|Research Home | Pavements Home|
|This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-06-121
Date: November 2006
This appendix provides a sample questionnaire sent to each of the participating PFS. The intent of this survey was to gain an understanding of standard design, specification, and testing procedures as well as unit bid prices and average performance lives.
Dear State Pooled Fund Panel Members:
As you remember, one of the primary research objectives for this pooled fund study was to determine:
|"The extent to which local adaptations of materials standards and pavement thickness designs have compensated for and/or mitigated the effects of seasonal frost penetration,…"|
To accomplish that goal NCE proposed to look at this issue using a couple of standard pavement design sections. NCE anticipates that the roadway design sections as well as the materials and their related specifications may change between States to provide better pavement performance in their respective environment.
To develop these standard section and related material information, we are asking the pooled fund states (PFS) to provide the following information.
Standard Roadway Section
What is your standard pavement section for both flexible and rigid pavements that meets the following design criteria? If you don’t have standard sections then what would your designed section be?
Rural Interstate (Four Lanes) Rigid and Flexible
|–||Frost-susceptible, fine-grained soil MR 68,947.6 kilopascals (kPa) (10,000 pounds per square inch (psi)).|
Rural Primary (Two Lanes) Rigid and Flexible
|–||Frost susceptible fine grained soil MR 68,947.6 kilopascals (kPa) (10,000 psi).|
Please provide layer unit names as well as dimensions for both the traveled lanes as well as the shoulder sections. For example, the first section of Rural Interstate Flexible might be shown as follows:
|Pavement Course||Main Line||Shoulders|
|Wearing Course||7.62 cm (3-inch) Class A HMA||7.62 cm (3-inch) Class A HMA|
|Leveling Course||7.62 cm (3-inch) Class B HMA||7.62 cm (3-inch) Class B HMA|
|Base/Binder Course||12.7 cm (5-inch) Class E HMA|
|Granular Base Course||15.24 cm (6-inch) Class 1 UTBC||27.94 cm (11-inch) Class 1 UTBC|
|Granular Subbase Cr.||15.24 cm (6-inch) Class 3 UTBC||15.24 cm (6-inch) Class 3 UTBC|
|Total Depth||58.42 cm (23 inches)||58.42 cm (23 inches)|
The item names noted above are entirely fictional, and are used only to show that the bid item names are important. Each State transportation agency has its own naming conventions.
If special drainage features are included in the roadway section please note those as well.
If possible provide a cross section of the roadway section which shows the configuration of the pavement layers as well as the typical ditch section and depth, subgrade slopes, drainage features, etc.
We will also need copies of your standard specifications that apply to the bid items listed for the material properties as well as the placement procedures or in place properties. Where these are available at your agency’s Web site, please let us know and we will download the PDF files. If only paper hard copies are available, please provide copies of the applicable specifications or simply send us a specifications book that applies to the materials placed at the LTPP test sites and we will make copies and return the book.
The ongoing adoption of SuperPave mixes will complicate this process. If your agency has adopted SuperPave mixes, please reference the materials that were used in your GPS and SPS test sites that represent the performance data included in the LTPP database.
If your agency has adopted SuperPave, please provide copies of those specifications as well. Please note that many agencies have developed their own SuperPave mix specifications based to varying degrees on the national guidelines. This is the reason we are asking for your specific specifications rather than use the national guidelines.
Please review your specifications before you send them. If they reference standard AASHTO test procedures, we can access that information. If, however, they reference test procedures that are unique to your agency, please provide copies of those test procedures or provide a reference to the Web site where those test procedures are available.
Average Unit Bid Prices
In addition to the specifications, we will also need the average unit bid prices or the prices you would prefer we use in this study for each of the bid items noted in your standard or design roadway section.
Typical Service Life for Standard Section
We would also like your best estimate of the average service life of the pavement sections until major pavement repair, rehabilitation, or overlay as usually required. Please also provide a description of that treatment as well as the typical pavement condition (amount of fatigue cracking, ride values etc.), when treatment is applied.
Adjacent State Treatments
If there are any unique designs processes or treatments that are used by any adjacent States that seem to help mitigate frost effects, please describe that treatment and, if possible, indicate a contact person to check on that treatment.
If possible we would like to receive the typical or design roadway sections as well as the standard specifications and test procedures by June 21. We would like to receive the rest of the material (bid prices, service life estimate, and adjacent state treatments) by July 9.
Newton Jackson, P.E.
Nichols Consulting Engineers Chtd.
Topics: research, infrastructure, pavements and materials
Keywords: research, infrastructure, pavements and materials, asphalt concrete, Frost, freeze-thaw, LTPP, life cycle cost analysis, performance modeling, climate, M-E pavement design guide, pavement management system, AC, PCC
TRT Terms: research, facilities, transportation, highway facilities, roads, parts of roads, pavements