Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mileage vs. Actual Service Life Distribution of all Terminated Thin Overlay Projects
in General System
600
500
100
95
Minor Rehab
Thin Overlay
90
85
300
80
PCR
M ile a g e
400
200
75
70
100
Line of
Threshold PCR
65
60
0
1
10 11 12 13 14 15 5516 17
50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Age (in Years)
April 2008
1. Report No.
FHWA/OH-2008/4
4. Title and subtitle
5. Report Date
April 2008
Effectiveness of Thin Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay on Pavement
Ride and Condition Performance
7. Author(s)
University of Toledo
Department of Civil Engineering
Toledo, OH 43606-3390
147950
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
16. Abstract
The objectives of this study were: 1) To determine the cost effectiveness of thin hot mix asphalt (HMA)
overlays as a maintenance technique; 2) To determine under what conditions a thin overlay would be
suitable; 3) To determine the timing of constructing a thin overlay to maximize its benefits; and 4) To develop
a prototype aggregate source information system to correlate aggregate source quality to pavement
performance. Performance data for thin overlays constructed by ODOT since 1990 were collected to study
the cost-effectiveness of thin overlay. The average thin overlay project cost is about 40% of the average
minor rehabilitation project cost for the Priority System, and approximately 60% for the General System
pavements. In contrast, the average service life of a thin overlay is generally more than 70% of that of a
minor rehabilitation. Therefore, most of the thin overlays are deemed cost effective. Thin overlay projects
that are not cost effective tend to be those performed on very poor pavements, and with insufficient thickness.
Thin overlays are most likely to be cost effective if the existing pavements PCR score is between 70 and 90
for Priority System, and between 65 and 80 for General System pavements. A prototype aggregate source
GIS system was developed. Higher aggregate soundness loss is shown to correlate with higher pavement
deterioration rate. A thin HMA overlay is generally a cost-effective maintenance treatment. Employed
properly, thin overlay provides a relatively low cost alternative in preserving and extending the service life of
the existing pavement.
17. Key Words
Unclassified
Unclassified
149
22. Price
ii
Final Report
State Job No. 14795 (0)
April 2008
ii
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the facts and
the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official
views or policies of the Ohio Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The researchers would like to thank the Ohio Department of Transportation and the Federal
Highway Administration for sponsoring this study.
The researchers also would like to thank the technical liaisons of this project: Mr. Roger
Green, Mr. Aric Morse, Mr. Jeff Wigdhal, and Mr. Andrew Williams for their helpful
assistance during this study. Mr. Emil Marginean provided updated pavement condition data,
and Mr. Adam Au provided pavement construction cost data. Without their assistance, this
study would not have been completed.
The assistance provided by Dr. Joseph Tack, a former graduate research assistant at the
University of Toledo, during the first phase of this study is also appreciated.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures ................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables .................................................................................................................. viii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... I
Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
Objective of Research .................................................................................................... 3
General Description of Research ................................................................................... 3
Findings of the Research Effort ..................................................................................... 15
Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................................. 77
Implementation Plan ...................................................................................................... 80
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Benefit of a Thin Overlay ................................................................................... 9
Figure 2: Extension of Service Life Due to a Thin Overlay............................................... 11
Figure 3: Average Distress Levels Prior to and 8 Years after Thin Overlay...................... 18
Figure 4: Actual Service Lives Distribution of Terminated Thin Overlay Projects........... 22
Figure 5: Actual Service Life as a Function of Pavement Type......................................... 23
Figure 6: Average Service Life of Terminated Thin Overlays in Each District................. 24
Figure 7: Terminal PCR of Terminated Thin Overlay Projects in Each District ............... 25
Figure 8: Average Performance Trends of Minor Rehabilitation and Thin Overlay ......... 27
Figure 9: Time Extension (t) of Thin Overlays on Priority System ................................... 28
Figure 10: Time Extension (t) of Thin Overlays on General System................................... 29
Figure 11: Definition of Thin Overlay Performance ............................................................ 30
Figure 12: Effect of Existing Pavement Condition on Thin Overlay Performance.............. 31
Figure 13: Prior PCR Range in Each District....................................................................... 33
Figure 14: Average Thin Overlay Performance in each District.......................................... 34
Figure 15: Effect of Snowfall on General System Thin Overlay Performance.................... 36
Figure 16: Proportions of Thin Overlay Thickness in Each District .................................... 37
Figure 17: Effect of Overlay Thickness on Thin Overlay Performance............................... 38
Figure 18: Effect of Traffic Loading on Thin Overlay Performance ................................... 39
Figure 19: Average Performance as a Function of Year of Construction ............................ 41
Figure 20: Definition of Thin Overlay Benefit..................................................................... 42
Figure 21: Average Performance and Benefit as a Function of Prior PCR .......................... 43
Figure 22: Average Performance and Benefit as a Function of Prior Cracking Deduct ...... 44
Figure 23: Average Ride Quality Deterioration Trend of Thin Overlay .............................. 46
Figure 24: Average Benefit of Thin Overlay and Minor Rehabilitation in Each District .... 49
Figure 25: Cost Effective by the Time-Extension Method but Not-Cost Effective by the
Performance Area Method .................................................................................. 51
Figure 26: Not Cost Effective by the Time-Extension Method but Cost Effective by
Performance Area Method .................................................................................. 51
Figure 27: Not Cost Effective by Either Method ................................................................. 52
vi
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:
Table 2:
Table 3:
Table 4:
Table 5:
Table 6:
Table 7:
Table 8:
Table 9:
viii
Problem
A thin (2 inches or less) hot mix asphalt
(HMA) overlay is one of the maintenance
techniques performed on asphalt-surfaced
pavements to extend the service life of the
existing pavement. Thin overlays protect the
pavement structure, reduce the rate of
pavement deterioration, correct surface
deficiencies, reduce permeability, and improve
the ride quality. Milling may be performed
prior to the thin overlay to remove deteriorated
surface materials.
A study of Ohios experience on thin
overlay performance was initiated to determine
the cost effectiveness of thin HMA overlay as
a maintenance technique, and to develop
criteria for selecting pavement candidates
suitable for receiving thin overlay treatment.
Objectives
1. To determine the cost effectiveness of using
thin hot mix asphalt overlays as a
maintenance technique.
2. To determine under what circumstances a
thin hot mix overlay would be suitable.
3. To determine the timing of constructing a
thin overlay to maximize its benefits.
An addendum to the original study adds the
following objective:
4. To develop a prototype aggregate source
information system to correlate aggregate
source quality to pavement performance.
Description
The study was divided into two phases.
During Phase I, the researchers in
collaboration with ODOT gathered
performance data for all thin overlay
projects constructed since 1990 on both
Priority and General system pavements.
The performance data gathered were
used in Phase II to study the
effectiveness of thin overlay as
influenced
by
climate,
existing
pavement condition, overlay thickness,
traffic loading, and other parameters.
As a result of a concurrent research
study on pavement forecasting models,
predicted pavement conditions became
available. This allowed more recent
thin overlay projects without a long
history of performance data to be
included in the study.
The performance of a thin overlay is
measured in terms of the area under the
PCR versus age curve, whereas the
benefit of a thin overlay is defined as
that part of the performance due solely
to the thin overlay, i.e., total
performance subtracting the residual
performance of the existing pavement.
The cost effectiveness of a thin overlay
is determined by comparing the cost per
unit area of benefit versus that of a
typical minor rehabilitation.
