in my opinion.

Commented [WTB2]: This statement is also found as Section 5.2.3. If this amount of sample is important to the design, should we consider this statement as its own section in 5.1 as well, rather than a note? (ie 5.1.4)


5.1.3. As an alternative to obtaining and crushing cores, obtain RAP by milling. Mill the pavement from areas to be recycled to the specified depth. Note 3—Consider a cold planer if the pavement section is uniform and a representative section is milled. Obtain samples provided the cold planer (milling machine) produces sufficient coarse material to conduct a mix design. Fine millings may not be acceptable to represent the construction-produced millings from a reclaimer. Only millings that represent the pavement to be recycled shall be collected. If the existing pavement surface is planned to be milled and removed during construction, the pavement shall be milled in a similar manner and removed prior to milling for sampling purposes. Milling and sampling shall only be to the planned recycle depth. The material may be taken from one test location for each mix design to be performed. For example, if a pavement change exists within the limits of the roadway, one test location should be designated separating each area.

5.2. Test Pit Sampling Existing Pavement for FDR:

5.2.1. Obtain representative samples of asphalt pavement and underlying materials. The material provided must be representative of the material to be recycled. Where major visual differences in pavement surface are noted or where construction or maintenance records indicate major differences, obtain additional samples. If these additional samples show significant material differences, either perform a separate mix design or verify the mix properties from the additional samples. The material may be obtained from one test location for each mix design.

5.2.2. Crush the pavement at ambient temperature or colder to obtain materials for the mix design. Note 4—A jaw crusher, laboratory milling machine, or other suitable method is recommended for modeling the particle shape and gradation expected during recycling. Note 5—If a portion of the existing pavement surface is planned to be milled and removed during construction, that portion of the pavement shall be removed and discarded prior to the mix design.

5.2.3. Provide at least 160 kg (350 lb) of material per design.

5.3. Processing of Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Materials:

5.3.1. Sieve the RAP according to T 27, with the exception that drying the RAP to constant mass shall be performed at 40 ± 2°C (104 ± 4°F). If a significant amount of fine uncoated particles are present, perform washed sieve analysis on a representative sample in accordance with T 11. Process RAP materials to model the gradation expected during recycling. As an alternative, combine RAP materials to meet the gradation band in M XX. Note 6—Adjustment of the gradation band to local conditions and construction equipment is recommended. The selected gradation shall be chosen to match the expected field gradation as closely as possible, with the exception that a greater top size on the project is expected. Gradations on a project will vary from sample to sample. Slight adjustments in the field to the design emulsified asphalt content are often necessary to obtain optimum mixture performance. Ensure all materials pass the 38.1-mm (1.5-in.) sieve for 150-mm (6-in.) diameter specimens.

6. DETERMINE COMBINED FDR MATERIAL PROPERTIES

6.1. Combine the RAP, batched to the gradation selected found in Section 5.3, with the underlying material to the proportion found in the field. Perform a washed sieve analysis on a sample of the combined FDR material in accordance with T 11 and T 27 except that the material shall be dried at 40°C (104°F). Note 7—Drying to a constant mass at 40°C (104°F) could take several days.

Commented [WTB3]: This reference will be needed before publication.


Note 8—If the percent passing the 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined FDR material exceeds 20 percent, then the use of a stabilizing additive such as cement or lime may be required to meet the requirements of MP XX.

6.2. Perform T 176, T 89, and T 90 on representative samples of the combined FDR material. Note 9—Combined FDR mixtures with sand equivalent values < 30 and/or PI > 6 typically require the use of a stabilizing additive such as cement or lime to meet the requirements of MP XX.

6.3. Determine the maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content of the combined FDR material in accordance with T 180, Method D. Use a minimum of four points to determine the optimum moisture content at peak dry density. Note 10—For materials that do not produce a well-defined optimum moisture curve fix the optimum moisture content between 4 and 5 percent.

7. EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AND ADDITIVES FOR MIX DESIGN

7.1. Select an emulsified asphalt in accordance with MP XX:

7.1.1. Obtain 7.6 L (2 gal) of the emulsified asphalt that will be used to produce the FDR mixture. Include the name and location of the supplier in the mix design report. Include the grade and properties of the emulsified asphalt in the mix design report.

7.2. Samples of Other Additives:

7.2.1. Obtain 2.3 kg (5 lb) of quicklime, hydrated lime, or cement if needed for the mix design. Included the name and location of the supplier of the addative. Note 11—Dry additives are sometimes used to improve early cohesion, strength, and moisture resistance. To limit brittle behavior, the ratio of residual emulsified asphalt to cement should be a minimum of 2.5:1.0 and the quantity of lime should be limited to a maximum of 1.5 percent, by weight.

7.2.2. Obtain a sufficient amount of other additives (i.e., corrective aggregate) that will be used to complete the mix design. List the name and source of all additives in the mix design report.

8. DETERMINATION OF DRY AND CONDITIONED STRENGTH

8.1. Batching FDR Material:

8.1.1. Select a minimum of four emulsified asphalt contents, evenly spaced, that will bracket the design emulsified asphalt content. Recommended emulsified asphalt contents should be in 0.5-percent to 1.0-percent increments, covering a range typically between 1 percent and at least 4 percent by dry weight of FDR material. Prepare six specimens for each emulsified asphalt content selected. As an option, additional specimens may be batched, compacted, and tested that have varying percentages of other additives such as cement or lime.

8.1.1.1. For indirect tensile strength testing from T 283, determine the amount of FDR material required to produce a 150-mm (6-in.) diameter and 75 ± 5-mm (2.95 ± 0.2-in.) tall specimen when compacted in the gyratory compactor at 30 gyrations.

8.2. Preparing Lime Slurry (if required):




Commented [WTB7]: These sentences could be combined or a list made to simplify. Maybe ever reference Section 11.


8.2.1. Prepare slurry by adding the required quantity of additive to water using the ratio expected for the project.

8.2.2. Minimize the amount of additive lost in the form of dust.

8.2.3. Stir until thoroughly mixed, and continuously mix the slurry to prevent settling until it is used to prevent settling.

8.2.4. Cover to reduce water evaporation.

8.3. Mechanical Mixing:

8.3.1. Mix samples for testing using a mechanical bucket mixer or laboratory-sized pugmill. If any dry additives are in the mixture, add the additives to the dry FDR and mix thoroughly before adding the water. For mixtures with a sand equivalent value greater than 30, use 45 to 65 percent of the optimum moisture content determined in Section 6.3. For mixtures with a sand equivalent value less than or equal to 30, use 60 to 75 percent of the optimum moisture content determined in Section 6.3. If slurry is used, add at the desired solids content by weight of dry FDR material and mix thoroughly. Thoroughly mix the FDR material and any additives with water for 60 seconds. Note 12—During construction dry stabilizing additives are typically added prior to addition of emulsified asphalt. If lime is incorporated a day or more before emulsified asphalt addition, then it shall be added to the wet FDR material a day or more before mixing with emulsified asphalt in the laboratory.

8.3.2. Mix the FDR specimens, conditioned at room temperature between 20 and 25°C (68 and 77°F), thoroughly with any additives and water or slurry, and then mix with emulsified asphalt at the expected delivery temperature. Mixing time with emulsified asphalt should not exceed 60 seconds. Note 13—Before mixing the design samples, prepare trial blends with expected moisture, additives and corrective aggregate, if any, to determine that the emulsified asphalt disperses throughout the blend. If an improvement in dispersion is needed, adjust moisture content, staying within the moisture requirements of Section 8.3.1. If an improvement is still needed, an emulsified asphalt formula change may be needed.

8.4. Curing Before Compaction After mixing, loose specimens shall be cured individually in plastic containers at 40 ± 21°C (104 ± 2°F) for 30 ± 3 min. Plastic containers shall be 100 to 180 mm (4 to 7 in.) tall and 150 mm (6 in.) in diameter. No further mixing or aeration shall occur during this time.

8.5. Compacting:

8.5.1. Immediately after curing, compact the specimens. Compact the specimens at 25 ± 2°C (77 ± 4°F).

8.5.2. Compact the specimens to 30 gyrations according to T 312 compaction procedures with the exception that the materials and the molds are not heated.

