VERIFICATION OF SUPERPAVE NDESIGN COMPACTION LEVELS Phase I Final Report By: Donald E. Watson Jason Moore E. Ray Brown July 2005 VERIFICATION OF SUPERPAVE NDESIGN COMPACTION LEVELS Phase I Final Report By: Donald E. Watson Research Engineer National Center for Asphalt Technology Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama Jason Moore Laboratory Engineer National Center for Asphalt Technology Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama E. Ray Brown Director National Center for Asphalt Technology Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama Sponsored by Georgia Department of Transportation Atlanta, Georgia July 2005 DISCLAIMER The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Department of Transportation or the National Center for Asphalt Technology. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ............................................................................................... 1 Project Objective .................................................................................................. 2 Scope .................................................................................................................... 2 Selection of Field Projects ............................................................................................ 2 Difficulty in Finding Comparable Projects and Project Records ..........................3 Field Evaluation ................................................................................................... 3 Results of Field Analysis .............................................................................................. 4 Rutting .................................................................................................................. 5 Cracking ............................................................................................................... 7 Air Void Analysis .............................................................................................. 10 Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 15 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................... 16 Appendix ..................................................................................................................... 17 Table 1. Selected Marshall Projects.....................................................................18 Table 2. Selected Superpave Projects ..................................................................19 Table 3. Summary of Field Data for Marshall Projects .......................................20 Table 4. Summary of Field Data for Superpave Projects ....................................21 Pavement Evaluations and Photos of Marshall Projects......................................22 Pavement Evaluations and Photos of Superpave Projects ...................................54 ii ABSTRACT The Georgia Department of Transportation specifies the Superpave design system for the majority of its dense-graded HMA mixes. However, there is concern that the number of design gyrations (NDesign) may be too high for a given traffic level. Mixes designed with too high of an NDesign would be rut resistant, but may be difficult to adequately compact in the field and may lack sufficient durability due to reduced asphalt binder content. In order to determine the optimum asphalt content for hot mix asphalt, the correct laboratory compaction effort needs to be applied during the mix design phase. If the field performance of Marshall designed mixes previously used by the Department indicates that they are rut resistant, and if these mixes contain higher asphalt contents, then it is believed that the Superpave NDesign levels may be adjusted to provide comparable optimum asphalt contents. The optimization of the NDesign levels based on the field performance of Marshall and Superpave designed mixes should produce a balance between rut resistance and durability resulting in longer service life. The objective of this project is to evaluate the performance of Georgia's mixes designed using the Superpave gyratory compactor and compare them to the performance of Georgia's Marshall-designed mixes. The comparisons will be used to optimize the Superpave NDesign levels. The following conclusions are made based on an evaluation of 16 Marshall and 16 Superpave projects placed about the same time and serving under approximately the same traffic and other environmental conditions. 1. Both Marshall and Superpave mixtures are generally performing quite well with very little rutting and cracking after a period of about four years. 2. Rutting results were very similar for projects that used polymer-modified asphalt as compared to the standard paving grade asphalt. However, polymer-modified asphalt projects had almost four times as much traffic volume. 3. Superpave projects showed a slight trend of increased resistance to cracking at higher asphalt contents and where polymer modifiers were used. 4. The average asphalt content for Marshall projects was 0.34 percent higher than the average for Superpave projects. 5. Roadway air voids determined immediately after construction averaged 7.3 percent for Superpave projects and values were as high as 9.7 percent. Therefore, Superpave mixtures may have been more permeable than the Marshall mixtures which averaged only 6.1 percent air voids and had values as high as 8.3 percent. 6. It is unlikely that Superpave mixtures will reach the design air voids of 4.0 percent during the life of the pavement. After nearly five years, the average air voids measured in the wheelpaths was 5.7 percent for Superpave projects and 3.8 percent for Marshall projects. 7. Based on field comparisons, the Superpave mixture specifications could be changed to increase asphalt content and VMA properties without adversely iii affecting rutting resistance. 8. Reducing the gyratory compaction effort alone in order to increase asphalt binder content for Superpave mixtures is not a viable option. A better design approach may be to combine the effects of revising the gyratory compaction effort with revisions to volumetric requirements such as percent VMA. These changes may require the use of a finer gradation than the coarse, gap-graded Superpave mixtures used in the past in order to improve mixture volumetric properties. Keywords: Marshall, Superpave, rutting, cracking, gyratory, VMA, polymer modified asphalt iv Watson, Moore and Brown Draft - Phase I Report VERIFICATION OF SUPERPAVE NDESIGN COMPACTION LEVELS Donald E. Watson, Jason Moore and E. Ray Brown INTRODUCTION Problem Statement In order to determine the optimum asphalt content for hot mix asphalt, the correct laboratory compaction effort needs to be applied during the mix design phase. The laboratory compaction effort for the Superpave mixture design system has been subject to refinement since first being introduced in 1994. When the Superpave gyratory compactor was first developed, a field study was implemented to establish the number of gyrations required for different traffic levels and for different climates. This work was somewhat limited but it did provide information necessary to tentatively establish gyration levels. Three levels of compaction were suggested in the original guidance: Ninitial, NDesign, and Nmaximum. The test results for samples compacted to NDesign gyrations were used to determine the optimum asphalt content while the test results of samples compacted to Ninitial and Nmaximum were used to help evaluate the overall quality of the mixture. Initially there were 28 different compaction levels that could be selected based on traffic and climate. A national study, NCHRP 9-9, "Refinement of the Superpave Gyratory Compaction Procedure," was conducted to consolidate the number of proposed gyration levels. After this study was completed the number of gyration levels was reduced from the original 28 down to 4. This reduction in the number of gyration levels was made in part by concluding that the climate had no significant effect on mixture compactibility since asphalt binder grades are varied to account for the climatic differences. Designers in warmer climates are required to use stiffer asphalts to provide adequate rutting resistance in the hotter geographical environment. This will result in the mixture for two different climatic areas having about the same mixture stiffness at the higher temperatures for which each mixture will need to perform. Data from NCHRP 9-9 also showed that 4 different compaction levels were sufficient to handle all of the traffic levels that needed to be considered so the total number of compaction levels was then reduced from 28 to 4. Even though this study was a major study, it only consolidated the gyration levels that already existed in the gyration table; it did not verify that the specified number of gyrations was correct. Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) specifies the Superpave design system for the majority of its dense-graded HMA mixes. However, there is concern that the number of design gyrations for NDesign may be too high for a given traffic level. Mixes designed with too high of an NDesign gyration level would be rut resistant, but may be 1 Watson, Moore and Brown difficult to adequately compact in the field, may be more prone to segregation, and may suffer from durability problems such as pre-mature cracking and raveling due to inadequate asphalt binder content. The optimization of the NDesign levels based on the field performance of Marshall and Superpave designed mixes should produce a balance between rut resistance and durability resulting in longer service life. Other states, such as Alabama and Virginia, have reduced their NDesign values based on comparisons with Marshall designed mixes that incorporated Superpave performance grade (PG) binders and similar aggregate properties. If the field performance of the Marshall designed mixes indicates that they are rut resistant, and if these mixes contain higher asphalt contents, then it is believed that the Superpave NDesign levels may be adjusted to provide comparable laboratory compaction of the Marshall mixtures used in the past. Project Objective The objective of this project is to evaluate the performance of Georgia's mixes designed using the Superpave mix design procedure and compare them to the performance of Georgia's Marshall designed mixes using Superpave PG Binders and similar aggregate properties. The comparisons will be used to optimize the Superpave NDesign levels. Scope The work is being completed in two phases. The first phase includes field distress surveys of pavements constructed using Marshall-designed mixes that included the Superpave aggregate requirements and PG binders with Superpave-designed mixes (design asphalt content determined using the gyratory compactor). The second phase will consist of a laboratory study to evaluate the effects of changing gyration levels in terms of rut resistance, moisture susceptibility and permeability. SELECTION OF FIELD PROJECTS Projects for the Phase I field evaluations were selected with the help of the Assistant Materials and Research Engineer of the Georgia Department of Transportation. Efforts were made to find sixteen paired sites, with the same Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size (NMAS) and produced with the same aggregates for field distress surveys. A list of projects let to contract beginning in 1996 to the year 2000 was obtained and used to identify potential Superpave and Marshall projects for this study. Those years were chosen because the first Superpave projects were let to contract in 1996 and by 2000 the use of Superpave was common across the state. It was anticipated that projects constructed during this time period may be old enough to begin showing signs of distress. A total of 95 Marshall projects and 122 Superpave projects were initially identified as potential candidates for this study. The large number of initial projects was needed in 2 Watson, Moore and Brown order to match projects for each design method with similar materials, traffic levels and age. Difficulty in Finding Comparable Projects and Project Records While searching for comparable field projects, it became evident that comparisons for each desired variable may not be possible. This objective was somewhat difficult due to the way GDOT implemented the Superpave design method. During the transition of implementing Superpave, those mixtures were typically used on the higher traffic loading facilities while Marshall mixtures were used for the lower traffic volume routes. As a result there are very few Superpave projects placed on low traffic routes. A special effort was made to try to find projects where Superpave was placed on low traffic volume routes so that performance could be evaluated over a wide range of traffic conditions. However, it was more feasible to find Marshall mixes placed on high traffic volume projects around the same time period. While Superpave mixtures were designed at various gyration levels, all Marshall mixtures evaluated were designed at 50 blows. An attempt was made to match paired sites including both unmodified and modified binders. However, polymer modified binders were not typically used in Marshall mixes. With the implementation of Superpave, a decision was made to require polymer modified binder in the surface course of projects that had more than 25,000 ADT based on twoway traffic. Six of the sixteen Superpave projects used polymer-modified asphalt. QC/QA test data from the projects selected was obtained from archived project records so that an analysis of project data could be made. The information was available for all but one project. This allowed a comparison to be made between roadway density at the time of construction to the current density obtained from cores taken in the outside wheel path of each project. Some variation between as-built density and current density was expected since the density immediately after construction was usually determined with a calibrated nuclear density gauge rather than cores. Field Evaluation From the potential list of projects, 16 Marshall and 16 Superpave projects were selected that matched as closely as possible the same age, traffic conditions, mix type, aggregate source, and geographical area. Of the 32 projects evaluated, only 12.5 mm mixes were used for the surface course. The list of Marshall projects included in the final selection is shown in Table 1 of the Appendix. The Superpave projects included in the final selection are shown in Table 2 in the Appendix. For each project selected, the sites were visited and a representative area selected for evaluation. Rut depths were manually determined for each wheel path by use of a string line and the results averaged for each project. In addition, cracking and surface condition was noted. AASHTO PP44-01, "Standard Practice for Quantifying Cracks in Asphalt Pavement Surface," was used to quantify the intensity and severity level of pavement cracking. 3 Watson, Moore and Brown A brief description of each project along with the pavement survey and accompanying photographs is included in the Appendix. RESULTS OF FIELD ANALYSIS Tables 3 and 4 shown in the Appendix contain the results of test data for the field evaluation. The average age of Marshall projects selected was 6.1 years and the average age of Superpave projects was 4.7 years. The Marshall projects are typically older because no more Marshall projects were let to contract once the decision to implement Superpave was made. The Average Daily Traffic (ADT) for Marshall projects was 21,245 and the average traffic volume for Superpave projects was 21,420. The average asphalt content based on analysis of "as-built" project quality acceptance data was 5.28 percent for Marshall mixes and 4.94 percent for Superpave mixes. A comparison of asphalt content between the two methods is shown in Figure 1. Asphalt Content (%) Asphalt Content Comparison (Based on Project QA Data) Marshall Superpave 6.50 6.00 5.50 5.00 4.50 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project No. FIGURE 1. Asphalt Content Comparison Cores from the projects showed the surface layer thickness and total depth of pavement structure for Marshall and Superpave projects were very similar. The surface layer of cores from Marshall projects averaged 1.62 inches thick and the surface of Superpave projects averaged 1.57 inches thick. The total asphalt pavement structure averaged 9.77 inches for Marshall projects and 9.72 inches for Superpave projects. It was important that the paired projects have similar pavement structure. Otherwise, any difference in rutting or cracking may have been attributed to structural variation rather than mixture 4 Watson, Moore and Brown performance. Rutting Of the 32 projects selected for this research study, 11 Marshall and 8 Superpave projects exhibited measurable deformation. The measured rut depths in each wheelpath ranged from 0.0 to 0.19 inches for both mix design methods. Rut depths in each wheel path were then averaged for each project and those results are shown in Figure 2. Marshall projects had an average rut depth of 0.06 inches while Superpave projects had an average rut depth of 0.05 inches. Therefore, there is no significant difference in average rutting resistance between Marshall and Superpave mixtures. Comparison of Rut Depths 0.25 Marshall 0.20 Superpave Rut Depth (in) 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project