e
SPR 628

NOVEMBER 2013

Evaluation of
Maintenance Strategies

e
Arizona Department of Transportation Research Center

EVALUATION OF
MAINTENANCE STRATEGIES
Final Report 628
November 2013
Prepared by:
Stephen B. Seeds, P.E.
David G. Peshkin, P.E.
Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
115 W. Main Street, Suite 400
Urbana, IL 61801

Prepared for:
Arizona Department of Transportation
206 South 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007
in cooperation with
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration

This report was funded in part through grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors,
who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data, and for the use or adaptation
of previously published material, presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the
official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard,
specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names that may appear herein are cited
only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S.
government and the State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers.

2. Government Accession No.

1. Report No.

Technical Report Documentation Page
3. Recipient's Catalog No.

FHWA‐AZ‐13‐628
4. Title and Subtitle

5. Report Date
November 2013

Evaluation of Maintenance Strategies

6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author

8. Performing Organization Report No.

Stephen B. Seeds and David G. Peshkin
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

10. Work Unit No.

Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.
115 W. Main Street,
Suite 400
Urbana, IL 61801

11. Contract or Grant No.

SPR‐PL1 (171) 628

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

13.Type of Report & Period Covered

Arizona Department of Transportation
206 S. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85007

Final Report
14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
16. Abstract

In the mid‐1990s, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) initiated the Maintenance Cost
Effectiveness study (SPR 371) with the development of plans and an experiment design to evaluate the
effectiveness of a variety of asphalt pavement maintenance treatments. During 1999 and 2001, ADOT oversaw
the construction of hundreds of experimental sections throughout the state under the Phase I, Wearing Course
Experiment (nine treatments and 82 sections at three sites), and the Phase II, Preventive Maintenance
Experiment (24 treatments and 137 sections at four sites). Work continued in 2006 and 2007 under the
Evaluation of Maintenance Strategies study (SPR 628) for ADOT with a yearlong program of pavement
performance monitoring involving manual pavement distress surveys and automated skid, friction, and surface
texture measurements at all the experimental sites. The project culminated with a detailed analysis of key
pavement performance data to compare the performance of the individual treatments and determine their
overall effectiveness. This report documents the independent findings of both the Phase I and II experiments.
17. Key Words

18. Distribution Statement

bituminous pavements, pavement maintenance,
cost‐effectiveness, wearing course, surface
treating, sealer/rejuvenator, test sections, sealing
compounds, pavement maintenance, highway
maintenance

Document is available to the U.S.
public through the National
Technical Information Service,
Springfield, VA, 22161

19. Security Classification

20. Security Classification

21. No. of Pages

Unclassified

Unclassified

177

22. Price

23. Registrant's Seal

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS
APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS
Symbol

When You Know

Multiply By
LENGTH

in
ft
yd
mi

inches
feet
yards
miles

in
2
ft
2
yd
ac
2
mi

2

square
square
square
acres
square

fl oz
gal
3
ft
3
yd

fluid ounces
gallons
cubic feet
cubic yards

oz
lb
T

ounces
pounds
short tons (2000 lb)

o

Fahrenheit

fc
fl

foot-candles
foot-Lamberts

lbf
2
lbf/in

poundforce
poundforce per square inch

Symbol

When You Know

mm
m
m
km

millimeters
meters
meters
kilometers

25.4
0.305
0.914
1.61

To Find

Symbol

millimeters
meters
meters
kilometers

mm
m
m
km

square millimeters
square meters
square meters
hectares
square kilometers

mm
2
m
2
m
ha
2
km

milliliters
liters
cubic meters
cubic meters
3
shown in m

mL
L
3
m
3
m

grams
kilograms
megagrams (or "metric ton")

g
kg
Mg (or "t")

AREA
inches
feet
yard

645.2
0.093
0.836
0.405
2.59

miles

2

VOLUME
29.57
3.785
0.028
0.765
NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be

MASS
28.35
0.454
0.907

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
F

5 (F-32)/9
or (F-32)/1.8

Celsius

o

lux
2
candela/m

lx
2
cd/m

C

ILLUMINATION
10.76
3.426

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
4.45
6.89

newtons
kilopascals

N
kPa

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS
Multiply By
LENGTH
0.039
3.28
1.09
0.621

To Find

Symbol

inches
feet
yards
miles

in
ft
yd
mi

AREA
2

mm
2
m
2
m
ha
2
km

square millimeters
square meters
square meters
hectares
square kilometers

0.0016
10.764
1.195
2.47
0.386

square
square
square
acres
square

inches
feet
yards
miles

2

in
2
ft
2
yd
ac
2
mi

VOLUME
mL
L
3
m
3
m

milliliters
liters
cubic meters
cubic meters

0.034
0.264
35.314
1.307

g
kg
Mg (or "t")

grams
kilograms
megagrams (or "metric ton")

o

Celsius

fluid ounces
gallons
cubic feet
cubic yards

fl oz
gal
3
ft
3
yd

ounces
pounds
short tons (2000 lb)

oz
lb
T

MASS
0.035
2.202
1.103

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees)
C

1.8C+32

Fahrenheit

o

foot-candles
foot-Lamberts

fc
fl

F

ILLUMINATION
lx
2
cd/m

lux
2
candela/m

N
kPa

newtons
kilopascals

0.0929
0.2919

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS
0.225
0.145

poundforce
poundforce per square inch

lbf
2
lbf/in

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.
(Revised March 2003)

Contents
Executive Summary ..........................................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................7
Background ................................................................................................................................................7
Project Objectives ......................................................................................................................................7
Project Approach .......................................................................................................................................8
Report Overview ........................................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2. Review of Experiment Design ..................................................................................................... 9
Phase I: Wearing Course Experiment ........................................................................................................ 9
Phase II: Preventive Maintenance Experiment ....................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3. Project Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 17
Performance Data.................................................................................................................................... 17
ADOT Staff Surveys .................................................................................................................................. 24
Treatment Costs ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Chapter 4. Treatment Performance and Effectiveness .............................................................................. 37
Determination of Deduct Values for Various Distress Types .................................................................. 37
Review of Wearing Course Treatments at Phase I Test Sites .................................................................. 38
Review of Preventive Maintenance Treatments at Phase II Test Sites ................................................... 60
Chapter 5. Summary Findings and Recommendations .............................................................................. 87
References ................................................................................................................................................... 97
Appendix A: Test Section Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 99
Appendix B: Available Binder and Aggregate Details .............................................................................. 111
Appendix C: Performance/Condition Data for Wearing Courses and Preventive
Maintenance Experiments ................................................................................................. 129
Appendix D: Deduct Value Calculation ..................................................................................................... 139
Appendix E: Performance Comparison Tables: Wearing Course Experiment ........................................ 145
Appendix F: Performance Comparison Tables: Preventive Maintenance Experiment .......................... 161

v

List of Figures
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.

Pavement Condition Survey Recording Form ....................................................................... 19
ADOT Profilometer ................................................................................................................ 21
ADOT Skid Testing Van .......................................................................................................... 21
HydroTimer Outflow Meter................................................................................................... 22
CT Meter ................................................................................................................................ 22
DF Tester ............................................................................................................................... 23
DV Curves for Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking.......................................................... 140

vi

List of Tables
Table 1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.
Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.
Table 13.
Table 14.
Table 15.
Table 16.
Table 17.
Table 18.
Table 19.
Table 20.
Table 21.
Table 22.
Table 23.
Table 24.
Table 25.
Table 26.
Table 27.
Table 28.
Table 29.
Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.

Cost‐Effectiveness Rankings for the Phase I Wearing Course Treatments ......................... 3
Cost‐Effectiveness Rankings for the Phase II Preventive Maintenance Treatments .......... 5
Description of Phase I Treatments ...................................................................................... 9
Overall Layout of Phase I, Wearing Course Experiment.................................................... 11
Overall Layout of Phase II, Preventive Maintenance Experiment ..................................... 14
Types of Pavement Performance Data Collected.............................................................. 17
Trigger and Failure Levels for ADOT Distresses ................................................................. 18
Survey Results on Flush Coats (Fog Seals) ......................................................................... 30
Survey Results on Aggregate Seals .................................................................................... 31
Survey Results on Slurry Seals and Microseals (Microsurfacings)..................................... 32
Summary of Available Unit Cost on Experimental Treatments ......................................... 35
PCI Ranges for Each Pavement Condition ......................................................................... 37
DV Ranges for Each Pavement Condition.......................................................................... 38
Equation Coefficients for Relationships between Pavement Performance
Measures and Pretreatment Milling Depth ...................................................................... 40
Skid Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections ................................................... 46
Skid Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections ..................................................... 46
Skid Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections ................................................. 47
Weathering Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections ....................................... 49
Weathering Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections ......................................... 50
Weathering Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections .................................... 50
Fatigue Cracking Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections ............................... 51
Fatigue Cracking Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections ................................. 51
Fatigue Cracking Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections ............................. 52
LTD Cracking Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections ..................................... 53
LTD Cracking Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections ....................................... 53
LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections ................................... 54
Overall Performance Comparison of Phase I Wearing Course Treatments
Based on 60th Percentile SNs and DVs ............................................................................... 55
Comparison of Cost‐Effectiveness of Phase I Wearing Course Treatments ...................... 59
Weathering Performance of the SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections....................... 64
Weathering Performance of the SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections....................... 65
Weathering Performance of the SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections....................... 66
Weathering Performance of the U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections .................. 67
Flushing Performance of the SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections ............................ 70
Flushing Performance of the SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections ............................ 71
Flushing Performance of the SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections ............................ 72
Flushing Performance of the U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................ 73
vii

Table 37.
Table 38.
Table 39.
Table 40.
Table 41.
Table 42.
Table 43.
Table 44.
Table 45.
Table 46.
Table 47.
Table 48.
Table 49.
Table 50.
Table 51.
Table 52.
Table 53.
Table 54.
Table 55.
Table 56.
Table 57.
Table 58.
Table 59.
Table 60.
Table 61.
Table 62.
Table 63.
Table 64.
Table 65.
Table 66.
Table 67.

LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................... 75
LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................... 76
LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................... 77
LTD Cracking Performance of the U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections ................ 78
Overall Performance Comparison of Phase I Wearing Course Treatments Based
on 60th Percentile DVs and FIs ........................................................................................... 80
Comparison of Cost‐Effectiveness of Phase II Preventive Maintenance Treatments ....... 84
Ranking of Phase II Preventive Maintenance Treatments Based on
Cost‐Effectiveness and Performance ................................................................................ 85
Effect of Milling Depth on Treatment Performance ......................................................... 88
Performance Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the I‐10 and I‐8 Experimental Sites ........................................................... 90
Cost‐Effectiveness Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the I‐10 and I‐8 Experimental Sites ........................................................... 91
Performance Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the SR 74 Experimental Site ...................................................................... 92
Cost‐Effectiveness Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the SR 74 Experimental Site ...................................................................... 92
Performance Summary and Overall Ranking of the Preventive Maintenance
Treatments at the SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S. 191 Experimental Sites ......................... 93
Cost‐Effectiveness Summary and Overall Ranking of the Preventive Maintenance
Treatments at the SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S. 191 Experimental Sites ......................... 95
Test Section Descriptions for I‐10 Wearing Course Treatments ....................................... 101
Test Section Descriptions for I‐8 Wearing Course Treatments ......................................... 102
Test Section Descriptions for SR 74 Wearing Course Treatments .................................... 103
Test Section Descriptions for SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Treatments ....................... 104
Test Section Descriptions for SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Treatments ....................... 105
Test Section Descriptions for SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Treatments ....................... 106
Test Section Descriptions for U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Treatments .................. 107
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC I‐10 Wearing Course Sections ....... 113
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for SMA I‐10 Wearing Course Sections .............. 113
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for PEM I‐10 Wearing Course Sections .............. 114
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for ACFC I‐10 Wearing Course Sections ............. 114
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for P‐ACFC I‐10 Wearing Course Sections .......... 115
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC SR 74 Wearing Course Sections..... 116
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for P‐ACFC SR 74 Wearing Course Sections ....... 116
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for TB‐ACFC SR 74 Wearing Course Sections ..... 117
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown SR 66
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 117
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Novachip/Koch Materials SR 66 Preventive
Maintenance Sections ....................................................................................................... 117
viii

Table 68.
Table 69.
Table 70.
Table 71.
Table 72.
Table 73.
Table 74.
Table 75.
Table 76.
Table 77.
Table 78.
Table 79.
Table 80.
Table 81.
Table 82.
Table 83.
Table 84.
Table 85.
Table 86.
Table 87.

Binder and Aggregate Details Available for PASS CR/Western Emulsion
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 118
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 118
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 119
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC/ADOT SR 66
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 119
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 120
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown SR 83
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 120
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC/ADOT
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 121
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CM‐90/Koch Materials SR 83
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 121
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 122
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 122
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Slurry Seal/Southwest Slurry
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 123
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 123
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CM‐90/Navajo Western
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 124
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for PASS Oil/Western
Emulsion SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................... 124
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Novachip/Koch Materials SR 87
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 124
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown SR 87
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 125
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2LM/Copperstate
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections ........................................................................... 125
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CM‐90/Koch Materials U.S. 191
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 125
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections....................................................................... 126
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown U.S. 191
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 126

ix

Table 88.
Table 89.
Table 90.
Table 91.
Table 92.
Table 93.
Table 94.
Table 95.
Table 96.
Table 97.
Table 98.
Table 99.
Table 100.
Table 101.
Table 102.
Table 103.
Table 104.
Table 105.
Table 106.
Table 107.
Table 108.
Table 109.
Table 110.
Table 111.

Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC/ADOT U.S. 191
Preventive Maintenance Sections ..................................................................................... 127
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for P‐ACFC/Paramount
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections....................................................................... 127
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections....................................................................... 128
Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Slurry Seal/Southwest Slurry
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections....................................................................... 128
Performance/Condition Data for I‐10 Wearing Course Sections ...................................... 131
Performance/Condition Data for I‐8 Wearing Course Sections ........................................ 132
Performance/Condition Data for SR 74 Wearing Course Sections ................................... 133
Performance/Condition Data for SR 66 Wearing Course Sections ................................... 134
Performance/Condition Data for SR 87 Wearing Course Sections ................................... 135
Performance/Condition Data for SR 83 Wearing Course Sections ................................... 136
Performance/Condition Data for U.S. 191 Wearing Course Sections ............................... 137
DV Coefficients for Low Severity Distresses ...................................................................... 141
DV Coefficients for Medium Severity Distresses ............................................................... 142
DV Coefficients for High Severity Distresses ..................................................................... 143
ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Skid Number ...................................... 147
ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Weathering ....................................... 149
ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Bleeding ............................................ 151
ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Fatigue Cracking ................................ 153
ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Longitudinal,
Transverse, and Diagonal Cracking ................................................................................... 155
ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Rutting ............................................... 157
ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Patching............................................. 159
ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance Comparison:
Weathering ........................................................................................................................ 163
ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance Comparison: Flushing ............. 165
ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance Comparison:
LTD Cracking ...................................................................................................................... 167

x

List of Acronyms
AADT
ACFC
ADOT
ADT
ANOVA
AR‐ACFC
ASTM
B/C
CalTrans
CRA
CRS
CS
CT
DCOF
DF
DOT
DV
EB
ESAL
FHWA
FI
HMA
LTD
LTPP
MCES
MP
MPD
MTD
NCHRP
P‐ACFC
PASS
PCI
PEM
PG
PPTG
SB
SBS
SMA
SN

average annual daily traffic
asphalt concrete friction course
Arizona Department of Transportation
average daily traffic
analysis of variance
asphalt rubber‐asphalt concrete friction course
American Standards Test Methods
benefit/cost
California Department of Transportation
crumb rubber asphalt
cationic rapid setting
chip seal
circular texture
dynamic coefficient of friction
dynamic friction
Department of Transportation
deduct value
eastbound
equivalent single‐axle load
Federal Highway Administration
flushing index
hot‐mix asphalt
longitudinal, transverse, and diagonal
Long Term Pavement Preservation (program)
mean cost‐effectiveness score
Milepost
mean profile depth
mean texture depth
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
polymer modified‐asphalt concrete friction course
polymerized asphalt surface sealer
Pavement Conditions Index
permeable European mixture
performance grade
Pavement Preservation Task Group (CalTrans)
styrene butadiene
styrene butadiene styrene
stone matrix asphalt
skid number
xi

SPR
SR
TB‐ACFC
TSA
USAEC
WB

State Planning and Research
State Route
terminal blend asphalt concrete friction course
top size aggregate
United States Army Corps of Engineers
westbound

xii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) initiated the Maintenance Cost‐Effectiveness
study (SPR 371) in the mid‐1990s, developing plans and an experiment design to evaluate the
effectiveness of various asphalt pavement maintenance treatments. During 1999 and 2001, ADOT
oversaw the construction of hundreds of experimental sections throughout the state under the
Phase I, Wearing Course Experiment, and the Phase II, Preventive Maintenance Experiment. Work
continued in 2006 and 2007 under Evaluation of Maintenance Strategies (SPR 628) for ADOT with a
yearlong program of pavement performance monitoring involving manual pavement distress
surveys and automated skid, friction, and surface texture measurements at all experimental sites.
The project culminated with a detailed analysis of many key pavement performance data to
compare the performance of the individual treatments and determine their overall effectiveness.
This report documents the independent findings for both the Phase I and II experiments.
PHASE I: WEARING COURSE EXPERIMENT
The wearing course experiment was conducted on three Arizona highways with moderate to heavy
traffic: Interstate 10 (I‐10), Interstate 8 (I‐8), and State Route 74 (SR 74). Nine treatments and 82
experimental sections were built at these sites. Sixty‐four sections were constructed on I‐10 and I‐8
in 1999 and another 18 were constructed on SR 74 in 2001. Six treatments were placed on I‐10 and
I‐8. Four were friction courses with different binders and top size aggregates (TSAs): asphalt
concrete friction course (ACFC) (PG 64‐16, 3/4‐inch TSA); asphalt rubber‐asphalt concrete friction
course (AR‐ACFC) (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1, 1/2‐inch and 3/4‐inch TSA); and polymer modified‐asphalt
concrete friction course (P‐ACFC) (PG 76‐22, 3/4‐inch TSA). The remaining two were a stone matrix
asphalt (SMA) mix (PG 70‐28, 3/4‐inch TSA) and a permeable European mix (PEM) (PG 76‐22, 1‐1/4‐
inch TSA). Three wearing course treatments were placed on SR 74. All three were friction courses
with different binders and a single 3/8‐inch TSA: AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1), P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+),
and terminal blend asphalt concrete friction course (TB‐ACFC) (PG 76‐22 TR+). At all three sites,
researchers performed milling and overlaying at preplanned depths and thicknesses (before
applying the wearing course) to evaluate their impact on treatment performance.
When evaluating the wearing course treatments, researchers considered seven pavement
performance measures: skid resistance; weathering; bleeding; fatigue cracking; longitudinal,
transverse, and diagonal (LTD) cracking; rutting; and patching. The evaluation focused on the first
five performance measures since a review of the data showed almost no rutting and no patching.
The wearing course experiment design made it possible to investigate the impact of milling depth
and overlay thickness on the performance of the five key distress types. Overall, the results varied
considerably and did not support a finding that milling depth (and its corresponding overlay
thickness) had a consistent and meaningful effect on any performance measures. (The analysis did
1

indicate that milling and overlay affected LTD cracking the most.) The variability associated with the
milling and overlay effects is part of the overall performance variability of each treatment.
Several pavement performance measures originated from visual survey data where the distresses
were rated in terms of severity and extent. The two components to the rating made it difficult to
compare the performance between treatments. Consequently, researchers used the method that
makes up part of the standard Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating procedure to combine the two
rating components for a given distress into a single deduct value (DV).
Researchers used two primary approaches to evaluate performance data and assess treatment
performance and cost‐effectiveness. One approach used statistical tools such as analysis of variance
(ANOVA) and Student’s t testing. Because of treatment variability, however, there were difficulties
using this approach to make statistically valid performance comparisons between the treatments at
each experimental site. Nevertheless, the approach did identify those treatments that performed as
well as the best‐performing treatment.
The second approach ranked the treatments within the different performance categories based
upon their 60th percentile distress level. This approach provided a good, practical alternative for
comparing treatment performance and, by extension, cost‐effectiveness. The performance ranges
were based upon the definitions used in the standard PCI rating procedure, and the treatments
were grouped within the ranges based upon their 60th percentile performance measures (e.g.,
60th percentile DV for weathering and 60th percentile skid number). After researchers ranked each
treatment’s five performance measures, the results were averaged to determine an average
condition and overall treatment ranking. The best‐performing treatment at the I‐10 and I‐8 sites was
the AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1, 1/2‐inch TSA), while the AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1, 3/4‐inch TSA),
PEM (PG 76‐22, 1¼‐inch TSA) and ACFC (PG 64‐16, 3/4‐inch TSA) were close seconds, and the P‐ACFC
(PG 76‐22, 3/4‐inch TSA) and SMA (PG 70‐28, 3/4‐inch TSA) a not‐too‐distant third. At the SR 74 site,
the AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐28+, CRA‐1, 3/8‐inch TSA) performed the best, while the P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+,
3/8‐inch TSA) was a close second and the TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐22 TR+, 3/8‐inch TSA) a distant third.
After the performance assessment, researchers evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of the wearing
course sections using a benefit/cost (B/C) approach. They calculated the benefit for each
performance measure as the difference between the measured performance at the 2007 testing
date and a nominal minimum performance level. The cost component of the B/C approach was the
unit cost of the treatment (in $/sy). Researchers then assigned a cost‐effectiveness level to the B/C
value for each performance measure and treatment type, ranging from very low to very high. Then
they calculated a mean cost‐effectiveness score (MCES) for each treatment based upon the average
of each treatment’s cost‐effectiveness values. (Since there are five cost‐effectiveness levels, the
MCES values can range from 0 to 5.) The MCES values then were used to rank each treatment’s
overall cost‐effectiveness. Table 1 summarizes the results for the I‐10, I‐8, and SR 74 sites. At the I‐
10 and I‐8 sites, the ACFC (PG 64‐16, 3/4‐inch TSA) was the most cost‐effective and ranked in the
2

Table 1. Cost‐Effectiveness Rankings for the Phase I Wearing Course Treatments.

Site

Cost‐
Effectiveness
Ranking
A
B

I‐10
and
I‐8

C
D
D
E
C

SR 74

D
F

Wearing Course
Treatment
ACFC
(PG 64‐16, 3/4‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16,
CRA‐1, 1/2‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC
(PG 76‐22, 3/4‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16,
CRA‐1, 3/4‐inch TSA)
SMA
(PG 70‐28, 3/4‐inch TSA)
PEM
(PG 76‐22, 1¼‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16,
CRA‐1, 3/8‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+,
3/8‐inch TSA)
TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐22 TR+,
3/8‐inch TSA)

MCES

Performance
Ranking

4.3

2

4.0

1

3.8

3

3.6

2

3.6

3

3.5

2

3.8

1

3.6

2

3.0

3

second performance level, while the AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1, 1/2‐inch TSA) was the second‐most
cost‐effective and the only treatment ranked at the highest performance level. At the SR 74 site, the
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1, 3/8‐inch TSA) was the most effective and performed the best.
PHASE II: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE EXPERIMENT
Researchers conducted the Preventive Maintenance experiment on four Arizona state highway
segments: SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S. 191. In this experiment, researchers used 24 treatments and
137 sections. SR 66 and SR 83 had 28 sections each, while SR 87 and U.S. 191 had 21 and 60
sections, respectively. The treatment applied to most of the sections was some form of chip seal;
however, there were also some friction courses, a slurry seal, a microsurfacing, and a thin‐bonded
wearing course. The treatments were all constructed in 2000 and 2001.
For the Preventive Maintenance assessment, researchers only included weathering, flushing, and
LTD cracking in the evaluation. Skid resistance was not included because skid testing was performed

3

at only one of the four sites. Researchers made various attempts to consider other measures of
surface friction and texture, but none was successful. (The localized field test data did indicate,
however, that all preventive maintenance treatments maintained a very high level of surface texture
and/or friction through 2007.) Since pretreatment rutting and fatigue cracking data were not
available, these measures were not included in the evaluation. Instead of bleeding, flushing data
were used to evaluate each treatment’s propensity to bleed or flush under high temperatures and
traffic loading. The same DV approach used for the wearing course treatments was used to compile
the weathering and LTD cracking data for the preventive maintenance treatments.
The same rigorous statistical approach (involving ANOVAs and Student’s t tests) used to compare
wearing course treatment performance was applied to compare preventive maintenance treatment
performance. In addition, researchers used the simple yet practical approach (involving the
calculation of a 60th percentile DV and the ranking of each treatment at each site into one of eight
different conditions) to compare treatments’ overall performance. Following is a ranking of the
treatments in the four identified performance levels. The number of sections representing each
treatment ranges from two to 10 (so it is not exactly an “apples‐to‐apples” comparison).
 Level 1: Chip seal (PASS CR)/Western Emulsion, AR‐ACFC/not identified, Novachip/Koch
Materials, ACFC/ADOT, and microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry.
 Level 2: Chip seal (CRS‐2P)/ADOT (future construction), AR‐ACFC/ADOT, P‐ACFC/Paramount,
chip seal (CRS‐2)/ADOT, AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing, chip seal (CRS‐2P)/ADOT,
chip seal (HF CRS‐2P)/Copperstate, chip seal (HF CRS‐2P)/ADOT, and chip seal (CM‐90)/Koch
Materials.
 Level 3: Double chip seal/ADOT, DACS&B/ADOT, chip seal (PASS oil)/Western Emulsion, chip
seal (CRS‐2)/Copperstate, and double application/not identified.
 Level 4: Chip seal (AC15‐5TR)/Paramount, slurry seal/Southwest Slurry, chip seal (CRS‐
2P)/Crown, and chip seal (CM‐90)/Navajo Western. These treatments were ranked in this
category because they had two or more sections that did not perform well. (Researchers
recommend that they be investigated further.)
Researchers evaluated for cost‐effectiveness of the preventive maintenance sections using the same
B/C approach that was used for the wearing course treatments. They calculated the benefit for
each of the three performance measures (weathering, flushing index, and transverse cracking) as
the difference between the measured performance at the 2007 testing date and a nominal
minimum performance level. The cost component of the B/C approach was the unit cost of the
treatment (in $/sy).
Table 2 summarizes the results of the cost‐effectiveness analyses for the preventive maintenance
sections. Two treatments had the highest cost‐effectiveness ranking and the highest performance
ranking: chip seal (PASS) by Western Emulsion and microsurfacing by Southwest Slurry. Six of the
remaining eight treatments—all chip seals—were also in the highest cost‐effectiveness ranking;
however, they were in the second performance ranking level. The last two treatments with the
4

Table 2. Cost‐Effectiveness Rankings for Phase II Preventive Maintenance Treatments.
Cost‐
Effectiveness
Ranking

Preventive Maintenance Treatment

MCES

Performance
Ranking

5.00
5.00
5.00

1
1
2

5.00

2

A

Chip seal (PASS CR)/Western Emulsion
Microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry
Chip seal (CRS‐2)/ADOT
Chip seal (CRS‐2P)/
ADOT (future construction)
Chip seal (CM‐90)/Koch Materials
Chip seal (CRS‐2P)/ADOT
Chip seal (HF CRS‐2P)/ADOT
Chip seal (HF CRS‐2P)/Copperstate
Chip seal (CRS‐2)/Copperstate
Chip seal (AC15‐5TR)/Paramount

4.83
4.78
4.67
4.67
4.83
4.67

2
2
2
2
3
4

B

ACFC/ADOT
Chip seal (PASS Oil)/Western Emulsion
Slurry seal/Southwest Slurry
Chip seal (CRS‐2P)/Crown
Chip seal (CM‐90)/Navajo Western

4.33
4.50
4.50
4.42
4.33

1
3
4
4
4

C

DACS&B/ADOT
Double chip seal/ADOT

4.17
4.11

3
3

D

AR‐ACFC/not identified
AR‐ACFC/ADOT
P‐ACFC/Paramount
AR‐chip/International Slurry
Double application/not identified

3.67
3.78
3.67
3.67
3.67

1
2
2
2
3

F

Novachip/Koch Materials

2.42

1

highest cost‐effectiveness ranking level were on the low end of the performance rankings. It is
interesting to note that the chip seal (AC15‐5TR) made the highest cost‐effectiveness ranking since it
had some sections that did not perform well. However, the rankings of the remaining preventive
maintenance treatments clearly indicate that treatment cost has more of an impact on the
assessment of cost‐effectiveness than performance.

