12/1/2017

OUTLINE

1. Introduction
Cold In-Place Recycling Mix Design, In-Place
Density, and Long-Term Performance in 2. Objectives
Nevada 3. CIR Mixture Design
Masters Thesis Defense by: 4. Measurement of CIR In-Place Density during Construction
Jorge A. Castro Ortiz
5. CIR Long-Term Performance
Thesis Advisor:
Dr. Peter E. Sebaaly 6. Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations
University of Nevada, Reno
December 1, 2017

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 1 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 2

INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION

• CIR is a pavement recycling • Benefits of CIR:

treatment composed of RAP – Reuse of non-renewable resources
and additive(s) without the
application of heat – Energy conservation (from hauling and production)
– Pavement ride quality is improved
• Upper part of AC is pulverized,
– Most types of pavement distresses can be treated
mixed with additives, and
reused in-place – Reduce potential for reflective cracking
– Reduce material transportation costs
• Economic savings &
environmental impact reduction

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 3 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 4

INTRODUCTION OBJECTIVES

• Problems encountered during CIR process: • Analyze the impact of different variables on a
– Material variation along the project performance based mix design method for CIR
– In-place density is unknown • Develop a practical method for CIR in-place density
– Curing time for strengthening of CIR layer determination during construction
– Required wearing surface application • Conduct long-term performance and benefit-cost analysis
of CIR pavements throughout Nevada over the period of
2000-2015

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 5 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 6

1
 12/1/2017

CIR MIX DESIGN CIR MIX DESIGN

• No nationally accepted mix design standard for CIR • Variations to the AC Superpave mix design method
(AASHTO M323):
• CIR mix design procedures using the Superpave – Optimum moisture content
approach have recently gain wide acceptance
– Number of gyrations
• This project focused on developing a CIR mix design
using the SGC procedure – Compaction mold with
perforated holes

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 7 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 8

CIR MIX DESIGN EXPERIMENT CIR MIX DESIGN

Asphalt emulsion Lime slurry (%) RAP
4.5
Graded • RAP materials - 100
90
A
Non- graded Granite’s Lockwood 80
Graded
6.0
Non- graded Hot Plant. 70

Graded 60

Passing (%)
4.5
B
Non- graded • Graded RAP - PCCAS 50

Graded 40
6.0
Non- graded medium gradation 30
Graded 20
4.5
Non- graded
C
Graded
• Non-graded RAP 10
0
6.0
Non- graded 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
Sieve Size .45 Power
Graded
4.5
Non- graded Non-Graded RAP Graded RAP
D
Graded PCCAS Medium Gradation Limit PCCAS Coarse Gradation Limit
6.0
Non- graded

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 9 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 10

Example - Asphalt emulsion type C, Example - Asphalt emulsion type C,

CIR MIX DESIGN 4.5% lime slurry and graded RAP CIR MIX DESIGN 4.5% lime slurry and graded RAP

Asphalt emulsion Lime slurry (%) Aggregate

Graded
1. Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity:
4.5
A
Non- graded (AASHTO T209)
Graded
6.0 Gmm @ 3.0% Asphalt emulsion Specification
Non- graded
Graded Gmm – Sample 1 2.336
4.5 Gmm – Sample 2 2.341
Non- graded
B Average Gmm 2.338
Graded
6.0 Difference between two samples 0.005 OK
Non- graded
Graded Standard Deviation 0.004 OK
4.5
Non- graded
C 𝑃𝑠
Graded
6.0 𝐺𝑠𝑒 = Gmm @ 2.5% Asphalt emulsion 2.349
Non- graded 100 𝑃𝑏
−
Graded 𝐺𝑚𝑚 𝐺𝑏 Gmm @ 3.5% Asphalt emulsion 2.328
4.5
Non- graded
D *Earlier research at UNR - Gse of RAP Gmm @ 4.0% Asphalt emulsion 2.317
Graded
6.0 constant up to 4.0% asphalt emulsion content
Non- graded

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 11 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 12

2
 12/1/2017

Example - Asphalt emulsion type C, Example - Asphalt emulsion type C,

CIR MIX DESIGN 4.5% lime slurry and graded RAP CIR MIX DESIGN 4.5% lime slurry and graded RAP

2. Required Number of Gyrations: 3. Optimum Emulsion Content:

Emulsion Content,
145 30 No. Height, mm Gmb Diff. Spec. Std. Dev. Spec. Air Voids, %
%
28
140 1 115.6 2.031 13.6
26 2.5 0.006 OK 0.004 OK
2 115.9 2.025 13.8
135 24
3 115.6 2.036 12.9
3.0 0.003 OK 0.002 OK
Height (mm)

