Quiet asphalt 2005_symposium_layfette_indiana_1


Published on

Arizona DOT experience with Quiet Pavement Performance as of 2005. Compares rubber surface course and concrete surfaces.

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The important message is that the line of site has to be broken. Once it is broken there is a 5 dBA reduction. If the line of sight is not broken the mitigation is not effective. So if you can see the noise source, don’t believe the noise mitigation strategy unless it is sheer distance. The other rule of thumb is that once the line of sight has been broken, for each additional 2 ft of wall height the there is a 1 dBA reduction in noise. So the 4 dBA credit we are taking represents about 8 ft in additional wall height.
  • During the spring of 2002, ADOT attempted to reduce PCCP pavement surface noise by altering the tining procedures used to texture. Previous research suggested that random transverse tining and longitudinal tining produced quieter pavement surfaces than uniformly spaced transverse tining. ADOT replaced the standard uniformly-spaced transverse tining with a uniformly-spaced longitudinal tining and a randomly-spaced transverse tining test sections. The photos above show the three different surfaces. Both roadside and roadway based measurements were obtained at three roadway locations. For the roadside measurements three classes of vehicles were driven by the microphone locations The results are shown in the next figure.
  • Quiet asphalt 2005_symposium_layfette_indiana_1

    1. 1. Quiet Asphalt 2005 Symposium Layette, Indiana
    2. 2. Historically <ul><li>Most medium to high volume AC pavements had an Open-Graded Finishing Course. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rehabilitation also included an OGFC (called ACFC in AZ) as final surface </li></ul></ul><ul><li>All PCCP received a transverse tine texture </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rehablitation was spall and crack repair with either grinding or grooving to restore ride and friction </li></ul></ul>
    3. 3. PCCP Texture was selected from Research Project in early 70’s <ul><li>ADOT constructed test sections of several types of PCCP textures </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transverse tined, Transverse broomed, longitudianl tined, longitudianal broomed, burlap drag, “astroturf”, and formed float finsihes. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most performed poorly but the longitudinal and Transverse tining both performed satisfactorily, with the transverse performing slightly better. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On a major project with longitidinal tining the contracrtor allowed the tining to wander which produced a poor looking surface. All future projects had transverse tining. </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Transverse Tining
    5. 5. PCCP Texture Results
    6. 6. Historical (pre AR) performance: <ul><li>ACFC </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Typical life was 6 – 9 years for the ACFC </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ride was typically fair to good, IRI 40 - 55 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Raveling was not unususal, occassionally bleeding </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Snowplow damage occurred in snow country </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>To prevent this some maintenace camps would flush and sand the ACFC to densify it, defeating it’s purpose. </li></ul></ul></ul>
    7. 7. Historical (pre AR) performance: <ul><li>PCCP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Typical life was 8 – 10 years for friction, joint seal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Initial ride was generally fair, IRI 60 - 90 </li></ul></ul>
    8. 8. Noise requirements <ul><li>In 1985 Maricopa County passed a new tax to fund Road construction for the area. </li></ul><ul><li>This began a 20 year (and now extended) road construction program to provide urban freeways. </li></ul><ul><li>At the beginning of the program the impact of Freeway noise on the public was not a big issue. </li></ul><ul><li>Where noise levels were exceeded noise walls were built </li></ul>
    9. 9. Controlled Through Obstructions 1 dBA for each 2 ft of Wall Above
    10. 10. Recent Developments <ul><li>As the urban freeway program matured the noise became a much bigger issue </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Neighboorhoods became more senstive to noise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hieghts of required sound walls became VERY tall which translates to VERY expensive </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. How can noise be Controlled <ul><li>Through Distance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 dBA Reduction for Each Doubling of Distance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>25ft=70dBA, 50ft=67dBA, 100 ft=64 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Through Obstructions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Berms, Walls, And Combination of both </li></ul></ul><ul><li>At the Source </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Vehicle & Tire Emissions </li></ul></ul>