5

6

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
In 1995, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) initiated research project SPR 371,
Maintenance Cost‐Effectiveness study. Beginning in 1999, 193 test sections were constructed
throughout Arizona following guidelines developed under that research project. Those test sections
were divided into three experiments or phases: wearing courses (Phase I), surface treatments
(Phase II), and sealer‐rejuvenators (Phase III). Although the agency brought significant resources to
bear in the experimental layout, design, and construction of these test sections, ADOT did not
regularly or systematically monitor test section performance after construction.
A formal study of test section performance could provide invaluable information about pavement
maintenance in Arizona at the state, district, and local levels. For example, by analyzing performance
results from the various test sections, ADOT could better understand what pavement treatments
work best under different pavement conditions, environments, and traffic; how various materials
perform; and how the performance of proprietary and warranted treatments compares to more
conventional applications. Because the test sections were repeated in multiple environmental
conditions, a study of those sections would be expected to generate findings applicable in most
areas of the state.
In 2007, recognizing that many of the test sections were reaching the point where meaningful
performance trends could be identified, ADOT initiated SPR 628, Evaluation of Maintenance
Strategies. This report presents that project’s findings.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Specific objectives of SPR 628 included the following:
 Review ADOT’s current maintenance strategies.
 Document the materials used in each of the test treatments of SPR 371.
 Fully evaluate the test sections constructed under SPR 371.
 Evaluate the performance of the maintenance strategies used on the SPR 371 sections.
 Identify maintenance treatment effectiveness based on factors such as cost, type of distress,
location, constructability, and service life.
 Develop a specific provisional guideline of effective maintenance strategies for ADOT.
This report addresses all of the Phase I and II objectives from the original SPR 371 project. The last
objective was accomplished primarily by identifying the maintenance strategies that were the most
and least cost‐effective based on the study findings. Because the Foundation for Pavement

7

Preservation (King and King 2007) studied the Phase III test sections in greater detail, those sections
were not examined in this project.
PROJECT APPROACH
Below is a summary of the project approach:
1. Review available documentation about the test sections. This review included studying
information about the experiment design, section construction (including some field notes),
materials specifications, laboratory test results, and initial performance findings taken
immediately after construction.
2. Interview ADOT staff. Researchers contacted ADOT staff at headquarters and the districts
to identify current strategies and learn where they are used, how well they perform, and
their typical problems.
3. Collect performance information. Researchers collected pavement performance data under
a cooperative effort with ADOT. Applied Pavement Technology staff conducted the
pavement distress/condition surveys, including evaluating the pavement sections for
weathering; bleeding; flushing; fatigue cracking; longitudinal, transverse, and diagonal (LTD)
cracking; rutting; and patching. ADOT crews conducted field measurements to determine
skid number (SN), texture, dynamic friction, and outflow. The primary emphasis was to
collect information similar to how ADOT evaluates pavements as part of its pavement
management data collection effort; the secondary focus was to collect data to evaluate the
typical performance of selected treatments.
4. Analyze performance information. Using both statistical and practical engineering
approaches, researchers evaluated select performance data for both the Wearing Course
and Preventive Maintenance experiments. The results are presented in a series of tables
that group or rank the treatments within different pavement conditions (performance
levels) for several key performance criteria. The tables also reflect the Student’s t test
results that identify which treatments exhibited similar performance.
5. Calculate treatment cost‐effectiveness. To determine the cost‐effectiveness of the
treatments, researchers compared the estimated cost and performance of treatments using
different criteria and then ranked them into overall effectiveness levels.
REPORT OVERVIEW
The remainder of this report is organized into four chapters. Chapter 2 summarizes the design
details for both the Wearing Course and Preventive Maintenance experiments. Chapter 3 describes
the data collection activities, including pavement performance data and information obtained from
ADOT staff about current maintenance strategies. Chapter 4 describes the statistical and
engineering analyses conducted to assess treatment performance and estimated cost, and to
identify those that may be best suited for future ADOT practice. Chapter 5 provides this study’s key
findings and recommendations.
8

CHAPTER 2. REVIEW OF EXPERIMENT DESIGN
Evaluating ADOT’s maintenance strategies under this project focused on experimental sections
constructed at the test sites for the Phase I, Wearing Course Experiment, and Phase II, Preventive
Maintenance Experiment. This chapter presents the design, layout, and general description of the
two experiments. Much of the documentation in this chapter was extracted from the original SPR
371 report (Peshkin 2006) and then revised and updated as appropriate.
PHASE I: WEARING COURSE EXPERIMENT
ADOT’s traditional bituminous pavement wearing courses have been asphalt concrete friction
courses (ACFCs) or asphalt rubber‐asphalt concrete friction courses (AR‐ACFCs). However, following
construction, these traditional treatments often required applying flush coats to prevent future
raveling. The Phase I test sections received premium treatments for wearing courses on Interstates
and high‐volume non‐Interstate routes. One of the goals of the Phase I experiment was to evaluate
treatments that could extend the life of a new bituminous pavement surface, with a target service
life of 12 to 15 years that required little or no maintenance.
The primary objectives of Phase I were to generate performance data on the long‐term benefits of
different surfaces and determine how to improve ADOT practice. As part of the original experiment,
64 test sections were constructed on Interstate 8 (I‐8) and Interstate 10 (I‐10) during the summer
and fall of 1999, covering the first five wearing course treatments shown in Table 3. Eighteen
additional sections with three treatment types were then constructed on State Route 74 (SR 74).
Table 3. Description of Phase I Treatments.
Treatment

Description

ACFC

Asphalt concrete friction course was typically used as the main wearing course by
ADOT until it was replaced by AR‐ACFC.
Asphalt rubber‐asphalt concrete friction course is a typical wearing course used by
ADOT on Interstates and some non‐Interstate roadways. Performance should be
linked to ADOT’s historical data.
Polymer modified‐asphalt concrete friction course is rarely used on ADOT
roadways.
Permeable European mixture was developed by Georgia DOT for urban freeways
that are three or more lanes wide. PEM typically has 18 to 20 percent porosity.
Stone matrix asphalt was developed by Maryland DOT as a wearing course.
Terminal blend asphalt concrete friction course employs an asphalt rubber binder
prepared through a thorough mixing and blending of asphalt and ground
tire rubber at the producer’s terminal.

AR‐ACFC

P‐ACFC
PEM
SMA
TB‐ACFC

9

All of the treatments were designed to have a 3/4‐inch top size aggregate (TSA) with the exception
of the permeable European mixture (PEM), which was designed to have a 1‐1/4‐inch TSA. Similarly,
except for the AR‐ACFC, all polymer‐modified treatments used the same PG 76‐22 binder and were
modified with either SB or SBS polymers. The PEM and stone matrix asphalt (SMA) used both
polymer modification and fibers to control asphalt draindown, while the polymer modified‐asphalt
concrete friction course (P‐ACFC) only used polymer modification. The binder for the terminal blend
asphalt concrete friction course (TB‐ACFC) is defined as a PG 76‐22TR+ to indicate the use of ground
tire rubber blended and mixed at the terminal (production facility).
While the wearing course treatments were placed on both the travel lane and the passing lane, only
the travel lane is considered part of the experiment. As such, the passing lane had to be constructed
first to refine the placement process for the travel lane construction.
Table 4 shows the overall layout of the sections in the Phase I, Wearing Course Experiment. Table 51
through Table 53 in Appendix A provide general information about the Phase I sections. Table 58
through Table 65 in Appendix B provide additional material details obtained from the available
construction records.
I‐10 and I‐8 Test Sections
The 32 test sections on I‐10 were located between milepost (MP) 186.48 and MP 195.0 in the
eastbound direction; the 32 test sections on I‐8 were located between MP 88 and MP 92.5 in both
the eastbound and westbound directions. The average elevation of both of these sites is
approximately 1400 ft. In 2001, ADOT reported the average annual daily traffic (AADT) at 35,200 to
38,700 vehicles on I‐10 and 8800 vehicles on I‐8 (Peshkin 2006).
To accelerate ADOT’s ability to draw conclusions about these surfaces’ performance, researchers
milled off different thicknesses of the existing pavement’s surface and constructed a hot‐mix asphalt
(HMA) overlay before applying the wearing course treatment. The milling depths and corresponding
overlay thicknesses were 2.5 inches/2.0 inches, 3.5 inches/3.0 inches, and 4.5 inches/4.0 inches for
the I‐10 sections, and 1.0 inch/2.0 inches, 2.0 inches/2.0 inches, and 3.0 inches/2.0 inches for the I‐8
sections. For the control sections, the milling depth/overlay thickness combinations were
2.5 inches/3.0 inches and 2.5 inches/2.0 inches for the I‐10 and I‐8 sites, respectively.
Researchers had expected to use the occurrence of similar distresses in the sections of different
structural capacity to differentiate between the pavements’ structural performance and their
performance due to environmental factors. Also, with sections of different structural capacity,
researchers could explore the effects of applying treatments at different times in the pavement’s
structural life. Each treatment was placed on two sections, including the control treatment (which
consisted of a 1/2‐inch TSA AR‐ACFC).
10

Table 4. Overall Layout of Phase I, Wearing Course Experiment.
(Each cell shows the number of wearing course sections
followed by the milling depth and overlay thickness in parentheses.)
Wearing Course
Treatment
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1,
1/2‐inch TSA)
Control Section
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1,
3/4‐inch TSA)
ACFC (PG 64‐16,
3/4‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22,
3/4‐inch TSA)
PEM (PG 76‐22,
1‐1/4‐inch TSA)
SMA (PG 70‐28,
3/4‐inch TSA)

I‐10

Phase I Sites
I‐8

2 (2.5/3.0
and 3.5/3.0)

2 (2.5/2.0)

2 (2.5/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.0)
2 (4.5/4.0)
2 (2.5/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.0)
2 (4.5/4.0)
2 (2.5/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.0)
2 (4.5/4.0)
2 (2.5/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.0)
2 (4.5/4.0)
2 (2.5/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.0)
2 (4.5/4.0)

2 (1.0/2.0)
2 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.0/2.0)
2 (1.0/2.0)
2 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.0/2.0)
2 (1.0/2.0)
2 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.0/2.0)
2 (1.0/2.0)
2 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.0/2.0)
2 (1.0/2.0)
2 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.0/2.0)

Control Section
AR‐ACFC
(PG 64‐16, CRA‐1,
3/8‐inch TSA)

SR 74

1 (2.0/2.0)
4 (0.0/0.0)
1 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.5)
0 (0.0/0.0)
3 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.5)
2 (0.0/0.0)
2 (2.0/2.0)
2 (3.5/3.5)

P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+,
3/8‐inch TSA)
TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐22TR+,
3/8‐inch TSA)

11

SR 74 Test Sections
This site had 18 sections between MP 16.8 and MP 18.7 in both the eastbound and westbound
directions (between Interstate 17 and U.S. Route 60 in the Phoenix area), plus one control section.
These test sections were constructed on SR 74 in April 2001 by change order and include AR‐ACFC,
P‐ACFC, and TB‐ACFC. The average elevation of this site is 1500 ft, and the 2001 AADT was reported
as 4500 vehicles. Some test sections were placed directly on the existing pavement, while others
were placed over either a 2‐inch or a 3‐1/2‐inch mill and overlay, as shown in Table 4.
PHASE II: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE EXPERIMENT
The Phase II test sections were part of the Preventive Maintenance experiment, which for ADOT
typically involves surface treatment maintenance activities such as chip seals and slurry seals applied
to lower volume bituminous‐surfaced roadways. This experiment compares state‐of‐the‐practice
(and usually proprietary) treatments to ADOT’s traditional chip seals to determine effectiveness.
Test sections for the Phase II experiment were located on State Route 66 (SR 66), State Route 83
(SR 83), State Route 87 (SR 87), and U.S. Route 191 (U.S. 191).
All treatments were replicated and their locations were randomly assigned within a project location.
The core experiment consisted of developing 3/4‐mile‐long test sections, one lane wide, on lower
volume two‐lane highways. The intent was to use one roadway direction for one replicate and the
opposite roadway direction for the other, duplicating the same basic layout at all project sites.
This project’s core experiment design was developed as part of the SR 66 test section preparation.
At the SR 66 test site, the vendor/contractor selected the system to be tested and developed the
specifications. As such, it was expected that the test sections represented the industry’s best
treatments for the pavement conditions. These systems and specifications were then meant to be
used at the remaining project site locations. The original design consisted of 28 test sections: 16
designed and warranted by the contractor and 12 designed by ADOT. The proprietary products
included as part of the SR 66 core experiment were:
 Paramount AC15‐5TR, 5/8‐inch chip size cover material only.
 Crown Asphalt CRS‐2P (performance graded), 5/8‐inch chip size cover material only.
 Koch Materials CM‐90, 5/8‐inch chip size cover material only.
 Copperstate HFE CRS‐2P, 5/8‐inch chip size cover material only.
 Southwest Slurry Type III slurry seal.
 International Slurry Surfacing asphalt rubber chip.
 Koch Materials Novachip.
 Copperstate CRS‐2LM.
 Western Emulsion PASS CR, 5/8‐inch chip size cover material only.

12

The following treatments were part of the core experiment:
 5/8‐inch cover material.

 3/8‐inch cover material.

 Double application chip seal.

 Double chip seal.


ACFC.
AR‐ACFC.
CRS‐2.
CRS‐2P.

Investigators used the 5/8‐inch cover material as the reference material for binder comparison test
sections, such as with the CRS‐2 and CRS‐2P, because it was supposed to be the least sensitive to
construction quality.
Table 5 provides the overall layout of the Preventive Maintenance experiment test sections.
Because some of the treatments are the same but constructed by different contractors, the
contractor (or producer) of the treatment is listed in the table. Additional information about the
Phase II sections is provided in Appendix A (Table 54 through Table 57) and Appendix B (Table 66
through Table 91).
SR 66 Test Sections
The SR 66 test site was located between MP 110.25 and MP 123.17 in the westbound direction and
between MP 110.75 and MP 123.17 in the eastbound direction. In 2000 this two‐lane highway had
an AADT of approximately 2200 vehicles and approximately 41,000 equivalent single‐axle loads
(ESALs) per year. The average elevation at this site is 4500 ft, and the surface (before applying a
treatment) was an old chip seal. The 28 test sections were constructed from August 10 to 16, 2000.
Some highlights of the SR 66 test site follow:
 The contractor selected the surface treatment system and developed materials and
construction specifications for the test sections.
 Construction specifications required a two‐year warranty.
 Macrotexture was used as the performance criterion and measured using an outflow meter.
The warranty was based on meeting a minimum mean texture depth (MTD) following
construction and staying above that minimum for two years.
The test site was part of an overall 60‐mi long construction project in which pavement conditions
were similar. Prior to construction, participating material suppliers were required to visit the site
and agree that pavement conditions throughout the test section were similar, so that differing
pavement conditions for a specific test section were not later offered as an explanation for
differential performance.