22 4 115.4 2.039 12.8

130
Air Voids (%) 20 5 114.9 2.052 11.9
125 18
3.5 0.005 OK 0.003 OK
6 114.8 2.056 11.7
120 16 7 115.1 2.057 11.2
4.0 0.023 OK 0.016 OK
14 8 116.6 2.034 12.2
115
12
14.0
110 10
13.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Gyrations 13.0 y = 0.7759x2 - 6.4351x + 24.978
R² = 0.8778

Air voids (%)

Gyrations 12.5
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3
12.0
OEC = 2.8%
11.5
Sample 1 2.5% Asphalt Emulsion 11.0
10.5
Sample 2 3.0% Asphalt Emulsion
10.0
Sample 3 3.5% Asphalt Emulsion 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5
Emulsion content (%)
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 13 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 14

Example - Asphalt emulsion type C,

CIR MIX DESIGN CIR MIX DESIGN 4.5% lime slurry and graded RAP
Asphalt Emulsion A Asphalt Emulsion B Asphalt Emulsion C Asphalt Emulsion D
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.4 3.6
3.0
4.0 3.8 4.0
3.1 3.0
3.3
3.0
3.9
3.5
4.0 4. Moisture Sensitivity:
(AASHTO T283)
2.8
3.0 2.5 2.5
OEC (%)

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5 Type C, 4.5% SL, Graded
0.0
100
90
81.7
Tensile Strength @ 77°F, psi

80
70
Asphalt Emulsion A Asphalt Emulsion B Asphalt Emulsion C Asphalt Emulsion D 60
53.3
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 50
100 85
90 80 75 40
80 70 65
No. Gyrations

70 60
60 30
50
40 20
30
20 10
10
0 0
Unconditioned Conditioned TSR = 65%
COV = 12.9% COV = 5.3%

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 15 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 17

Example - Asphalt emulsion type C, Example - Asphalt emulsion type C,

CIR MIX DESIGN 4.5% lime slurry and graded RAP CIR MIX DESIGN 4.5% lime slurry and graded RAP

5. Cohesion Strength: 6. Raveling Resistance:

(Mod. ASTM D3910) (ASTM D7196)
22
21
20 Sample 1 Sample 2
Torque (kg-cm)

19
Dry mass before abrasion, g 2624.9 2619.0
18
17
Dry mass abraded, g 2586.0 2597.5
16
15
210 240 270 300 330 360
Mass Loss, % 1.48 0.82
Time (minutes)
Average Mass Loss, % 1.15
Sample 1 Sample 2

Open to traffic time = 5.5 hours

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 18 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 19

3
 12/1/2017

CIR MIX DESIGN CIR MIX DESIGN

Cohesion Asphalt Emulsion A Asphalt Emulsion B Asphalt Emulsion C Asphalt Emulsion D
90 82
76 77 76

Dry Tensile Strength @ 77°F (psi)

Asphalt Emulsion A Asphalt Emulsion B Asphalt Emulsion C Asphalt Emulsion D 80 70 70
65
70 60 61
6.5 57 58 57 55 56
7.0 6.0 6.0 60 52 52
6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5
5.0 5.0 50
Time (hours)

5.0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

40
4.0 30
3.0
20
2.0
10
1.0
0.0 0

Asphalt Emulsion A Asphalt Emulsion B Asphalt Emulsion C Asphalt Emulsion D

Raveling 100 87 86 90
90 84
78 77 79 76 79 76 77
71 71
Asphalt Emulsion A Asphalt Emulsion B Asphalt Emulsion C Asphalt Emulsion D 80
70 62 65 63

TSR (%)
12 10.46 60
Mass Loss (%)

10 50
7.01 7 7.51 40
8
5.17 4.98 30
6 20
2.92 3.36
4 2.51 2.27 2.23 10
2 1.15 0.81 0.48 0
0.43 0.19
0

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 20 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 21

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

• In-place compaction has caused some serious problems in • Selected test methods for estimating the in-place density of
the CIR construction process and long-term performance CIR layer:
of CIR projects in Nevada and throughout the U.S. – Rubber Balloon method (ASTM D2167)
• Use of nuclear density gauges has some important – Sand Cone method (ASTM D1556)
limitations on CIR projects due to: – NCAT Field Permeability method
– Absence of calibrated nuclear gauges (inability to cut cores)
– Imprecise measurements of the nuclear density gauge (high
moisture content)