8.5.3. Compact six specimens at each emulsified asphalt content for strength testing; three for unconditioned (dry) strength on cured samples and three for conditioned strength on cured samples for moisture conditioning.

8.6. Curing:

8.6.1. Extrude the specimens from the molds after compaction. Handle specimens carefully as to not disturb or damage. Remove the paper disks from the top and bottom of the specimens if used.


8.6.2. Place specimens in 60 ± 1°C (140 ± 2°F) forced draft oven with ventilation on sides and top. Place each specimen in a small flat container to account for material loss from the specimens. Cure compacted specimens at 60 ± 1°C (140 ± 2°F) to constant mass but do not heat for more than 48 h and not less than 16 h. Constant mass is defined as 0.05% change in mass or less in 2 hours. After curing, cool specimens at 25 ± 2°C (77 ± 4°F) for a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 24 hours.

8.7. Sample Conditioning and Testing:

8.7.1. After curing of specimens, determine the bulk specific gravity of each compacted, cured and cooled specimen according to T 166 Method A or T 331, if required. Since the specimens have already been cured to constant weight under heat, additional drying of the specimens as discussed in Section 6.1 of either T 166 (Method A) or T 331 is not required.

8.7.2. Determine specimen heights according to ASTM D3549. Alternatively, the height can be obtained from the Superpave gyratory compactor readout.

8.7.3. Determine air void contents of the compacted and oven-cured samples at each emulsified asphalt content according to T 269 using the maximum theoretical specific gravity as determined in Section 9.

8.7.4. For each emulsified asphalt content tested, separate the specimens into two subsets of three specimens each so the average air void contents of the two subsets are approximately equal.

8.7.5. Perform moisture conditioning on three compacted samples at each emulsified asphalt content by applying a vacuum of 10 to 26 in. of Hg partial pressure (13 to 67 kPa absolute pressures) for a time duration required to vacuum saturate samples to 55 to 75 percent. Saturation calculation shall be in accordance with T 283.

8.7.5.1. For the tensile strength test, soak the moisture-conditioned samples in a 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F) water bath for 24 ± 1 hours.

8.7.6. Dry samples are tested after a minimum 2-hour temperature conditioning by immersing in a 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F) water bath. Place dry specimens in a leak-proof bag to prevent samples from coming in contact with water. Alternatively, the specimens can be conditioned in an oven at 25 ± 1°C (104 ± 2°F) for a minimum of 2 hours. This testing is performed at the same time that moisture-conditioned specimens are tested.

9. DETERMINING THE THEORETICAL MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY

9.1. Batch two FDR material samples according to the gradation used for each mix design for use in determining the theoretical maximum specific gravity value according to either T 209 or ASTM D6857.

9.2. Mix samples according to Section 8.3 using either the highest emulsified asphalt content in the design or the highest and lowest emulsified asphalt contents in the design.

9.3. Follow T 209 or ASTM D6857 with the exception that loose FDR mixtures are cured in a forced draft oven at 60 ± 1°C (140 ± 2°F) to constant mass. Cure for no more than 48 hours and no less than 16 hours. Constant mass is defined as 0.05% percent change in mass or less in 2 hours.

9.4. Do not break any agglomerates that will not easily reduce with a flexible spatula.


9.5. If using T 209, use the Supplemental Procedure for Mixtures Containing Porous Aggregate to account for uncoated particles.

9.6. Testing Two Specimens at the Highest Emulsified Asphalt Content:

9.6.1. Test both specimens at the highest emulsified content in the design.

9.6.2. Back calculate the theoretical maximum specific gravity for the lower emulsified asphalt contents using the following formulas. Calculate the effective specific gravity of the FDR material from the average measured Gmm as:

GFDR = (100 – Pbr) / [(100/Gmm) – (Pbr/Gb)] Where: GFDR = effective specific gravity of FDR material Pbr = percent residual asphalt content from the emulsified asphalt in the mix Gb = specific gravity of the residual asphalt Calculate the theoretical maximum specific gravity for the lower emulsified asphalt contents using the following formula: Gmm = 100 / [((100 – Pbr)/GFDR) + (Pbr/Gb)] Where: Gmm = theoretical maximum specific gravity at desired emulsified asphalt content Pbr = percent residual asphalt content at desired emulsified asphalt content GFDR = effective specific gravity of FDR material Gb = specific gravity of the residual asphalt

9.7. Testing Specimens at Highest and Lowest Emulsified Asphalt Content

9.7.1. Test specimens at the highest and lowest emulsified content in the design. Use straight line interpolation to determine maximum theoretical specific gravity at the other emulsion contents.

10. EMULSIFIED ASPHALT CONTENT SELECTION

10.1 Choose the design emulsified asphalt content that meets the FDR requirements listed in the specification. Report the range of contents that meet the specification requirements. Note 14—The designer may choose a content that is above the minimum value that meets all the criteria based on knowledge of local construction conditions and sound engineering judgment and experience.

11. REPORT

11.1. Report the following information in the mix design report:

11.1.1. Gradation of RAP and of combined FDR material;

11.1.2. Recommended water content range as a percentage of dry FDR material;

11.1.3. Amount of additive as a percentage of dry FDR material;

11.1.4. Theoretical maximum specific gravity of the mixture at each emulsified asphalt content, Gmm;

11.1.5. Average air voids and bulk specific gravity at each emulsified asphalt content of T 245 or T 283 samples;

11.1.6. Dry tensile strength at each emulsified asphalt content;


11.1.7. Level of saturation and conditioned tensile strength at each emulsified asphalt content;

11.1.8. Theoretical maximum specific gravity, air void content, dry tensile strength, and conditioned tensile strength at recommended moisture and emulsified asphalt contents;

11.1.9. Optimum emulsified asphalt content as a percentage of dry FDR material, and provide a range of contents that meets the requirements;

11.1.10. Emulsified asphalt and additive designation, supplier company name and location;

11.1.11. Emulsified asphalt residue content

11.1.12. Emulsified asphalt penetration of residue.

11.1.13. Notes for the field inspector regarding the possibility of increasing the emulsified asphalt content for finer FDR field gradations or decreasing the content for coarser FDR field gradations compared to mix design gradation;

11.2. Optional report information

11.2.1. Certificates of compliance for emulsified asphalt and additive.

12. KEYWORDS

12.1. Emulsified asphalt; FDR; full-depth reclamation; RAP; reclaimed asphalt pavement.

1 This provisional standard was first published in [YYYY].


Determination of Emulsified Asphalt Content of for Full-Depth Reclamation Mixture Design






Commented [BL1]: Or "Design of Full Depth Reclamation using Emulsified Asphalt"







1. SCOPE

1.1. This standard practice for mix design evaluation is used to determineprovides guidance for determining the amount and composition of emulsified asphalt and other additives when using full-depth reclamation (FDR) of asphalt mixtures. The mix design is based on strength and other performance properties.


2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 85, Portland Cement M 216, Quicklime and Hydrated Lime for Soil Stabilization M XX, Materials for Full-Depth Reclamation Mixtures with Emulsified Asphalt T 11, Materials Finer Than 75-µm (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing T 27, Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates T 89, Determining the Liquid Limit of Soils T 90, Determining the Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils T 176, Plastic Fines in Graded Aggregates and Soils by Use of the Sand Equivalent Test T 166, Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Using Saturated

Surface-Dry Specimens Add T 180

T 209, Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity (Gmm) and Density of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) T 269, Percent Air Voids in Compacted Dense and Open Asphalt Mixtures T 283, Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage T 312, Preparing and Determining the Density of Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) Specimens by

Means of the Superpave Gyratory Compactor T 331, Bulk Specific Gravity (Gmb) and Density of Compacted Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA)

Using Automatic Vacuum Sealing Method

2.2. ASTM Standards: D3549, Standard Test Method for Thickness or Height of Compacted Bituminous Paving

Mixture Specimens

Commented [BL2]: Of what? compacted specimens through indirect tensile testing, compressive strength ??

Formatted: Normal


D6857, Standard Test Method for Maximum Specific Gravity and Density of Asphalt Mixtures Using Vacuum Sealing Method

2.3. Other References: LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, LTPPBind 3.0/3.1 Basic Asphalt Recycling Manual, Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association and

FHWA-HIF-14-001, Annapolis, MD.