Findings
The performance of a thin overlay
increases with better existing pavement
condition, less annual snowfall amount,
and increased overlay thickness. Thin
overlays on flexible pavements perform
better than those on composite
pavements, as thin overlays are more
effective in addressing rutting distress,
but less effective in eradicating cracking
distresses,
such
as
transverse,
longitudinal or reflective cracking. The
INTRODUCTION
Many transportation agencies in charge of maintaining pavement networks have recognized the
importance of allocating a portion of their budgets to prolong the service life of existing
pavements through preventive maintenance measures, instead of just rehabilitated those
pavements that have already failed. It has been said that one dollar invested in preventive
maintenance at the appropriate time in the life of a pavement can save $3 to $4 dollars in future
rehabilitation costs (Geoffrey, 1996). In light of the rapid increases in highway construction
costs due to escalating fuel costs and inflation, prudent use of the cost-effective maintenance
treatments should be a vital part of the overall strategy to preserve the existing highway
infrastructure.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has encouraged transportation agencies at all
levels to implement preventive maintenance programs by allowing federal funds to be used for
maintenance treatments when it can be demonstrated that such maintenance treatments are costeffective methods of extending pavement life.
A thin (2 inches or less) hot mix asphalt (HMA) overlay is one of the maintenance techniques
performed on asphalt-surfaced pavements to extend the service life of the existing pavement.
Thin overlays protect the pavement structure, reduce the rate of pavement deterioration, correct
surface deficiencies, reduce permeability, and improve the ride quality.
Milling may be
A study was initiated by ODOT to determine whether or not thin HMA overlay is a cost
effective maintenance technique based on Ohios experience. The study also aims to determine
the criteria for selecting suitable candidate pavement sections for thin overlay treatment, and to
determine the appropriate timing of treatment in order to maximize the benefit.
Background
There are a number of preventative maintenance techniques, all of which focus on preserving a
pavements structure by alleviating functional deficiencies without significantly affecting the
structural capacity of a pavement.
The Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) included a Specific Pavement Study-3 (SPS-3), which focused on
studying the effectiveness of various maintenance treatments. The treatments studied include
crack sealing, chip seal, slurry seal, and thin overlays. The goal of the SPS-3 was to determine
the life expectancy and timing of treatment applications. However, none of the 81 SPS-3
project sites are located in Ohio.
Thin HMA overlays have been performed by many transportation agencies with varying
success. A recent AASHTO questionnaire study indicates that out of the 25 States that have
used thin HMA overlays, 11 reported less than satisfactory results. The reported problems with
thin HMA overlays include de-lamination, reflective cracking, poor friction, low durability,
excessive permeability, and maintenance problems once failure starts.
An NCHRP survey (Geoffrey, 1996) showed that thin overlays generally have a service life of
between 5 and 8 years, but actual service life reported by the states ranges from as short as 2
years to as long as 10 years.
specifications, materials, thickness, treatment timing, traffic loading, and climatic conditions.
ODOTs Pavement Preventive Maintenance Guideline estimates that pavements that are
structurally sound, due to a recent minor or major rehabilitation, and are treated with a thin
HMA overlay are expected to last 8 to 12 years.
A study based on the performance experience of thin HMA overlays constructed in Ohio is
warranted, in order to determine the cost-effectiveness of thin overlays as a maintenance
treatment.
Phase I
Task 1:
Task 2:
Task 3:
Phase II
Task 4:
Task 5:
Task 6:
Task 7:
showed that the original condition of a pavement before maintenance treatment has a major
impact on the life expectancy of the treatment. For thin overlays, the median life expectancy
was 7.5, 7.3, and 2.5 years when the original condition was good, fair, and poor, respectively.
The median benefit of the thin overlay, defined as the number of years added to the median life
expectancy due to the thin overlay as compared to that of the control sections (i.e., without
treatment), was 2, 4.8, and 2.5 years when the original condition was good, fair, and poor,
respectively. They concluded that applying maintenance to sections with a poor condition
increases the risk of failure by 2 to 4 times. They also found chip seal to outperform thin
overlay, slurry seal, and crack seal in controlling the reappearance of distresses.
Hall et al. (2003) used the entire data set from SPS-3 experiment to assess the relative
performance of different maintenance treatments for flexible pavements. Thin overlays were
found to be the most effective treatment, followed by chip seals and slurry seals, in addressing
roughness, rutting, and cracking.
Chen et al. (2003) studied 14 SPS-3 sites located in Texas. The study concluded that chip seal
was the most effective treatment in most cases. However, thin overlay was the most effective
treatment in addressing rutting problems, and should be used on high traffic routes where
rutting is a major concern. They also concluded that the timing for preventive maintenance is
very important.
Based on the same subset of the SPS-3 data, Chang et al. (2005) determined the cost
effectiveness of various maintenance treatments by considering the cost of treatments. They
concluded that chip seal was the most cost effective treatment, as the cost of thin overlay was
the highest among all preventive maintenance treatments.
Several different methods to quantify the cost-effectiveness of preventive maintenance have
been described in the literature. Table 1 shows a summary of these methods. Hicks et al.
(1997 and 1999) proposed a process for selecting the most effective maintenance treatment for
flexible pavements based on a decision matrix. The timing of the treatment and user delay cost
were added to the consideration.
Method
Life-cycle costing
Cost-Effectiveness
analysis
Requirements
Interest rates
Inflation rates
Analysis period
Unit cost for treatment
Estimated life of treatment
Pavement performance
curve
Equivalent annual
cost
Longevity cost
index
Output
The equivalent
annual cost for
each proposed
treatment
Area under the
performance curve
is equivalent to
effectiveness
Unit cost per
expected life of
treatment
Relates present
value of cost of
treatment to life
and traffic
The life-cycle costing method requires interest and inflation rates as input and its result is
highly sensitive to these values. Actual values of interest and inflation rates (or the difference
of the two, called discount rate) fluctuate with time, and the appropriate values to be used for
evaluating public projects are not yet universally agreed upon. The longevity cost index
method also requires interest and inflation rates to determine the present value of future cost.
Therefore, these two methods were not selected for the current study.
The cost effectiveness method uses area under the pavement performance curve (PCR-Year) as
the measure for effectiveness.
constructed in Ohio have been collected and are available in the ODOT pavement database.
Therefore, this method can be used in the current study.
The equivalent annual cost (EAC) method is relatively straight forward. The EAC can be
calculated as:
EAC =
(1)
In this study, the cost-effectiveness analysis and the equivalent annual cost methods were
selected to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of thin-overlay treatment.
This database also supports other research studies and various pavement
management activities.
Thin overlay projects constructed after 2002 are not included in this study, because these thin
overlays have not been in service long enough to accurately assess their performance. The thin
overlay projects identified and included in this study are summarized in Table 2. For the
Priority system, 194 thin overlay projects, totaling 1733.9 miles, constructed between 1990 and
2002 were included. Among these thin overlays, 135 projects, totaling 1030.2 miles, have
received a subsequent maintenance or rehabilitation treatment, and therefore these thin overlays
are considered as terminated. Only the terminated thin overlays have known actual service
life. The rest of the thin overlays are still in service, and their service life can only be estimated
from forecasted pavement conditions. For the General system, 1367 thin overlay projects,
totaling 9335 miles, are included in this study. Among them, 765 projects totaling 4075.2
miles are terminated projects.
Many of the thin overlays on the Priority system pavements were performed as preventive
maintenance treatments, while most of the thin overlays performed on the General system
pavements were not intended as preventive maintenance.