13

Table 5. Overall Layout of Phase II, Preventive Maintenance Experiment.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment
Control
ACFC
AR‐ACFC
P‐ACFC
AR‐chip
Chip seal
(AC15‐5TR)
Chip seal
(CM‐90)
Chip seal (CRS‐2)
Chip seal (CRS‐2P)

Chip seal
(HF CRS‐2P)
Chip seal
(PASS CR/Oil)
DACS&B
Double chip seal
Double application
Microsurfacing
Slurry seal
Novachip

Phase II Sitesa
Producer
N/A
ADOT
ADOT
No information
Paramount
International
Slurry Surfacing
Paramount

TSA (inches)
N/A
No information
3/8
No information
3/8
No information

SR 66

2

2
3e
2d
2

5/8

2

2

Navajo Western
Koch Materials
ADOT
Copperstate
ADOT

5/8
5/8
5/8, 3/8
5/8
5/8
3/8
No information

ADOT (future
construction)
Crown
ADOT
Copperstate
Western Emulsion
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
Southwest Slurry
Southwest Slurry
Koch Materials

SR 83

2
2d

2

SR 87
3b

4
4
4
2

4

2
2
2

2
2
2

U.S. 191
4c

4
4
2

2

4
4

5/8
3/8
5/8
5/8

2

1

2

2

2
2

2

Blotter (B) on 1/2

2
B = 3/8
2

2
B = #4
4

4

2

2
2

2

4
4

28

28

21

60

3/8 on 5/8
No information
Type III
Type III
1/2

Total sections (including control)

4
4
4

2
2

a

The numbers in each cell represent the number of preventive maintenance sections.
2‐inch mill and overlay.
c
No treatment (or overlay) applied.
d
No information available on TSA.
e
First chip seal (CRS‐2P) section failed (due to rain) and was replaced by an AR‐ACFC section.
b

SR 83 Test Sections
SR 83, a two‐lane pavement, was constructed in 1960. The average elevation is 4895 ft. The 2001
AADT was 3200 vehicles. From June to August 2001, 28 test sections were constructed between
MP 33.20 and MP 43.50. This site was laid out similarly to SR 66, used a Paramount PG 76‐22TR+ P‐
ACFC, and incorporated AR‐ACFC and ACFC sections with surface treatments.
14

SR 87 Test Sections
While the SR 66 project was advertised for bidding, an opportunity arose to place additional test
sections on SR 87 north of Winslow, Arizona. Since the original intent was to duplicate the 16 vendor
test sections to be placed on SR 66, a change order was executed and six of the eight vendors
participated. Due to cost considerations and the available budget for the project, three options used
on SR 66 were not used on SR 87: AR‐chip, slurry seal, and AR‐ACFC.
Another significant difference between the SR 66 test sections and the SR 87 test sections was that
the SR 87 test sections were placed on a one‐year‐old, 2‐inch overlay while the SR 66 test sections
were placed over an old chip seal, which provided an additional opportunity to address treatment
timing. Consequently, four test sections were left blank (i.e., control sections where no surface
treatment was placed). Researchers planned to apply surface treatments to two of these test
sections in five to seven years, and the remaining two sections would serve as control sections for
the treated sections.
The 21 test sections on SR 87 were located north of Winslow between MP 393.463 and MP 385 in
both the northbound and southbound directions, and were constructed in June and July of 2000. In
2000 this two‐lane pavement had an AADT of approximately 500 vehicles and about 20,000 ESALs
per year.
The final treatments placed on SR 87 were:
 Crown CRS‐2P (5/8‐inch aggregate and performance‐graded binder).
 Copperstate CRS‐2LM (5/8‐inch aggregate and latex modified binder).
 Novachip.
 ADOT double chip seal (5/8‐inch and 3/8‐inch aggregate).
 ADOT double application (1/2‐inch aggregate and blotter sand).
 Western Emulsion PASS oil (5/8‐inch aggregate).
 Paramount AC15‐5TR (tire rubber modified binder).
 Navajo Western CM‐90 (5/8‐inch aggregate).
Two sections of each of these treatments were constructed and five sections were left untreated.
Three of the untreated sections are identified simply as “do nothing,” but the others were included
to have untreated pavement to return to in five to seven years, place a treatment, and evaluate the
effect of treatment timing on pavement performance.
In 2001 the SR 87 test site was also used as a sealer/rejuvenator test site (part of Phase III of ADOT’s
Maintenance Cost‐Effectiveness study). The Paramount AC15‐5TR, a control section, and a portion
of pavement outside the test section all received the sealer/rejuvenator treatments, creating a new
set of side‐by‐side comparisons. While the sealer/rejuvenator test sections are addressed
15

elsewhere, it is important to recognize that this test site was modified after construction to include
these additional sections. The sealer/rejuvenator test sections are also significant because of the
extensive testing and evaluation that have been planned at this location. Some key aspects of the
sealer/rejuvenator study are briefly discussed in Appendix G of the SPR 371 report (Peshkin 2006).
U.S. 191 Test Sections
The U.S. 191 test site is located south of Alpine, Arizona, at an approximate elevation of 7000 ft. One
portion of the site is located between MP 200.5 and MP 219.25, and a second portion of the site is
located between MP 181 and MP 185. The site was constructed in June and July 2001. Between
these two test sections, the pavement received a standard treatment of AC15‐5TR (rubberized chip
seal) with precoated chips, which was placed in May 2001. Available information for this pavement
from MP 225 and higher (just north of the test sections) indicates that it was originally built in 1962
with 16 inches of base material and a 2.5‐inch bituminous surface, and that the most recent
treatment was a 2‐inch asphalt rubber wearing course constructed in 1999. In August 2000 the
pavement north of the test sections was reported to exhibit 20 to 30 percent small block cracking,
and alligator cracking and transverse cracking at 20‐ft to 25‐ft intervals. The 2001 AADT reported
was 100 vehicles.
Key characteristics of this test site include the following:
 It was the only high elevation location (i.e., cold climate).
 The incorporation of nontreated sections allowed for the eventual study of the effect of
treatment timing on pavement performance (by applying treatments in the future).
 The overlap of treatments provided for a comparison between wearing course (Phase I) and
surface treatment performance.
The portion of the test site between MP 181 and MP 185, where sections were left untreated, was
overlaid in 1999. The treatments placed at U.S. 191 were:
 HF CRS‐2P.
 Type III slurry seal.
 Novachip.
 ADOT double chip seal (5/8‐inch and 3/8‐inch aggregate).
 CRS‐2 (3/8‐inch aggregate).
 AR‐ACFC.
 ACFC.
 CM‐90 (5/8‐inch aggregate).
 AC15‐5TR.
 CRS‐2P (5/8‐inch aggregate).
 AR‐chip seal.

16

CHAPTER 3. PROJECT DATA COLLECTION
Late in 2007, ADOT and Applied Pavement Technology collected pavement performance data from
all the experimental sections at the Wearing Course and Preventive Maintenance treatment sites.
The data, which included several different types of pavement distress as well as measures of
roughness, friction, and surface texture, provide a sound basis for evaluating and comparing the
performance of different treatments. This chapter briefly summarizes the data collection efforts;
Appendix C provides supplemental details.
To gather information about ADOT’s current maintenance strategies, researchers interviewed ADOT
headquarters staff by phone in 2007 and submitted questionnaires to district staff in 2011. The
survey results are documented in this chapter.
Finally, researchers obtained cost information for the various treatments from four primary sources
that was used to estimate unit costs for many of the pavement maintenance treatments included in
the project. Summary results are also provided in this chapter.
PERFORMANCE DATA
The primary basis for evaluating the performance of the Phase I and II experimental treatments is
the field performance and condition data collected between October and December 2007. The data
included the type of flexible pavement condition information that ADOT gathers for its pavement
management process as well as data on pavement surface characteristics that impact pavement
safety and ride quality (i.e., friction resistance, surface texture, and roughness). ADOT and Applied
Pavement Technology staff gathered the data using both manual and automated data collection
techniques. Table 6 identifies the specific performance data collected as part of the manual
condition surveys, automated field testing, and other field testing.
Table 6. Types of Pavement Performance Data Collected.









Manual
Condition Survey
Weathering (raveling)
Bleeding
Flushing
Longitudinal and transverse
cracking
Fatigue cracking
Rutting
Patching

Automated Field
Testing
 Roughness
 Friction

17

Other Field
Testing
 Outflow meter
 Dynamic Friction
Tester
 Circular Texture
Meter

Appendix C provides summary tables on a site‐by‐site basis of all the performance data collected for
this project. Following are descriptions of the different data collection operations as well as some
important notes and observations about data collection at each test site.
Manual Condition Surveys
Applied Pavement Technology performed manual pavement condition surveys while ADOT provided
traffic control. At the beginning of the survey, the field crew confirmed the site location information
and pavement markings against original documentation. Then they identified representative 500‐ft‐
long segments within each section. Typically these were located near the middle of the test section
so any difficulties associated with “sympathetic” failure and construction variability at the start and
end of each test section construction were not reflected in the section’s performance evaluation.
In general, all surveys and measurements were made in the outer travel (truck) lane of the section.
Of the seven distress types surveyed, four—weathering, bleeding, longitudinal and transverse
cracking, and fatigue cracking—were surveyed and recorded according to distress definitions
identified in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Distress Identification Manual for the
Long‐Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program (FHWA 2003). As the long‐term pavement
performance (LTPP) protocol requires, each of these four distresses were characterized by severity,
extent, and type. The three remaining distress types (rutting, flushing, and patching) were surveyed
according to ADOT definitions with threshold values as shown in Table 7. Maximum rut depths were
measured at 50‐ft intervals (50, 100, 150, 200, and so on) in the outer and inner wheel path using a
ruler and 6‐ft straightedge. All other distresses were measured over the entire section. Figure 1
shows the standard form used to record manual pavement condition survey data.
Table 7. Trigger and Failure Levels for ADOT Distresses.
Distress Type

Measurement Units

Range

Trigger

Failure

Rutting

Inches

0‐2

0.5

1.0

Flushing

Rating

5a‐0

3.5

2.5

Patching

Percent of area

0%‐100%

25%

50%

a

A rating of 5 indicates no flushing.

18

Figure 1. Pavement Condition Survey Recording Form.

19

Digital photographs were also taken at each section to document typical pavement conditions. The
photographs are stored in the electronic project archives and include the following for each section:
 Section overview (looking forward).
 View of shoulder.
 View of typical drainage conditions.
 Typical distresses and their severity levels.
 Close‐up of typical surface conditions.
 Section overview (from the end of the section looking backward).
Automated Field Testing
ADOT performed surface profile and skid testing surveys using its van‐mounted equipment at
roughly the same time as the manual pavement condition surveys (between October and December
2007). Figure 2 is a photo of the ADOT profilometer used for surface profile measurement. It uses a
series of lasers (mounted at the front of the van), vertical accelerometers (to correct for the effects
of the vertical up and down movements of the van), and other internal instrumentation to record
the longitudinal and transverse pavement surface profiles.
The surface profile data were used primarily to determine the average rut depths on the high‐
volume Interstate sections where lane closure (for manual measurement) was not possible. The
data were also used to help develop correlations with other roughness measures and not intended
for use in evaluating treatment performance. Appendix C includes rut depth data, but not the actual
surface profile data. For automated friction testing, ADOT used its skid testing van (Figure 3), but
only on higher volume Interstate highway sections where the manually operated field test devices
could not be used. This served as the basis for the SNs presented in Appendix C.
Other Field Testing
ADOT used its outflow meter (Figure 4), Circular Texture (CT) meter (Figure 5), and Dynamic Friction
(DF) Tester (Figure 6) to measure pavement surface and friction characteristics in the test sections.
Since all three are manually operated devices, ADOT performed these tests on the test sections at
the same time as the manual condition surveys. The outflow meter provides an estimate of the MTD
using a correlation that is based upon the amount of time required for water to flow out of the
cylinder. The CT meter (ASTM 2012) uses a laser to determine a pavement surface texture
characteristic known as the mean profile depth (MPD) within an 11‐inch diameter circle. The DF
device measures the dynamic coefficient of friction (DCOF) that characterizes the pavement
surface’s frictional resistance.

20

Figure 2. ADOT Profilometer.

Figure 3. ADOT Skid Testing Van.

21

Figure 4. HydroTimer Outflow Meter.

Figure 5. CT Meter.

22

Figure 6. DF Tester.
Data Collection Notes (by Site)
Following are key observations recorded at each test site:
 I‐10 (Casa Grande, Arizona). Researchers surveyed 32 test sections (all in the eastbound
direction) at this location on December 5, 2007. Due to heavy highway traffic volumes, they
conducted the manual survey from the shoulder with an ADOT attenuator following the
survey crew. Distresses were estimated since the crew could not enter the lane of traffic.
ADOT collected all of the data (including rutting depths) using its profilometer. No outflow
or DF tests were conducted at this site.


I‐8 (Gila Bend, Arizona). Researchers surveyed the 16 test sections in the westbound
direction on December 7, 2007, and the 16 test sections in the eastbound direction on
December 8, 2007. The right (truck) lane was surveyed using a moving lane closure. ADOT
performed in‐place CT and outflow measurements while the manual distress surveys were
conducted. ADOT also collected skid measurements using its automated van. DF tests could
not be collected during the closure period.



SR 74 (Peoria, Arizona). Researchers surveyed 18 sections in both directions on
December 10, 2007. Full lane closures were employed at this site for the manual surveys.
ADOT performed outflow and CT measurements during the manual condition surveys. ADOT
was also able to collect friction data using its automated equipment as the DF equipment
was malfunctioning during the closure period.



SR 66 (Kingman, Arizona). Researchers surveyed 14 test sections in both directions, for a
total of 28 sections, on December 11, 2007. Again, ADOT provided full lane closures, and the
23

manual condition surveys were conducted in the outside (truck) lane. ADOT collected
outflow, CT, and DF measurements while the manual distress surveys were conducted.


SR 83 (Sonoita, Arizona). All 28 test sections were surveyed on December 6, 2007, with 14
sections in each direction of traffic. The manual distress surveys as well as ADOT’s outflow,
CT, and DF testing were conducted in the outside (truck) lane using a moving closure
provided by ADOT. None of the test sections was marked along the highway right of way,
and the mileposts had to be used to help locate each section.



SR 87 (Winslow, Arizona). These 21 test sections were surveyed on December 12, 2007,
nine in the northbound direction and 12 in the southbound direction. Once again, the
manual condition surveys and ADOT’s outflow, CT, and DF tests were conducted in the
outside (truck) lane under lane closure provided by ADOT.



U.S. 191 (Alpine, Arizona). These 60 test sections were located on a very remote mountain
highway and were surveyed during the week of October 22, 2007. MP 181 to MP 185
included 12 test sections (six in each direction of traffic) while MP 200.5 to MP 219.25
included 48 test sections (24 in each direction of traffic). The manual condition surveys were
performed in the outside (truck) lane using moving lane closure provided by ADOT. Outflow,
CT, and DF tests were also completed during this closure.

ADOT STAFF SURVEYS
ADOT staff at headquarters (Phoenix) and in district offices were interviewed in July 2007 and July
2011, respectively, to identify ADOT’s current maintenance strategies (with emphasis on ADOT
policy related to the treatments used in the maintenance effectiveness test sections), problems with
maintenance strategies, and potential solutions. The 2007 surveys were conducted by phone and
included 11 questions. The 2011 surveys were questionnaires that sought more detailed treatment
information about materials, selection criteria, construction problems, performance, and solutions.
2007 Phone Interviews
In July 2007, researchers interviewed Doug Forstie, Joel Miller, Bill Hurguy, and Yongqi Li by phone.
Forstie described ADOT’s pavement preservation program as a subset of the overall pavement
program. According to Forstie, of the $120 million spent annually, about $100 million was spent on
major projects and $7 million on the preventive maintenance surface treatment program. The latter
was accomplished mostly through a procurement process and included flush coats, chip seals, slurry
seals, and thin overlays. Contractors completed the construction work while ADOT provided traffic
control and completed the striping. Li and Hurguy said that the pavement preservation program did
not include treatments that add structure (including HMA overlay with a thickness greater than

24

1 inch). Since AADT was not always available for rural roads, average daily traffic (ADT) was used.
The ADT is composed of traffic counts taken for more than one day but less than one year.
A compilation of the survey responses follows:
1. What treatments are currently specified by ADOT?
The interviewees reported that ADOT did not have a specification and that the treatments
were selected based upon past practice, where the district maintenance supervisors decide
what, when, and where. (Note: ADOT’s current 2008 Standard Specifications for Road and
Bridge Construction includes Section 404 on bituminous treatments.) The typical treatments
specified by the districts included:
a) Flush coats and fog seals. These contain various types of emulsions and were used
extensively by some districts and on a limited basis by others. (Note: One reviewer
considered a flush coat to be a fog seal with a rejuvenating agent.)
b) Chip seals. The typical emulsions for these included RS, polymer‐modified CRS, and RS
with PASS oil. Hot‐applied AR binder has also been used, but not normally. The
aggregate (chip) TSA was typically 3/8‐ or 1/2‐inch and may be coated or uncoated. In
some cases, double applications were used.
c) Cinder seals. These were basically a chip seal with cinder aggregates (1/2‐inch cinders
and cinder fines) that allow for some aggregate buildup.
d) Sand seals. Like chip seals, sand seals were shot a little lighter (0.2 gal/sy or less) and
used washed fines or cinder fines. These were used by some districts that had poor
experience with chip seals.
e) Scrub seals. These typically involved applying an emulsified polymer‐ or latex‐modified
binder (usually PASS oil) followed by a system of shop brushes that worked the binder
into the pavement surface. The surface was then covered with either sand (southern
areas of the state) or cinders (northern areas).
f) Slurry seals and microseals (microsurfacings). These were either Type I, II (most
common), or III, and were completed under a statewide contract.
g) Thin HMA overlays. These were less than 2 inches thick and saw limited use.
h) Novachip. ADOT has used a thin‐bonded wearing course, but only occasionally because
of its proprietary nature.
i) Blade‐laid overlays. These were constructed with either cold‐mix asphalt or HMA
placed over short stretches, and were rarely used.
j) Crack sealing. ADOT used both asphalt and AR sealant using a “blow‐and‐go” approach.
Designations included ERA to CRF, PASS oil, and MC‐250.

