Based on the present study, the following recommendations are made:
• In order to have better comparisons among treatment performance, it is recommended that all treatments should be applied on the same surface at the same time, as the performance of the treatment depends on the existing surface to be treated as well as the timing of the treatment. In doing so, all other variables such as surface type, timing,
ESAL, etc., will be constant for the treatments and the only variables would be those treatments of interest.
• Optimal application of a preventive maintenance (PM) treatment occurs at the point at which the benefit per unit cost is greatest. Computation of the benefit associated with an applied PM treatment requires knowledge of the anticipated performance of the pavement. Thus it is recommended to have a performance history, such as an International Roughness Index (IRI), present serviceability index (PSI), or other custom- defined measure of performance, for a given roadway, traffic level and climatic conditions, to assist pavement engineers in their decision-making process.
• In this study, data from two years after treatment application were used. Performance of the treatments should be monitored in a continuous manner by incorporating the distress data from the future years.
• In order to obtain better and more consistent core test results in the laboratory from the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device, more field samples should be tested.
References
Aschenbrener, T. Evaluation of the Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device to Predict Moisture
Damage in Hot-Mix Asphalt. Transportation Research Record 1492, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 193-201.
Bausano, J. P., K. Chatti, and R. C. Williams. Determining Life Expectancy of Preventive
Maintenance Fixes for Asphalt-Surfaced Pavements. Transportation Research Record
No.1866.Transportattion Research Board. Washington, DC. 2004. pp. 1-8.
Caltrans Maintenance Technical Advisory Guide (TAG). Chapter 5 Chip Seals. Caltrans Division of Maintenance, Sacramento, CA, October 2003.
Chou, E. Y., D. Datta, and H. Pulungurta. Effectiveness of Thin Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay on
Pavement and Condition Performance. Report No. FHWA/OH-2008/4. Ohio Department of
Transportation. April 2008.
Cooper, S. M. and L. N. Mohammad. NovachipTM
Surface Treatment – Six Year Evaluation.
State Project No. 407-04-0034, Louisiana Transportation Research Center, October 2004. Corley-Lay, J. and J. Mantin. Ultrathin Bonded Wearing Course as a Pavement Preservation
Treatment for Jointed Concrete Pavements. Transportation Research Record 2005.
Transportation Research Borad. Washington, DC. 2007. pp. 11-17.
Culeho, E., R. Mokwa, and M. Akin. Preventive Maintenance Treatment of Flexible Pavements:
A Synthesis of Highway Practices. Report No. FHWA/MT-06-009/8117-26, Montana
Department of Transportation, October 2006.
Eltahan, A., J. Daleiden, and A. Simpson. Effectiveness of maintenance treatments of flexible
pavements. Transportation Research Record, n 1680, National Research Council, Oct. 1999:
18-25.
Gransberg, D. and D. M. B. James. Chip Seal Best Practices: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 342, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005.
Haas, R., Hudson, W. Ronald, and J. Zaniewski. Modern Pavement Management, Original Edition, 1994.
Hamburg Wheel-Tracking Device. Bituminous Mixtures Laboratory, Federal Highway
Administration.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/asphalt/labs/mixtures/hamburg.cfm (Accessed January 2010)
Hanson, D. I. Construction and Performance of Ultra-Thin Bonded Hot-Mix Asphalt Wearing
Jahren, C.T., W.A. Nixon, and K.L. Bergeson. Thin Maintenance Surfaces: Phase Two Report
with Guidelines for Winter Maintenance on Thin Maintenance Surfaces. Iowa Department of
Transportation and the Iowa Highway Research, Project TR-435. Final Report: January 2003. Kandhal, P.S., R.R. Johnson, and L. Lockett. Evaluation and Monitoring of NovaChip Asphalt
Process in Alabama. Alabama DOT Project 930-303, July 1996.
Keiter, T. Construction and Performance Evaluation of Nova Chip in Pennsylvania. In Ultrathin
Hot Asphalt Resurfacing, Pennsylvania DOT Research Report 93-067, 1993.