General
No. of
No. of
Thin
Thin
Miles
Miles
Overlay
Overlay
Project
Project
1
9 (5)
102.4 (25.7)
150 (96)
1075.1 (541.3)
2
12 (9)
80 (53.8)
73 (42)
477.2 (214)
3
12 (11)
102.6 (90.4)
111 (69)
741.5 (359.9)
4
20 (15)
147.8 (103)
111 (59)
680.3 (254.7)
5
18 (9)
158.8 (91.4)
62 (43)
592.5 (332.3)
6
33 (22)
375.1 (226.9)
119 (79)
1079.3 (593.2)
7
17 (12)
177.9 (117.4)
250 (136) 1313.3 (607.8)
8
20 (13)
229 (122.5)
99 (62)
702.2 (353.9)
9
9 (6)
57.1 (33.5)
87 (31)
587.2 (118.1)
10
11 (6)
54.4 (18.9)
137 (64)
1036.7 (328.4)
11
15 (13)
129 (67)
136 (74)
931.3 (335.8)
12
18 (14)
119.9 (79.8)
32 (10)
118.4 (35.6)
194
Statewide
1733.9 (1030.2) 1367 (765) 9335 (4075.2)
(135)
* Numbers in parentheses are those thin overlays that have terminated.
District
Condition, PCR
C1
C0
A0
A1
PCR = 60
Time, Years
Figure 1: Benefit of a Thin Overlay
9
The benefit-cost ratio can be obtained by dividing the benefit by the cost of construction for
the thin overlay. The benefit cost ratio (B/C) can be calculated by:
B/C =
A0 C1
A1 C0
(2)
Figure 2 illustrates the time extension method, where the benefit of an overlay is expressed as
the time extension, t, of the pavements service life.
10
Pavement Condition
Minor /
Major
Minor /
Major
Thin Overlay
Minor /
Major
t
x3
x2
x1
Time, Years
The extension of service life, t, due to a thin overlay as compared with no treatment can be
expressed as:
t = ( x1 + x2 ) x3
where t =
(3)
11
The equivalent annual cost (EAC) of a thin overlay project can be calculated by dividing the
average unit cost per lane-mile of thin overlay by the time extension, t. The EAC of a minor
rehabilitation is calculated by dividing the average unit cost per lane-mile of a typical minor
rehabilitation by the typical minor rehabilitation life span, for example, x3. The thin overlay is
considered as cost effective if its EAC is less than the EAC of a minor rehabilitation. For
example, if the cost of a thin overlay is 60% of the cost of a minor rehabilitation, and if the
average service life of the minor rehabilitation is twelve (12) years, then the thin overlay must
extend the time to next treatment by more than seven (7) years to be cost-effective.
This task was to determine under what circumstances a thin HMA overlay would be more
likely to be cost-effective.
effectiveness of a thin overlay include: 1) existing pavement type, 2) pavement condition prior
to the thin overlay, 3) thickness of the overlay, 4) traffic loading, 5) climatic factors such as
snowfall amount, 6) District location, and 7) quality of the thin overlay itself, including quality
of the materials used, workmanship of construction, and time of year of the placement. Except
for the last category of parameters, where no data are readily available, the effect of each of the
above parameters on thin overlay performance, benefit, and cost-effectiveness were
investigated. The District location parameter likely encompasses a number of parameters such
as material qualities, maintenance practices, rehabilitation strategies, traffic patterns and
climate.
The criteria for selecting the candidate pavements suitable for thin HMA overlay treatment and
the optimal timing of constructing a thin overlay were also developed as part of this task. The
cost effectiveness of each thin overlay sections was determined based on the performance area
method. The criteria were developed by comparing the characteristics of the thin overlays that
were deemed cost effective with those thin overlays that were deemed not cost effective.
12
Aggregates comprise the basic skeleton of any flexible or concrete pavement. Therefore, the
quality of aggregates strongly influences the durability and performance of pavement. The
scope of this task was to develop a prototype aggregate source information system to reference
aggregate source and quality data geographically, and to correlate the aggregate quarry test data
to pavement performance.
prototype system. The geo-referenced aggregate source quality information can be used by the
Office of Materials Management as a pro-active tool for allocating sampling resources (i.e.,
increasing sampling in suspect areas before they become a problem) and for monitoring
aggregate quality.
13
indicator to determine the most suitable interpolation method. The method that yields the
lowest RMSE is recommended as the best method.
Analyzing the Aggregate Test Data and Correlation with Pavement Performance
Large amounts of aggregate quality test data from various quarries have been collected by
ODOT dating back many years.
The two types of test data analyzed for this study are
soundness loss and abrasion loss. Using data from Districts 2 and 3, where aggregate source(s)
for each pavement project were identified through the Job Mix Formula (JMF) and the
Producer/Supplier Code information, the aggregate quality corresponding to the same time era
of construction was correlated with the subsequent pavement performance, in terms of the
average PCR drop per year. When the exact aggregate source can not be identified, aggregate
quality interpolated from nearby quarry locations was used to correlate with pavement
performance.
14
Reflective cracking,
Raveling,
Corrugation (occasional, in hilly area with high trucks and thin overlay
thickness, reported by Districts 4, 6, 7, and 8),
15
The survey questionnaire and the detailed responses of each District Maintenance Engineer are
included in Appendix B.
distress levels eight years after thin overlays with milling are not significantly different from
the average prior distress levels, and are comparable to that of overlays without milling. As the
milling data are not precise and the practices of milling vary among Districts, more detailed
analysis is necessary to accurately determine the effect of milling.
