Evaluation of performance and cost-effectiveness of thin pavement surface treatments : final report.

PDFTech ReportFHWA-OR-RD-94-01SP&R #5269Pavement performanceCost effectivenessSurface course (Pavements)Chip sealsAsphalt concrete pavementsPavement maintenanceWeather conditionsCold in-place recyclingOverlays (Pavements)Life cycle costingOregonOregon. Department of Transportation. Engineering Services SectionParker, Richard D.Oregon. Department of Transportation. Engineering Services SectionUnited States. Federal Highway AdministrationUS Transportation CollectionThis study describes the findings from the study of 87 closely monitored sites in the State of Oregon which were treated with different types of thin surface materials. All of these surface treatments had a total thickness of two inches or less, and included: chip seals, asphalt penetration macadam or "oil mats", cold in-place recycling (CIR), and thin asphalt concrete overlays.Attempts were made to define the cost-effectiveness using unit cost, traffic loading, and life of treatment, but specific recommendations concerning the relative cost-effectiveness of the treatments studied were not possible with the data from this study.Polymer modified chip seals appeared to be generally more cost-effective than conventional chip seals when traffic loading and cost are factored into the evaluation of treatment life.Chip seals, as used in Oregon, do not correct rutting. Rather, the opposite is true, there is a tendency for ruts to be slightly deeper after applying a chip seal.Thin, dense-graded, AC overlays appeared to be more cost-effective on a life-cycle basis (LCI), particularly in heavy traffic areas.Construction practices and weather conditions at laydown can significantly affect the life of a thin surface treatment. The life of any of the treatments studied may be made to last more (or less) time than shown in this study