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 23 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 24

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

Experimental Plan: Experimental Plan:

1. Mixing the RAP with the
additives to produce the Slab Emulsion Lime Slurry (%)
Thickness
Multi-Day Testing
1 2 (in)
CIR mix
1 Type B 6.0 3.5 Yes
2. Compacting the CIR slab 2 Type B 4.5 3.5 Yes
3 Type B 4.5 2.5 Yes
3. Performing in-place density 4 Type C 6.0 2.5 No
and permeability testing 5 Type C 4.5 2.5 No
3a 3b 3c
6 Type B 4.5 3.0 No
4. Drill core samples from the 7 Type C 4.5 3.0 No
Green Circles: Balloon and Sand Cone
CIR slab after full curing
Black Circles: Permeability and Cores

4 4
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 25 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 26

4
 12/1/2017

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

NCAT Field Permeability on CIR Bulk Specific Gravity of the Cores

20 lb 120 lb
Two test methods were used:
• Parafilm method (ASTM D1188)
• Corelok method (ASTM D6752)
Parafilm Method versus Corelok Method
30

Air Voids by Corelok Method (%)

28
26
24

• Difficult to perform due to water leaks on the base of the equipment 22

20 y = 0.9583x - 0.3186
18 R² = 0.9117

• Fines washed by the water while performing the permeability test 16

14
12
10
• NCAT Field Permeability test was abandon 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Air Voids by Parafilm Method (%)
24 26 28 30

CIR Slab Cores Equality Line Linear (CIR Slab Cores)

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 28 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 29

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION
Difference Balloon-Corelok

CIR In-Place Density Results Outlier Detection (Box Plot)

10
8
6
4

Difference (%)
Estimated vs Cores (Parafilm) 2
30 • Air voids content using Balloon- Balloon- Sand Cone- Sand Cone-
Quartile Parafilm Corelok Parafilm Corelok
0
-2 0
-4
10 20 30 40 50
Air Voids Cores (%)

parafilm method (%) (%) (%) (%)

25
-6
Min. value 0 -4.33 -5.77 -3.09 -4.60 -8
20 Balloon
-10
15
Sand Cone
Equality Line
higher than Corelok 25th
percentile
1 0.48 -0.82 1.43 0.51
Sample

10
10 15 20 25
Air Voids Sand Cone and Balloon (%)
30 method 50th
percentile
2 2.12 0.75 2.59 1.60 10
Difference Sand-Corelok

8
75th 6
3 4.13 3.36 4.08 3.09

Difference (%)
Estimated vs Cores (Corelok) percentile 4
2
30
• In most of the cases, Max. value
IQR
4 8.22
3.65
7.18
4.17
8.65
2.66
7.08
2.59
0
-2 0 10 20 30 40 50
Air Voids Cores (%)

-4
estimated air voids are
25
1.5*IQR 5.48 6.26 3.98 3.88 -6
20 Balloon 1st-1.5*IQR -5.00 -7.08 -2.56 -3.38 -8
-10
15
Sand Cone
Equality Line lower than true air 3rd+1.5*IQR 9.61 9.62 8.06 6.97 Sample

voids • No outliers detected for Balloon method, due to the high

10
10 15 20 25 30

variability of the method, which led into a higher IQR value

Air Voids Sand Cone and Balloon (%)

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 30 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 31

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

Correction Factors for In-Place Density Methods Correction Factors for In-Place Density Methods
Balloon vs Cores [Parafilm] Balloon vs Cores [Corelok]
Estimated vs Cores (Parafilm) Corrected Air Voids Contents: 30 30
Air Voids Cores (%)

Air Voids Cores (%)

30
25 25
Air Voids Cores (%)

25
𝑉𝑎 %𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑚 = 𝑉𝑎 %𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑛 + 2.38% 20

15
20

15
20
10 10
15 10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30

10
𝑉𝑎 %𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑘 = 𝑉𝑎 %𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑜𝑜𝑛 + 1.15% Air Voids Balloon (%) Air Voids Balloon (%)

10 15 20 25 30 Balloon Corrected 2.38% Equality Line Balloon Corrected 1.15% Equality Line
Air Voids Sand Cone and Balloon (%)

Balloon Sand Cone Equality Line

𝑉𝑎 %𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑚 = 𝑉𝑎 %𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 2.83% Sand Cone vs Cores [Parafilm] Sand Cone vs Cores [Corelok]
30 30
Air Voids Cores (%)