16
Milling
w/o
with
1.9
w/o
with
w/o
with
w/o
with
w/o
with
w/o
with
w/o
with
2
3.2
12
12
3.5
3
3
3
3
7
5
5
32
33
District
6
7
0
1.9
3
1.9
4
1.9
5
0.6
3.2
1.9
4.8
9.6
12
7.2
12
7.2
12
12
2
4
3
3
1.8
7
4
2.4
1.2
3
3
3
4.2
5
3.0
1.8
3
3
5.6
0
4.0
0
5
0
4.8
0
3
0
2.5
25
37
35
29
30
11
23
41
7.2
8
0
10
0
11
12
3.8
0.6
1.9
6.4
1.9
2.4
7.2
3.5
3.0
2.4
4.0
22
0.8
0.8
3
3
0
2.4
0
1
0
2.5
3
3
7.2
1
2.4
3
3
0
1.8
4
7.2
12
3
3
7
9.6
4
2.4
3
3
3
4.2
4
8
24
12
29
18
27
30
34
30
31
8
4.9
9
3.5
10
4.9
11
7
12
7
Milling
District
6
7
4.9
5
w/o
1
3.5
2
4.9
3
7
4
7
5
7
with
3.5
2.8
4.9
4.9
2.8
w/o
with
w/o
with
w/o
with
w/o
with
w/o
1
1.8
2.4
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
1.8
1
3.5
2.5
3
3
3
2.4
4.2
2.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
3
3
4.2
4.2
7.3
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
3
4.8
3
3
5.2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3
3
3
4.2
4.2
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3
3
3
3
4.2
1.8
1.8
3
2.5
3
3
3
3
3
1
1.8
2.5
2
3
3
3
2.4
3
2
2
1.8
1.4
3
3
3
0
3
2.5
1.8
1.4
2.4
3
3
1.8
3
5.2
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.4
3
3
2.4
3
5.2
with
4.2
5.2
4.8
5.2
5.2
4.2
5.2
w/o
with
2.5
2.5
w/o
with
23
23
29
18
37
35
35
32
32
32
26
28
27
25
26
23
23
18
24
31
32
32
30
17
17
2.5
2.5
1.2
3
3
3
1.8
4.2
(a) Priority System Thin Overlays constructed between 1990 and 1998
Percent
Mileage
Prior
50.00
(3.2)
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
0.00
(9.6)
50.00
Prior
(7.2)
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
0.00
NULL
Percent
Mileage
100.00
Longitudinal Cracking
(2.4)
50.00
Percent
Mileage
Prior
(3)
(4)
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
Ravelling
(3)
100.00
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
0.00
NULL
Percent
Mileage
100.00
Prior
50.00
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
0.00
Percent
Mileage
Rutting
100.00
(7)
(3)
50.00
Prior
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
0.00
Percent
Mileage
(5)
50.00
Prior
(2.5) (4)
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
0.00
Figure 3(a): Average Distress Levels Prior to and 8 Years after Thin Overlay
(Numbers in parenthesis indicate the corresponding deduct Value)
18
(b) General System Thin Overlays constructed between 1990 and 1998
Percent
Mileage
Edge Cracking
100.00
Prior
50.00
(7)
8th Year
(10)
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
0.00
Percent
Mileage
Longitudinal Cracking
100.00
Prior
(3.5/3)
50.00
8th Year
(5)
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
0.00
(3)
Prior
50.00
(6)
E
HE
HF
HO
8th Year
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
0.00
LO
(3)
NULL
Percent
Mileage
Ravelling
100.00
Rutting
(3)
50.00
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
0.00
Prior
(7)
8th Year
NULL
Percent
Mileage
100.00
Prior
50.00
8th Year
(5)
100.00
Prior
50.00
8th Year
(2.5) (4)
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
0.00
NULL
Percent
Mileage
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
0.00
LO
(5.25) (7.35)
NULL
Percent
Mileage
Figure 3(b): Average Distress Levels Prior to and 8 Years after Thin Overlay
(Numbers in parenthesis indicate the corresponding deduct Value)
19
Percent
Mileage
Prior
50
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
Percent
Mileage
Prior
50
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
Percent
Mileage
Prior
50
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
Percent
Mileage
100
Prior
50
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
Percent
Mileage
100
Prior
50
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
Percent
Mileage
100
Prior
50
8th Year
E
HE
HF
HO
ME
MF
MO
LE
LF
LO
NULL
Figure 3(c): Effect of Milling on Average Distress Levels Prior to and 8 Years
after Thin Overlay constructed between 1990 and 1998
20
200
Mileage vs. Actual Service Life Distribution of all Terminated Thin Overlay Projects
in Priority System
180
160
Mileage
140
120
100
``
80
60
40
20
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
Mileage vs. Actual Service Life Distribution of all Terminated Thin Overlay Projects
in General System
600
500
Mileage
400
300
200
100
0
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
22
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Flexible
Composite
Pavement Type
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Flexible
Composite
Pavement Type
23
15
10
0
1
6
7
Districts
10
11
12
Priority System
15
10
0
1
6
7
Districts
10
11
12
General System
24
Terminal PCR
90
80
70
60
50
40
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
Terminal PCR
90
80
70
60
50
40
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
25
In order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of thin overlays accurately, it is necessary to project
the thin overlay performance to a uniform terminal PCR. The terminal PCR threshold value for
Priority system pavements is 65, while the terminal PCR threshold value for General system
pavements is 60, which was raised from 55 recently. If the measured PCR deterioration trend
ends above the terminal threshold, the deterioration trend is projected to the terminal threshold,
using the Markov prediction model developed in a separate research study. The expected
service life of a pavement is defined as the time from the end of construction till the actual or
predicted PCR score falls below the threshold value.
Figure 8 shows the statewide average deterioration trends of thin overlays and minor
rehabilitation for Priority and General System pavements. Based on a terminal PCR threshold
of 65, the expected service life of a Priority System thin overlay is 9 years, while a Priority
system minor rehabilitation is expected to last 12 years. For the General System, based on a
terminal PCR threshold of 60, the expected service life of a thin overlay is 13 years, and of a
minor rehabilitation, around 14 years.
The actual time extension of service lives varies widely from the average values as evidenced
by the rather high standard deviation values, and as shown in Figures 9 and 10.
26
Minor Rehab
Thin Overlay
90
PCR
85
80
75
70
Line of
Threshold PCR
65
60
55
50
0 1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Age (in Years)
Minor Rehab
Thin Overlay
90
PCR
85
80
75
70
65
60
Line of
Threshold PCR
55
50
0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Age (in Years)
27
Distribution of x1
Mileage
300
200
100
0
1
9 10 11 12
Time (in Years)
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
300
No. of Sections = 820
Total Miles = 1679.85
Mean () = 9.0 years
Stdev () = 3.9 years
200
100
0
0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (in Years)
Mileage
Distribution of x3
200
150
100
50
0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21
Time (in Years)
300
No. of Sections = 820
Total Miles = 1679.85
Mean () = 7.5 years
Stdev () = 3.4 years
200
100
0
0
7
8
9 10
Time (in Years)
11
12
13
14
15
16
28
18
Distribution of x1
Mileage
1000
500
0
1
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (in Years)
Mileage
Distribution of x2
1000
800
600
400
200
0
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Time (in Years)
800
No. of Sections = 2870
Total Miles = 6173.19
Mean () = 9.7 years
Stdev () = 5.2 years
600
400
200
0
0
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (in Years)
Mileage
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time (in Years)
29
PCR
90
80
70
60
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Year
2005
2007
2009
2011
30
Performance
(PCR-Year)
250
200
150
100
50
0
0-55
56-60
61-65
66-70
71-75
76-80
81-85
86-90
PCRPrior
Performance
(PCR-Year)
500
400
300
200
100
0
56-60
61-65
66-70
71-75
76-80
81-85
86-90
PCRPrior
31
Priority
P
G
0-55
58
584
56-60
84
754
61-65
160
954
66-70
185
1136
71-75
206
1012
76-80
125
539
81-85
101
282
86-90
31
150
Figure 13 shows that PCR scores prior to thin overlays vary significantly among Districts.
Districts 1, 5 and 9 performed most of their thin overlays on pavements with an exiting PCR of
between 70 and 85. In contrast, some Districts often perform thin overlay treatments when the
prior PCR scores are below 70 or even below 60.
This high variation of prior PCR scores among Districts can be attributed to both the variation
of pavement performance and conditions among Districts and differences in District
maintenance policy. For General System thin overlays, the prior PCR scores shown in Figure
13 are similar to the terminal PCR scores shown in Figure 7 for most Districts, because thin
overlays are routinely followed by another thin overlay treatment on General System
pavements. However, the pattern is different for Priority system pavements, as thin overlays
are usually not repeated. If the thin overlays were performed as a preventive maintenance
treatment, the terminal PCR score would be lower than the PCR score; such is the case in
District 1. However, in other Districts, thin overlays were often performed as a way to
postpone the next rehabilitation, and were replaced at a relatively early age. As a result, the
terminal PCR is higher than the Prior PCR.
Thin overlays that were constructed on pavements with better existing conditions have better
performance; therefore, they likely have higher terminal PCR scores when replaced by the next
treatment, say, seven to nine years later. This becomes a positive, upward cycle for those
Districts that do not have a large backlog of poor pavements, and can afford to maintain and
rehabilitated their pavements in a timely manner.
32
90
Prior PCR
80
70
60
50
40
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
10
11
12
90
Prior PCR
80
70
60
50
40
1
6
7
District
33
Average Performance
(PCR-Year)
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
6
District
10
11
12
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
6
District
10
11
12
34
Figure 15 shows that the amount of annual snowfall adversely affects thin overlay performance.