FIGURE 2. Comparison of Rut Depths Figure 2 shows that Marshall projects 6 and 15 had the highest degree of rutting. Marshall project 6 (M-6) is a project on State Route (SR) 1/U.S. 27 in Summerville. The project is six years old and has almost 25,000 ADT. Cores from the wheelpath showed the current pavement has 3.2 percent in-place air voids. Project M-15 is also six years old and is located on SR 7/U.S. 341 between Perry and Fort Valley. Roadway cores from the project averaged 2.8 percent air voids. The mix on this project may be slightly unstable due to the very low air void level. Some of the rutting in Superpave mixes may have been a result of low air voids as well. For example, Superpave project 9 (S-9) had the largest average rutting of all projects evaluated. The project is located on Peachtree Industrial Blvd. off the state route system in Gwinnett County. This is a four year old project with over 50,000 ADT. The project cores showed the mix has only 2.0 percent air voids in the wheelpath. The optimum 5 Watson, Moore and Brown asphalt content for the initial mix placed on this project was 4.09 percent. The asphalt content was raised to 4.7 percent after Lot 7 due to compaction problems early in the project. A new mix design was used beginning with Lot 21 due to a change in RAP source. The gradation was the same as for the previous mix except that the No. 200 (0.075m) sieve was reduced from 5.0 to 4.0 percent passing. The new mix had an asphalt content of 5.3 percent. The average asphalt content used throughout the project was 4.85 percent. The high asphalt content used on this project in order to obtain satisfactory compaction results during construction may explain why the project now has low air void levels. However, this project gives evidence that Superpave mixtures may be placed with higher asphalt contents. Even though the average asphalt content for the project was about 0.75 percent higher than the initial mix design, and the project has over 50,000 ADT, the average rutting is less than one-quarter inch. Furthermore, a comparison of asphalt content to rut depth for Superpave mixtures shows there is very little relationship between the two. The low R-square value shown in Figure 3 indicates that the variation in rut depth cannot be explained by changes in asphalt content. However, this information is based on results from different mixes used on 16 different projects. For a particular mix, one would reasonably expect increases in asphalt content to result in increases in rutting. AC vs Rut Depth - Superpave Rut Depth, in 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 R2 = 0.0215 0.02 0.00 4.30 4.50 4.70 4.90 5.10 5.30 5.50 5.70 5.90 AC Content, % FIGURE 3. Comparison of Rut Depth to Asphalt Content Figure 4 compares the effect of traffic volume on pavement deformation. For Marshall projects, increases in traffic volume do not affect the amount of rutting. For Superpave projects, there is also little effect of traffic volume on the amount of pavement rutting 6 Watson, Moore and Brown although there is a slight trend that rutting increases as traffic increases. It is expected that traffic volume would have little effect on rutting of Superpave projects since the compaction level increases and asphalt content decreases with incremental increases in traffic. Both Figures 3 and 4 indicate that the current method of increasing compaction effort (and decreasing asphalt content) are effective in accounting for differences in traffic volume. Rut Depth (in) 0.20 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0 Traffic vs Rutting Superpave R2 = 0.1181 Superpave Marshall Marshall R2 = 0.0154 20,000 40,000 60,000 Traffic Volume (ADT) 80,000 FIGURE 4. Effect of Traffic on Pavement Rutting A rutting comparison was made between Superpave projects that used PG 76-22 polymer modified asphalt to Superpave projects that used the standard paving grade, PG 67-22. This comparison was done to evaluate the effectiveness of polymer modifiers in helping to control rutting. The average rutting for projects that used polymer modified asphalt was 0.06 in. while the projects with unmodified asphalt averaged 0.04 in. These results indicate there is no significant difference in performance of modified and unmodified asphalt as related to rutting resistance. However, one must remember that the polymer modified asphalt mixtures were used on the highest traffic volume projects. Average ADT for projects with polymer modified asphalt was 38,323 while the traffic volume for standard paving grade projects was 10,152. When the order of magnitude (nearly four times) for traffic volume is considered, it is certainly admirable that the polymer modified projects had basically no more rutting than the lower traffic volume projects. Based on the difference in rutting as compared to the difference in traffic volume, it appears that polymer modified asphalt does improve rutting resistance for mixtures placed under high stress conditions. Cracking Only 4 of the 16 Marshall projects and 5 of the Superpave projects showed any cracking 7 Watson, Moore and Brown distress. The cracking intensity, measured in linear feet per square foot, ranged from 0.0 to 0.188 for Marshall projects and from 0.0 to 0.138 for Superpave projects. Two Superpave projects, S-3 and S-4, were overlays of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement. Cracking intensity for these two projects was 0.173 and 0.122, respectively. The reflective cracking on these projects is shown on the project evaluation forms in the appendix but was not included in the summary of project data because the cracking was more related to the effect of underlying PCC than the mix design method. Therefore, the average cracking intensity for all projects was 0.065 for Marshall and 0.022 for Superpave projects. A comparison was made to evaluate the effect of geographical area on the susceptibility to cracking. The geographical locations are arranged by construction District from north to south with Districts 1 and 6 being in the northernmost part of the state and Districts 2 and 3 being in the mid portion of the state. District 7 represents the Metro Atlanta area. Cracking intensity is generally expressed as linear feet per square foot (lf/sf). In Figures 5-9 where cracking intensity is referred to, the ratio of lf/sf is written as a percent. As shown in Figure 5, there is very little effect of geographical location on cracking for both Marshall and Superpave projects as evidenced by the low R-square values. Crack Intensity (%) 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 Cracking vs Location Superpave Marshall Marshall R2 = 0.0375 Superpave R2 = 0.0743 11 26 37 42 53 6 Geographical Location - GDOT District FIGURE 5. Effect of Geographical Area on Cracking Intensity The trendline for the data shown in Figure 6 indicates a slight tendency for reduced cracking with increases in asphalt content but the low R-squared value indicates the correlation is not significant. This is somewhat reasonable since all the mixes were designed at optimum asphalt content, but it does at least indicate that cracking resistance 8 Watson, Moore and Brown of Superpave mixes may be improved somewhat by increasing asphalt content. Cracking Intensity, lf/sf (%) Cracking vs Asphalt Content 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 R2 = 0.19 2 0 4.25 4.50 4.75 5.00 5.25 5.50 5.75 AC (%) FIGURE 6. Effect of Asphalt Content on Cracking Intensity A comparison was also made of the difference in asphalt content from one district to another, and the results showed the average asphalt content for Superpave mixes was relatively consistent from district to district. AC (%) 5.75 5.50 5.25 5.00 4.75 4.50 4.25 0 Superpave AC by District R2 = 0.0777 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GDOT District FIGURE 7. Superpave Asphalt Content by District 9 Watson, Moore and Brown It was suspected that cracking may be related to structural depth of the pavement. If pavement depth has not kept pace with the increase in traffic volume since the projects were originally constructed, it would be reasonable to expect more cracking for the thinner pavement sections. However, Figure 8 shows that there is no correlation in the data for cracking as related to pavement depth. Crack Intensity, lf/sf (%) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 4 Cracking vs Pavement Depth R2 = 0.0123 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Pavement Depth (in) FIGURE 8. Effect of Pavement Depth on Crack Intensity The ability of polymer modified asphalt to resist cracking was also considered. It was expected that the PG 76 grade asphalt would be more elastic than the standard PG 67 paving grade asphalt and that it might improve resistance to cracking. Figure 9 shows that polymer modified mixtures had a tendency toward less cracking, but again, there was a poor correlation. Air Void Analysis Cores were taken from each project to determine in-place density and percent air voids, thickness of the surface layer, and thickness of the overall pavement structure. Four cores were typically taken from the outside wheelpath of each project. The percent air voids from samples taken in the wheelpath represents the attainable air void levels after several years of traffic and should compare closely with the design air void level of the mixture. 