Air Voids Cores (%)

𝑉𝑎 %𝐶𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑘 = 𝑉𝑎 %𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 1.86% 25 25

Linear regression correction factor: 20 20

15 15
𝑦 = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 ∗ 𝑥 10 10
10 15 20 25 30 10 15 20 25 30
Air Voids Sand Cone (%) Air Voids Sand Cone (%)

Sand Cone Equality Line Corrected 2.83% Sand Cone Equality Line Corrected 1.86%

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 32 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 33

5
 12/1/2017

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

Statistical Analysis (T-Test) Statistical Analysis (T-Test)

𝜎
• The T-test is used to determine the probability of 𝐶𝐼95% = 𝑥 ± 1.96 ∗
𝑛
difference within two populations Since population is fixed, the lower the standard deviation define the best alternative
t-test Balloon-Parafilm Balloon-Corelok Sand Cone-Parafilm Sand Cone-Corelok
• Null hypothesis: Difference between the cores air voids and estimated
air voids (corrected) is equal to zero n 49 49 49 49

– p < 0.05 - difference ≠ 0 t -0.6580 0.0026 -0.6665 -1.0372

– p > 0.05 - no significant evidence to prove that the difference p-value 0.5137 0.9980 0.5083 0.3048
between the cores air voids and estimated air voids is different than
95% Confidence
zero [-1.76 to 0.89] [-0.80 to 0.81] [-0.91 to 0.46] [-1.09 to 0.35]
Interval

Standard Deviation 4.627 2.799 2.377 2.508

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 34 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 35

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

Recommended Approach Field Verification (Fernley, NV)

• Use Sand Cone method to measure in-place density of CIR layer • CIR construction project
• Use the 95% CI of difference for Sand Cone method and cores with located on US-95 south of
parafilm:
Fernley, Nevada
𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = Va %𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑚 − 𝑉a %𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 𝐶𝐹
𝐷𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 = 𝑉a %𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑚 − 𝑉a %𝑆𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑒 + 2.83%
• Testing conducted at two
−0.91% < Difference < 0.46%
locations. At each location,
• There is 95% confidence that the estimated adjusted in-place air voids three tests, separated by 50
will be: -0.91 to +0.46 from the actual in-place air voids feet

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 36 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 37

CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION CIR IN-PLACE DENSITY DURING CONSTRUCTION

Field Verification (Fernley, NV) Field Verification (Fernley, NV)

• Field cores were drilled 10 Balloon - Parafilm
Avg. AV: Balloon (%) 22.7
Balloon - Corelok
Avg. AV: Balloon (%) 22.7
days after compaction Corrected Avg. AV:
Balloon (%)
25.1
Corrected Avg. AV:
Balloon (%)
23.8
Avg. AV: Cores Avg. AV: Cores
22.0 20.0
(parafilm) (%) (parafilm) (%)
• Air voids content was Difference (%) -3.1 Difference (%) -3.8
95% Confidence No 95% Confidence No
obtained from the cores Interval
[-1.76% to 0.89%]
Interval
[-0.80% to 0.81%]

using: Sand Cone - Parafilm

Avg. AV: Sand Cone (%) 19.4
Sand Cone - Corelok
Avg. AV: Sand Cone (%) 19.4
 Parafilm method Corrected Avg. AV: Sand
Cone (%)
22.3
Corrected Avg. AV: Sand
Cone (%)
21.3

 Corelok method Avg. AV: Cores (parafilm)

(%)
22.0
Avg. AV: Cores (Corelok)
(%)
20.0
Difference (%) -0.3 Difference (%) -1.3
OK [-1.09% to No
[-0.91% to 0.46%]
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 38 95% Confidence Interval
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu 95% Confidence Interval 0.35%]
Slide No. 39

6
 12/1/2017

CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE

• NDOT has constructed over 1500 centerline miles of CIR Long-Term Performance of CIR Pavements in Nevada
pavements in the last 20 years • Long-term performance based on NDOT’s PMS condition surveys

• Two types of CIR projects, depending on the traffic volume: • Previous research conducted at UNR - Long-term performance of
CIR pavements in Nevada (2000 - 2011). 67 identified CIR projects
– High volume roads: 2 - 3 inch CIR layer, overlay (1.5 - 4
inch), and 0.75 - 1 inch OGFC or surface treatment • A total of 94 CIR pavements identified in Nevada (2000 - 2015):
– 29 out of 63 CIR pavements with AC overlay
– Low volume roads: 2 - 3 inch CIR layer, surface treatment
– 25 out of 31 CIR pavements with surface treatments
(chip seal, double chip seal, or microsurfacing)