This climate parameter contributes, at least partially, to the above average performance in
Districts 8, 9, and 10 and the below average performance in Districts 3, 4, and 12.
The overlay performance is also influenced by overlay thickness. However, for thin overlays,
the thickness ranges only from 1 to 2 inches, with a majority of the thin overlays having a
thickness of 1.5 inches or higher. Figure 16 shows that the proportions of different thin overlay
thicknesses vary significantly among Districts. For example, on the Priority System, most of
the 1.75-inch overlays were performed by District 7. District 2 performs mostly 1.5-inch
overlays, while District 10 performs mostly 2-inch overlays.
Figure 17 shows that greater thickness corresponds to a slight increase in performance. The
effect of thickness is likely confounded with other parameters, such as the Prior PCR. As
shown, 1.75-inch Priority System thin overlays perform poorly, but they are mostly in District
7, where the median prior PCR of its Priority System thin overlay is 66, below the statewide
average.
Figure 18 shows that Priority System thin overlay performance does not appear to correlate
with traffic loadings. However, the performance of General System thin overlays decreases at
high traffic loading level of annual ESAL above 200,000 (log ESAL greater than 5.5).
Table 5 shows that most of the General System pavements are in the low to medium traffic
loading levels (log ESAL below 5.5).
35
Performance
(PCR-Year)
200
150
100
50
0
15-21
n = 230
22-28
n = 378
29-35
Snowfall (inches)
36-42
n = 101
n = 84
43-99
n = 197
Performance
(PCR-Year)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
15-21
n = 1081
22-28
n = 2531
29-35
Snowfall (inches)
n = 1055
36-42
n = 567
43-99
n = 389
36
Mileage
350
1.75
300
1.5
250
1.25
1
200
150
100
50
0
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
1.75
1.5
Mileage
1000
1.25
800
600
400
200
0
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
37
Performance
(PCR-Year)
250
200
150
100
50
0
1.25
1.5
1.75
Thickness Added
n = 122
n = 464
n = 111
n = 222
Performance (PCR-Year
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
Thickness Added
n = 275
n = 488
n = 2077
n = 1169
n = 1513
38
Priority Syste m (Thre shold PCR = 65) Thin Ove rlays Pe rformance
Are a Unde r Curve Dis tribution
350
300
(PCR-Year)
Performance
250
200
150
100
50
0
5.0-5.4
n = 67
5.5-5.9
6.0-6.4
log(Ave rage ESAL)
n = 237
n = 441
(a) Priority System
6.5-8.0
n = 227
Performance
(PCR-Year)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0-4.4
n = 1323
4.5-4.9
n = 1960
5.0-5.4
log(Average ESAL)
n = 1576
5.5-5.9
n = 590
6.0-6.4
n = 157
39
Figure 19 shows that the average statewide thin overlay performance has improved
significantly since the earlier 1990s, likely due to improved material specifications and
construction quality. The performance improvement is particularly pronounced for Priority
System thin overlays, although General System thin overlay performance has also been
improving steadily. Another reason for the dramatic improvement in the performance of thin
overlays on the Priority system could be ODOTs move to designed overlays in 1985. If the
project went through the 4-lane/Intertate rehabilitation program and received a thin overlay,
them the dynaflect measurements indicated a thin overlay was structurally ok. Pavement in bad
condition structurally would not have received a thin overlay.
Because of the significant performance improvements in recent years, only thin overlays
constructed after 1994 were included in the subsequent analysis for cost effectiveness
determination.
Table 6 below shows the number of thin overlay projects and mileage
constructed between 1994 and 2002. These data were used in the subsequent analysis.
General
Miles
77.3
30.7
47.8
57.4
102
285.2
139.6
161.3
4.3
40.8
76.9
82.7
1105.90
40
No. of
Thin
Overlay
Project
80
37
60
60
30
74
160
53
51
100
91
21
817
Miles
557.3
232.1
400.6
389.9
310.4
669.4
810.9
387.8
293
842.1
694.4
85.5
5673.4
Average Performance
200
150
100
50
0
0
1991-1993
1
1994-1996
1997-1999
2
3
Year of Construction
2000-2002
4
400
Average Performance
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
1991-1993
0.5
1
1994-1996
1997-1999
1.5
2
2.5
3
Year of Construction
2000-2002
3.5
4
4.5
41
PCR
90
80
70
60
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
Year
42
2011
250
200
150
100
50
0
55
60
65
70
75
PCRPrior
80
Benefit
85
90
95
Performance
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
55
60
65
70
75
PCRPrior
80
Benefit
85
90
95
Performance
43
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
Prior Cracking Deduct
Benefit
25
30
Performance
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
10
15
20
25
Prior Cracking Deduct
Benefit
30
35
40
Performance
44
In addition to correcting surface deficiencies and reducing the rate of condition deterioration, a
thin overlay also improves the ride quality of the existing pavement. The ride quality of a
pavement is measured by the International Roughness Index (IRI) in inches/mile or m/km.
Higher IRI means poorer ride quality.
Figure 23 shows the average IRI values before and after a thin overlay on flexible and on
composite pavements. It can be seen from this figure that the ride condition improves (i.e., the
IRI value decreases) immediately following the thin overlay, and the ride condition gradually
deteriorates (as the IRI value gradually increases) as the thin overlay ages.
For flexible pavements in both the Priority and General Systems, the improvement of ride
quality due to a thin overlay is very significant, as it takes nearly 16 years, on average, for the
IRI of the overlaid pavement to return to the same IRI level prior to the thin overlay. For
Priority System composite pavements, the average time is less than 7 years; and for General
System composite pavements, its about 11 years.
It can be concluded that the benefit of a thin overlay, in terms of improved ride condition, is
very substantial for flexible pavements. Even for Priority System composite pavements, a thin
overlay provides, on average, nearly 7 years of ride condition improvement compared with the
ride condition before the thin overlay. Note that the average actual service life of thin overlays
on Priority System pavements is also approximately 7 years.
The benefits of condition and ride improvements are not combined in this study, as the
maintenance and rehabilitation decisions are mostly driven by the pavement condition alone,
and the two have different characteristics and units. However, the above analysis on ride
quality before and after thin overlays shows that thin overlays provide comparable
improvements to the pavement distress condition as well as ride quality.
45
Priority System
160
140
Average IRI
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
Flexible
20
Composite
General System
180
Average Prior IRI Flexible
160
Average IRI
140
120
100
Average Prior IRI Composite
80
60
40
20
0
0
10
12
14
16
Flexible
18
20
Composite
46
Cost Analysis
Thirteen (13) Priority system thin overlay projects completed between 2001 and 2007 were
included in the analysis. The average project length was 5.07 centerline miles (or 20.26 lane
miles). The overlay thicknesses were 1.5, 1.75, or 2 inches, with an average thickness of 1.65
inches. The average weighted by length unit cost was $58,856 per lane-mile (when not
weighted by length the unit cost was $64,376 per lane mile). The weighted by length unit cost
is lower than the straight average cost per mile, because shorter projects generally have higher
unit costs than longer projects.
Ninety three (93) General system thin overlay projects completed between 2003 and 2007 were
included in the analysis. The average project length was 4.98 centerline miles (or 9.96 lane
miles). The overlay thickness was also between 1.5 and 2 inches, with an average thickness of
1.79 inches. The weighted by length unit cost was $53,995 per lane-mile (the unit cost
averaged across all projects is $57,422 per lane-mile).
