Upload
others
View
7
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
UPDATE Implementing the Ultra High
Pressure Water Cutter for Treatment of Flushed Pavements
TxDOT 5-5230
Darlene C. Goehl, P.E. Bryan District
TxDOT
William D. Lawson, P.E., Ph.D. Research Supervisor
TechMRT: Multidisciplinary Research in Transportation Texas Tech University
85th Annual Transportation Short Course Bryan, TX October 11, 2011
The Problem: FLUSHED PAVEMENTS
FM 1472 Webb County (LRD)
FM 2562 Grimes County (BRY)
Photo Courtesy TTI Photos
The Solution: ULTRA HIGH PRESSURE WATER CUTTING
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
Implement the UHP water cutter as an efficient, cost-effective maintenance tool to restore texture on roads surfaced with a seal coat or surface treatment which exhibit minor to severe flushing
Implements findings of 0-5230 UHP water cutter experiences in New Zealand and Australia UHP water cutter demonstration project, Grimes County, TX
(BRY), in March 2010
METHOD
Implementing the Ultra High Pressure Water Cutter for Treatment of Flushed Pavements
WORK PLAN SUMMARY 1. Start date: November 29, 2010 2. Work plan: Treat flushed pavements using UHP process on
14 test sites (Feb-Mar 2011) Pretest and posttest for each site consisting of
skid number, dynamic friction test, sand patch and circular track meter
Follow-up testing at all sites in Jul 2011, Jan 2012, Jul 2012
3. Data analysis: in process 4. Completion date: August 31, 2012
Test Site Locations… Four districts
representing the four FWHA climatic regions in Texas
A total of 14 test sites: BRY… 6 sites LRD… 2 sites BMT… 3 sites AMA… 3 sites
Initial UHP Treatment: Jan 31 – Mar 2
TYPICAL TEST PLAN LAYOUT
½ mile
TIME TRIAL TIME TRIAL 1 2 3 UHP TREATMENT
START END
4 5 6
PRETEST POSTTEST
FM 82 Jasper County (BMT)
SAND PATCH TEST (texture)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
BRY2 BRY4 BRY5 BRY7 BRY9 BMT1 BMT2 BMT3 AMA1 AMA2 AMA3 LRD2 LRD3
San
d P
atch
Mea
n Te
xtur
e D
epth
(mm
)
Pre-Treatment in WP Pre-Treatment BWP Post Treatment in WP Monitoring 1 in WP
SAND PATCH
FM 294 Armstrong County (AMA)
CIRCULAR TRACK METER ASTM E-2157 (texture)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
BRY2 BRY4 BRY5 BRY7 BRY9 BMT1 BMT2 BMT3 AMA1 AMA2 AMA3 LRD2 LRD3
CTM
Mea
n P
rofil
e D
epth
(mm
)
Pre-Treatment in WP Pre-Treatment BWP Post Treatment in WP Monitoring 1 in WP
CTM
TxDOT SKID TRUCK (friction)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
BRY2 BRY4 BRY5 BRY7 BRY9* BMT1 BMT2 BMT3 AMA1 AMA2 AMA3 LRD2 LRD3
Ski
d N
umbe
r
Pre-Treatment in WP Post-Treatment in WP Monitoring 1
SKID NUMBER
IH35 Webb County (LRD)
DYNAMIC FRICTION TESTER (DFT) ASTM E-1911 (friction)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
BRY2 BRY4 BRY5 BRY7 BRY9 BMT1 BMT2 BMT3 AMA1 AMA2 AMA3 LRD2 LRD3
DFT
Fric
tion
Num
ber *
100
Pre-Treatment in WP Post-Treatment in WP Monitoring 1
DFT
WORK PLAN
1. Treat Jan-Mar 2011 A. Pretest B. Posttest
2. Follow-up Jul 2011 3. Follow-up Jan 2012 4. Follow-up Jul 2012
Does it WORK?
Does it LAST?
What’s it COST?