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. full-depth reclamation (FDR)—the on-site rehabilitation technique in which the full thickness of the asphalt pavement and a predetermined portion of the underlying materials (base, subbase, subgrade, or some combination of the three) is uniformly pulverized and blended with an emulsified asphalt, with or without a combination of additives (lime, cement, aggregate), generating and reusing 100 percent of the reclaimed material, with the resulting pavement serving as a base layer overlaid with a surface treatment or asphalt mixture overlay.





4.1. The procedure described in this standard practice is used to produceproduces an FDR mix design that satisfies mix design requirements.

4.2. Specifying an emulsified asphalt alone for FDR may not be satisfactory in producing a good-performing mixture. This method procedure has successfully been vetted and is the baseline design procedure employed on numerous projects.ensures uniformity in mix design practices and provides a baseline for

5. OBTAINING AND PREPARATION OF MATERIALS

5.1. Core Sampling Existing Pavement for FDR:

5.1.1. Obtain cores and underlying materials to the planned recycling depth from the areas to be recycled. The material provided must be representative of the material to be recycled. Where visual differences in the pavement surface are noted or where construction or maintenance records indicate differences, obtain additional cores to evaluate the difference. If these additional cores show significant material differences, perform a separate mix design or verify the mix properties from additional samples. Note 1—Take cores using a pattern that results in a representative sample of the pavement to be recycled including at or near lane lines, within and between wheel paths, at the pavement edge and within shoulders if shoulders are to be recycled. Provide at least 160 kg (350 lb) of material per design.

5.1.2. Crush cores at ambient temperature or colder to obtain materials for the mix design.

Commented [BL3]: Why are ASTM standards referenced when AASHTO standards are available?

Commented [BL4]: Be consistent use one or the other.

Commented [BL5]: An Equipment section is likely needed.

Commented [BL6]: Reference the AASHTO coring procedure - R 67


Note 2—A jaw crusher, laboratory milling machine, or other suitable method is recommended for modeling the particle shape and gradation expected during recycling.

5.2. Milling Sampling Existing Pavement

5.1.3.5.2.1. As an alternative to obtaining and crushing cores, obtain RAP by milling. Mill the pavement from areas to be recycled to the specified depth. Note 3—Consider a cold planer if the pavement section is uniform and a representative section is milled. Obtain samples provided the cold planer (milling machine) produces sufficient coarse material to conduct a mix design. Fine millings may not be acceptable to represent the construction-produced millings from a reclaimer. Only millings that represent the pavement to be recycled shall be collected. If the existing pavement surface is planned to be milled and removed during construction, the pavement shall be milled in a similar manner and removed prior to milling for sampling purposes. Milling and sampling shall only be to the planned recycle depth. The material may be taken from one test location for each mix design to be performed. For example, if a pavement change exists within the limits of the roadway, one test location should be designated separating each area.

5.2.2 Milling and sampling shall only be to the planned recycle depth.

5.2.5.3. Test Pit Sampling Existing Pavement for FDR:

5.2.1.5.3.1. Obtain representative samples of asphalt pavement and underlying materials by means of test pit sampling. The material provided must be representative of the material to be recycled. Where major visual differences in pavement surface are noted or where construction or maintenance records indicate major differences, obtain additional samples. If these additional samples show significant material differences, either perform a separate mix design or verify the mix properties from the additional samples. The material may be obtained from one test location for each mix design.

5.2.2.5.3.2. Crush the pavement at ambient temperature or colder to obtain materials for the mix design. Note 4—A jaw crusher, laboratory milling machine, or other suitable method is recommended for modeling the particle shape and gradation expected during recycling. Note 5—If a portion of the existing pavement surface is planned to be milled and removed during construction, that portion of the pavement shall be removed and discarded prior to the mix design.

5.2.3.1.1.1. Provide at least 160 kg (350 lb) of material per design.

5.3.5.4. Processing of Recycled Asphalt Pavement (RAP) Materials:

5.3.1.5.4.1. Sieve the RAP according to T 27, with the exception that drying the RAP to constant mass shall be performed at 40 ± 2°C (104 ± 4°F). If a significant amount of fine uncoated particles are present, perform washed sieve analysis on a representative sample in accordance with T 11. Process RAP materials to model the gradation expected during recycling. As an alternative, or combine RAP materials to meet the gradation band given in MP XX. Note 6—Adjustment of the gradation band to local conditions and construction equipment is recommended. The selected gradation shall be chosen to match the expected field gradation as closely as possible, with the exception that a greater top size on the project is expected. Gradations on a project will vary from sample to sample. Slight adjustments in the field to the design emulsified asphalt content are often necessary to obtain optimum mixture performance. Ensure all materials pass the 38.1-mm (1.5-in.) sieve for 150-mm (6-in.) diameter specimens.

5.3.2.5.5. Provide at least 160 kg (350 lb) of material per design.

Formatted: Heading 2, Indent: First line: 0"

Formatted: Normal, Tab stops: Not at 1"

Commented [BL7]: Does this sentence need to be in a Note - it seems more imperative to the procedure.

Formatted: Heading 2


6. DETERMINE COMBINED FDR MATERIAL PROPERTIES

6.1. Combine the RAP, batched to the gradation selected in Section 5.3, with the underlying material to the proportion found in the field. Perform a washed sieve analysis on a sample of the combined FDR material in accordance with T 11 and T 27 except that the material shall be dried at 40°C (104°F). Note 7—Drying to a constant mass at 40°C (104°F) could may take several days. Note 8—If the percent passing the 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined FDR material exceeds 20 percent, then the use of a stabilizing additive such as cement or lime may be required required to meet the requirements as given in Section 11to meet the requirements of MP XX.

6.2. Perform T 176, T 89, and T 90 on representative samples of the combined FDR material. Note 9—Combined FDR mixtures with sand equivalent values < 30 and/or PI > 6 typically require the use of a stabilizing additive such as cement or lime required to meet the requirements as given in Section 11 to meet the requirements of MP XX.

6.3. Determine the maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content of the combined FDR material in accordance with T 180, Method D. Use a minimum of four points to determine the optimum moisture content at peak dry density. Note 10—For materials that do not produce a well-defined optimum moisture curve fix the optimum moisture content between 4 and 5 percent.

7. EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AND ADDITIVES FOR MIX DESIGN

7.1. Select an emulsified asphalt in accordance with MP XX:

7.1.1. Obtain 7.6 L (2 gal) of the emulsified asphalt that will be used to produce the FDR mixture. Include the name and location of the supplier in the mix design report. Include the grade and properties of the emulsified asphalt in the mix design report.

7.2. Samples of Other Additives:

7.2.1. Obtain 2.3 kg (5 lb) of quicklime, hydrated lime, or cement if needed for the mix design. Note 11—Dry additives are sometimes used to improve early cohesion, strength, and moisture resistance. To limit brittle behavior, the ratio of residual emulsified asphalt to cement should be a minimum of 2.5:1.0 and the quantity of lime should be limited to a maximum of 1.5 percent.

7.2.2. Obtain a sufficient amount quantity of other additives (i.e., corrective aggregate) that will be used to complete the mix design. List the name and source of all additives in the mix design report.

8. DETERMINATION OF DRY AND CONDITIONED STRENGTH

8.1. Batching FDR Material:

8.1.1. Select a minimum of four emulsified asphalt contents, evenly spaced, that will bracket the design emulsified asphalt content. Recommended emulsified asphalt contents should be in 0.5-percent to 1.0-percent increments, covering a range typically between 1 percent and at least 4 percent by dry weight of FDR material.

8.1.1.8.1.2. Prepare six specimens for each emulsified asphalt content selected. As an option, additional specimens may be batched, compacted, and tested that have varying percentages of other additives such as cement or lime.

Commented [BL8]: This standard is not referenced


8.1.1.1.8.1.2.1. For indirect tensile strength testing from T 283, determine the amount of FDR material required to produce a 150-mm (6-in.) diameter and 75 ± 5-mm (2.95 ± 0.2-in.) tall specimen when compacted in the gyratory compactor at 30 gyrations.