25

2. What are the applicable specifications for those treatments?
The specifications came either from ADOT Contracts and Specifications or from the district.
Typically, the aggregate specifications came from Contracts and Specifications while the
asphalt binder specifications were provided by on‐call vendors. Any new or unconventional
treatment went through Contracts and Specifications or through ADOT Procurement. With a
new treatment, an ADOT Regional Materials Lab engineer would have to review and
approve the vendor’s specification. If Procurement reviewed the treatment, it was typically
written into the special provisions.
3. What guidelines are available to assist in the selection and scheduling of these treatments?
There were no formal guidelines for project selection or scheduling. Treatment selection
and timing were based on the local supervisor’s background and experience.
4. How long do the treatments last and provide measureable benefit?
a) Flush coats and fog seals. These provide a one‐ to two‐year service life, depending on
the pavement being treated. With rubberized asphalt and rubberized friction courses,
the application can be lighter since they do not oxidize or begin raveling as soon. The
first application on a rubber treatment will occur about three years after construction,
where it may be one to two years for conventional HMA. Longevity depends on the
condition of the surface. If the treatment was applied when it was first needed, it might
last two to five years.
b) Chip seals. Conventional chip seals may provide seven to 10 years of service on a good
surface (level, no cracking, and limited rutting). If the pavement has a rough surface
profile and experiences significant snowplow damage, the service life may be much
shorter. Older pavements that have been crack sealed and exhibit some rutting, surface
roughness, or patching may start peeling at the centerline (and not last very long). Chip
seals placed early in the season (May or June) provide longer service lives since they
have more time to cure.
c) Hot‐applied chip seals with coated 1/2‐inch chip. These resist snowplow damage much
better than conventional chip seals.
d) Cinder seals. These provide a rough, noisy ride after construction; however, they do not
peel like conventional chip seals. The service life is in the range of seven to 10 years on a
smooth road, and five to seven years on a rough road.
e) Polymer‐modified chip seals. These perform better and can be placed later in the
season, but cost more. They are more forgiving when the quality of the chip is less than
desirable. The polymer‐modified binder holds the aggregate better and may provide an
additional one to two years of service as compared to a conventional chip seal.
26

f)

Sand seals. These have a service life of five to seven years if the pavement surface
condition is good, and three to five years if the pavement surface condition is poor.
g) Scrub seals. The service life may be five to seven years, depending on the surface
condition. There may be flushing problems in southern areas of the state, especially if
the sand is overapplied.
h) Slurry seals. These are rarely used as a preventive maintenance treatment. In most
cases, they are used as a stop‐gap measure to provide some life extension to a
distressed pavement. Depending on the extent and severity of the distress, the amount
of repair, and the environmental setting, the service life may be one to seven years.
i) Microseals. These are used primarily for rut filling, with a service life of seven to
10 years if the pavement condition is good, or three to seven years if the pavement
condition is poor.
j) Thin HMA overlays. Not every district has the lay‐down capability. A quality blade‐laid
overlay depends on the experience of the blade operator.
k) Cold‐mix overlays. If sealed 60 days after placement, they can perform well. If they are
sealed before the moisture is allowed to evaporate, ruts may return within six months.
5. What types of pavements are the treatments applied to?
a) Flush coats and fog seals. These are applied to all HMA‐surfaced pavements, preferably
soon after construction.
b) Chip seals. These are recommended for low‐volume, HMA‐surfaced roads (less than
3000 ADT), but can also be used on older HMA pavements that exhibit some cracking
and distortion. They are not recommended for use on Interstate highways or in urban
areas with a lot of turning movements.
c) Sand, scrub, and cinder seals. These are applicable for low‐volume, HMA‐surfaced
roads, including those that exhibit some cracking and distortion. Cinder seals are used
mostly in northern areas of the state. Sand and scrub seals are used mostly in southern
areas (primarily because there are no cinders).
d) Slurry seals and microseals. These are used primarily on Interstate highways under
most conditions, including high altitude, but operators must be aware of curing
conditions.
6. Is there a retreatment schedule?
There is no formal schedule. However, there are some emerging guidelines. For example,
highway sections should be examined or inspected every three years. (The range was two to
five years.)
a) Flush coats and fog seals: two‐ to four‐year rotation.
b) Other treatments: Three‐ to seven‐year rotation.
27

7. What are the pavement distresses present when the treatments are applied?
The maximum benefit from the various surface treatments was obtained when they were
applied before any significant structural distress developed. However, there were no formal
guidelines for targeting treatments to certain types, severities, and extents of distress. So,
the practice was to place the treatments on pavements that exhibit a range of distress
conditions, “from hairline cracks to block cracking” (and beyond). The secret to achieving
the expected minimum service life was to crack seal and patch the existing pavement prior
to treatment application.
8. What pavement distresses, when present, indicate that the treatments should not be
applied?
As indicated in question 7, there were no formal guidelines for targeting treatments to
various types and ranges of pavement distress (minimum or maximum). However, the
interviewees identified several general rules of thumb:
a) Do not chip seal pavements with moderate to severe flushing. (Cinder seals, slurry seals,
and microseals may be considered if the flushing is not severe.)
b) In general, avoid pavements that exhibit severe cracking, rutting, and/or raveling.
c) Do not chip seal during the monsoon season.
d) Do not slurry seal or microseal if there is a chance of freezing.
e) Do not place seals if it is too hot or too humid.
9. What specification modifications are needed to ensure improved treatment performance?
a) Better guidance on what emulsions to use for flush coats and fog seals, and when to use
them on rubberized asphalt mixes.
b) More guidance on the asphalt (binder) to use for rubberized asphalt mixes.
c) Guidance on when to use rejuvenators.
d) No tolerances on the joints of friction courses.
e) Tighter surface profile specifications, to avoid any irregularities that will increase
snowplow damage.
f) Specifications that are defined and made available to all.
10. What problems are experienced in the design, construction, or placement of the
treatments?
a) Because of low confidence in the flush coat application rate, ADOT often used the more
expensive PASS treatment.
28

b) The lack of familiarity with some treatments led to design, construction, and
performance problems and more hesitancy to use the treatments.
11. Are treatments in use that are not currently documented by DOT specifications?
Only two proprietary treatments were identified: Novachip and Armor Coat.
Questionnaires
In June 2011, researchers distributed a questionnaire to representatives of all 10 ADOT districts.
Custom data entry forms were provided to gather detailed information about spray‐applied, slurry‐
applied, and paver‐applied treatments. Four districts—Kingman, Safford, Tucson, and Yuma—
replied with completed forms that characterized their use of flush coats, scrub seals, chip seals
(conventional and polymer‐modified), slurry seals, and microseals (microsurfacings). The results are
compiled in Table 8 through Table 10.
Following are some general observations about the survey results for all treatments. All are
consistent with phone survey results:
 There are essentially no standard specifications, although the Tucson District did reference
relevant sections of ADOT’s Construction Manual (ADOT 2008) for flush coats and polymer‐
modified chip seals.
 There is almost no information from which to estimate the range in pavement distress
within which each treatment can be used.
 There is very little information about materials and construction problems. The Safford
District indicated that dirty aggregate and excess rock/chip loss can be problems on its chip
seal projects, and delayed curing, rapid wear or disintegration, and excessive aggregate loss
can be problems with its slurry seal projects.
 The information provided on the altitude range for the different treatments may be
influenced by the actual range in altitude within each district.

29

Table 8. Survey Results on Flush Coats (Fog Seals).
Treatment Type
District
Treatment Designation
Unit Cost ($/sy)
Relevant Specifications
Materials Information
Binder/emulsion type
Dilution (%)
Binder application rate (gal/sy)
Additives

Flush coat
Kingman

Flush coat
Safford

–

PASS

0.19‐0.21

0.50‐1.00
Procurement
state funded

Not identified
PASS
50:50
0.08‐0.10

PASS
50:50
0.08‐0.14
Rejuvenator,
stabilizer

Flush coat
Tucson
SR 86 (MP 115
to MP 122)
0.20
404‐3.13
Fog coat/flush

Flush coat
Yuma
PASS oil
0.25‐0.30
Not identified

PASS
50:50
0.08

CSS‐1
50:50
0.10

–

Rejuvenator

SH/rural

IH/urban,
IH/rural
SH/urban,
SH/rural

Unlimited

1,000‐3,000

>3,000

>2,000

–

<2,000

–
–
–
–
–

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

–

N/A

–

–
–
–
5 min./20 max.
–
20 min./
50 max.
1 min./2 max.

–

N/A

2
Cracking

3
Visual

1‐2
Raveling

3
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
None
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
–

–

Allowable Road Conditions

Roadway types

ADT range (vehicles/day)
Altitude range
(ft above sea level)
Min./Max. Pavement Distress
Raveling/weathering (% area)
SN/friction number
Flushing/bleeding (% area)
Transverse crack spacing (ft)
Block cracking (% area)
Fatigue cracking (% area)
Rut depth (inch)
Treatment Performance
Expected life (yr)
Distress type/level at failure
Material/Construction Problems
Poor binder viscosity
Poor aggregate embedment
Dirty aggregate
Excess rock/chip loss
Premature flushing/fat spots
Other
Additional Comments

Interstate
highway
(IH)/rural,
state highway
(SH)/rural
1,000‐10,000
2,000‐>5,000

–
–
–
–
–
–

30

IH/urban,
IH/rural
SH/urban,
SH/rural

Table 9. Survey Results on Aggregate Seals.

Treatment Type
District
Treatment Designation
Unit Cost ($/sy)
Relevant Specifications
Materials Information
Binder/emulsion type
Dilution (%)
Binder application rate (gal/sy)
Aggregate type
TSA (inch)
Aggregate application rate (lb/sy)
Additives
Allowable Road Conditions
Roadway types
ADT range (vpd)
Altitude range
(ft above sea level)
Min./Max. Pavement Distress
Raveling/weathering (% area)
SN/friction number
Flushing/bleeding (% area)
Transverse crack spacing (ft)
Block cracking (% area)
Fatigue cracking (% area)
Rut depth (inch)
Treatment Performance
Expected life (yr)
Distress type/level at failure
Materials/Construction Problems
Poor binder viscosity
Poor aggregate embedment
Dirty aggregate
Excess rock/chip loss
Premature flushing/fat spots
Other
Additional Comments

Safford
Double
application
emulsion
2.00‐3.00
Special
procurement

Polymer‐
modified
chip seal
Tucson
SR 85
(MP 57.9 to
MP 61.2)
0.97
404‐3.14 Chip
seal coat

3.10
CRS‐2P with
SS‐1

CRS‐2P
–
0.40‐0.50

CRS‐2P
–
0.47

CRS‐2P
50:50
0.45

Crushed stone

ADOT chip

Crushed rock

5/16‐3/8
25‐35
Polymer

3/8
26
–

3/8
25
–

SH/rural
–

SH/rural
<1,000‐10,000

SH/rural
1,000‐3,000

SH/rural
3,000‐10,000

<2,000‐5,000

2,000‐3,500

2,000‐>5,000

–

<2,000

20/50 norm.
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

Varies
50
N/A
Varies
Varies
Varies
1‐2

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

–

–

5+

7‐10

–

–

–

10
Stripping and
raveling

–
–
–
–
–
Pavement
failure/lost
cause
–

–
–
–
–
–

–
–
Yes
Yes
–

–
–
–
–
–

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

–

–

–

N/A

–

–

–

–

Scrub seal

Chip seal

Chip seal

Safford

Kingman

–

–

1.00‐1.50

0.45

Not identified

Not identified

CRS
50:50
0.10‐0.20
No
information
–
–
–

PASS
Con.
0.35‐0.42
No
information
3/8
22
–

SH/rural
<1,000

31

Polymer‐
modified
chip seal
Yuma
–

–

Table 10. Survey Results on Slurry Seals and Microseals (Microsurfacings).