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 42 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 43

CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE

Long-Term Performance of CIR Pavements in Nevada Long-Term Performance of CIR Pavements in Nevada
• Maintenance treatments were applied in most CIR pavements:
• NDOT use PRI as roads network performance indicator (0 – 700)
– CIR pavements with AC overlay:
 maintenance treatment ~
1st year 8th
 2nd maintenance treatment ~ 11th year • PCI was used as performance indicator in this study (0 -100)
– CIR pavements with surface treatment:
 1st maintenance treatment ~ 4th year • NDOT’s condition survey database was converted into PCI
 2nd maintenance treatment ~ 8th year distress format, to calculate the PCI values according to ASTM
• Most common treatments: D6433
 Chip seal
 Flush seal

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 45 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 46

CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE

Long-Term Performance of CIR Pavements in Nevada Long-Term Performance of CIR Pavements in Nevada
• Performance prediction models from PCI data:
CIR with Overlay CIR with Surface Treatment
• Determined PCI values examples for projects No. 3013 and No. 3239A
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70 3013 100 100 100
3239A
60 60 100 100 100 99 99 100 99 96
95 94 94 94 93
100 100
PCI

PCI

50 50 89 90 89
40 40 90 90 84
30 y = 0.0008x6 - 0.0365x5 + 0.6524x4 - 5.6302x3 + 24.15x2 - 47.304x 30 y = -0.0031x6 + 0.12x5 - 1.7976x4 + 13.091x3 - 47.225x2 + 75.522x 80 80
20 + 127.88 20 + 51.807
10 10
70 70
R² = 0.7745 R² = 0.6185 60
0 0 60
Calculated Predicted Calculated Predicted
PCI

50
PCI

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 50
Years Years 40 40
30 30
All Data Average Poly. (Average) All Data Average PCI Poly. (Average PCI) 20 20
10 10
0
𝑃𝐶𝐼 𝑃𝐶𝐼 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
0
= 0.0008 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 6 − 0.0365 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 5 + 0.6524 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 4 = −0.0031 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 6 + 0.12 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 5 − 1.7976 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 4 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021
Years
− 5.6302 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 3 + 24.15 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 2 − 47.304 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 13.091 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 3 − 47.225 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 2 + 75.522 ∗ 𝐴𝑔𝑒 Years
+ 127.88 + 51.807

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 48 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 49

7
 12/1/2017

CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE

Benefit-Cost Analysis of CIR Pavements in Nevada Benefit-Cost Analysis of CIR Pavements in Nevada
• Used to determine: • Costs:
– Relative cost-effectiveness of CIR projects – Example: Present worth at construction year, project No. 3013
– Key factors that led to more effective treatments  Construction year - 2001
 CIR and Overlay Cost from NDOT’s project bid information
• Need:  Maintenance treatments: Flush seal (2009) and Flush seal (2012)
– Cost of the CIR, and AC overlay or surface treatment, and  Discount rate = 3.0%
maintenance treatment(s) ($/lane mile) Contract CIR Cost Overlay Cost
Maintenance 1 Maintenance 2 Present Worth at
Cost ($/lane Cost ($/lane Construction Year
– Benefit: area under the performance curve during the analysis ID ($/lane mile) ($/lane mile)
mile) mile) ($/lane mile)
period 3013 23,933 46,290 1,360 1,486 72,369

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 52 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 53

CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE

Benefit-Cost Analysis of CIR Pavements in Nevada Benefit-Cost Analysis of CIR Pavements in Nevada
• Benefit: • Benefit-Cost:
– Example: project No. 3013 – Example: Benefit-Cost calculation at 15 years, project No. 3013
𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡3013
3013
100
100 100
94
100
94 9594 93 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡
90
89
100 − 95 ∗ 2 95 − 94 ∗ 2 𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡/𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡(%) = ∗ 100
80
= 100 ∗ 4 +
2
+ 95 ∗ 2 +
2
+ 94 ∗ 2
𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡
70
60
1,439
PCI

50
94 − 93 ∗ 1 93 − 89 ∗ 1
40
30
+ 94 ∗ 5 +
2
+ 93 ∗ 1 +
2
+ 89 ∗ 1
𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡/𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 % 3013 = ∗ 100 = 1.99%
20 72,369
10
0
2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017
𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡3013 = 400 + 195 + 189 + 470 + 93.5 + 91
Years