8.2. Preparing Lime Slurry (if required):

8.2.1. Prepare slurry by adding the required quantity of additive to water using the ratio expected for the project.

8.2.2. Minimize the amount of additive lost in the form of dust.

8.2.3. Stir until thoroughly mixed, and continuously mix the slurry until it is used to prevent settling.

8.2.4. Cover to reduce water evaporation.

8.3. Mechanical Mixing:

8.3.1. Condition FDR materials at room temperature between 20 and 25°C (68 and 77°F) for XX time.

8.3.2. Mix samples for testing using a mechanical bucket mixer or laboratory-sized pugmill. If any dry additives are in the mixture, add the additives to the dry FDR and mix thoroughly before adding the water. If slurry is used, add at the desired solids content by weight of dry FDR material and mix thoroughly. Thoroughly mix the FDR material and any additives with water for 60 s.

8.3.2.1. For mixtures with a sand equivalent value greater than 30, use 45 to 65 percent of the optimum moisture content determined in 6.3. For mixtures with a sand equivalent value less than or equal to 30, use 60 to 75 percent of the optimum moisture content determined in Section 6.3.

8.3.1. If slurry is used, add at the desired solids content by weight of dry FDR material and mix thoroughly. Thoroughly mix the FDR material and any additives with water for 60 s. Note 12—During construction dry stabilizing additives are typically added prior to addition of emulsified asphalt. If lime is incorporated a day or more before emulsified asphalt addition, then it shall be added to the wet FDR material a day or more before mixing with emulsified asphalt.

8.3.2.8.3.3. Mix the FDR specimens, conditioned at room temperature between 20 and 25°C (68 and 77°F), thoroughly with any additives and water or slurry, and then mMix in thewith emulsified asphalt at the expected delivery temperature. Mixing time with emulsified asphalt should not exceed 60 s. Note 13—Before mixing the design samples, prepare trial blends with expected moisture, additives and corrective aggregate, if any, to determine that the emulsified asphalt disperses throughout the blend. If an improvement in dispersion is needed, adjust moisture content, staying within the moisture requirements of Section 8.3.1. If an improvement is still needed, an emulsified asphalt formula change may be needed.

8.4. Curing Before Compaction Using the quantity determined in Section 8.1.2.1Aand after mixing, loose specimens shall be cured individually in plastic containers at 40 ± 21°C (104 ± 2°F) for 30 ± 3 min. Plastic containers shall be 100 to 180 mm (4 to 7 in.) tall and 150 mm (6 in.) in diameter. No further mixing or aeration shall occur during this time.

8.5. Compacting:

8.5.1. Immediately after curing, compact the specimens. Compact the specimens at 25 ± 2°C (77 ± 4°F).

Commented [BL9]: When is the T 283 testing done?

Commented [BL10]: How is this ratio determined? Did I miss something?

Commented [BL11]: How is this done?

Formatted: Indent: Hanging: 1"

Formatted: Heading 4, Indent: First line: 0"


8.5.2. Compact the specimens to 30 gyrations according to T 312 compaction procedures with the exception that the materials and the molds are not heated.

8.5.3. Compact six specimens at each emulsified asphalt content for strength testing; three for unconditioned (dry) strength on cured samples and three for conditioned strength on cured samples for moisture conditioning.

8.6. Curing:

8.6.1. Extrude the specimens from the molds after compaction. Handle specimens carefully as to not disturb or damage. Remove the paper disks from the top and bottom of the specimens if used.

8.6.2. Place specimens in 60 ± 1°C (140 ± 2°F) forced draft oven with ventilation on sides and top. Place each specimen in a small flat container to account for material loss from the specimens. Cure compacted specimens at 60 ± 1°C (140 ± 2°F) to constant mass but do not heat for more than 48 h and not less than 16 hbetween 16 hours to 48 hours. Constant mass is defined as 0.05% change in mass or less in 2 hours. After curing, cool specimens at 25 ± 2°C (77 ± 4°F) for a minimum of 12 hours and a maximum of 24 h.

8.7. Sample Conditioning and Testing:

8.7.1. After curing of specimens, dDetermine the bulk specific gravity of each compacted, cured and cooled specimen according to T 166 Method A or T 331, if required. Since the specimens have already been cured to constant weight under heat, additional drying of the specimens as discussed in Section 6.1 of either T 166 (Method A) or T 331 is not required.

8.7.2. Determine specimen heights according to ASTM D3549. Alternatively, the height can be obtained from the Superpave gyratory compactor readout.

8.7.3. Determine air void contents of the compacted and oven-cured samples at each emulsified asphalt content according to T 269 using the maximum theoretical specific gravity as determined in Section 9.

8.7.4. For each emulsified asphalt content tested, separate the specimens into two subsets of three specimens each so the average air void contents of the two subsets are approximately equal.

8.7.5. Perform moisture conditioning on three compacted samples at each emulsified asphalt content by applying a vacuum of 10 to 26 in. of Hg partial pressure (13 to 67 kPa absolute pressures) for a time duration required to vacuum saturate samples to 55 to 75 percent. Saturation calculation shall be in accordance with T 283.

8.7.5.1. For the tensile strength test, soak the moisture-conditioned samples in a 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F) water bath for 24 ± 1 h.

8.7.6. Test dDry samples are tested after a minimum 2-hour temperature conditioning by immersing in a 25 ± 1°C (77 ± 2°F) water bath. Place dry specimens in a leak-proof bag to prevent samples from coming in contact with the water. Alternatively, the specimens can be conditioned in an oven at 25 ± 1°C (104 ± 2°F) for a minimum of 2 h.

8.7.6.8.7.7. This testing is performed at the same time that moisture-conditioned specimens are tested Test both the dry conditioned samples and moist condition samples at the same time.

Commented [BL12]: This needs to be mentioned earlier if it is an available option. Is it allowed in T 312?

Commented [BL13]: Already mentioned above.

Commented [BL14]: What makes T 331 required?

Commented [BL15]: Is this Section 6.1 of this standard or T 166 or T 331 Section 6.1?

Commented [BL16]: Why use and reference this standard when the specimens will be compacted with a gyratory and the height can be obtained from it.


9. DETERMINING THE THEORETICAL MAXIMUM SPECIFIC GRAVITY

9.1. Batch two FDR material samples according to the gradation used for each mix design for use in determining the theoretical maximum specific gravity value according to either T 209 or ASTM D6857.

9.2. Mix samples according to Section 8.3 using either the highest emulsified asphalt content in the design or the highest and lowest emulsified asphalt contents in the design.

9.3. Follow T 209 or ASTM D6857 with the exception that the loose FDR mixtures are cured in a forced draft oven at 60 ± 1°C (140 ± 2°F) to constant mass. Cure for no more than 48 h and no less than 16 hsamples between 16 hours and 48 hours. Constant mass is defined as 0.05 percent change in mass or less in 2 hours.

9.4. Do not break any agglomerates that will not easily reduce with a flexible spatula.

9.5. If using T 209, use the Supplemental Procedure for Mixtures Containing Porous Aggregate to account for uncoated particles.

9.6. Testing Two Specimens at the Highest Emulsified Asphalt Content:

9.6.1. Test both specimens at the highest emulsified content in the design.

9.6.2. Back calculate the theoretical maximum specific gravity for the lower emulsified asphalt contents using the following formulas. Calculate the effective specific gravity of the FDR material from the average measured Gmm as:

GFDR = (100 – Pbr) / [(100/Gmm) – (Pbr/Gb)] Where: GFDR = effective specific gravity of FDR material Pbr = percent residual asphalt content from the emulsified asphalt in the mix Gb = specific gravity of the residual asphalt Calculate the theoretical maximum specific gravity for the lower emulsified asphalt contents using the following formula: Gmm = 100 / [((100 – Pbr)/GFDR) + (Pbr/Gb)] Where: Gmm = theoretical maximum specific gravity at desired emulsified asphalt content Pbr = percent residual asphalt content at desired emulsified asphalt content GFDR = effective specific gravity of FDR material Gb = specific gravity of the residual asphalt

9.7. Testing Specimens at Highest and Lowest Emulsified Asphalt Content

9.7.1. Test specimens at the highest and lowest emulsified content in the design. Use straight line interpolation to determine maximum theoretical specific gravity at the other emulsion contents.