Treatment Type

Slurry seal

District
Treatment Designation
Unit Cost ($/sy)

Safford
–
Not identified

Relevant Specifications

–

Microseal/
microsurfacing
Safford
–
2.00‐3.00
Manufacturer or
vendor

Microseal/
microsurfacing
Yuma
–
4.00
–

Materials Information
Binder/emulsion type
Binder content
(% by weight of mix)
Aggregate type
Application rate
(lb/sy of dry aggregate)
Additives
Allowable Road Conditions
Roadway types
ADT range (vpd)
Altitude range (ft above sea level)
Min./Max. Pavement Distress
Raveling/weathering (% area)
SN/friction number
Flushing/bleeding (% area)
Transverse crack spacing (ft)
Block cracking (% area)
Fatigue cracking (% area)
Rut depth (inch)
Treatment Performance
Expected life (yr)
Distress type/level at failure
Materials/Construction Problems
Delayed curing
(Late opening to traffic)
Excessive scuffing
Rapid wear or disintegration
Excessive aggregate loss
Premature flushing/fat spots
Other
Additional Comments

CSS‐1H, CQS‐1H

CSS‐1H

Polymer‐modified
emulsified asphalt

8‐12

6‐11

6‐11.5

Crushed stone

Crushed stone

Crushed stone

25‐30

25‐35

32

–

Polymer

4% solid polymer

3,000‐20,000
–

IH/urban, IH/rural,
SH/urban, SH/rural
>3,000
>2,000

IH/urban, IH/rural,
SH/urban
>3,000
<2,000

Varies
–
–
–
–
–
–

Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A

3‐5
Block cracking

3‐7
Raveling

5
–

Yes

–

N/A

–
Yes
Yes
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–

N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
–

SH/urban, SH/rural

32

Following are more specific observations by treatment type.
Flush Coats/Fog Seals
All four districts responding provided feedback about flush coat or fog seal treatments:
 The range in unit cost for three of the districts was $0.19/sy to $0.30/sy. At $0.50/sy to
$1.00/sy, the unit cost range in the Safford District seems very high.
 Three of the districts identified PASS as the choice of binder/emulsion. Yuma District, on the
other hand, identified CSS‐1 as its typical binder/emulsion.
 The dilution of the emulsion was the same for all four districts (50:50), and the binder
application rates seemed very consistent (0.08 gal/sy to 0.14 gal/sy).
 Three of the four districts permit the application of flush coats on both Interstate and state
highways. Only the Tucson District limits its application to state highways. The Safford and
Yuma districts permit flush coats in both rural and urban settings, while the Kingman and
Yuma districts limit their application to rural settings.
 Three of the districts permit using flush coats on pavements with relatively high‐traffic
levels. The Tucson District limits application to pavements with relatively low‐traffic levels.
 The expected life of a flush coat in the Kingman and Tucson districts is about one to two
years. In the Safford and Yuma districts, it is about three years.
 The Kingman District reported cracking as the distress type at failure (of the flush coat); the
Tucson District reported raveling. The Safford and Yuma districts did not respond.
Scrub Seals
Only the Safford District provided feedback on scrub seals. This treatment is used only on rural state
highways with ADT levels less than 1000 vehicles per day. The unit cost of $1.00/sy to $1.50/sy is
relatively high compared to the conventional chip seals.
Chip Seals
All four districts provided information about their use of chip seals. The only consistent features are
that they all use 3/8‐inch TSA (which it is safe to assume is all crushed material) and they are only
permitted on rural state highways.
 The treatment type and designation information are a little confusing, but it appears that
three of the four districts employ a cationic, rapid‐setting, polymer‐modified emulsion (CRS‐
2P) while the Kingman District uses the PASS emulsion (which is also considered polymer‐
modified). The Safford District uses a double application of emulsion (and supposedly chip),
while the other districts use a single application.
 The range in unit cost is $0.97/sy to $3.10/sy. (The $0.45/sy reported by the Kingman
District is unusually low and may be due to a transcription error.)
 The binder application rate across all four districts ranges from 0.35 gal/sy to 0.47 gal/sy.
33







The aggregate application rate across all four districts ranges from 22 lb/sy to 35 lb/sy.
The allowable range in ADT is from about 1000 to 10,000 vehicles per day for both the
Safford and Yuma districts. The high end of the ADT range for the Tucson District is only
3000 vehicles per day.
The expected life of the chip seals that employ a CRS‐2P binder is from five to 10 years. The
Kingman District does not indicate an expected life for its PASS‐based chip seal.
Only one district (Tucson) identified the typical types of distress at failure of the chip seal.
They were stripping and raveling.

Slurry Seals
Only one district provided information about slurry seals. The Safford District uses slurry seals on its
state highways in both rural and urban settings. The allowable range in ADT is between 3000 and
20,000 vehicles per day while the expected life is between three and five years. No unit cost
information was provided.
Microseals/Microsurfacings
Only the Safford and Yuma districts provided information about their use of microseals
(microsurfacings). The Safford District uses microseals on both state and Interstate highways in both
rural and urban settings. The Yuma District uses microseals on all but rural state highways. Both
districts will use microseals on high‐volume highways (ADT greater than 3000) and target an
application rate of about 25 lb/sy to 35 lb/sy (of dry aggregate). The Yuma District expects a service
life of five years, while the Safford District has a similar expectation (three to seven years).
TREATMENT COSTS
Because of the contracting method used to construct the experimental wearing course and
preventive maintenance treatments, no information is available about unit construction costs of
those treatments. Considering the size and nature of the experiment, there would probably be some
questions about how representative those costs would be if they did exist. Accordingly, cost
information was gathered from four sources to estimate each treatment’s representative unit cost:
 ADOT bid tabs. In May 2011, ADOT analyzed its bid tabulations to determine the typical unit
costs for various wearing course and preventive maintenance treatments.
 ADOT questionnaire. In the questionnaire circulated to all districts in July 2011, four ADOT
districts provided unit cost information for the treatments they typically use.
 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Pavement Preservation Task Group
(PPTG). In 2007, the PPTG Strategy Selection Committee surveyed DOT personnel and
industry representatives to gather cost information about various preventive maintenance
treatments used in the state.

34



HollyFrontier Companies. 2011 estimates for most of the treatments used in the
experiment were provided as a courtesy by an asphalt producer in Phoenix.

Table 11 presents the relevant cost data from these sources along with the recommended unit cost.
Table 11. Summary of Available Unit Cost on Experimental Treatments.

Type of Treatment

Flush coat (fog seal)
Flush coat (PASS)
Scrub seal
Chip seal (CRS‐2)
Chip seal (CRS‐2P)
Chip seal (HF CRS‐2P)
Chip seal (PASS oil/CR)
Chip seal (CM‐90)
Chip seal (AC15‐5TR,
Paramount)
Double application
chip seal
Double application
chip seal and blotter
AR‐chip seal
Slurry seal (Type III)
Microseal (Type III
microsurfacing)
ACFC
AR‐ACFC
P‐ACFC
P‐ACFC (Paramount)
P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+)
SMA
PEM
Bonded wearing course
(Novachip)

ADOT Bid
Tab
Review
2011
0.25
0.27
–
1.66‐1.88
–
–
–
–

Unit Cost ($/sy)
HollyFrontier
Caltrans
ADOT
Estimate
PPTG/SSC
District
2011
Survey 2011 Survey
2011
–
0.15‐0.30
–
0.19‐0.30
0.20‐0.50
0.25‐0.50
1.00‐1.50
–
0.75‐1.50
0.97‐3.10
1.80‐2.00
1.50‐1.75
–
–
1.50‐2.00
–
–
1.50‐2.00
–
–
–
–
–
1.50

Recom‐
mended
0.25
0.27
1.25
1.70
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.50

–

–

–

1.50‐2.00

1.80

–

2.00‐3.00

–

2.50‐3.00

2.75

–

–

–

2.00‐2.50

2.25

–
1.56

–
–

3.75‐4.55
1.60‐2.20

3.00‐4.00
1.50‐2.00

3.50
1.60

1.97

2.00‐4.00

2.00‐2.80

3.00+

2.00

3.30
3.65
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

3.00‐4.00
3.50‐4.50
3.00‐3.50
3:00‐3.50
3.00‐3.50
3.00‐4.00
4.00

3.30
3.65
3.20
3.20
3.30
3.50
4.00

–

–

10.00‐14.00

6.00‐7.00

6.50

35

36

CHAPTER 4. TREATMENT PERFORMANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS
This chapter summarizes the review of the performance and effectiveness of the treatments at both the
wearing course experiment (Phase I) and the preventive maintenance experiment (Phase II) sites.
Included are descriptions of the process used to format the pavement distress/condition data for
analysis and comparison, the statistical and graphical approaches used to analyze the performance data,
the steps followed to determine treatment effectiveness, and the findings of the treatment
performance and effectiveness comparisons.
DETERMINATION OF DEDUCT VALUES FOR VARIOUS DISTRESS TYPES
For purposes of pavement condition assessment, most pavement distresses are characterized by their
type, severity, and extent. Transverse cracking, for example, is measured in terms of crack width
(severity) and length (extent). The problem with this method of characterizing pavement distress is that
it makes it difficult to compare (on a uniform basis) the performance of different pavements or, in this
case, different pavement treatments. For example, consider two pavements, the first exhibiting 200 ft of
narrow (0.1‐inch wide) transverse cracking and the second, 30 ft of wide (0.7‐inch wide) transverse
cracking. It’s hard to answer which pavement is in better condition.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) helped solve this problem by applying the Pavement
Condition Index (PCI) rating procedure (ASTM 2011). In the PCI method, the overall pavement condition
is given as a value between 0 (failed condition) and 100 (excellent condition). The PCI at any time is
computed by subtracting the deduct values (DVs) associated with each observed distress type from 100.
The DV for any given distress is calculated using a system of polynomial equations that were developed
to translate the effect of extent and severity. A description of the DV equations developed by USACE is
presented in Appendix D.
In the PCI procedure, a given pavement is characterized in one of seven conditions depending on its PCI
value. These conditions are represented in Table 12.
Table 12. PCI Ranges for Each Pavement Condition.
PCI Range

Condition

85‐100
70‐84.99
55‐69.99
40‐54.99
25‐39.99
10‐24.99
0‐9.99

Good
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Serious
Failed

Color Code
Green
Light green
Yellow
Light red
Red
Dark red
Gray

37

For this study, these PCI ranges were converted to equivalent ranges in DV. Also the high end of the
good range was divided into good and very good to better distinguish performance of the experimental
treatments. Table 13 shows the pavement conditions associated with the new DV ranges.
Table 13. DV Ranges for Each Pavement Condition.
DV Range

Condition

0.00‐5
5.01‐15
15.01‐30
30.01‐45
45.01‐60
60.01‐75
75.01‐90
90.01‐100

Very good
Good
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Serious
Failed

Color Code
Dark green
Green
Light green
Yellow
Light red
Red
Dark red
Gray

REVIEW OF WEARING COURSE TREATMENTS AT PHASE I TEST SITES
The matrix in Table 4 illustrates the overall layout of the Phase I experiment, including the number of
wearing course sections within each cell of the matrix. This table provides the basis for analyzing and
comparing the performance of the different wearing course treatments seven years after construction.
From an analytical standpoint, two important points must be made about the experiment’s structure:
 It is valid to compare the performance of the wearing course treatments within an individual
experimental site.
 Although near identical mixes were placed on the I‐8 and I‐10 sites at basically the same time
(summer/fall 1999), it is not statistically valid to compare the wearing course treatments’
performance between these sites because of the differences in traffic, environment, and
underlying pavement structure. For these same reasons and because they were constructed
significantly later (April 2001), it is also not statistically valid to compare the section
performance at the SR 74 site with those in the I‐8 and I‐10 sites.
Researchers used a statistical approach to make valid performance comparisons between the wearing
course treatments for the following pavement distress/performance criteria:
 Skid resistance.
 Weathering.
 Bleeding.
 Fatigue cracking.
 LTD cracking.

38

Rutting and patching were also initially considered; however, none of the sections exhibited any
significant levels of these distresses. Surface texture, flushing, swelling, and edge cracking were not
evaluated because these distresses were either considered surrogates for distresses that were being
considered (e.g., surface texture for skid resistance) or were not worth the effort required to evaluate
their impact on treatment comparisons (e.g., edge cracking).
Skid resistance was characterized by SN while all other distress/performance criteria were characterized
by a DV that corresponds to the observed extent and severity. The DVs were calculated using the USACE
DV equations (described earlier) and the pavement distress data obtained as part of the field
performance data collection operations.
Analysis of Pretreatment Milling and Overlay
The wearing course experiment design made it possible to investigate the impact of milling depth and
overlay thickness on wearing course performance. As shown in Table 4, the overlay thickness is constant
(2 inches) while the milling depth varies from 1 to 3 inches in the I‐8 sections. In the I‐10 sections, the
milling depth varies from 2.5 to 4.5 inches while the overlay thickness varies correspondingly from 2 to
4 inches. The fact that they vary in a colinear fashion means that it is not possible to determine their
independent effects. Finally, for the SR 74 sections, the overlay thickness is identical to the milling
depth, which varies from 0 to 3.5 inches.
The bar charts in Appendix E illustrate how the milling depth and overlay thickness affect different
performance measures. In some cases—SN, for example (Table 102)—there is a clear correlation. In
other cases, such as weathering (Table 103), there is no apparent correlation.
To investigate the relationships further, simple linear regression analyses were performed in which
milling depth served as the independent (x) variable and the key performance measures served as the
dependent (y) variable. If the correlation between x and y was significant (i.e., F greater than Fcrit), then
the coefficients (a0 and a1) generated for the linear relationship (below) are considered valid:
y = a0 + a1∙x

(Eq. 1)

The results of the regression analyses for four dependent variables—SN, weathering, fatigue cracking,
and LTD cracking—are presented in Table 14 for the I‐10, I‐8, and SR 74 sites. Bleeding was not included
because it was not observed on any of the sections.

39

Table 14. Equation Coefficients for Relationships between Pavement Performance
Measures and Pretreatment Milling Depth.
Distress/
Performance
Criteria

SN

Weathering
DV

Fatigue
Cracking DV

LTD Cracking
DV

Treatment
Type

I‐10 Site

I‐8 Site

SR 74 Site

a0

a1

r2

a0

ACFC
AR‐ACFC
P‐ACFC
PEM
SMA
TB‐ACFC

71.0
76.0
75.9
64.4
67.2

‐1.75
‐4.00
‐2.25
‐2.25
‐2.25

0.73
0.84
0.84
0.79
0.65

No correlation
61.5 0.75
0.28
62.2 0.50
0.15
No correlation
64.0 ‐1.25
0.40

ACFC
AR‐ACFC
P‐ACFC
PEM
SMA
TB‐ACFC

No correlation
No correlation
‐1.1 4.03
0.25
‐3.4 1.60
0.26
‐3.8 1.33
0.30

ACFC
AR‐ACFC
P‐ACFC
PEM
SMA
TB‐ACFC

64.1 ‐14.9
0.35
No correlation
51.8 ‐11.7
0.30
30.3 ‐6.70
0.33
‐46.8 17.2
0.29

ACFC
AR‐ACFC
P‐ACFC
PEM
SMA
TB‐ACFC

r2

a1

No correlation
No correlation
No correlation
No correlation
No correlation

a0

r2

a1

No correlation
No correlation

71.4

1.14

0.21

4.0
‐25.9

1.06
18.3

0.61
0.59

No correlation

81.4
7.3
73.0
72.3
‐8.1

‐16.3
5.55
‐11.8
‐13.9
10.1

0.94
0.30
0.65
0.93
0.38

10.3 ‐3.88
0.30
5.9 ‐2.20
0.65
No correlation
2.9 ‐1.10
0.30
2.0 ‐0.75
0.30
25.0
43.0
37.1
53.2
44.8

‐5.18
‐12.0
‐7.13
‐14.7
‐9.63

0.43
0.64
0.34
0.88
0.77

2.7
66.3

5.07
‐22.1

0.49
0.33

87.6

‐28.3

0.80

34.7 ‐3.98
0.21
No correlation

55.0

‐13.1

0.80

Key observations from the I‐8 site analysis follow:
 Researchers used milling depth as the independent variable (x) because it was the only factor
that varied in the experiment. Overlay thickness was constant at 2.0 and, therefore, could not
be used to explain variations in wearing course performance.
 The I‐8 sections were constructed in 1999, so the performance of the wearing course treatments
reflects eight years of service.