Ten minor rehabilitation (regular overlay with or without repair) projects on Priority system
routes completed between 2006 and 2007 were included. The average project length was 5.04
centerline miles, and the weighted by length average unit cost was $163,709 (when not
weighted by length, the average cost was $164,061) per lane-mile. The overlay thickness was
between 2.25 inches and 4.5 inches, with an average thickness of 2.92 inches. The planning
depth was between zero and 4.5 inches, with an average depth of 2.13 inches.
Eighteen minor rehabilitation projects on General system routes completed between 2005 and
2007 were included. The average project length was 10.23 centerline miles, and the weighted
by length average unit cost was $90,952 per lane-mile. The overlay thickness was between
2.25 inches and 3.75 inches. The planning depth ranges between zero and 3.25 inches.
47
Therefore, for Priority system pavements, the unit cost of a typical thin overlay project is only
about 40% (36%) of the average minor rehabilitation unit cost ($58,856 versus $163,709) per
lane-mile). For General system pavements, the unit cost of thin overlay is approximately 60%
(59.4%) of the minor rehabilitation unit cost ($53,995 versus $90,952).
For the cost effectiveness determination, the cost of a Priority System thin overlay project is
assumed to be 40% of the cost of a minor rehabilitation project. For General System thin
overlays, the cost is assumed to be 60% of the minor rehabilitation.
For the Performance Area method, the cost effectiveness of a thin overlay is determined by the
Benefit-Cost (B/C) ratio using equation 3. If the benefit cost ratio is greater than one, the thin
overlay is deemed cost effective, otherwise it is not.
For the Time Extension method, the cost effectiveness is determined by comparing the
equivalent annual cost (EAC) of a thin overlay versus that of a minor rehabilitation. If the EAC
of a thin overlay is less than a minor rehabilitation, the thin overlay is considered as cost
effective.
The cost effectiveness measures of both methods depend on the relative benefit of a thin
overlay versus that of a minor rehabilitation. The benefit of a minor rehabilitation is assumed
to be equal to the entire performance area under the PCR-Age curve above the terminal PCR
threshold.
Figure 24 shows the average benefit of thin overlays and minor rehabilitations in each District.
48
300
Average Benefit
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
400
350
Average Benefit
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
49
The cost-effectiveness measures based on both methods were calculated for every thin overlay
pavement section.
For
example, Figure 25 shows an actual thin overlay where the time extension till the terminal
condition due to the thin overlay was about 7 years, making it cost effective, but the benefit
based on increased performance area is less than 60% of the performance area of a minor
rehabilitation, therefore its considered not cost effective by the performance area method.
This is due to the highly concaved shape of the performance curve and the poor performance
of the thin overlay, as this thin overlay was performed on a very poor pavement.
Figure 26 shows a case where the thin overlay was determined to be not cost-effective by the
time extension method, but cost-effective by the performance area method. Figure 27 shows a
case where both methods determined the thin overlay to be not cost effective. The prior to thin
overlay PCR value was 82. Performing thin overlay on pavements that are still in very good
condition will not produce either significant extension of service life or improved condition or
ride to justify the cost.
Figure 28 shows a case where both methods determined the thin overlay to be cost effective.
The prior to thin overlay PCR value was 60. Although the thin overlay was performed on a
pavement with a poor existing condition, the thin overlay performed well and extended the
service life by about 12 years.
It can be seen that the time extension method considers thin overlays that are performed on
pavements with a poorer existing condition to be more cost-effective, as these thin overlays
tend to stretch the time till the next required rehabilitation the most. The time extension method
does not consider how well a thin overlay performs during its service life. Yet, thin overlays
performed on pavements with fair to good conditions can be cost effective based on the area
under the performance curve method, as long as thin overlays provide sufficiently improved
PCR conditions.
Therefore, the results from the performance area method were used to
represent the cost effectiveness of thin overlays. Figure 29 shows the average benefit-cost ratio
in each District.
50
Prior Treatment
95
PCR
ThinOverlay
Minor Rehab
85
75
Time Extension
65
1996
2001
2006
2011
2016
Year
Figure 25: Cost Effective by the Time-Extension Method but Not-Cost Effective
by the Performance Area Method
100
Prior Treatment
ThinOverlay
Minor Rehab
PCR
90
80
70
Time Extension
60
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
Year
2006
2010
2014
2018
Figure 26: Not Cost Effective by the Time-Extension Method but Cost Effective
by Performance Area Method
51
95
Prior Treatment
ThinOverlay
Minor Rehab
PCR
85
Time Extension
75
65
1994
1998
2002
2006
2010
2014
Year
PCR
90
80
Time Extension
70
60
1993
1997
2001
2005
Year
2009
2013
52
2017
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
1
6
District
10
11
12
53
As mentioned earlier, the average performance of thin overlays has improved significantly
since the early 1990s. This is also reflected in the cost-effectiveness. Figure 30 shows that a
significantly higher percentage of the thin overlays constructed after 1994 are deemed cost
effective than thin overlays constructed earlier.
Figure 31 shows that the percentage of thin overlays that are cost effective also vary among
Districts. District 9 has performed very few thin overlays on its Priority System pavements.
Statewide, most of the thin overlays performed since 1994 are considered cost effective.
Statewide, 87% of the Priority System thin overlays and 81% of the General System thin
overlays constructed between 1994 and 2002 were deemed cost effective by the performance
area method. Note this result is based on the average thin overlay project cost being 40% of the
average minor rehabilitation project cost on Priority System pavements and 60% on General
System pavements. The average cost of a thin overlay is significantly less than the average
cost of a minor rehabilitation, not only because of reduced material costs, but because a thin
overlay can be performed more quickly. Therefore, thin overlays require far lower costs in
maintaining the existing traffic flow. This is particularly significant in urban, high traffic,
areas.
Individual project cost will likely vary from the average cost. Therefore, the cost effectiveness
of a particular thin overlay project will be dependent upon the actual project cost. Figure 32
shows that as the ratio of a thin overlay cost versus a minor rehabilitation cost increases, the
cost effectiveness decreases. However, despite the rapidly increasing construction costs in
recent years, this cost ratio is likely to remain fairly stable, because any construction cost
changes are likely to affect both thin overlays and minor rehabilitations in similar ways.
54
700
600
Mileage
500
400
300
200
100
0
1991-1993
1994-1996
1997-1999
2000-2002
Year of Construction
3000
2500
Mileage
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1991-1993
1994-1996
1997-1999
2000-2002
Year of Construction
55
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
1000
Mileage
800
600
400
200
0
1
6
7
District
10
11
12
56
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Figure 32: Cost Effectiveness as a function of the Ratio of Thin Overlay Cost
versus Minor Rehabilitation Cost
57
Based on the cost effectiveness (i.e., B/C ratio) calculated for each thin overlay section, the
criteria for selecting candidate pavements for thin overlay are determined by analyzing the
characteristics of thin overlay sections that are cost effective versus those that are not. The thin
overlay projects included in the analysis and the corresponding data are listed in Appendices D
and E.
Figure 33 shows that the cost effectiveness is influenced by the existing pavement type. This is
particularly apparent for the Priority System, where all thin overlays performed on flexible
pavements are cost effective, while approximately 80% of thin overlays on composite
pavement are cost effective.
Figure 34 shows that the Prior PCR score, which represents the existing pavement condition,
has a significant influence on the cost effectiveness (in terms of B/C ratio) of thin overlays. For
the Priority System, thin overlays are most likely to be cost effective if the existing pavements
PCR score is between 70 and 90, and for the General System, between 65 and 80. A thin
overlay may still be cost effective, if the existing pavements PCR score is outside of the above
range. However, the odds decrease.