10. EMULSIFIED ASPHALT CONTENT SELECTION

10.1 Choose the design emulsified asphalt content that meets the FDR requirements listed in the specificationSection 11. Report the range of contents that meet the specification requirements. Note 14—The designer may choose a content that is above the minimum value that meets all the criteria based on knowledge of local construction conditions and sound engineering judgment and experience.


11. EMULSION FULL-DEPTH RECLAMATION MIXTURE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

11.1. The full-depth reclamation mixture design at optimum emulsified asphalt content shall meet the requirements specified in Table 2.

Table 12—Full-Depth Reclamation Mixture Design Requirements Test Method Criteria Property

FDR Type 1a FDR Type 2b Indirect Tensile Strength, dry subset, T 283

Minimum 276 kPa (40 psi)


Cured Strength

Indirect Tensile Strength, conditioned subset, T 283



Conditioned Strength

Ratio of Residual Emulsified Asphalt to Cement

Minimum 2.5:1.0 Minimum 2.5:1.0 Prevent Rigid Behavior

Notes:

a Mixtures containing <8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material b Mixtures containing ≥8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material

11.12. REPORT

11.1.12.1. Report the following information in the mix design report:

11.1.1.12.1.1. Gradation of RAP and of combined FDR material;

11.1.2.12.1.2. Recommended water content range as a percentage of dry FDR material;

11.1.3.12.1.3. Amount of additive as a percentage of dry FDR material;

11.1.4.12.1.4. Theoretical maximum specific gravity of the mixture at each emulsified asphalt content, Gmm;

11.1.5.12.1.5. Average air voids and bulk specific gravity at each emulsified asphalt content of T 245 or T 283 samples;

11.1.6.12.1.6. Dry tensile strength at each emulsified asphalt content;

11.1.7.12.1.7. Level of saturation and conditioned tensile strength at each emulsified asphalt content;

11.1.8.12.1.8. Theoretical maximum specific gravity, air void content, dry tensile strength, and conditioned tensile strength at recommended moisture and emulsified asphalt contents;

11.1.9.12.1.9. Optimum emulsified asphalt content as a percentage of dry FDR material, and provide a range of contents that meets the requirements;

11.1.10.12.1.10. Emulsified asphalt and additive designation, supplier company name and location;

11.1.11.12.1.11. Emulsified asphalt residue content

11.1.12.12.1.12. Emulsified asphalt penetration of residue.

11.1.13.12.1.13. Notes for the field inspector regarding the possibility of increasing the emulsified asphalt content for finer FDR field gradations or decreasing the content for coarser FDR field gradations compared to mix design gradation;


11.2.12.2. Optional report information

11.2.1.12.2.1. Certificates of compliance for emulsified asphalt and additive.

12.13. KEYWORDS

12.1.13.1. Emulsified asphalt; FDR; full-depth reclamation; RAP; reclaimed asphalt pavement.


Materials for Full-Depth Reclamation Mixtures with Emulsified Asphalt


Comments

Tennessee DOT

Mark Woods

Section 3.1, Definition of FDR implies FDR can only be performed with emulsion. Are there other standards or guide specifications (or standards being considered) for FDR with cement? Definition should be revised to clarify that, while this specification is for FDR with emulsion, FDR with cement is also an option.

This standard should me modified to include FDR with cement.



Section 3.1 - perhaps make last sentence more general as to what happens over the FDR material. Section 6.2.2 - may serve better as a note and is very vague

Nevada DOT Changlin Pan

Section 6.1.3, emulsified asphalts meet M 208 or M 140 may not meet the minimum 64% residue requirement.

Georgia DOT Monica Flournoy

Note 9 – combined FDR mixture with sane equivalent value less than 30 and / or PI greater than 6 typically required the use of stabilizing additive such as cement or line … Is SE value or PI value another criterion to define Type 1 or Type 2 FDR? We had a failed FDR project with poor quality of soil and it should have been cement treated FDR, but mistakenly used emulsion asphalt that led to a load bearing capacity failure immediately after the construction of FDR. We found even SE/PI does not detect the poor quality of soil, but we had to use ASTM D4546 methylene blue test to see the problem of poor soil that does not work with emulsion. Any consideration be given to methylene blue test?

Illinois DOT LaDonna Rowden

Section 6.1.1: The version of the LRPPBind software should be "3.0/3.1 or later" to prevent the need to update whenever a new version is released. Section 6.1.3, Note 2: In the fourth line, I would suggest defining "temperate climate".

Alabama DOT Lyndi Blackburn

The negative is mainly due to the suggested deletion of Section 7 from this standard. See attached document for comments. See attached file.



AASHTO Designation: MP xxx-191









Technical Section: 5b, Bridge and Pavement Preservation


1. SCOPE

1.1. This standard covers requirements for component materials and asphalt mixtures for full-depth reclamation (FDR) to produce a job mix formula.

1.2. This standard specifies minimum quality requirements for full-depth reclamation mixtures and, the emulsified asphalt, and other addatives.


2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 85, Portland Cement M 140, Emulsified Asphalt M 208, Cationic Emulsified Asphalt M 216, Quicklime and Hydrated Lime for Soil Stabilization M 320, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder PP XX, Emulsified Asphalt Content of Full-Depth Reclamation Mixture Design T 283, Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage

2.2. Other References: LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, LTPPBind 3.0/3.1

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. full-depth reclamation (FDR)—the on-site rehabilitation technique in which the full thickness of the asphalt pavement and a predetermined portion of the underlying materials (base, subbase, subgrade, or some combination of the three) is uniformly pulverized and blended with an emulsified asphalt, with or without a combination of additives (e.g. lime, cement, aggregate), generating and reusing 100 percent of the milled material, with the resulting pavement serving as a base layer overlaid with a surface treatment or asphalt mixture overlay.






4.1. This standard may be used to select and evaluate materials for full-depth reclamation mixture designs.

4.2. Specifying an emulsified asphalt alone for FDR may not be satisfactory in producing a good-performing mixture. The specifications here, along with the mix design described in PP XX, have been used successfully in many projects.

5. RAP REQUIREMENTS

5.1. Process pavement cores according to PP XX to produce the gradation band shown in Table 1. Alternatively, if experience has demonstrated consistent field gradations from milling, process the RAP to that gradation.

Table 1—RAP Gradation Requirements Sieve Size

38.1 mm (1.5 in.) 100 25 mm (1 in.) 85–100 19 mm (3/4 in.) 75–95 4.75 mm (No. 4) 30–55 600-µm (No. 30) 5–15

Note 1—Adjustment of the gradation bands to local conditions and construction equipment is recommended. The selected gradations shall be chosen to match the expected field gradation as closely as possible, with the exception that a greater top size on the project is expected. Gradations on a project will vary from sample to sample. Slight adjustments in the field to the design emulsified asphalt content are often necessary to obtain optimum mixture performance.

5.2. Ensure RAP meets agency requirements for an asphalt base mixture.

6. EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AND ADDITIVE REQUIREMENTS

6.1. Emulsified Asphalt:

6.1.1. For engineered emulsified asphalt, use LTPPBind (version 3.0/3.1), the nearest weather station to the project, 98 percent reliability and the depth to the top of the FDR layer in the pavement structure to select the low temperature PG requirements from M 320 for the residue of the emulsified asphalt. A spread of 89 or less between the high PG and the low PG temperatures is normally acceptable in choosing a base asphalt for the emulsified asphalt. Determine the other properties of the emulsified asphalt to meet mixture requirements.

6.1.2. For cationic emulsified asphalt, use CSS-1 or CSS-1h from M 208. The same principles in Section 6.1.1 can be applied when selecting a CSS-1 or CSS-1h or remove “engineered” from Section 6.1.1.

Commented [WTB1]: This reference will be to be made before publication.

Commented [WTB2]: I'm not sure that this sentence is needed. This seems like a persuasive sentence used to convince someone that this is a good method. Being an AASHTO standard is good enough reason to use the method, in my opinion.