40









For SN, a statistically significant correlation was found with milling depth for three of the five
wearing course types: AR‐ACFC, P‐ACFC, and SMA. For the remaining two wearing course types
(ACFC and PEM), no significant correlation in the data was detected. Although they were found
to be significant, even the correlations for the AR‐ACFC, P‐ACFC, and SMA treatments are
questionable. The coefficient of determination (r2), which basically indicates how much of the
variability in the data is explained by the relationship, for all three relationships is low (0.15 to
0.40). In addition, the sensitivity of the SN to milling depth for all three relationships is relatively
low. For example, the SMA equation (which has the highest sensitivity) has an a1 coefficient of
‐1.25, which means that an increase in milling depth of 2 inches translates to a reduction in SN
of only 2.5. Overall, the experiment results indicate that the impact of pretreatment milling
depth (along with a fixed 2‐inch HMA overlay) on SN is small enough for all five wearing course
treatments to be considered negligible.
For weathering, no significant correlations were found for any of the wearing course
treatments. Accordingly, the effect of pretreatment milling depth (along with a fixed 2‐inch
HMA overlay) on weathering is 0 for all five wearing course treatments.
For fatigue cracking, statistically significant correlations were found for four of the five
treatments. However, the r2 values were low (0.30) for three of them. Of the four relationships,
the one with the most sensitivity of DV to milling depth has an a1 coefficient of ‐3.88, which
means that for every inch of increased milling depth, there is a 3.88 reduction in DV after eight
years of service. Interestingly, all of the equations have negative a1 coefficients, giving some
indication of a reasonable result. The relationship with the best fit (highest r2) has a negative a1
coefficient of ‐2.20, which translates to a 2.2‐point DV reduction after eight years of service for
every inch of milling depth. Overall, the low r2 values and small a1 coefficients make it difficult to
conclude that pretreatment milling depth (along with a fixed 2‐inch HMA overlay) has a
meaningful impact on fatigue cracking performance of all five wearing course treatments.
For LTD cracking, significant correlations were generated for all five wearing course treatments.
Two of the relationships had relatively low r2 values (0.34 and 0.43) while the remaining three
had moderate to high r2 values (0.64 to 0.88). Overall, the data strongly suggest that increased
milling depth reduces the extent and/or severity of LTD cracking after eight years of service. The
PEM wearing course treatment, where there is a 15‐point DV reduction for every inch increase
in milling depth, seems to be affected the most. The ACFC treatment has the least impact with
only a 5‐point DV reduction after eight years of service for every inch increase in milling depth.
Overall, the magnitude of the r2 values and a1 coefficients indicates that milling depth (along
with a fixed 2‐inch HMA overlay) does have a meaningful impact on LTD cracking performance.
Based upon the results, the impact is greatest for the PEM, AR‐ACFC, and SMA treatments.

Key observations from the I‐10 site analysis follow:
 Milling depth (instead of overlay thickness) was the independent variable for conducting the
statistical analyses and developing the relationships for the I‐10 experimental sections, primarily
to maintain consistency with the relationships developed for the I‐8 site. However, each milling
depth has a corresponding HMA overlay with a thickness that is 0.5 inch thinner.
41










The I‐10 sections were constructed in 1999, so the wearing course treatment performance
reflects eight years of service.
For SN, good to very good correlations were found for all five wearing course treatments
(r2 values in the range of 0.65 to 0.85). Interestingly, the findings indicate that increasing the
milling depth (and overlay thickness) results in lower SNs after eight years of service. The
treatment with the greatest sensitivity is the AR‐ACFC, which after eight years has an 8‐point
lower SN for a 4.5‐inch mill and 4‐inch overlay compared to a 2.5‐inch mill and 2‐inch overlay.
Overall, the impact of milling depth (and corresponding HMA overlay thickness) on SN was
significant, but relatively small, especially when considering how high the SNs were for all five
treatments. All of the treatments had about the same level of sensitivity.
For weathering, only three relationships for the wearing course treatments had a statistically
significant correlation. However, the r2 values were low (0.25 to 0.30). In addition, there is some
additional uncertainty with the three relationships because the positive a1 values mean higher
DVs after eight years of service for the higher levels of milling and overlay performed prior to
wearing course application. Overall, the impact of milling depth (and corresponding HMA
overlay thickness) on weathering is not considered meaningful for any of the five wearing
course treatments.
For fatigue cracking, four of the five wearing course relationships had a statistically significant
correlation. However, all five had low r2 values (0.29 to 0.35). The a1 values for three
relationships are negative, indicating that after eight years of service, the DVs will be 13 to 30
points lower for a 4.5‐inch mill and 4‐inch overlay as compared to a 2.5‐inch mill and 2‐inch
overlay. Only the relationship for the SMA wearing course, with a positive a1 of 17.2, is
questionable. Overall, it is difficult to conclude that the milling depth and the corresponding
HMA overlay thickness have a meaningful impact on fatigue cracking performance. Despite the
magnitude and reasonableness of the a1 values for the ACFC, P‐ACFC, and PEM treatments, the
high positive a1 value for the SMA treatment and the low r2 values create too much uncertainty.
For LTD cracking, relationships were developed for all five wearing course treatments. However,
the r2 values for two of the relationships were below 0.40. For both of those relationships, the a1
values were positive, indicating that an increased milling depth (and overlay thickness) results in
a higher (unreasonable) DV after eight years than a thinner milling depth and overlay thickness.
The other three relationships (ACFC, P‐ACFC, and PEM) have r2 values in the range of 0.65 to
0.94 and negative a1 values, which result in much lower (and more reasonable) DVs after eight
years for the higher milling depths and thicker overlays. ACFC had the greatest sensitivity, which
after eight years has a 32‐point lower DV for a 4.5‐inch mill and 4‐inch overlay as compared to a
2.5‐inch mill and 2‐inch overlay. P‐ACFC had the lowest sensitivity and a 24‐point lower DV.
Overall, there is a good indication that milling depth and the corresponding HMA overlay
thickness have a meaningful impact on LTD cracking performance. The three relationships with
good to high r2 values all have a1 values that reflect reasonable results. The two relationships
that reflect questionable a1 values also have poor r2 values. The treatments that clearly show
better LTD cracking performance with increased milling depth and overlay thickness (prior to
wearing course placement) are the ACFC, PEM, and P‐ACFC wearing courses.
42

Key observations from the SR 74 experimental section analysis follow:
 For consistency, milling depth was the independent variable. However, since milling depth and
overlay thickness are the same for this part of the experiment, it did not matter whether milling
depth or overlay thickness was used as the independent variable.
 The AR‐ACFC and P‐ACFC wearing course treatments used at this site were slightly different
from the AR‐ACFC and P‐ACFC treatments used at the I‐10 and I‐8 sites.
 The SR 74 experimental sections were constructed in 2001, so the performance reflects six years
of service.
 For SN, no correlation with milling depth was found for the AR‐ACFC and P‐ACFC wearing course
treatments. In addition, the TB‐ACFC treatment is suspect because its low r2 value is so low.
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that milling depth and the corresponding overlay
thickness have no impact on SN after six years.
 For weathering, no correlation with milling depth existed for the TB‐ACFC wearing course
treatment. With r2 values of 0.61 and 0.59, the relationships for AR‐ACFC and P‐ACFC,
respectively, have some validity; however, the positive a1 values of 1.06 and 18.3, respectively
produce results that are counterintuitive. Since the a1 values for three of the I‐10 treatments
were positive, too, there is reason to question intuition and i this phenomenon further.
 For fatigue cracking, correlations were found for all three wearing course treatments. The
relationship derived for the TB‐ACFC treatment had the highest r2 value (0.80) and, with an a1
value of ‐28.3, exhibited the highest DV sensitivity for fatigue cracking to the milling depth. This
means that the DV calculated for a 4.5‐inch mill and 4‐inch overlay after eight years of service is
about 57 points lower than the DV calculated for a 2.5‐inch mill and 2‐inch overlay. The
relationship derived for the P‐ACFC treatment has a low r2 value (0.33); however, with an a1
value of ‐22.1, it has a sensitivity that is comparable to that of the TB‐ACFC treatment. The
relationship for the AR‐ACFC treatment has an r2 value of 0.49, but the a1 value is +5.07 and
inconsistent with the expected effect of increased mill depth and overlay thickness on DV.
Overall, the results make estimating the impact of milling and overlay on fatigue cracking
performance difficult. However, the results suggest that the TB‐ACFC and P‐ACFC treatments
perform better with increased pretreatment milling and overlay.
 For LTD cracking, no correlation existed for the P‐ACFC treatment. However, correlations were
found for the AR‐ACFC and TB‐ACFC treatments. With r2 values of 0.21 and 0.80, respectively,
the AR‐ACFC relationship is considered questionable and the TB‐ACFC relationship is considered
valid. The a1 values are both negative and consistent with the negative a1 values determined for
the I‐10 and I‐8 LTD cracking relationships. Overall, the results indicate that LTD cracking is
affected by milling depth and thickness of HMA overlay placed prior to the wearing course. The
TB‐ACFC treatment reflects the highest performance benefit.

43

Analysis of Treatment Performance
Researchers compared the individual treatment performance within each experimental site using a
statistically rigorous approach and a basic ranking process. Since the pretreatment milling and overlay
analysis did not show a consistent effect for any distress type (with the possible exception of LTD
cracking), the mill and overlay variability was not considered in the comparison.
To determine if the overall variability of treatment performance was low enough to compare the
differences in performance between treatments, researchers performed an analysis of variance
(ANOVA). If the overall variability established by the ANOVA was too high, there was no statistical
justification for comparing treatment performance within a given site. If the overall variability was low
enough, then the mean performance of each treatment was compared against the treatment exhibiting
the best performance using a Student’s t test (Ross 2004). The t tests were performed assuming a null
hypothesis that there is no difference between the mean performance of the two sections, a one‐tail
comparison, an alpha level of 0.10 (i.e., 90 percent confidence level), and equal section variances (most
of the time). In some instances, the performance variability of one section was so different that it was
necessary to assume unequal variances.
The output of the t test includes:
 A calculated t‐value (t) for a given performance comparison between any one treatment and the
treatment that exhibited the best performance.
 A critical t‐value (tcrit) that is determined from the Student’s t distribution (based upon the
number of performance measurements within each section, the alpha level, and the one‐tail
comparison).
 A probability value (P) that represents the probability that t is less than or equal to tcrit.
In evaluating the test results, the null hypothesis is accepted if t is less than or equal to tcrit. If t is greater
than tcrit, then the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternate hypothesis (i.e., the performance of the
two sections is different) is accepted. In simpler terms, if t is greater than tcrit, then there is a statistically
significant difference in the performance of the two sections. The P‐value indicates the probability that
the section with the poorer performance may actually perform better than the section with the best
performance. Thus, a low P‐value translates to a higher likelihood that performance of the two sections
is different, and when P is less than the selected alpha level of 0.10, researchers reject the null
hypothesis that the performance of the two sections is equal.
In addition to this more rigorous statistical approach, researchers devised a simpler yet practical
approach for grouping the different treatments based upon their overall performance. For a given
treatment and a given distress/performance measure, they calculated a 60th percentile value for the
distress measure (usually DV) using the mean and standard deviation of the distress as well as the
standard normal deviate that corresponds to 60 percent of the area in a normal distribution. Then they
used the 60th percentile value to rank each treatment at each site within one of the eight conditions
44

(defined in Table 13). Originally, the mean (or 50th percentile) value was used to rank the treatments,
but it did not effectively discriminate against treatments with higher levels of performance variability.
Researchers did not use the results of the Student’s t analysis as a basis for grouping (or regrouping) the
treatments into different conditions primarily because it is possible to have treatments that exhibit
significantly different performance and still be in the same condition. It is also possible that a treatment
in a poorer condition could have equal statistical performance (compared to the best‐performing
treatment) only because the treatment variability was high.
A discussion of the seven pavement performance categories follows.
SN
Table 102 in Appendix E provides the section data, measured SNs, mean and standard deviation of SNs,
and graphical results used to visually compare the skid performance of the Phase I sections. ANOVAs
conducted on the skid data from all three sites confirm what is apparent by visual examination—that
the overall variability is low enough to compare the skid performance of the treatments within each site.
Tables 15, 16, and 17 summarize the findings relative to the skid performance and treatment
comparisons on the I‐10, I ‐8, and SR 74 sections, respectively. The sections are sorted from apparent
best to worst based on their 60th percentile SNs. In practice, an SN of 35 suggests the pavement should
receive some type of treatment to restore skid resistance since values below 35 significantly increase
the likelihood of wet weather accidents. Unlike most of the other pavement distress measures, the
USACE did not develop any equations to relate SN to DV. Thus, for this study researchers employed
engineering judgment to relate ranges in SN to different conditions:
 Failed: SN less than 30.
 Poor: SN between 30 and 34.99.
 Fair: SN between 35 and 39.99.
 Satisfactory: SN between 40 and 49.99.
 Good: SN between 50 and 59.99.
 Very good: SN greater than 60.

45

Table 15. Skid Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.
Wearing
Course
Treatment
P‐ACFC
(¾‐inch TSA)
ACFC
(¾‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC
Control
(½‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(¾‐inch TSA)
SMA
(¾‐inch TSA)
PEM
(1¼‐inch
TSA)

SN
Sections

Student’s t Test Results
th

Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

–

–

–

–

–

Equal

2.71

1.37

0.011

Reject

Very
good

Equal

1.47

1.44

0.096

Reject

61.0

Very
good

Equal

3.29

1.37

0.004

Reject

2.5

58.7

Good

Equal

6.38

1.37

0.000

Reject

2.3

55.9

Good

Equal

8.95

1.37

0.000

Reject

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

6

68.0

65‐71

2.2

67.4

6

64.8

63‐68

1.8

64.4

2

63.5

58‐69

7.8

61.5

6

62.0

57‐68

3.9

6

59.3

57‐64

6

56.5

53‐59

Cond.
Very
good
Very
good

Table 16. Skid Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections.
Wearing
Course
Treatment
P‐ACFC
(¾‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(¾‐inch TSA)
ACFC
(¾‐inch TSA)
SMA
(¾‐inch TSA)
PEM
(1¼‐inch
TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(½‐inch TSA)
Control

SN
Sections

Mean Range

Std.
Dev.

60

th

%ile

6

63.2

62‐65

1.2

62.9

6

63.0

62‐65

1.3

62.7

6

62.7

62‐63

0.5

62.5

6

61.5

59‐64

1.8

61.1

6

60.7

58‐64

2.2

60.1

2

No
data

–

–

–

46

Cond. Variance
Very
good
Very
good
Very
good
Very
good

Student’s t Test Results
P

t

tcrit

(t<tcrit)

Null

Hyp

–

–

–

–

–

Equal

0.24

1.37

0.409

Accept

Equal

0.96

1.37

0.181

Accept

Equal

1.93

1.37

0.041

Reject

Very
good

Equal

2.49

1.37

0.016

Reject

–

–

–

–

–

–

Table 17. Skid Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.
Wearing
Course
Sections
Treatment
P‐ACFC
(3/8‐inch TSA,
5
PG 76‐22+)
TB‐ACFC
(3/8‐inch TSA,
6
PG 76‐22 TR+)
AR‐ACFC
(3/8‐inch TSA,
7
PG 64‐16,
CRA‐1)

SN
Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Cond. Variance

Student’s t Test Results
P
t
tcrit
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

Mean

Range

73.8

69‐81

4.4

72.7

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

73.3

67‐76

3.4

72.5

Very
good

Equal

0.20

1.38

0.424

Accept

68.9

66‐71

1.7

68.4

Very
good

Equal

2.73

1.37

0.011

Reject

Since all wearing course sections exhibited SN values greater than 50 after eight years of service, they all
performed very well and any treatment can be used successfully to provide good skid resistance. A
closer examination of the results from both statistical and practical perspectives indicates the following:
 I‐10 site. Table 15 indicates that the skid performance of the P‐ACFC treatment was significantly
better than all the other treatments from a statistical standpoint. However, from a practical
standpoint, the ACFC and both AR‐ACFC treatments provided comparable skid performance. All
three treatments were grouped in the very good range. With SN values roughly 10 points below
the P‐ACFC treatment, the SMA and PEM treatments exhibited poorer, but not much poorer,
skid performance. They were both ranked good.
 I‐8 site. Table 16 indicates that statistically, the skid performance of the P‐ACFC, AR‐ACFC, and
ACFC treatments was the same, while the performance of the SMA and PEM treatments was
significantly poorer. However, from a practical standpoint, all five treatments exhibited the
same performance and were ranked very good.
 SR 74 site. Table 17 shows that from a statistical standpoint, the performance of the P‐ACFC and
TB‐ACFC treatments was the same, while the performance of the AR‐ACFC treatment was
significantly poorer. From a practical standpoint, however, all the treatments provided excellent
skid performance and were ranked very good.
Researchers noted an apparent correlation between skid resistance and the HMA overlay thickness at
the I‐10 site. However, they did not confirm or evaluate the correlation.