KDOT. Pavement Management System, Field Operations Manual. Bureau of Materials and Research, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, KS, Revised January 2008.
Knoll, D.E. and E.J. Buczeskie. Ultrathin Hot Mix Asphalt Resurfacing, Pennsylvania DOT Research Report 93-06, February 1999.
Kuehl, R. O. Design of Experiments: Statistical Principles of Research Design and Analysis, Second Edition, 2000.
Labi, S., G. Lamptey, S. Konduri, and K. C. Sinha. Analysis of Long-Term Effectiveness of Thin
Hot-Mix Asphalt Concrete Overlay Treatments. Transportation Research Record No. 1940.
Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. 2005. pp. 3-12.
Miller, R.W., K. Vedula, M. Hossain, and G. Cumberledge. Assessment of AASHTO Provisional
Standards for Profile Data Collection and Interpretation. In Transportation Research
Record1889, 2004, pp. 134-143.
Newcomb, D. E. Thin Asphalt Overlays for Pavement Preservation. Information Series 135, National Asphalt Pavement Association, July 2009.
Outcalt, W. SHRP Chip Seal. Colorado Department of Transportation Research Report No. CDOT-DTD-R-2001-20 Final Report: December 2000.
Peshkin, D. G., T. E. Hoerner, and K. A. Zemmerman. Optimal Timing of Pavement Preventive
Maintenance Treatment Applications. NCHRP Report 523, Transportation Research Board
of The National Academies, Washington, D.C. 2004.
Resurfacing and Pavement Preservation Treatments. Appendix C. Long Range Paving Plan. Metro Nashville. 2008.
mpw.nashville.gov/Row/Paving/Documents/Appendix_C.pdf (Accessed February 2010) Roberts, F. L., P.S. Kandhal, E.R Brown, D.Y. Lee, and T.W. Kennedy. Hot Mix Asphalt
Materials, Mixture design, and Construction, Second Edition, 1996.
Ruranika, M. M. and J. Geib. Performance of Ultra-Thin Bounded Wearing Course (UTBWC)
Surface Treatment on US-169 Princeton, MN. Report No. MN/RC-2007-18, Minnesota
Seal Coat and Surface Treatment Manual, Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas,
2003.
State Testing Procedures, TEX 242-F Draft.
http://www.pmw-wheeltracker.com/test_procedures/Tex-242-F%20DRAFT.pdf (April 2010) Shuler, S. Evaluation of the Performance, Cost-Effectiveness, and Timing of Various Preventive
Maintenances: Interim Report. Report No. CDOT-DTR-R-2006-6. May 2006. Sprayed Sealing Guide, AP-676/104, Austroads, Sydney, Australia, 2004.
Technical Advisory Guide (TAG) for Bonded Wearing Course Pilot Projects. State of California
Department of Transportation, October 2003.
Temple, W., S. Shah, H. Paul, and C. Abadie. Performance of Louisiana's chip seal and
microsurfacing program. Transportation Research Record, n 1795, National Research
Council, 2002: 3-16.
Transit New Zealand, Notes for the Specification of Bituminous Reseals, TNZ P17, Wellington, New Zealand, 2002.
TR News: Highway Infrastructure Preservation. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, No. 228, September-October 2003.
Ultra Thin Asphalt Surfacing. Austroads Pavement Research Group technical Note 8, February
1999.
URS Corp. Pavement Performance Prediction Models. Interim Report for Kansas Department of Transportation. Jan. 21, 2000.
Wade, M., R.I. Desombre, and D.G. Peshkin. High Volume/High Speed Asphalt Roadway
Preventive Maintenance Surface Treatments. South Dakota Department of Transportation
Report No. SD99-09, 2001.
Walubita, L. F. and T. Scullion. Thin HMA Overlays in Texas: Mix Design and Laboratory
Material Property Characterization. Report No. FHWA/TX-08/0-5598-1, Texas Department
of Transportation, January 2008.
Appendix A - Rutting Progression of Field Cores in Laboratory
Testing by HWTD
Figure A-1 Rut Depth versus No. of Wheel Passes on K-31 in Anderson Co.