6.1.3. For anionic emulsified asphalt, use HFMS-2, HFMS-2h, or HFMS-2s from M 140.

Note 2—For example, for an overlay thickness of 50 mm (2 in.), determine the cold temperature requirement at 98 percent reliability at that thickness as the minimum requirement for the base asphalt of the emulsified asphalt. For a surface treatment, use 0 mm. The low temperature requirement can be more conservative in temperate climates or for an FDR layer with a thick overlay. For example, if LTPPBind determines a cold temperature minimum of –10°C (14°F) in a temperate climate and the predominant grade for that climate is –16°C, then a base asphalt for the emulsified asphalt of –16°C (3°F) or –22°C (–8°F) is acceptable. Note 3—A general recommendation for any of the recycling emulsified asphalts is a minimum residue of 64 percent.

6.2. Other Additives:

6.2.1. If quicklime or hydrated lime is used it shall meet the requirements of M 216. If Type I or II cement is used, it shall meet the requirements of M 85.

6.2.2. Ensure additional aggregate meets agency requirements for at least an asphalt base mixture.


7.1. The full-depth reclamation mixture design at optimum emulsified asphalt content shall meet the requirements specified in Table 2 when prepared in accordance with PP XX.





Cured Strength







Notes: a Mixtures containing <8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material b Mixtures containing ≥8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material

8. KEYWORDS

8.1. Emulsified asphalt; FDR; full-depth reclamation; RAP; reclaimed asphalt pavement.







Technical Section: 5b, Bridge and Pavement Preservation


1. SCOPE

1.1. This specification standard covers requirements forthe component materials and emulsified asphalt mixtures for full-depth reclamation (FDR) to produce a job mix formula.

1.2. This standard specifies minimum quality requirements for full-depth reclamation mixtures and the emulsified asphalt.


2.1. AASHTO Standards: M 85, Portland Cement M 140, Emulsified Asphalt M 208, Cationic Emulsified Asphalt M 216, Quicklime and Hydrated Lime for Soil Stabilization M 320, Performance-Graded Asphalt Binder PP XX, Emulsified Asphalt Content of Full-Depth Reclamation Mixture Design T 283, Resistance of Compacted Asphalt Mixtures to Moisture-Induced Damage

2.2. Other References: LTPP Seasonal Asphalt Concrete Pavement Temperature Models, LTPPBind 3.0/3.1

3. TERMINOLOGY

3.1. full-depth reclamation (FDR)—the on-site rehabilitation technique in which the full thickness of the asphalt pavement and a predetermined portion of the underlying materials (base, subbase, subgrade, or some combination of the three) is uniformly pulverized and blended with an emulsified asphalt, with or without a combination of additives (e.g. lime, cement, aggregate), generating and reusing 100 percent of the milled material, with the resulting pavement serving as a base layer overlaid with a surface treatment or asphalt mixture overlay.






4.1. This standard may be used to select and evaluate materials for full-depth reclamation mixture designs.

4.2. Specifying an emulsified asphalt alone for FDR may not be satisfactory in producing a good-performing mixture. The specifications here, along with the mix design described in PP XX, have been used successfully in many projects.

5. RAP REQUIREMENTS

5.1. Process pavement cores according to PP XX to produce the gradation band shown in Table 1. Alternatively, if experience has demonstrated consistent field gradations from milling, process the RAP to that gradation.

Table 1—RAP Gradation Requirements Sieve Size

38.1 mm (1.5 in.) 100 25 mm (1 in.) 85–100 19 mm (3/4 in.) 75–95 4.75 mm (No. 4) 30–55 600-µm (No. 30) 5–15

Note 1—Adjustment of the gradation bands to local conditions and construction equipment is recommended. The selected gradations shall be chosen to match the expected field gradation as closely as possible, with the exception that a greater top size on the project is expected. Gradations on a project will vary from sample to sample. Slight adjustments in the field to the design emulsified asphalt content are often necessary to obtain optimum mixture performance.

5.2. Ensure RAP meets agency requirements for an asphalt base mixture.

6. EMULSIFIED ASPHALT AND ADDITIVE REQUIREMENTS

6.1. Emulsified Asphalt:

6.1.1. For an engineered emulsified asphalt, use LTPPBind (version 3.0/3.1), the nearest weather station to the project, 98 percent reliability and the depth to the top of the FDR layer in the pavement structure to select the low temperature PG requirements from M 320 for the residue of the emulsified asphalt. A spread of 89 or less between the high PG and the low PG temperatures is normally acceptable in choosing a base asphalt for the emulsified asphalt. Determine the other properties of the emulsified asphalt to meet mixture requirements.

6.1.2. For cationic emulsified asphalt, use CSS-1 or CSS-1h from M 208. The same principles in Section 6.1.1 can be applied when selecting a CSS-1 or CSS-1h or remove “engineered” from Section 6.1.1.

Commented [BL1]: ???


6.1.3. For anionic emulsified asphalt, use HFMS-2, HFMS-2h, or HFMS-2s from M 140.

Note 2—For example, for on an overlay thickness of 50 mm (2 in.), determine the cold temperature requirement at 98 percent reliability at that thickness as the minimum requirement for the base asphalt of the emulsified asphalt. For a surface treatment, use 0 mm. The low temperature requirement can be more conservative in temperate climates or for an FDR layer with a thick overlay. For example, if LTPPBind determines a cold temperature minimum of –10°C (14°F) in a temperate climate and the predominant grade for that climate is –16°C, then a base asphalt for the emulsified asphalt of –16°C (3°F) or –22°C (–8°F) is acceptable. Note 3—A general recommendation for any of the recycling emulsified asphalts is a minimum residue of 64 percent.

6.2. Other Additives:

6.2.1. If quicklime or hydrated lime is used it shall meet the requirements of M 216.

6.2.1.6.2.2. If Type I or II cement is used, it shall meet the requirements of M 85.

6.2.2.6.2.3. Ensure additional aggregate meets agency requirements for at least an asphalt base mixture.


7.1. The full-depth reclamation mixture design at optimum emulsified asphalt content shall meet the requirements specified in Table 2 when prepared in accordance with PP XX.





Cured Strength







Notes: a Mixtures containing <8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material b Mixtures containing ≥8 percent passing 0.075-mm (No. 200) sieve of the combined material

8.7. KEYWORDS

8.1.7.1. Emulsified asphalt; FDR; full-depth reclamation; RAP; reclaimed asphalt pavement.


Commented [BL2]: Move to the Design practice for FDR.

Layout / Formatting Guide for

Developing Construction Guide

Specifications for Pavement

Preservation Treatments

This document is intended to provide specification developers a guideline for writing construction guide

specifications for pavement preservation treatments. The common layout, format, and sections will

allow for a consistent and systematic flow for the writing, reviewing, publication, and use of these types

of specifications.

REFERENCE DOCUMENTS

1. Style Manual for AASHTO Publications

2. The Guide Specification for Highway Construction (To be used as examples)

3. AASHTO Resolution (Attached)

GENERAL GUIDANCE

1. All construction guide specifications should: a. be labeled “Construction Guide Specification for (name of the treatment or process)”.,

b. use ‘Active Voice, Imperative Mood’,

c. use the five sections listed below. Others may be used if the topic does not fit within one of the five sections.

i. Description ii. Materials

iii. Construction iv. Measurement v. Payment

The following document further explains what should be contained in each section. The layout of this guide document is intended to serve as a template for the layout of the construction guide specifications. SUBMITTAL Construction specifications for pavement preservation treatments are to be reviewed by the AASHTO Committee On Materials and Pavements (COMP) Technical Subcommittee 5b – Bridge and Pavement Preservation. These documents will follow the COMP approval process. To submit a guide specification for review and discussion contact the COMP TS 5b Chairperson, Vice Chairperson or the AASHTO liaison for COMP. Current Chair (2018) – Derek Nener-Plante : [email protected] Current Vice (2018) – Travis Walbeck : [email protected]

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 444 North Capitol Street N.W., Suite 249 Washington, D.C. 20001

mailto:[email protected]


Guide Specifications for Highway Construction

101

SECTION XXX

GUIDE FOR WRITING PAVEMENT PRESERVATION CONSTRUCTION GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

XXX.01 Description

Description section should be used to identify the specific treatment or process. This section

should clearly, but concisely state the overall construction process. Use as few words as possible

while making sure that the reader understands what this guide documents.

XXX.02 Materials

This section should be used to list the materials that would typically be used with the treatment

or process.