10 Watson, Moore and Brown Cracking Intensity (%) Cracking vs PG Grade 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 R2 = 0.1212 0 64 67 70 73 76 79 PG Grade FIGURE 9. Effect of PG Grade on Cracking Intensity As seen in Figure 10 the average roadway air voids for Marshall projects was 3.8 percent and for Superpave projects was 5.7 percent. Superpave mixtures are designed at 4.0 percent air voids. The design air voids (4.0 percent at NDesign) represents the air void level that the pavement can be expected to reach after initial compaction during construction and additional densification after several years of traffic. Generally, most of the pavement density occurs during construction and, to a much less extent, for up to 3 years afterward under the repeated loading action of traffic. After about 3 years, the mixture is typically aged sufficiently to make it stiff enough to resist further densification. Based on this field data, Superpave mixes are not likely to reach the average of 4.0 percent air voids they were designed at. The high air void levels in the wheelpath indicates that the Superpave gyratory compaction level used for the project was higher than necessary for the additional densification under traffic loading encountered on the project. This also indicates that higher asphalt contents may be needed in Superpave mixtures. On the other hand, Marshall mixtures were typically designed at 4.5 percent air voids. Figure 10 shows that the Marshall projects averaged less than the 4.5 percent design air voids. This means that Marshall mixtures may have been placed with a slightly higher asphalt content than needed at the time of construction, but the average results are very close to the currently recommended 4.0 percent air voids for mix designs. 11 Watson, Moore and Brown Va (%) Field Air Voids (From Wheelpath) 10.0 Marshall 9.0 Superpave 8.0 7.0 6.0 Avg. Superpave = 5.7 5.0 4.0 Avg. Marshall = 3.8 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project No. FIGURE 10. Roadway Air Voids Based on Superpave criteria, it is recommended that asphalt mixtures be designed so that they still maintain a minimum of 2.0 percent air voids toward the end of their design life. This air void level is needed to resist rutting and to provide room for normal thermal expansion and contraction to take place without fear of asphalt cement flushing to the surface. None of the Marshall projects had air void levels less than 2.0 percent and only one Superpave project had air voids less than 2.0 percent. The standard deviation of field air voids between the 16 Marshall projects was 1.4 percent while the standard deviation for air voids between the 16 Superpave projects was 2.6 percent. The wider range in field air voids for Superpave projects may indicate that compaction was not controlled as consistently during placement as was done for Marshall mixtures and/or that more compaction effort is required to achieve the desired density for Superpave mixes. This may be due to relative inexperience with Superpave mixtures at the time these early projects were placed. For comparison, the project Quality Acceptance tests performed at the time of construction were retrieved from archive records and evaluated (Figure 11). The as-built test results showed that the average field air voids was 6.1 percent for Marshall projects with values as high as 8.3 percent and a standard deviation in test results of 0.9 percent. The average as-built air void level for Superpave projects was 7.3 percent with values as high as 9.7 percent and a standard deviation of 1.2 percent. Asphalt surface courses designed with Marshall criteria generally start becoming permeable at about 8 percent air voids. The coarser Superpave mixtures generally become permeable at less than 8 percent air voids. Therefore, it is likely that some of the early Superpave pavement layers may 12 Watson, Moore and Brown As-Constructed Field Air Voids (Based on Project QA Data) 10 Marshall 9 Superpave Field Air Voids (%) 8 Avg. Superpave = 7.3 7 6 Avg. Marshall = 6.1 5 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project No. FIGURE 11. As-Built Roadway Air Voids have been more permeable than the Marshall mixtures used in the past. These results indicate that Superpave mixtures could have been placed with a higher asphalt content. Since there was very little rutting on the projects reviewed, additional asphalt content could have been used to further extend the service life of the pavements and reduce even further the potential for cracking. For Superpave mixtures, an increase in asphalt content may be accomplished in part by reducing the gyratory compaction level so long as other mixture properties such as Voids in Mineral Aggregate (VMA) are increased accordingly to insure asphalt content would be increased. The asphalt mix designs were recovered from archive files for 24 of the 32 projects evaluated. The VMA relationship to design method for mixtures used on these projects is shown in Figure 12. It is important to note that Georgia uses the effective specific gravity of aggregate to determine VMA properties. The average VMA for Marshall mixes was 16.8 percent with a standard deviation of 0.5. In contrast, the average VMA for Superpave mixes was 14.9 with a standard deviation of 0.8. This data shows that Marshall mixtures were designed with almost two percent higher VMA values than Superpave mixes and therefore had greater capacity for increased asphalt contents. As a general rule of thumb, 25 gyrations will result in about 1.0 percent difference in VMA. Therefore, Superpave mixtures would have to be designed at 25-50 gyrations lower in order to have the same asphalt content and VMA properties as the Marshall 13 Watson, Moore and Brown mixes. This is impractical, however, since the gyration level for lower traffic volume projects is only 50 gyrations. VMA Comparison 18 Marshall Superpave 17 Marshall Avg. = 16.8 VMA (%) 16 Superpave Avg. = 14.9 15 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Project No. FIGURE 12: Relationship of VMA to Mix Design Method Therefore, simply reducing the gyratory compaction effort alone in order to increase asphalt binder content without changing other mix properties for Superpave mixtures is not a viable option. A better design approach may be to combine the effects of revising the gyratory compaction effort with the use of a finer gradation than the coarse-graded Superpave mixtures used in the past. All 12.5 mm Marshall mixtures were designed to have 45 percent passing the No.8 (2.36 mm) sieve. On the other hand, 12.5 mm Superpave mixtures for the 16 projects evaluated had an average of 35 percent passing the No. 8 (2.36 mm) sieve with a range from 29 to 39 percent passing based on project quality acceptance test data. Performance of the Marshall mixtures shows that finer-graded mixes can be used without sacrificing rutting resistance. The finer mixes will likely result in higher VMA values that would increase capacity for more asphalt cement and at the same time would potentially reduce aggregate particle segregation. One of the primary concerns for this research study was to consider the effect of mix design method on pavement rutting. If mixes designed with the Marshall method were resistant to rutting at a higher asphalt content, then it would be reasonable for Superpave mixes placed under equivalent conditions to be able to sustain higher asphalt contents as well. Therefore, a Two-Sample T-Test was conducted in which rut depth was compared to mix design method. The statistical results have a P-value of 0.401 as shown in Table 5 and indicate there is no significant difference between rutting and mix design method. 14 Watson, Moore and Brown The amount of rutting is not significantly different when the average rut depths for Marshall projects (0.06 in.) is compared to that of Superpave projects (0.05 in.). Since Marshall projects averaged 1.4 years older than Superpave projects, it is reasonable to assume Superpave projects will experience a slight increase in rutting and cracking by the time they reach the same service life as Marshall projects. TABLE 5. Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Marshall Rut, Superpave Rut Two-sample T for Marshall vs. Superpave N Mean StDev SE Mean Marshall 16 0.0650 0.0589 0.015 Superpave 16 0.0469 0.0613 0.015 Difference = mu (Marshall) - mu (Superpave) Estimate for difference: 0.018125 95% CI for difference: (-0.025330, 0.061580) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs. not =): T-Value = 0.85 P-Value = 0.401 DF = 29 Marshall 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.06 0.16 0.12 Superpave 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.09 0.03 CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are made based on an evaluation of 16 Marshall projects and 16 Superpave projects placed about the same time and serving under approximately the same traffic conditions. 1. Both Marshall and Superpave mixtures are generally performing quite well with very little rutting and cracking after a period of about 4-6 years. 2. Rutting resistance as well as cracking resistance appears to be similar for both Marshall and Superpave mixtures. However, Superpave projects were an average of 1.4 years younger than Marshall projects. Superpave projects may experience slightly more rutting and cracking by the time they reach the same service life as 15 Watson, Moore and Brown Marshall projects. 3. Geographical location had little influence on rutting and cracking. 4. None of the Marshall projects had polymer-modified asphalt while five (31 percent) of the Superpave projects used modified asphalt. 5. Superpave projects showed a slight trend of reduced cracking with an increase in asphalt content. 6. Superpave projects showed a slight trend of reduced cracking with the use of polymer modified asphalt. 7. Rutting results were very similar for projects that used polymer-modified asphalt as compared to the standard paving grade asphalt. However, polymer-modified asphalt projects had almost four times as much traffic volume. 8. The average asphalt content for Marshall projects was 0.34 percent higher than the average for Superpave projects. 9. Roadway air voids determined immediately after construction averaged 7.3 percent for Superpave projects and values were as high as 9.7 percent. Therefore, Superpave mixtures may have been more permeable than the Marshall mixtures which averaged only 6.1 percent air voids with values as high as 8.3 percent. 10. It is likely that Superpave mixtures will not reach the design air voids of 4.0 percent during the life of the pavement. After nearly five years, the average air voids measured in the wheelpaths was 5.7 percent for Superpave projects while the air voids of comparable Marshall projects averaged 3.8 percent.. 11. Based on field comparisons, the Superpave mixture specifications could be changed to increase asphalt content and VMA properties without adversely affecting rutting resistance. 12. Reducing the gyratory compaction effort alone in order to increase asphalt binder content without changing other mixture properties for Superpave mixtures is not a viable option. A better design approach may be to combine the effects of revising the gyratory compaction effort with revisions to volumetric requirements such as percent VMA. These changes may require the use of a finer gradation in order to improve mixture volumetric properties. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank the Georgia Department of Transportation for its support in sponsoring this study. GDOT District Maintenance personnel were instrumental in helping provide traffic control for coring operations. GDOT Materials personnel helped in locating some of the projects selected for this study as well as in coordinating project coring. 16 Watson, Moore and Brown APPENDIX 17 Watson, Moore and Brown Table 1. Selected Marshall Projects No. District Age, Yrs. Project County Description Traffic, Contractor Mix Type AADT AC Type 1 7 1.8 km on SR 14 from SR 74 to 6 SAMA-14(58)01 Fulton N. of Strickland APAC 12.5 28,400 67-22 2 7 3 3 4 3 5 6 6 6 8.9 km on SR 314 from Fayette 6 STP-9009(13)01 Clayton County line to SR 139 APAC 12.5 21,020 67-22 15.4 km on SR 109 from Troup County line to SR 18 in 6 STP-5-1(28)01 Meriwether Greenville APAC 12.5 3,047 67-22 Harris- on SR 1/US 27 from I-185 to 7 STP-11-1(50)01 Muscogee Moon Rd. APAC 12.5 25,651 67-22 0.8 mi on SR 1/US 27 from S. of Kingston St. to N. of Gordon 6 STPN-17-3(60)01 Walker Lee Rd. Dalton Paving 12.5 13,352 67-22 on SR 1/US 27 from Maple Dr. to N of Penn Bridge Rd. (CR 6 SAMA-1(225)01 Chattooga 170) C.W. Matthews 12.5 24,896 67-22 7 6 8 7 9 7 10 1 11 3 12 7 13 2 14 2 15 3 16 3 Avg. Age 1.4 mi on SR 293 from Kingston 7 MLP-293(26)01 Floyd Ave. to E. Rome Connector Spriggs Paving 12.5 6,386 67-22 9.1 km on SR 92 from Fulton Riverdale 6 MASTP-MS(245)01 Douglas County line to Flowers Dr. Paving 12.5 15,000 67-22 1.9 km on SR 3/US 41 (Northside Parkway) from N. of Beechwood Dr. to Cobb County 7 STP-1-5(57)01 Fulton line APAC 12.5 85,400 67-22 8.2 km on SR 8/US 29 from Dekalb County line to SR 378 in 6 STP-3-2(77)01 Gwinnett Lilburn E.R. Snell 12.5 31,882 67-22 7.3 km on SR 138 from E. of SR 42/US 23 to Rockdale County 7 STP-35-1(37)01 Henry line Couch 12.5 27,214 67-22 5.8 km on SR 138 from SR 85 Riverdale 7 STP-168-1(19)01 Clayton in Riverdale to SR 3 Paving 12.5 28,286 67-22 on SR 24 from Burke Co. line to 5 STP-937(9)01 Jefferson Mulberry St. in Louisville Knox-Rivers 12.5 1,844 67-22 3.1 km on SR 10/US 78 from 6 SAMA-10(114)01 McDuffie I-20 to SR 17 in Thomson Knox-Rivers 12.5 15,000 67-22 19.8 km on SR 7/US 341 from Houston- US 41 in Perry to SR 49 in Ft. Douglas 6 STP-1-3(32)01 Peach Valley Asphalt 12.5 7,500 67-22 6.8 mi on SR 57 from W. of Jones- Jones County line to E. of Douglas 4 FLF-540(4)01 Twiggs Wilkinson County line Asphalt 12.5 5047 67-22 6.1 Avg. ADT 21,245 18 Watson, Moore and Brown Table 2. Selected Superpave Projects No. District Age, Yrs. Project County 1 7 6 SAMA-279(11)01 Fulton Description 3.3 mi. on SR 279 from S. of Flat Shoals Rd. to SR 14/US 29 Contractor APAC Mix Type 12.5 2 7 3 3 4 3 5 7 5.6 mi. of intersection improvements on SR 3/US 19/41 in Jonesboro, Lovejoy 3 STP-1-4(64)01 Clayton and Riverdale APAC 12.5 2.8 km on SR 22 Spur from SR 1/US 27 5 NH-215-1(3)01 Muscogee to E. of Tate Rd. in Columbus APAC 12.5 1.9 km on SR 1/US 27 from SR 520 to 5 NH-11-1(54)01 Muscogee SR 22 Spur (13th St.) Couch 12.5 11.2 km on SR 360 from Paulding 5 STP-9023(6)01 Cobb County line to SR 176 Shepherd 12.5 6 6 7 7 8 6 16.3 km on SR 101 from N. of CR 313 5 STP-167-1(15)01 Floyd-Polk to SR 20 C.W.Matthews 12.5 6.2 mi. on New Wooten Rd. from Capps 4 STP-212-1(3)01 Fulton Ferry Rd. to Cochran Mill Rd. E.R. Snell 12.5 9.2 mi. on SR 1/US 27 from SR 20 in 4 SAMA-1(227)01 Floyd Rome to N. of SR 156 in Armuchee Spriggs Paving 12.5 9 1 8.3 mi. on Peachtree Ind. Blvd. (SR 141) from W. of Rogers Bridge Rd. to 4 STP-190-1(9)01/02 Gwinnett S. of Pinecrest Rd. E.R. Snell 12.5 10 7 11 3 12 3 13 2 14 2 15 2 16 2 1.0 mi. on SR 120 (Old Milton Parkway/State Bridge Rd.) from E. of Park Bridge Pkwy. To W. of Amy 5 STP-189-1(25)01 Fulton Francis Lane APAC 12.5 8.1 km on SR 42 from S. of SR 138 to 5 STP-37-2(68)01 Henry Clayton Co. line Couch 12.5 Henry- on SR 155 from SR 42/US 23 in 7 STP-165-1(63)01 Spalding McDonough to SR 16 in Griffin Couch 12.5 on SR 12 from W. of CR 29 (Reid 4 STP-46-2(20)01 Greene Duvall Rd.) to E. of Apalachee Ave. Knox-Rivers 12.5 12.6 km on SR 22 from SR 12/US 278 5 STP-785(16)01 Taliaferro in Crawfordville to SR 44 APAC 12.5 On SR 11 from S. of Williams St.to N. Douglas 4 SAMA-11(225)01 Baldwin of Honeysuckle Dr. Asphalt 12.5 On SR 212 from SR 49/US 129 to Douglas 4 SAMA-212(31)01 Putnam Baldwin County line Asphalt 12.5 Avg. Age 4.7 Design Level C D B C B B B B C C B B B A B B Avg. AADT Traffic, AADT 34,197 60,639 22,144 19,554 11,185 7,212 16,924 55,986 48,376 18,135 15,000 1,932 1,131 7,251 1,635 21,420 No. of Gyrations 96 96 75 100 75 75 86 75 100 100 75 86 86 50 75 75 19 AC Type 76-22 76-22 67-22 76-22 67-22 67-22 67-22 67-22 76-22 76-22 67-22 67-22 67-22 67-22 67-22 67-22 Watson, Moore and Brown Table 3. Summary of Field Data for Marshall Projects No. District Project Age 1 7 SAMA-14(58)01 6 2 7 STP-9009(13)01 6 3 3 STP-5-1(28)01 6 4 3 STP-11-1(50)01 7 5 6 STPN-17-3(60)01 6 6 6 SAMA-1(225)01 6 7 6 MLP-293(26)01 7 8 7 MASTP-MS(245)01 6 9 7 STP-1-5(57)01 7 10 1 STP-3-2(77)01 6 11 3 STP-35-1(37)01 7 12 7 STP-168-1(19)01 7 13 2 STP-937(9)01 5 14 2 SAMA-10(114)01 6 15 3 STP-1-3(32)01 6 16 3 FLF-540(4)01 4 Averages 6.1 % AC 5.22 5.12 5.21 5.18 5.23 5.09 5.05 5.38 5.41 5.41 5.21 5.26 5.46 5.25 5.46 5.49 Pavement Depth (in.) Surface Total 1.50 11.75 1.75 10.00 2.38 9.00 1.75 10.50 1.84 9.00 1.56 9.00 1.44 6.72 1.75 10.50 1.33 9.13 1.56 9.75 1.50 10.00 1.53 11.00 1.56 13.50 1.29 8.46 1.44 11.00 1.69 7.00 Rut Depth (in.) IWP OWP Avg. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.19 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.19 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.12 Cracking Severity Intensity, Level LF/SF (%) 2.00 3.40 1.00 11.20 2.00 12.30 1.00 0.70 1.00 3.20 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 7.30 1.00 14.30 1.00 18.80 1.00 5.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 9.40 1.00 16.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Wheelpath (After Traffic) Gmm Gmb Air Voids (%) 2.485 2.355 5.2 2.470 2.336 5.4 2.460 2.352 4.4 2.448 2.385 2.6 2.514 2.453 2.4 2.556 2.475 3.2 2.446 2.349 4.0 2.438 2.358 3.3 2.519 2.457 2.5 2.509 2.449 2.4 2.418 2.334 3.5 2.484 2.307 7.1 2.445 2.320 5.1 2.458 2.394 2.6 2.499 2.429 2.8 2.486 2.389 3.9 As-Built Air Voids (%) 8.3 5.1 6.7 6.8 6.4 6.2 4.4 6.1 5.2 6.6 5.7 5.4 5.8 6.1 6.9 6.3 Design VMA 16.3 16.3 16.8 17.4 17 16.8 16.1 17.4 17.4 5.28 1.62 9.77 0.08 0.05 0.06 0.88 6.51 2.477 2.384 3.8 = 1.37 6.13 16.83 0.9 0.51 20 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE 4. Summary of Field Data for Superpave Projects No. District Project Cracking Design Pavement Depth (in.) Rut Depth (in.) Severity Intensity, Age Level Ndesign % AC Surface Total IWP OWP Avg. Level LF/SF (%) Wheelpath (After Traffic) Gmm Gmb Air Voids (%) As-Built Air Design Voids (%) VMA 1 7 SAMA-279(11)01 6 C 96 4.99 1.50 9.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.70 2.498 2.302 7.8 7.9 15.4 2 7 STP-1-4(64)01 3 D 96 4.89 1.50 12.00 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 2.465 2.304 6.5 6.3 14.8 3 3 NH-215-1(3)01 5 B 75 5.14 2.25 8.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.471 2.376 3.8 7.1 15.7 4 3 NH-11-1(54)01 5 C 100 4.98 1.75 10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.525 2.302 8.8 9.7 14.9 5 7 STP-9023(6)01 5 B 75 4.68 1.50 12.00 0.06 0.06 0.06 2.00 3.70 2.597 2.423 6.7 9.1 14.7 6 6 STP-167-1(15)01 5 B 75 4.70 1.22 9.80 0.13 0.13 0.13 1.00 5.20 2.579 2.428 5.9 5.8 14.7 7 7 STP-212-1(3)01 4 B 86 4.62 1.84 8.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.452 2.259 7.9 8.8 14.2 8 6 SAMA-1(227)01 4 B 75 4.86 1.77 9.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.50 2.433 2.332 4.2 6.8 14.9 9 1 STP-190-1(9)01/02 4 C 100 4.79 1.72 11.50 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.00 2.452 2.403 2.0 6.9 13.7 10 7 STP-189-1(25)01 5 C 100 5.15 1.50 10.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.491 2.372 4.8 8.7 15.8 11 3 STP-37-2(68)01 5 B 75 4.63 1.69 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.75 2.451 2.389 2.5 5.9 14.1 12 3 STP-165-1(63)01 7 B 86 4.69 1.72 7.50 0.06 0.13 0.09 1.00 13.80 2.475 2.427 1.9 13 2 STP-46-2(20)01 4 B 86 4.64 1.20 11.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.20 2.500 2.297 8.1 5.4 14.3 14 2 STP-785(16)01 5 A 50 5.86 1.38 5.19 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.454 2.383 2.9 6.4 17 15 2 SAMA-11(225)01 4 B 75 5.17 1.25 6.00 0.06 0.13 0.09 1.00 0.70 2.512 2.284 9.1 7.8 15 16 2 SAMA-212(31)01 4 B 75 5.17 1.38 7.19 0.06 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 2.521 2.311 8.3 7.8 15 Averages 4.7 4.94 1.57 9.72 0.05 0.63 2.16 2.492 2.350 5.7 = 2.55 7.4 14.9 1.3 0.8 21 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-1. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description: SAMA-14(58)01 County: Fulton 1.8 km on SR 14 from SR 74 to N. of Strickland Division: 7 Contractor: ADT: APAC 28,400 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.5 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 2 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 11.75 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 3.4% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 22 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-1. Existing Pavement Condition 23 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-2. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description STP-9009(13)01 County: Clayton 8.9 km on SR 314 from Fayette County line to SR 139 Contractor: ADT: APAC 21,020 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 Division: 7 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.75 Rutting: IWP: .06 OWP: .06 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 6 years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 10.0 Avg. Rut Depth: .06 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 11.2% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 24 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-2. Existing Pavement Condition 25 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-3. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description STP-5-1(28)01 County: Meriwether 15.4 km on SR 109 from Troup County line to SR 18 in Greenville Division: 3 Contractor: ADT: APAC 3,047 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 2.38 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 2 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 12.3% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 26 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-3. Existing Pavement Condition 27 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-4. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description STP-11-1(50)01 County: Harris-Muscogee On SR 1/US 27 from I-185 to Moon Rd. Division: 3 Contractor: ADT: APAC 25,651 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.75 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 7 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 10.50 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0.7% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 28 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-4. Existing Pavement Condition 29 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-5. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description STPN-17-3(60)01 County: Walker Division: 6 0.8 mi on SR 1/US 27 from S. of Kingston St. to N. of Gordon Lee Rd. Contractor: ADT: Dalton Paving 13,352 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.84 Rutting: IWP: 0.12 OWP: 0.06 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.09 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 3.2% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 30 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-5. Existing Pavement Condition 31 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-6. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description SAMA-1(225)01 County: Chattooga On SR 1/US 27 from Maple Dr. to N of Penn Bridge Rd. (CR 170) Division: 6 Contractor: ADT: C.W. Matthews 24,896 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.56 Rutting: IWP: 0.19 OWP: 0.12 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.16 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 32 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-6. Existing Pavement Condition 33 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-7. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description MLP-293(26)01 County: Floyd 1.4 mi on SR 293 from Kingston Ave. to E. Rome Connector Division: 6 Contractor: ADT: Spriggs Paving 6,386 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.44 Rutting: IWP: 0.12 OWP: 0.06 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 7 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 6.72 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.09 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 1.4% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 34 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-7. Existing Pavement Condition PHOTO M-7. Existing Pavement Condition 35 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-8. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description MASTP-MS(245)01 County: Douglas 9.1 km on SR 92 from Fulton County line to Flowers Dr. Division: 7 Contractor: ADT: APAC 15,000 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: 50 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.75 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 10.5 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 7.3% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 36 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-8. Existing Pavement Condition 37 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-9. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: STP-1-5(57)01 County: Fulton Division: 7 1.9 km on SR 3/US 41 (Northside Parkway) from N. of Beechwood Dr. to Cobb County line APAC Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 85,400 Marshall Blows: 50 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.33 Rutting: IWP: 0.06 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 7 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.13 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.03 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 14.3% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 38 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-9. Existing Pavement Condition 39 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-10. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: STP-3-2(77)01 County: Gwinnett Division: 1 8.2 km on SR 8/US 29 from Dekalb County line to SR 378 in Lilburn E.R. Snell Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 31,882 Marshall Blows: 50 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.56 Rutting: IWP: 0.06 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.75 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.03 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 18.8% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 40 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-10. Existing Pavement Condition 41 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-11. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: STP-35-1(37)01 County: Henry Division: 3 7.3 km on SR 138 from E. of SR 42/US 23 to Rockdale County line Couch Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 27,214 Marshall Blows: 50 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.5 Rutting: IWP: 0.12 OWP: 0.12 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 7 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 10.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.12 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 5.5% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 42 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-11. Existing Pavement Condition 43 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-12. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: STP-168-1(19)01 County: Clayton 5.8 km on SR 138 from SR 85 in Riverdale to SR 3 Riverdale Paving Mix Type: 12.5 28,286 Marshall Blows: 50 Division: 7 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.53 Rutting: IWP: 0.12 OWP: 0.12 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 7 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 11.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.12 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Isolated patches Width (Ft) 44 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-12. Existing Pavement Condition 45 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-13. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: STP-937(9)01 County: Jefferson On SR 24 from Burke Co. line to Mulberry St. in Louisville Knox-Rivers Mix Type: 12.5 1,844 Marshall Blows: 50 Division: 2 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.56 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 13.5 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 9.4% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 46 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-13. Existing Pavement Condition PHOTO M-13. Existing Pavement Condition 47 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-14. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: SAMA-10(114)01 County: McDuffie 3.1 km on SR 10/US 78 from I-20 to SR 17 in Thomson Knox-Rivers Mix Type: 12.5 15,000 Marshall Blows: 50 Division: 2 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.29 Rutting: IWP: 0.06 OWP: 0.06 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 8.46 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.06 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 16.6% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 48 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-14. Existing Pavement Condition PHOTO M-14. Existing Pavement Condition 49 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-15. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: STP-1-3(32)01 County: Houston-Peach Division: 3 19.8 km on SR 7/US 341 from US 41 in Perry to SR 49 in Ft. Valley Douglas Asphalt Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 7,500 Marshall Blows: 50 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.44 Rutting: IWP: 0.19 OWP: 0.12 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 11.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.16 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 50 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-15. Existing Pavement Condition 51 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE M-16. Pavement Evaluation Project No.: Description Contractor: ADT: FLF-540(4)01 County: Jones-Twiggs Division: 3 6.8 mi on SR 57 from W. of Jones County line to E. of Wilkinson County line Douglas Asphalt Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 5,047 Marshall Blows: 50 SGC Gyrations: PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.69 Rutting: IWP: 0.12 OWP: 0.12 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 4 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 7.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.12 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 52 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO M-16. Existing Pavement Condition 53 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-1. Pavement Evaluation Project No SAMA-279(11)01 County: Fulton Description: 3.3 mi. on SR 279 from S. of Flat Shoals Rd. to SR 14/US 29 Division: 7 Contractor: ADT: APAC 34,197 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: AC Type: 76-22 SGC Gyrations: 96 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.5 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 6 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.5 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0.7% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 54 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-1. Existing Pavement Condition 55 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-2. Pavement Evaluation Project No STP-1-4(64)01 County: Clayton Division: 7 Description: 5.6 mi. of intersection improvements on SR 3/US 19/41in Jonesboro, Lovejoy and Riverdale Contractor: APAC Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 76-22 ADT: 60,639 Marshall Blows: SGC Gyrations: 125 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.5 Rutting: IWP: 0.13 OWP: 0.13 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 3 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 12.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.13 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 56 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-2. Existing Pavement Condition PHOTO S-2. Existing Pavement Condition 57 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-3. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: Contractor: ADT: NH-215-1(3)01 County: Muscogee Division: 3 2.8 km on SR 22 Spur from SR 1/US 27 to E. of Tate Rd. in Columbus APAC Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 22,144 Marshall Blows: SGC Gyrations: 75 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 2.25 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 2 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 8.50 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 17.3% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: PCC under asphalt; Cracking not reported in Field Summary Data because reflective cracking due to PCC and not necessarily mix design procedure. Width (Ft) 58 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-3. Existing Pavement Condition 59 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-4. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: Contractor: ADT: NH-11-1(54)01 County: Muscogee 1.9 km on SR 1/US 27 from SR 520 to SR 22 Spur (13th St.) Couch Mix Type: 12.5 19,554 Marshall Blows: Division: 3 AC Type: 76-22 SGC Gyrations: 100 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.75 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 3 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 10.50 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 12.25% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: PCC under asphalt; Cracking not reported in Field Summary Data because reflective cracking due to PCC and not necessarily mix design procedure. Width (Ft) 60 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-4. Existing Pavement Condition 61 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-5. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: Contractor: ADT: STP-9023(6)01 County: Cobb 11.2 km on SR 360 from Paulding County line to SR 176 Shepherd Mix Type: 12.5 11,185 Marshall Blows: Division: 7 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 96 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.5 Rutting: IWP: 0.06 OWP: 0.06 Cracking: Severity Level: 2 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 12.0 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.06 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 3.7% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 62 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-5. Existing Pavement Condition 63 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-6. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: Contractor: ADT: STP-167-1(15)01 County: Floyd-Polk 16.3 km on SR 101 from N. of CR 313 to SR 20 C.W. Matthews Mix Type: 12.5 7,212 Marshall Blows: Division: 6 AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 75 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.22 Rutting: IWP: 0.13 OWP: 0.13 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.80 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.13 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 5.2% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 64 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-6. Existing Pavement Condition PHOTO S-6. Existing Pavement Condition 65 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-7. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: Contractor: ADT: STP-212-1(3)01 County: Fulton Division: 7 6.2 mi. on New Wooten Rd. (S. Fulton Pkwy) from Capps Ferry Rd. to Cochran Mill Rd. E.R. Snell Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 Marshall Blows: SGC Gyrations: 86 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.84 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 4 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 8.25 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 66 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-7. Existing Pavement Condition 67 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-8. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: Contractor: ADT: SAMA-1(227)01 County: Floyd Division: 6 9.2 mi. on SR 1/US 27 from SR 20 in Rome to N. of SR 156 in Armuchee Spriggs Paving Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 67-22 16,924 Marshall Blows: SGC Gyrations: 75 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.77 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 4 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 9.30 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 1.5% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 68 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-8. Existing Pavement Condition 69 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-9. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: .Contractor: ADT: STP-190-1(9)01/02 County: Gwinnett Division: 1 8.3 mi. on Peachtree Ind. Blvd. from W. of Rogers Bridge Rd. to S. of Pinecrest Rd E.R. Snell Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 76-22 55,986 Marshall Blows: SGC Gyrations: 100 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.72 Rutting: IWP: 0.19 OWP: 0.19 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 4 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 11.50 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.19 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 70 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-9. Existing Pavement Condition PHOTO S-9. Existing Pavement Condition 71 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-10. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: .Contractor: ADT: STP-189-1(25)01 County: Fulton Division: 7 1.0 mi. on SR 120 (Old Milton Parkway/State Bridge Rd.) from E. of Park Bridge Pkwy. To W. of Amy Francis Lane APAC Mix Type: 12.5 AC Type: 76-22 48,376 Marshall Blows: SGC Gyrations: 100 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.5 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 10.50 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 1.0% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 COMMENTS: Some raveling between wheel paths 50 60 70 80 Section Length (Ft) 90 100 Width (Ft) 72 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-10. Existing Pavement Condition 73 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-11. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: STP-37-2(68)01 County: Henry 8.1 km on SR 42 from S. of SR 138 to Clayton Co. line. Division: 3 .Contractor: ADT: Couch 18,135 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 75 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.69 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 16.00 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 5.75% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 74 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-11. Existing Pavement Condition 75 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-12. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: STP-165-1(63)01 County: Henry-Spalding On SR 155 from SR 42/US 23 in McDonough to SR 16 in Griffin. Division: 3 .Contractor: ADT: Couch 15,000 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 86 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.72 Rutting: IWP: 0.06 OWP: 0.13 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 7 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 7.50 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.09 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 13.8% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 76 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-12. Existing Pavement Condition 77 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-13. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: STP-46-2(20)01 County: Greene On SR 12 from W. of CR 29 (Reid Duvall Rd.) to E. of Apalachee Ave. Division: 2 .Contractor: ADT: Knox-Rivers 1,932 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 86 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.20 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 4 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 11.75 Avg. Rut Depth: 0 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 2.2% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Width (Ft) 78 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-13. Existing Pavement Condition PHOTO S-13. Existing Pavement Condition 79 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-14. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: STP-785(16)01 County: Taliaferro 12.6 km on SR 22 from SR 12/US 278 in Crawfordville to SR 44 Division: 2 .Contractor: ADT: APAC 1,131 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 50 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.38 Rutting: IWP: 0 OWP: 0.06 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 5 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 5.19 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.03 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 COMMENTS: Some end-of-load type segregation 50 60 70 80 Section Length (Ft) 90 100 Width (Ft) 80 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-14. Existing Pavement Condition 81 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-15. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: SAMA-11(225)01 County: Baldwin Division: 2 On SR 11 from S. of Williams St. to N. of Honeysuckle Dr. in Monticello .Contractor: ADT: Douglas Asphalt 7,251 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 75 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.25 Rutting: IWP: 0.06 OWP: 0.13 Cracking: Severity Level: 1 Age: 4 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 6.00 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.09 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0.7% Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Section Length (Ft) COMMENTS: Some end-of-load type segregation; Random patched areas 90 100 Width (Ft) 82 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-15. Existing Pavement Condition 83 Watson, Moore and Brown TABLE S-16. Pavement Evaluation Project No Description: SAMA-212(31)01 County: Putnam On SR 212 from SR 49/US 129 to Baldwin County line Division: 2 .Contractor: ADT: Douglas Asphalt 1,635 Mix Type: 12.5 Marshall Blows: AC Type: 67-22 SGC Gyrations: 75 PAVEMENT EVALUATION: Thickness: Surface Layer 1.38 Rutting: IWP: 0.06 OWP: 0 Cracking: Severity Level: 0 Age: 4 Years Cracking Intensity (LF/SF): Total Pavement 7.19 Avg. Rut Depth: 0.03 (1 = < 1/8", 2 = > 1/8" but < 1/4", 3 = > 1/4") 0 Cracking Survey Outside Lane 0 6 12 0 10 20 30 40 COMMENTS: Some end-of-load type segregation 50 60 70 80 Section Length (Ft) 90 100 Width (Ft) 84 Watson, Moore and Brown PHOTO S-16. Existing Pavement Condition 85