FM 2562 Grimes County (BRY) Photo Courtesy TTI Photos
Q1. DOES IT WORK? (effectiveness)
TEXTURE
FRICTION
SUMMARY
DOES IT WORK? Texture Data SP: +46 to +344
Avg +180% CTM: +38 to +354
Avg +186% Friction Data SN: +0 to +351
Avg +124% DFT: +1 to +348
Avg +119%
YES Initial treatment
showed improvement in
both macrotexture
and microtexture
FM 2562 Grimes County (BRY)
Photo Courtesy TTI Photos Q2. DOES IT LAST? (durability)
344
202
46
7
180
109
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11
% C
hang
e in
San
d Pa
tch
MTD
from
Pre
-Tre
atm
ent
Con
ditio
ns
Month/Year of Testing
High Low Average Linear (Average)
SAND PATCH
354
270
38
-8
186
102
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 % C
hang
e in
CTM
MPD
from
Pre
-Tre
atm
ent C
ondi
tions
Month/Year of Testing
High Low Average Linear (Average)
CTM
SKID NUMBER 351
226
0
-40
124
64
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 % C
hang
e in
Ski
d N
umbe
r fro
m P
re-T
reat
men
t Con
ditio
ns
Month/Year of Testing
High Low Average Linear (Average)
348
183
1 13
119
75
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11
% C
hang
e in
DFT
Fric
tion
Num
ber f
rom
Pre
-Tre
atm
ent
Con
ditio
ns
Month/Year of Testing
High Low Average Linear (Average)
DFT
SUMMARY
DOES IT LAST? Sand Patch +180% to +109%
CTM +186% to +102%
Skid Number +124% to +64%
DFT +119% to +75%
MIXED RESULTS
Promising, still obtaining data;
too early to tell
Q3. WHAT’S IT COST? (affordability)
UHP Treatment Speeds and Production Rates
Site Treatment Speed (mph) Production Rate
(SY/hour) Surface Condition Min Max Avg BRY1 0.5 587 tracked asphalt on concrete BRY2 0.7 821 moderately flushed chip seal BRY4 1.0 1173 lightly flushed chip seal BRY5 0.5 0.7 0.6 739 heavily flushed chip seal BRY7 0.8 1 0.9 1067 moderately flushed chip seal BRY9 0.7 0.8 0.7 845 heavily flushed chip seal LRD 2 0.7 0.7 0.7 856 heavily flushed chip seal LRD 3 0.5 0.7 0.6 716 heavily flushed chip seal BMT 1 1.0 1173 moderately flushed chip seal BMT 2 1.1 2.4 1.6 1865 lightly flushed chip seal BMT 3 1.0 1.1 1.0 1161 heavily flushed chip seal AMA 1 0.8 938 moderately flushed chip seal AMA 2 0.8 1.3 1.1 1255 lightly flushed chip seal AMA 3 0.4 0.7 0.5 622 very heavily flushed chip seal
Speed: 0.5 to 1.6, avg 0.8mph Production: 590 to 1870, avg 990 sy/hr
Unit Costs for Current Treatments (Flushing)
Function Code Function Code Description
Turn-key Maintenance Cost District
Minimum $/SY
District Maximum
$/SY
Statewide Average
$/SY 212 Leveling or Overlay with
Maintainer… $ 3.91 $ 6.61 $ 4.51 214 Leveling or Overlay with
Drag Box… $ 1.71 $ 6.23 $ 2.60 232 Strip or Spot Seal Coat
(Chip Seal)… $ 2.19 $ 3.14 $ 2.58 252 Milling or Planing… $1.37 $ 11.46 $ 2.05 253 Spot Milling… $ 3.19 $ 19.81 $ 6.65
Unit Costs for UHP Water Cutting (Flushing) SUB-CONTRACT
(UHP Water Cutting - No Support Services) MIN: $0.90/SY MAX: $1.15/SY
GENERAL CONTRACT (Turn Key UHP Water Cutting)
MIN: $1.40/SY MAX: $1.65/SY
COSTS REPORTED BY UHP CONTRACTOR
SUMMARY
WHAT’S IT COST? Compare to Strip/Spot
Seals: < $1.05/sy cheaper < 41%
< 25 to 77% compared
to other maintenance functions
CHEAPER than strip seals and
other methods
Interim Conclusion
UHP Water Cutting for treatment of flushed pavement surfaces: Works… treatment is effective Lasts(?)… mixed results, promising,
still under review Costs… less than currently-
available maintenance methods
THANK YOU! TECHMRT Sanjaya Senadheera Andrew Tubb Timothy Wood Michael Leaverton Jake Blessen John Papa Conrad Lovejoy Rod Henderson
RAMPART HYDRO SERVICES
Jeff Parks Bob Beadling Jim Windich
TXDOT Darlene Goehl & many, many more