A. Whenever possible the writer should reference AASHTO Materials Specifications for the

specific properties or tests required for the listed materials.

B. If no materials are used for a process the section should contain the words, “Not Used” or

“Reserved.”

XXX.03 Construction

This section should clearly describe the actions required for this treatment. Performance

specifications are preferred; avoid using method specifications. Subsections should be

considered and be organized to provide details in a sequential fashion.

A. Some suggested subsections are:

a. Equipment. Essential equipment needed to complete the construction.

b. surface condition required prior to treatment application, measurement criteria

(more performance – less method)

c. application outcome measurement criteria

d. test strip,

e. specific quality control tasks required when and how often,

f. acceptance criteria,

g. etc.

XXX.04 Measurement

This section should contain the criteria (process, precision, and units) with which the accepted

treatment is to be measured. Typical methods of calculation of quantities and methods of

Division XXX: Pavement Preservation Guide Specifications

102

acceptance may also be included in this section. Payment adjustments may be included in this

section. The criteria should be clearly stated for final acceptance of the specific type of

treatment.

XXX.05 Payment

This section should include items intended to be paid as part of the preservation. Typically, a

table or list will have the items and their corresponding unit of measurement. Payment

adjustments may be included in this section.

Commentary:

1. Recommended practices or best practices should be located within the section with other information that the recommendation supports. These notes should be labeled as a recommendation and the font should be italicized.

2. Other sections or subsections may be used if the treatment is not adequately specified with the five standard sections and recommended subsections.

3. Tables of values are encouraged in conveying installation tolerances, material properties, or acceptance limits. Tables should be clear, concise, easy to read, and be numbered within their corresponding section. Lengthy tables should be considered as an addendum.

4. Figures, diagrams, pictures are discouraged.

5. Items within a list should be identified with numbers or letters, the use of symbols is discouraged.

6. State specific or region-specific practices should be limited whenever possible.

When these practices become important to the use of the specification a state

specific or region specific supplemental should be written by the agency or

regional organization to accompany the AASHTO Construction Guide

Specification.

AASHTO Committee on Maintenance Administrative Resolution

Title: Establish a Collaborative Review Process for Pavement Preservation Treatment Construction Guidance Specifications

WHEREAS, The AASHTO Highways Committee on Maintenance is seen as a leading technical resource for extending pavement life through the timely use of pavement preservation, a proven strategy used throughout the nation to keep highways, roads, and streets in good condition; and WHEREAS, Many AASHTO member departments look to their maintenance staff to construct pavement preservation treatments using in-house personnel, or when contracted, perform construction inspection; and WHEREAS, The AASHTO TSP2 has created a Pavement Preservation Emulsion Task Force and a Concrete Pavement Preservation Task Force consisting of technical experts from AASHTO member agencies, material suppliers, contractors, consultants, academia, and FHWA to develop specification documents for Design, Materials, and Construction that will improve the reliability and performance of pavement preservation treatments; and WHEREAS, The Pavement Preservation Emulsion Task Force and Concrete Pavement Preservation Task Force have submitted and received approval on many Design and Material Specifications from the Committee on Materials and Pavements; and WHEREAS, AASHTO approved construction guidance specifications for preservation treatments are needed by agencies and industry alike to ensure uniform application techniques and construction practices; and WHEREAS, The Committee on Materials and Pavements has recently formed a Technical Subcommittee-5b that routinely meets to review Bridge and Pavement Preservation specifications related to design and materials; and WHEREAS, Maintenance input is critical in the review and approval process of construction guidance specifications for pavement preservation treatments; and WHEREAS, The AASHTO member departments can be best served by a collaborative effort with the Committees on Maintenance (COM), Materials and Pavements(COMP), and Construction (COC) to implement a thorough and timely review process for pavement preservation construction guidance specifications; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the AASHTO Highways Committee on Maintenance recommends to the Highways and Streets Council of the AASHTO Transportation Policy Forum to assign to the Committee on Materials and Pavements, Technical Subcommittee 5b, for a five year period, the responsibility for reviewing, maintaining, and publishing pavement preservation materials standards and pavement preservation treatment construction guidance specifications to the corresponding publications (e.g. AASHTO Materials Book or AASHTO Construction Guide); and that the COMP Technical Subcommittee 5b add 3 to 5 voting representatives from each of the Committees on Maintenance and Construction for the development and review of preservation construction guidance specifications.

COMP TS 5b – TF18-01 – Construction Guide Layout and Format

Web Meeting / Conference Call August 24, 2018 : 11am EST

A. Member Introductions

Name State Email Travis Walbeck (Chair) WV [email protected] Lyndi Blackburn AL [email protected] John Donahue MO [email protected] Monica Flournoy GA [email protected] Robert Lauzon CT [email protected] Gary Angles (COC) OH [email protected] Aaron Schwartz VT [email protected] Sejal Barot MD [email protected] Anita Bush (COM) NV [email protected] Tracy Nowaczyk (COM) KY [email protected]; Deb Kim (AASHTO Publications AASHTO [email protected] Casey Soneira AASHTO [email protected] Derek Nener-Plante ME© [email protected] Other Members Name State Email Geoff Hall MD [email protected] Greg Garner KY David Hacker KY Mark Woolaver VT

B. Charge of the Taskforce

This group is charged with exploring the layout and formatting of preservation construction guide specifications to develop a standard or style guide to assist people with the drafting of these specifications. This will allow for a systematic flow for the writing, reviewing, publication, and use of these specifications.

C. Places to start a. AASHTO formatting guide (Deb Kim) b. ASTM style guide (?) c. AASHTO Construction Spec guide…?




D. Outline Sections a. Heading and Title b. Scope / (1.0) Description

i. Referenced Standards ii. Terminology / Glossary

c. (2.0) Materials d. Equipment e. (3.0) Construction f. Quality Testing g. Method of (4.0) Measurement h. Basis of (5.0) Payment

E. Other Sections to Consider

a. Qualification of Installer b. Smoothness Requirements c. Waste Handling and Removal d. Recommended Construction Practices (?) e. Application f. Final Surface Finish g. Demonstration of Application h. Verification Testing i.

F. Other Topics a. ?

G. Next Meeting a. Every week b. Every two weeks

Meeting Minutes

Page 1 of 2 August 24, 2018


Web Meeting / Conference Call (Kick off) August 24, 2018 : 11am EST

A. Attending

Name State Email Travis Walbeck (Chair) WV [email protected] Lyndi Blackburn AL [email protected] John Donahue MO [email protected] Robert ‘Bob’ Lauzon CT [email protected] Gary Angles (COC) OH [email protected]

Bob Jessberger (COC) OH [email protected] Jim Welter (COC) OH [email protected]

Aaron Schwartz VT [email protected] Anita Bush (COM) NV [email protected] Tracy Nowaczyk (COM) KY [email protected];

Greg Garner (COM) KY [email protected] David Hacker (COM) KY [email protected]

Deb Kim (AASHTO Publications AASHTO [email protected] Listed but not attending

Name State Email Geoff Hall MD [email protected] Sejal Barot MD [email protected] Monica Flournoy GA [email protected] Mark Woolaver VT [email protected] Casey Soneira AASHTO [email protected] Derek Nener-Plante ME© [email protected] Vince Allison WV [email protected]



C. Current Guidance Documents a. 2012 AASHTO Style Manual b. 2008 AASHTO Construction Guide Specs c. Documents provided by AASHTO Publications

i. Front Matter.doc




Meeting Minutes

Page 2 of 2 August 24, 2018

ii. Glossary.doc iii. Chp text.doc

d. Comment was made that looking at the layout of the AASHTO Materials Specifications would bring value to this group and the discussion.

e. No other guides or documents were discussed. D. Main Discussion

a. Discussion open on the official title for these documents. The group reached a consensus that “Construction Guide Specification for __________” is the appropriate title and heading. The floor was open to other suggestions and ideas, none were brought forward.

b. There was a brief reiteration of why these specification are in TS 5b and how they are intended to be published going forward.

c. Listing of standard sections was discussed in length. The group would like to move forward with the following five sections and the standard (required minimum) sections.



d. Many other sections were listed in the meeting agenda, it was discussed that the majority of the other sections listed could be subsection within the five listed above.

e. There was discussion around the desire to use more performance based specifications. Some agreement also mentioned that many of the preservation specifications are newer and may need more direction.

f. The need for ‘recommended practices’ or ‘best practices’ was acknowledged. A discussion about using a commentary section or imbedded notes, lead to the agreement that italicized notes within the sections to keep the relevant information together. Care needs to be taken that these sections do not become lengthy and difficult to read.

g. The idea that individual agencies may need to attach a ‘supplemental’ to these guide specifications was discussed. The would work well with best practices, recommended procedures, etc.

h. It was agreed that our guidance will point to the AASHTO Style Guide for non-technical formatting and layout.