Figure 34 also shows that when the terminal PCR threshold is raised from 55 to 60 for General
System pavements, the cost effectiveness of a thin overlay generally increases.
The above optimal PCR ranges were confirmed using the ROC (Receivers Characteristics
Curve) method as shown in Figure 35. The Prior PCR score of each thin overlay section was
used to predict the cost effectiveness. For a cost effective thin overlay, if its Prior PCR score is
within a particular range, it is counted as true positive. For a not cost effective thin overlay, if
its Prior PCR score is within the particular range, it is counted as false positive. A perfect
indicator would have true positive rate of one and false positive rate of zero.
58
Cost Effective
Not Cost Effective
Mileage
800
600
400
200
0
Flexible
Pavement Type
Composite
5000
Mileage
4500
4000
Cost Effective
Not Cost Effective
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Flexible_60
Composite_60
Flexible_55
Composite_55
59
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
55
60
65
70
75
PCRPrior
80
85
90
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
`
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
55
60
65
70
75
PCRPrior
80
85
90
60
Pe
e
rf
ct
65-90
0.8
0.6
better
65-85
65-80
70-90
70-85
65-75
0.4
worse
75-90
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
False Positive Rate
Pe
e
rf
ct
0.8
65-80
0.6
better
65-90
65-85
worse
65-75
70-90
0.4
70-85
0.2
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
False Positive Rate
Figure 35: Determination of the Optimal Prior PCR Range Using the ROC Method
61
Table 7 below shows that thin overlay thickness also contributes positively to the cost
effectiveness, but its impact is less important than the existing pavement condition. It can be
seen in Table 7 that 97% of the Priority System thin overlays constructed on pavements with
Prior PCR score of between 70 and 90, and with a thickness of 1.75-2 inches were costeffective. The percentage decreases with decreasing thickness, but most dramatically when
prior condition is outside of the optimal range.
overlays.
Table 7: Percent of Cost Effective Mileage versus Prior PCR and Thickness
(a) Priority System (Threshold PCR = 65)
Thickness Added
Prior PCR Range
1 - 1.25
1.5
70 <= Prior PCR < 90
93.6
93.4
Prior PCR < 70 or
65.8
84.8
>= 90
1.75-2.0
97
1.75-2.0
94.4
71.4
77.4
Figures 36 and 37 show the proportions of each important parameter within the cost effective
and not cost effective groups, for Priority and General systems, respectively. Prior PCR and
Cracking Deduct, pavement type, and overlay thickness are all shown to affect cost
effectiveness.
Prior Cracking Deduct is part of the Prior PCR, and the two are highly
correlated. Other parameters not shown, such as snowfall and traffic loading, do not exhibit
significant difference between the two groups of pavements.
62
Parameter
Cost Effective
Prior PCR
CRDPrior>15
CRDPrior<=15
CRDPrior>15
CRDPrior<=15
Composite
Flexible
Composite
Flexible
Prior
Cracking Deduct
Pavement Type
Thickness of
Overlay (in inches)
1-1.25
1.5
1.75-2
1-1.25
1.5
1.75-2
Figure 36: Proportion of Each Parameter within Cost Effective and Not Cost
Effective Priority System Thin Overlays
63
Parameter
Cost Effective
Prior PCR
CRDPrior>20
CRDPrior<=20
CRDPrior>20
CRDPrior<=20
Composite
Flexible
Composite
Flexible
Prior
Cracking Deduct
Pavement Type
Thickness of
Overlay (in inches)
1-1.25
1.5
1.75-2
1-1.25
1.5
1.75-2
Figure 37: Proportion of Each Parameter within Cost Effective and Not Cost
Effective Priority System Thin Overlays
64
Figure 36 shows that, for Priority System thin overlays, a thin overlay is more likely to be costeffective if the Prior PCR is between 70 and 90 and the Prior Cracking Deduct is less than 15.
Thin overlays on flexible pavements were nearly always cost-effective, likely due to flexible
sections were in better condition than the composite sections. Thin overlays with a thickness of
less than 1.5 inches are more likely to be not cost effective.
Figure 37 shows that, for General System thin overlays, a thin overlay is more likely to be costeffective if the Prior PCR is between 65 and 80 and the Prior Cracking Deduct is less than 25.
Effect of pavement type is not as significant as for Priority System pavements. Thin overlays
with a thickness of 1.75 inches or greater are more likely to be cost effective.
Based on the above analysis, the following criteria can be established to select candidate
pavement sections to receive thin overlay treatment.
65
For a more accurate correlation, a prototype system was developed using data from Districts 2
and 3, where aggregate source(s) for each pavement project were identified through the Job
Mix Formula (JMF) and the Producer/Supplier Code information. The aggregate quality data
corresponding to the same time era of construction can then be correlated with the subsequent
pavement performance.
66
ArcGIS Geodatabase
JMF Data
(Producer/Supplier Info)
Aggregate Test Data
(Quarry based)
ArcGIS Script
Geostatistical Analyst
Output Maps
Year
PN
JMF ID
JMF
Material
Code
1998
687-97
B418148
1774411
JMF
Material
Code
Blend
Material
Code
BlendProd/
Supp Code
Submit
Year
Approved
Year
B418148
1774411
0010137
04302
1998
1998
B418148
1774411
055SD5
04006
1998
1998
B418148
1774411
055SD5
04202
1998
1998
B418148
1774411
055008
04202
1998
1998
B418148
1774411
1016422
04302
1998
1998
SMPL
ID
SFX
SMPL
ORIGIN
SMPL
YEAR
ACTUAL
COMPL
YEAR
PS_CD
SNDNSS
LOSS
PCT
46900
01
01
1994
1994
04006
14174
01
01
1994
1994
04006
146507
01
01
1995
1995
04006
534401
01
01
2000
2000
04006
622446
01
06
2001
2001
04006
620697
01
02
2001
2001
04006
Material Code
MATL_CD
MATL
TYPE
075RBL
Lime
68
The soundness and abrasion losses data for various aggregates statewide and for Districts 2 and
3 are summarized and shown in Table 8. The aggregates available in District 3 have higher
average soundness loss compared with the statewide average. This is also evident from the
interpolated soundness loss map for gravel aggregates shown in Figure 41. The interpolated
abrasion loss map for gravel aggregates is shown Figure 42.
Location
Abrasion Loss
Soundness Loss
Percentage
Percentage
Material Type
No. of
Average
data
No. of
Average
points
State Wide
District 2
points
Crushed Stone
29
9868
9820
Gravel
28
7516
7840
Lime Stone
30
27
372
Natural Sand
23
4858
31
28
161
Slag
34
629
Crushed Stone
29
3098
3170
Gravel
27
492
571
Lime Stone
29
74
331
22
56
Natural Sand
Sand and Gravel
68
Slag
District 3
data
Crushed Stone
31
715
709
Gravel
29
390
10
518
Lime Stone
27
43
338
91
Natural Sand
Sand and Gravel
37
Slag
69
12
2
3
11
6
7
5
10
8
9
12
11
6
7
5
10
8
9
Limestone aggregate quarries are mostly concentrated in the northwestern part of the State.
The limestone aggregates in District 6 have higher average soundness and abrasion losses than
in the other Districts, as shown in Figures 43 and 44. The average losses are higher for gravel
aggregates than for limestone aggregates.
70
12
2
3
11
6
7
5
10
8
9
12
2
3
11
6
7
5
10
8
9
Figure 45 depicts the soundness losses of both gravel and limestone aggregates combined in
one map. It clearly shows that the poorest quality aggregates are found mostly in District 3,
which had predominantly gravel materials.
