Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 3 PDF
Chapter 3 PDF
CHAPTER FOUR
ments are used across the country. For example, 84% of airports (that have AC pavements) reported that they routinely
use crack sealing with hot-poured sealant (Table 3). Similarly, 61% of agencies (that have PCC pavements) reported
that they are routinely using, or have tried using, joint sealing with silicone sealant (Table 4).
The use of some M&R treatments depends on the size and
volume of traffic of the airport, such as the treatments aimed
at increasing pavement friction. Consequently, although about
39% of the responding airports reported using diamond grinding (routinely or on a trial basis), the percentage for small airports would probably be considerably lower, and for large
airports most likely considerably higher.
For AC pavements, the following six M&R treatments
were used by less than 15% of agencies that had AC pavements on at least one facility: spray patching, texturization
using fine milling, microsurfacing, hot and cold in-place
recycling, and PCC overlay.
For PCC pavements, the following four M&R treatments
were used by less than 15% of the agencies: load transfer
restoration treatments using sub-sealing and slab stitching,
full-depth repairs using precast panels, and microsurfacing.
Performance of Maintenance
and Rehabilitation Treatments
Survey results concerning the performance of M&R treatments reported in Tables 3 and 4 are not reliable because of
sample size limitations and the lack of objective guidelines
for the evaluation of treatment performance. A very large
sample size would be needed to obtain a statistically significant number of performance reports for the M&R treatments
that are not frequently used, even if all survey responses were
grouped in one sample. However, the treatment performance
may depend on the environmental zone (e.g., wet-freeze,
dry-freeze, dry-no freeze, and wet-no freeze) and on the airport facility (runway, taxiway, and apron) further increasing
the sample size.
To obtain an objective rating of the treatment performance shown in Tables 3 and 4 would also require the development of performance evaluation guidelines for all M&R
treatments and adherence to such guidelines by the respon-
19
TABLE 3
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION TREATMENTS FOR ASPHALT
CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Survey Result, %
Usage
Performance
Very
Good
Good
hot-poured sealant
84
11
95
19
71
10
cold-applied sealant
16
17
66
17
hot mix
52
16
68
42
58
cold mix
43
18
61
13
50
37
proprietary mix
11
20
25
50
25
Poor
Total
Have
Tried
Routine
Treatment Type
11
100
27
14
41
39
55
34
18
52
39
61
fine milling
11
20
80
16
16
71
29
30
23
52
23
59
18
Surface treatment
15
18
43
81
13
Slurry seal
23
25
48
10
75
15
Microsurfacing
11
25
75
Hot-mix overlay
45
23
68
48
48
45
18
64
58
42
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
60
20
20
Texturization using
20
TABLE 4
PAVEMENT PRESERVATION TREATMENTS FOR PORTLAND CEMENT
CONCRETE PAVEMENTS
Survey Result, %
Usage
Performance
Joint/crack sealing
with
Poor
Good
Very
Good
Total
Have
Tried
Routine
Treatment Type
bituminous sealant
29
15
44
13
80
silicone sealant
39
22
61
29
71
neoprene seal
22
29
36
36
27
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
dowel retrofit
12
17
60
40
PCC
34
15
49
28
67
AC
29
20
49
18
65
18
proprietary mix
17
17
34
42
42
17
PCC
AC
proprietary mix
precast panels
46
20
7
2
15
39
17
2
61
59
24
5
47
31
30
N/A
47
54
50
N/A
6
15
20
N/A
12
17
33
50
17
Diamond grinding
34
39
21
79
15
15
80
20
N/A
Microsurfacing
N/A
N/A
AC overlay
10
27
37
36
64
15
40
40
20
Percentage of respondents
80
Only AC
Only PCC
AC & PCC
60
40
20
0
All facilities
Runways only
Facility type
All of these M&R treatments and materials require continuing evaluation to document cost-effectiveness.
TABLE 5
AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF M&R TREATMENTS
FOR DIFFERENT PAVEMENT TYPES
Average Performance for all Treatments
and Airports (%)
Pavement Type
No.
of
Airports
No.
of
Treatments
Very Good
Good
Poor
AC Pavements
44
19
30.2
59.1
10.7
PCC Pavements
41
19
29.6
58.1
12.3
21
Percentage of responses
80
AC material
PCC material
60
40
20
0
Very good
Good
Performance rating
Poor
There is a large amount of information available concerning the technology of pavement preservation treatments.
For example, there are literally dozens and in some cases even
hundreds of reports on each of the 38 M&R treatments listed
in Tables 3 and 4. To present information in a concise and systematic way, each of the 38 M&R treatments was described
using the same structure in less than three pages. The result is
TABLE 6
AIRPORT PAVEMENT PRESERVATION TREATMENTS INCLUDED IN THE CATALOG
Both Pavement Types
Texturization using controlled
shot blasting
Diamond grinding
Microsurfacing
3 treatments
Asphalt Concrete
Sealing and filling of cracks (with
hot- or cold-applied sealants)
Small area patching (using hot mix,
cold mix, or proprietary material)
Spray patching (manual chip seal or
mechanized spray patching)
Machine patching with AC material
Rejuvenators and seals
Texturization using fine milling
Surface treatment (chip seal, chip
seal coat)
Slurry seal
Hot-mix overlay (includes milling
of AC pavements)
Hot in-place recycling
Cold in-place recycling
Ultra-thin whitetopping
12 treatments
9 treatments