    12. 12. From that the QUIET PAVEMENT pilot study idea was born <ul><li>The goal was to get credit for the reduced noise AT THE SOURCE </li></ul><ul><li>So we did not have to try and control it later thru the other two mitigation strategies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Distance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Walls </li></ul></ul>
    13. 13. Results and observations <ul><li>Noise studies and results </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are we building quiet pavements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Does the “quiet” last </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can we model it </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Pavement Performance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Are we getting the same or better performance from the “Quiet” pavements as from the “regular” ones. </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Quiet Pavement Pilot Program <ul><li>Divided into 5 phases </li></ul><ul><li>Each phase includes multiple segments </li></ul><ul><li>Basic protocol will be applied to each phase of the project </li></ul><ul><li>Pre- and Post-overlay readings for all phases schedule for completion by fall 2005 </li></ul>
    15. 15. Implementation Approach <ul><li>Participate in Collective Effort (California, Arizona, NCAT,+?) </li></ul><ul><li>Provide Data To Challenge Conventional Thinking and Policies Regarding Surface Type as a Noise Mitigation Strategy </li></ul><ul><li>Devise Means for Incorporating Surface Type Measurements into Modeling (CAN?) </li></ul>
    16. 16. Some findings relative to Pavement Surface Type Characteristics <ul><li>PCCP Texture type and orientation </li></ul><ul><li>ARFC surfaces versus PCCP surfaces </li></ul><ul><li>ARFC Surface Friction </li></ul>
    17. 17. Evaluation of PCCP Tining Methods Longitudinal Uniform Transverse Random Transverse
    18. 18. Noise Levels By Surface Type (CPX) ARFC 91.8 Whisper Grind 95.5 Longitudinal (ADOT-3/4”) 99.1 Uniform Transverse (ADOT-3/4”) 102.5 Random Transverse (Wisconsin) 104.9
    19. 20. Noise comparision Video ===>>>>
    20. 21. Noise comparision Video
    21. 22. ADOT Uses ARFC to Provide Quiet Pavements <ul><li>ADOT will ultimately spend over $70M to Surface PCCP with ARFC in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area </li></ul><ul><li>The ARFC (R-OGFC) is Minus 3/8” & 9-9.5% Binder </li></ul><ul><li>½” Thick When Used on Flexible Pavement </li></ul><ul><li>1” Thick When Used on PCCP </li></ul><ul><li>ADOT Uses Pavement Type (ARFC) as a Noise Mitigation Strategy (4 dBA) </li></ul>
    22. 23. Pavement Durability And Performance Following are several slides that show the durability and performance of ARFCs. There are many more sections of pavement where ARFCs were placed on AC pavements then where ARFCs were placed on PCCP pavements. Therefore, some of the data shown is for the larger group of AC pavement sections. Even so, several PCCP sections with ARFC overlays are about a decade old and show excellent performance when used there.
    23. 24. Compared to a PCCP top surface, an ARFC On a PCC Pavement provides a smoother ride
    24. 25. ARFC provides comparable Friction levels to a PCCP surface, reduces the amount of water spray, and provides increased contrast to pavement markings in wet weather
    25. 26. Pavements with ARFC experience less rutting compared To those without an ARFC.
    26. 27. Pavements having AR as the final surface Cost less to maintain then neat AC surfaces
    27. 28. ADOT PMS Data shows most pavements will experience the first crack at approximately 4 years of age. Once initial cracking occurs, AR greatly reduces the yearly increase in cracking.
    28. 29. ARFCs perform similarly in terms of Roughness to ACFCs during their early life but perform better during their second half of their life.
    29. 30. ARFCs have better Friction levels then ACFCs
    30. 31. As the preceding slides have shown, AR incorporated into pavement surfacing provides measurable performance improvement in several areas and comparable performance in the remaining areas. The oldest section of ARFC in Arizona is an overlay of PCCP on I-19 in Tucson. That section was the first of the “modern” ARFCs placed in one lift. Maintenance Costs have averaged less then $100/year Earlier use of ARFCs were a 3-layer system. The I-19 section was placed in 1989 and has received no major maintenance since then and is still serving traffic today. It’s performance is detailed on the next slide…..
    31. 32. I-19 Project built in 1989, MP 58.5 – 60.0 Cracking Roughness
    32. 33. I-19 ARFC placed in 1989, elev. 2700’
    33. 34. I-17 SB MP 312 - 337 <ul><li>I-17 SB MP 312 – 337 is located just south of Flagstaff in an area of high freeze thaw and heavy truck traffic. </li></ul><ul><li>The original PCCP was built in 1975 and in the years leading up to this ARFC overlay had developed extensive joint faulting, so much, in fact, that most trucks avoided the right lane and traveled in the left lane. Maintenance costs have averaged less then $100/year. </li></ul>
    34. 35. I-17 SB MP 312 – 337 2000 mu = 56
    35. 36. I-17 SB ARFC placed in 1994, elev. 6800‘
    36. 37. Summary <ul><li>Many years of performance history of ARFCs placed in Arizona have shown it to be a durable and long lasting surfacing course. </li></ul><ul><li>In virtually every performance measure it does better then the comparable mix without rubber. </li></ul><ul><li>This is the case for both AC pavements as well as when ARFC is used as a surface course on PCC Pavements. </li></ul>