71
12
2
3
11
6
7
10
8
9
Figure 45: Average Soundness Loss of both Limestone and Gravel (1994-2005)
The effects of abrasion and soundness losses on pavement performance in Districts 2 and 3 are
shown in Figures 46 and 47.
Figure 46 shows that when the color-coded pavement performance map is put on top of the
soundness loss map for Districts 2 and 3, it is clear that more poor-performing pavements exist
in areas with higher aggregate soundness loss.
72
10
PCR Drop / Year
District 2
District 3
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
20
30
Abrasion Loss (in %)
40
50
Figure 46: PCR Slope versus Abrasion Loss for District 2 and 3
10
District 2
District 3
6
4
2
0
0
4
6
8
Soundness Loss (in %)
10
12
Figure 47: PCR Slope versus Soundness Loss for District 2 and 3
73
DISTRICT - 2
DISTRICT - 3
Figure 48: Soundness Loss vs. Pavement Performance for District 2 and 3
The RMSE values of the various interpolation methods for statewide soundness and abrasion
data are presented in Tables 9 and 10.
The interpolation method with the lowest RMSE is different for different aggregate tests, but is
independent of the type of aggregates or the materials collected at different years from different
surface / sub-surface zones.
Based on the RMSE values shown in Table 9, the Universal Kriging method is recommended
for interpolation of the soundness loss attribute data. For interpolation of abrasion loss data,
Table 10 suggests that both the Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) and the Radial Basis
Function (RBF) methods are suitable. However, considering the simplicity of the method,
IDW is recommended for interpolation of the abrasion loss attribute data.
74
Interpolation Technique
Parameters Adopted
RMSE
All Materials
Universal Kriging
Model: Exponential,
3.2
Anisotropic Data
Inverse Distance Weighted
3.8
Global Polynomial
4.2
Local Polynomial
4.1
Multiquadric Kernel
3.5
(RBF)
Function
Universal Kriging
Model: Circular,
(IDW)
Crushed Stone
3.3
Anisotropic Data
Inverse Distance Weighted
4.7
Global Polynomial
6.0
Local Polynomial
5.4
4.7
(RBF)
with tension
(IDW)
75
Interpolation Technique
Parameters Adopted
RMSE
All Materials
Universal Kriging
5.8
Data
Optimized Power 1.22
3.7
Global Polynomial
4.1
Local Polynomial
3.9
3.6
(RBF)
with tension
Universal Kriging
Model: Spherical,
Inverse Distance
Weighted (IDW)
Crushed Stone
6.5
Anisotropic Data
Optimized Power 1.36
4.7
Global Polynomial
4.7
Local Polynomial
4.7
3.9
(RBF)
Multiquadric
Inverse Distance
Weighted (IDW)
76
77
were used to obtain the performance of thin overlays as measured by the area under the
PCR-Age curve, above the terminal PCR thresholds.
5. The performance of thin overlays has been improving since the mid 1990s, likely due to
improved material specifications and construction quality. The performance improvement
is particularly pronounced for Priority System thin overlays.
6. The existing pavement condition prior to a thin overlay is the most important parameter that
influences the performance and cost effectiveness of a thin overlay.
Better existing
pavement condition directly correlates with better thin overlay performance. However, the
benefit and the cost effectiveness of a thin overlay decrease if the existing pavement is still
in excellent condition. Therefore, thin overlays performed on Priority system pavements
with a prior PCR score between 70 and 90 and on General system pavements with a prior
PCR score between 65 and 80 have the best chance to be cost effective.
7. Thin overlay performance varies among Districts, as the prior conditions and terminal
conditions are quite different among the Districts. Statewide, approximately 87% of the
Priority System thin overlays constructed between 1994 and 2002 were deemed costeffective, while 81% of the General System thin overlays constructed during the same
period were cost-effective.
8. The cost effectiveness of a thin overlay depends not only on the performance of the thin
overlay itself, but also on the relative cost and performance of a typical minor rehabilitation
within the same District.
statewide average performance, have above average cost effectiveness, because the average
performance of minor rehabilitations in these Districts are rather poor.
9. Thin overlays perform better in areas with less annual snowfall. However, due to the same
reason stated above, the cost effectiveness is not directly affected by the annual snowfall
amount.
10. Thin overlays constructed on flexible pavements generally perform better and are more
cost-effective than those constructed on composite pavements, particularly for Priority
System.
11. A thin overlay is more effective in correcting rutting distress, but less effective in
eradicating cracking distresses such as reflective cracking, transverse cracking, longitudinal
cracking, edge cracking, and wheel track cracking. Effect of milling to remove damaged
78
materials prior to overlay is not clear as the available data are not controlled. Thin overlay
should not be performed on pavements with very high cracking deducts. For Priority
System thin overlays, it is desirable that the existing pavements cracking deduct be less
than 15, and for the General System, less than 20 in order for the thin overlay to be more
cost effective.
12. Thicker overlays also have better performance and are more cost effective. However, since
the thickness for thin overlays ranges only between 1 and 2 inches, the effect of thickness is
less than the effect of the existing pavement condition.
13. The benefit of a thin overlay also includes improved ride quality.
improvement on flexible pavements lasts, on average, over a dozen years, before reverting
to the same ride quality prior to the thin overlay, but on Priority System composite
pavements, about 7 years.
14. This study focuses on the determination of the cost-effectiveness of thin overlays as
opposed to do nothing until the next minor or major rehabilitation. Comparing thin overlay
with other maintenance techniques is beyond the scope of the current study. From the
literature review, however, thin overlay and chip seal are the two most cost effective
maintenance treatments. Thin overlay is more effective in addressing rutting problems, but
the cost of thin overlay is higher than the cost of chip seal. Therefore, thin overlay is
preferred on high traffic routes where rutting is a concern. Otherwise, chip seal may be
considered.
15. An aggregate source information system has been developed to provide a tool for analyzing
aggregate quality test data based on the geographic locations of the quarries.
By
interpolating the test data from nearby quarries, aggregate source quality can tied to
pavement performance. Using data from Districts 2 and 3, pavement performance is found
to be adversely affected by the aggregate soundness loss, but not by the abrasion loss.
The following recommendations are made based on the findings of this research study:
1. Thin HMA overlay should be included as one of the cost effective maintenance treatments
in developing the overall pavement preservation strategy.
79
2. It is recommended that the criteria developed in this study be adopted by ODOT when
selecting candidate pavements for thin overlay treatment. The most important criterion is
that the existing pavement should not be in very poor condition.
3. The effect of milling to remove damaged materials prior to thin overlay on the performance
of thin overlay should be investigated further to establish a more uniform statewide
guideline for milling.
4. The developed prototype aggregate source information system should be maintained and
expanded to include all Districts, so that aggregate qualities at all quarry locations statewide
can be monitored easily, and the impact of aggregate source quality on pavement
performance statewide can be evaluated.
5. It is highly important that ODOT continue the statewide monitoring and collection of
pavement conditions and performance data, including, but not limited to, thin overlay
projects.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
1. The criteria for selecting candidate pavements most suitable to receive a thin HMA overlay
can be implemented by the Office of Pavement Engineering and each District Office. The
existing pavement condition and other information required for implementation is available
from the Office of Pavement Engineering.
2. The prototype Aggregate Source Information System developed in study can be readily
used by the Office of Materials Management to supplement the existing practices in
monitoring the aggregate source quality at various quarry locations statewide.
80