E. Assignments a. Through the discussion two assignments were made:

i. Anita Bush – gather a list of existing preservation guide specifications. This list is attached to these minutes.

ii. Travis Walbeck – Draft of preliminary copy of a guide document. This should be delivered to the group by August 31st.

F. Next meeting a. The next meeting will be held September 6th or 7th. Please use the Doodle Poll to show

your availability. https://doodle.com/poll/53xhyzrwm2nyrt29

https://doodle.com/poll/53xhyzrwm2nyrt29


Web Meeting / Conference Call : Meeting #2 September 6, 2018 : 2pm EST

A. Member Introductions / Roll Call

Name State Email Travis Walbeck (Chair) WV [email protected] Lyndi Blackburn AL [email protected] John Donahue MO [email protected] Robert ‘Bob’ Lauzon CT [email protected] Gary Angles (COC) OH [email protected] Bob Jessberger (COC) OH [email protected] Jim Welter (COC) OH [email protected] Aaron Schwartz VT [email protected] Anita Bush (COM) NV [email protected] Tracy Nowaczyk (COM) KY [email protected]; Greg Garner (COM) KY [email protected] David Hacker (COM) KY [email protected] Deb Kim (AASHTO Publications AASHTO [email protected] Geoff Hall MD [email protected] Sejal Barot MD [email protected] Monica Flournoy GA [email protected] Mark Woolaver VT [email protected] Casey Soneira AASHTO [email protected] Derek Nener-Plante ME© [email protected] Vince Allison WV [email protected]



C. Recap from Last meeting a. Minutes b. Standard Sections



c. Assignments i. List of treatments – Anita Bush (Attached)

ii. Preliminary Draft – Travis Walbeck (Attached)

D. Review of Preliminary Draft a. Discussion






E. Other Considerations

a. Discussion

F. Assignments a. ?

G. Next Meeting

a. Sep 20, Sep 21…?

Meeting Minutes COMP TS 5b – TF18-01 – Construction Guide Layout and Format


A. Attending

Name State Email Travis Walbeck (Chair) WV [email protected] Vince Allison WV [email protected] Lyndi Blackburn AL [email protected] Robert ‘Bob’ Lauzon CT [email protected] Gary Angles (COC) OH [email protected] Bob Jessberger (COC) OH [email protected] Aaron Schwartz VT [email protected] Anita Bush (COM) NV [email protected] Tracy Nowaczyk (COM) KY [email protected]; Greg Garner (COM) KY [email protected] Geoff Hall MD [email protected] Monica Flournoy GA [email protected] Casey Soneira AASHTO [email protected] Erin Grady (AASHTO Pubs) AASHTO [email protected] Listed but not attending

Jim Welter (COC) OH [email protected] John Donahue MO [email protected] David Hacker (COM) KY [email protected] Derek Nener-Plante ME© [email protected] Mark Woolaver VT [email protected] Sejal Barot MD [email protected] Deb Kim (AASHTO Publications AASHTO [email protected]



C. Review of Preliminary Draft a. Change to format of this guidance document to look like a construction guide

specification rather than a materials specification. b. Use the word ‘shall’ instead of ‘should’. c. Document the use of ‘active voice, imperative mood’ for the guide specifications. d. Settle on numbering scheme. e. Use a cover sheet of guidance and a sample of the formatting for this document. f. Add brief instructions for summiting the guide spec for publication. g. Use the word ‘writer’ rather than ‘user’ for this document. h. Commentary to be at the end of the guide specs.









D. Assignments

a. Erin Grady offered to send Casey Soneira MS Word copies of some of the guide specifications for us to use as formatting samples.

b. Travis to update preliminary document.

E. Next Meeting a. Sep 19, Sep 20, Sep 21…? Doodle Poll b. Sep 20 and 21 are AASHTO main meeting in Georgia (Thanks for the heads-up Monica!)

https://doodle.com/poll/cfzd3zuuduf3wtsd


Web Meeting / Conference Call : Meeting #3 September 21, 2018 : 11am EST


Name State Email Travis Walbeck (Chair) WV [email protected] Lyndi Blackburn AL [email protected] John Donahue MO [email protected] Robert ‘Bob’ Lauzon CT [email protected] Gary Angles (COC) OH [email protected] Bob Jessberger (COC) OH [email protected] Jim Welter (COC) OH [email protected] Aaron Schwartz VT [email protected] Anita Bush (COM) NV [email protected] Tracy Nowaczyk (COM) KY [email protected]; Greg Garner (COM) KY [email protected] David Hacker (COM) KY [email protected] Deb Kim (AASHTO Publications AASHTO [email protected] Geoff Hall MD [email protected] Sejal Barot MD [email protected] Monica Flournoy GA [email protected] Mark Woolaver VT [email protected] Casey Soneira AASHTO [email protected] Derek Nener-Plante ME© [email protected] Vince Allison WV [email protected]



C. Recap from Last meeting a. Minutes b. Assignments – Guide Specs? c. Review comments on Draft 2

i. Format suggestions ii. Shall vs will vs should

iii. D. Other Considerations

a. Discussion

E. Assignments a. ?

F. Next Meeting a. Do we need one?





Web Meeting / Conference Call : Meeting #3 September 21, 2018 : 11am EST


Name State Email



C. Recap from Last meeting a. Minutes b. Assignments – Guide Specs? - c. Review comments on Draft 2

i. Format was accepted ii. Edits were accepted

iii. It was agreed to include the AASHTO resolution assigning this work to COMP 5b iv. A poll will be sent out with the final draft for final voting. v. No further meetings are planned.

D. Poll Results a. Everyone who voted is ready for this document to be distributed;

b. And consensus is that we do not need another meeting;

E. This Task Force is Closed

COMP TS Planning Ahead—Full Standards

Designation No. Title ASTM Equiv. Planning Needed TS 5b

M 224‐91 (2019)Use of Protective Sealers for Portland Cement ConcreteM 224‐91 (2019) No

Tuesday, November 6, 2018 Prepared for COMP by AASHTO Publications Production

COMP TS Planning Ahead—Provisional Standards TS 5bDesignation No. Title Planning NeededPub Yr. 1

MP 22‐13 (2019)Fiber‐Reinforced Polymer Composite Materials for Highway and Bridge StructuresMP 022‐13 (2019) Start Revise or 1‐Yr. Extend Review2013

MP 27‐16 (2018)Materials for Emulsified Asphalt Chip SealsMP 027‐16 (2018) Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2016

MP 28‐17 (2018)Materials for Micro SurfacingMP 028‐17 (2018) Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2016

MP 32‐17Materials for Slurry SealMP 032‐17 No2017

MP 33‐17Materials for Emulsified Asphalt Fog SealMP 033‐17 No2017

MP 34‐18Materials for Sand SealsMP 034‐18 Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2018

MP 35‐18Thin Overlay Treatments Using a Binder Resin System and Aggregate for Concrete Surfaces

MP 035‐18 Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2018

PP 82‐16 (2018)Emulsified Asphalt Chip Seal DesignPP 082‐16 (2018) Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2016

PP 83‐16 (2018)Micro Surfacing DesignPP 083‐16 (2018) Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2016

PP 87‐17Slurry Seal DesignPP 087‐17 No2017

PP 88‐17Emulsified Asphalt Fog Seal DesignPP 088‐17 No2017

PP 90‐18Sand Seal DesignPP 090‐18 Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2018

PP 91‐18Emulsified Asphalt Scrub Seal DesignPP 091‐18 Start Revise or 2‐Yr. Reconfirm Review2018

Tuesday, November 6, 2018 Prepared for COMP by AASHTO Publications Production