𝐵𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑡3013 = 1439

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 55 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 56

CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE CIR LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE

Benefit-Cost Analysis of CIR Pavements in Nevada Benefit-Cost Analysis of CIR Pavements in Nevada
• Benefit-Cost CIR pavements with AC overlay at 15 years: • Benefit-Cost CIR pavements with surface treatment at 8 years:
B/C per lane mile B/C per lane mile
Low B/C 17% Low B/C 24%
29
Med. B/C 55% 25
Med. B/C 36%
27
Low Med High 23 Low Med High
25 High B/C 28% High B/C 40%
23 21
21 19
19
17 • Avg. AADT (Low) = 6522 vehicles 17
• Avg. AADT (Low) = 1313 vehicles
Project

15
15 • Avg. AADT (Med.) = 2225 vehicles • Avg. AADT (Med.) = 516 vehicles
Project

13 13
11 • Avg. AADT (High) = 706 vehicles 11 • Avg. AADT (High) = 199 vehicles
9 9
7
5 • Avg. CIR (Low) = 3.0 inch 7
• Avg. CIR (Low) = 3.0 inch
5
3
1
• Avg. CIR (Med.) = 2.8 inch 3 • Avg. CIR (Med.) = 3.0 inch
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 • Avg. CIR (High) = 2.6 inch 1 • Avg. CIR (High) = 2.0 inch
B/C*100 (%) 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
B/C x 100 (%)
B/C CIR with OL
B/C CIR with ST

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 57 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 59

8

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
CIR Mix Design:
• Non-graded CIR mixtures tend to have a higher OEC than graded
CIR mixtures. Increase in OEC can be attributed to the coarser
gradation of the non-graded RAP
• Non-graded RAP required 100 gyrations; Graded RAP required
between 60 and 100 gyrations
• Most TSR values are above 70%; those mixtures might not show
moisture-induced damage. No substantial improvement in TSR
from using 6.0% lime slurry, rather than 4.5% lime slurry
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 61
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
CIR In-Place Density:
• Correction factor was required, since in most of the cases
estimated AV% were lower than true AV% obtained from cores
• The best alternative to estimate the in-place AV% is the Sand
Cone method coupled with the parafilm method for measuring bulk
specific gravity of cores
• Based on field verification, 95% CI was only met by Sand Cone
method coupled with the parafilm method for the core samples
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 63
RECOMMENDATIONS
CIR Mix Design:
• For CIR mixtures using non-graded RAP:
Ndes = 100 gyrations
• For CIR mixtures using graded RAP:
Ndes = 75 gyrations
• It is recommended to use 4.5% lime slurry, since there
was no noticeable increase in moisture sensitivity and
raveling performance by using 6.0% lime slurry
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 65
12/1/2017
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
CIR In-Place Density:
• NCAT Field Permeameter was difficult to perform on CIR; water
leaks at the base of the equipment, and fines were washed
• No significant difference on performing in-place density tests
multiple days after compaction, for both methods
• In-place density measurements had to be performed on smaller
volumes than the required by the standards
• AV% from parafilm method are about 1% higher than AV% from
Corelok method
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 62
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
CIR Long-Term Performance in Nevada:
• A total of 94 CIR pavements identified throughout Nevada (2000 –
2015); 63 CIR+AC, and 31 CIR+ST
• PCI calculated from NDOT’s PMS database indicated that most of
the CIR projects are in excellent or very good condition
• The inverse relationship between B/C and thickness is caused by
the inter-dependency between traffic level and layers thickness
• Influence of traffic on B/C cost is highly significant and could not be
balanced by the recommended thickness of the CIR and AC
overlay
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 64
RECOMMENDATIONS
CIR In-Place Density:
• Permeability testing not recommended for in-place density of CIR
materials
• In-place density testing can be performed one hour after
compaction, without compromising the test results
• If possible, field verification should be performed on the shoulder,
rather than between the wheel paths to avoid traffic densification
www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 66
9
 12/1/2017

RECOMMENDATIONS THANK YOU!

CIR Long-Term Performance in Nevada:

• The structural value of the CIR layer must be properly incorporated

into the structural design

• The used structural design method should properly take into

consideration the traffic level to establish the appropriate thickness
of the CIR and AC overlay

www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 67 www.wrsc.unr.edu ; www.arc.unr.edu Slide No. 68

10