47

Weathering
Table 103 in Appendix E provides the section data, calculated DVs (for weathering), mean and standard
deviation of DVs, and graphical results used to visually compare the weathering performance of the
Phase I sections. ANOVAs conducted on the weathering data from all three sites indicate that the overall
variability was low enough to compare the weathering performance of the treatments within each site.
Tables 18, 19, and 20 summarize the findings relative to the weathering performance of the I‐10, I‐8,
and SR 74 sections, respectively. The sections are sorted from best to worst based on their
60th percentile DVs.
The graphical results in Table 103 suggest that there is some consistency in weathering performance of
the sections for a given treatment at a given site. This is also reflected in Table 18 and 19 by the low
standard deviations in treatment performance at both the I‐10 and I‐8 sites. In addition, the treatments
exhibit some meaningful differences in weathering performance:
 I‐10 site. Based upon the results shown in Table 18, the AR‐ACFC treatments (1/2‐inch and 3/4‐
inch TSA) or the SMA treatment did not exhibit a significant difference in the weathering
performance. Also, the PEM, ACFC, and P‐ACFC treatment performance was significantly poorer.
From a practical standpoint, however, the PEM treatment performance was the same as the top
three treatments, and all four were grouped in the very good range. The ACFC and P‐ACFC
treatments exhibited slightly poorer performance and are grouped in the good range.
 I‐8 site. The results in Table 19 indicate that the weathering performance of the SMA, ACFC,
PEM, and AR‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) treatments was the same, while the performance of the P‐
ACFC treatment was slightly poorer. From a practical standpoint, the weathering performance
was the same for all five treatments, and all five were ranked very good.
 SR 74 site. Based upon the results in Table 20, there was agreement from both the statistical
and practical perspectives. The weathering performance of the AR‐ACFC treatment, which was
ranked good, was clearly better than that of both P‐ACFC and TB‐ACFC treatments, which were
ranked satisfactory.
Bleeding
Table 104 in Appendix E shows that of the 80 sections at all three wearing course sites, only one
section—AR‐ACFC on I‐10—exhibited bleeding eight years after construction. Rigorous statistical
analyses are not required to conclude that all the treatments in all the sites performed equally well and
all were ranked in the very good range.

48

Table 18. Weathering Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.
Wearing
Course
Sections
Treatment
AR‐ACFC
(¾‐inch
TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(½‐inch
TSA)
Control
SMA
(¾‐inch
TSA)
PEM
(1¼‐inch
TSA)
ACFC
(¾‐inch
TSA)
P‐ACFC
(¾‐inch
TSA)

Weathering DV

Student’s t Test Results
th

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

Cond. Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

6

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

6

0.9

0‐5

2.2

1.4

Very
good

Equal

1.00

1.37

0.170

Accept

6

2.2

0‐7

2.8

2.9

Very
good

Equal

1.94

1.37

0.040

Reject

6

6.7

0‐10

4.1

7.8

Good

Equal

4.04

1.37

0.001

Reject

6

13.0

2‐22

7.2

14.8

Good Unequal

4.43

1.48

0.003

Reject

49

Table 19. Weathering Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections.
Wearing
Course
Treatment
SMA
(¾‐inch
TSA)
ACFC
(¾‐inch
TSA)
PEM
(1¼‐inch
TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(¾‐inch
TSA)
P‐ACFC
(¾‐inch
TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(½‐inch
TSA)
Control

Sections

6

6

6

Mean
0.0

0.1

0.2

Weathering DV
Std.
60th
Range
Dev. %ile
0

0‐0.4

0‐1

0.0

0.2

0.4

Cond.

Student’s t Test Results
Variance
P
Null
t
tcrit
(t<tcrit) Hyp.

0.0

Very
good

–

–

–

0.1

Very
good

Equal

1.00

1.37

0.170 Accept

0.3

Very
good

Equal

1.25

1.37

0.120 Accept

Equal

1.00

1.37

0.170 Accept

–

–

6

0.3

0‐2

0.8

0.5

Very
good

6

2.1

0‐4

1.8

2.6

Very
good

Equal

2.91

1.37

0.008

Reject

2

No
data

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

Table 20. Weathering Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.
Weathering DV
Student’s t Test Results
Wearing
th
Course
Sections
Cond. Variance
Std.
60
P
Null
t
tcrit
Mean Range
Treatment
%ile
Dev.
(t<tcrit) Hyp.
AR‐ACFC
(3/8‐inch TSA,
7
5.2
3‐8
2.0
5.7
Good
–
–
–
–
–
PG 64‐16,
CRA‐1)
P‐ACFC
Satis‐
(3/8‐inch TSA,
6
18.0 6‐39
13.0
21.3
Unequal 2.18 1.53 0.047 Reject
factory
PG 76 22+)
TB‐ACFC
Satis‐
(3/8‐inch TSA,
5
24.7 15‐47 11.9
27.7
Unequal 3.97 1.48 0.005 Reject
factory
PG 76‐22TR+)

50

Fatigue Cracking
Table 105 in Appendix E provides the section data, calculated DVs (for fatigue cracking), mean and
standard deviation of DVs, and graphical results used to visually compare the fatigue cracking
performance of the Phase I sections. ANOVAs conducted on data from each of the three sites indicate
that the variability of performance is too large to make statistically valid performance comparisons
between the treatments. This variability is likely due to the fact that fatigue cracking is affected more by
site conditions (i.e., structure, traffic loading, subgrade soil conditions, and environment) than by the
various treatments. Because of the high variability, no Student’s t analyses were performed.
Tables 21, 22, and 23 summarize fatigue cracking performance of the I‐10, I‐8, and SR 74 sections,
respectively. The sections are sorted from best to worst based on their mean DVs.
Table 21. Fatigue Cracking Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.
Fatigue Cracking DV
Wearing Course Treatment
AR‐ACFC (½‐inch TSA)
Control
PEM (1¼‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
SMA (¾‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Condition

2

0.0

0

0.0

0.0

Very good

6
6
6
6
6

6.9
11.0
12.1
13.5
19.3

0‐27
0‐47
0‐56
0‐72
0‐54

10.4
19.1
22.3
28.7
22.8

9.5
15.9
17.8
20.7
25.1

Good
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory

Sections

Table 22. Fatigue Cracking Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections.
Fatigue Cracking DV
Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Condition

6
6
6
6
6

0.0
0.5
0.7
1.5
2.6

0
0‐3
0‐4
0‐6
0‐16

0
1.2
1.8
2.4
6.3

0.0
0.8
1.2
2.1
4.2

Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good
Very good

2

No data

–

–

–

–

Wearing Course Treatment

Sections

P‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
SMA (¾‐inch TSA)
PEM (1¼‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (½‐inch TSA)
Control

51

Table 23. Fatigue Cracking Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.
Fatigue Cracking DV
Wearing Course Treatment
AR‐ACFC (3/8‐inch TSA,
PG 64‐16, CRA‐1)
P‐ACFC
(3/8‐inch TSA, PG 76‐22+)
TB‐ACFC (3/8‐inch TSA,
PG 76‐22 TR+)

Sections

60th
%ile

Condition

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

7

8.5

0‐27

10.6

11.2

Good

5

13.3

0‐49

21.2

18.6

Satisfactory

6

40.4

0‐99

43.2

51.3

Poor

The graphs presented in Table 105 as well as the data in Tables 21, 22, and 23 indicate the development
of fatigue cracking in multiple sections of all but one of the wearing course treatments at the I‐10 and
SR 74 sites. Only the two 1/2‐inch TSA AR‐ACFC treatment sections did not exhibit fatigue cracking.
Fatigue cracking was also seen in each of the treatments at the I‐8 site, but at much lower levels than
seen in the I‐10 and SR 74 sites. Also, there is some indication that the thin overlay sections developed
fatigue cracking earlier than the sections with the thicker overlays; however, researchers did not explore
this finding.
Following are observations from a practical standpoint about the fatigue cracking performance of the
treatments at each site:
 I‐10 site. As can be seen in Table 21, the within‐treatment variability of performance was high
for five of the six treatments. Half of the sections within each of the five treatments exhibited no
fatigue cracking, while the other half exhibited fatigue cracking in varying degrees. Based upon
the results, it is difficult to conclude that the 1/2‐inch TSA AR‐ACFC treatment (control section)
was the best‐performing treatment since the near‐identical 3/4‐inch TSA AR‐ACFC treatment
was the worst performer. Treatment performance at this site clearly supported the ANOVA
results. Overall, the range in treatment performance at this site was between fair and very good.
 I‐8 site. Table 22 indicates that fatigue cracking was not a significant problem with any of the
treatments at this site. In general, only one of the six sections within a given treatment exhibited
fatigue cracking and it was not at a high level. Thus, the performance of all the treatments at
this site was basically the same, and all were grouped in the very good range.
 SR 74 site. Table 23 indicates that like the I‐10 site, the within‐treatment performance of the
SR 74 treatments was high (especially high for the TB‐ACFC treatment). The range in
performance was between poor and good, with the TB‐ACFC treatment clearly performing
worse than the AR‐ACFC and P‐ACFC treatments.

52

LTD Cracking
Table 106 in Appendix E provides the section data, calculated DVs (for LTD cracking), mean and standard
deviation of DVs, and graphical results used to visually compare the LTD cracking performance of the
Phase I sections. ANOVAs conducted on data from the three sites indicate that the variability of
performance was too large to make statistically valid performance comparisons between the
treatments. Consequently, no Student’s t analyses were performed.
Tables 24, 25, and 26 summarize LTD cracking performance of the I‐10, I ‐8, and SR 74 sections,
respectively. The sections are sorted from best to worst based on their mean DVs.
Table 24. LTD Cracking Performance of the I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.
LTD Cracking DV
Wearing Course Treatment
AR‐ACFC (½‐inch TSA)
Control
PEM (1¼‐inch TSA)
ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
SMA (¾‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Condition

2

16.0

12‐20

5.8

17.5

Satisfactory

6
6
6
6
6

23.8
24.4
26.8
27.3
31.9

10‐43
8‐44
15‐41
8‐51
17‐48

12.9
15.0
9.1
14.6
13.1

27.0
28.2
29.1
31.0
35.2

Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Fair
Fair

Sections

Table 25. LTD Cracking Performance of the I‐8 Wearing Course Sections.
LTD Cracking DV
Wearing Course Treatment

Sections

ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC (¾‐inch TSA)
PEM (1¼‐inch TSA)
SMA (¾‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC (½‐inch TSA) Control

6
6
6
6
6
2

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Condition

14.6
19.0
22.8
23.7
25.6
No data

7‐24
0‐37
14‐43
7‐45
15‐41
–

7.0
13.5
10.9
14.0
9.8
–

16.4
22.4
25.6
27.3
28.0
–

Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
–

53

Table 26. LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.
LTD Cracking DV
Wearing Course Treatment
P‐ACFC
(3/8‐inch TSA, PG 76‐22+)
AR‐ACFC (3/8‐inch TSA,
PG 64‐16, CRA‐1)
TB‐ACFC (3/8‐inch TSA,
PG 76‐22 TR+)

Sections

60th
%ile

Condition

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

5

29.5

17‐39

8.2

31.6

Fair

7

30.1

9‐47

12.9

33.4

Fair

6

33.3

11‐61

20.0

38.3

Fair

Table 106 in Appendix E along with the summary results presented in Tables 24, 25, and 26, indicates
LTD cracking in all treatment sections at all three sites. Like the fatigue cracking analysis, there is
significant variability in performance within each treatment that can also be attributed to the effects of
site conditions more than to the treatment effects. Below are general observations about the LTD crack
performance at the three sites:
 I‐10 site. The LTD crack performance for individual sections within the treatments ranges from
fair to satisfactory (Table 24). The 1/2‐inch TSA AR‐ACFC (two control sections) showed slightly
better performance than the rest. However, since the LTD crack performance of the near‐
identical 3/4‐inch AR‐ACFC is not good, it is difficult to conclude that the 1/2‐inch TSA AR‐ACFC
is significantly better. Overall, the AR‐ACFC (1/2‐inch and 3/4‐inch TSA), the PEM, and the ACFC
treatments were ranked satisfactory, while the SMA and P‐ACFC treatments were ranked fair.
 I‐8 site. All five treatments at the I‐8 site performed similarly with the ACFC treatment showing
slightly better LTD crack performance (Table 25). All five treatments were grouped in the
satisfactory range.
 SR 74 site. The performance of all three treatments at the SR 74 site is basically the same and
not very good (Table 26). All three were ranked fair.
Rutting
Table 107 in Appendix E indicates that no rutting was present on any of the treatments at any of the
sites. However, for most of the data collection, rutting was recorded as 0 unless it exceeded 0.25 inches.
Overall, this is considered very good performance although it is likely more related to the stability and
stiffness of the overlay placed before the wearing course treatment.

54

Patching
Table 108 in Appendix E indicates that no patching was observed on any of the treatments at the three
sites, which is considered very good performance for all treatments.
Overall Assessment of Wearing Course Treatments
Treatment Performance
Table 27 provides a summary of the pavement performance rankings for all Phase 1 wearing course
treatments. As previously described, these rankings are based upon the calculated 60th percentile DV (or
SN, in the case of skid resistance) and the pre‐established ranges for the different pavement conditions.
Using the summary performance results in Table 27 to identify which treatments are the best
performers, which are satisfactory, and which should be avoided, rutting and patching can be eliminated
as evaluation criteria because all the treatments performed identically. (No distress in these categories
was observed.)
Table 27. Overall Performance Comparison of Phase I Wearing Course Treatments
Based on 60th Percentile SNs and DVs.
Skid Resistance
Weathering (DV) Bleeding (DV)
(SN)

Wearing Course
Treatment
I‐10
ACFC (3/4‐in TSA)
64.4
AR‐ACFC (1/2‐in TSA)
61.5
AR‐ACFC (3/4‐in TSA)
61.0
P‐ACFC (3/4‐in TSA)
67.4
PEM (1 1/4‐in TSA)
55.9
SMA (3/4‐in TSA)
58.7
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1, 3/8‐in TSA)
P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+, 3/8‐in TSA)
TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐22 TR+, 3/8‐in TSA)

I‐8 SR 74 I‐10 I‐8 SR 74
62.5
7.8 0.1
0.0
62.7
0.0 0.5
62.9
14.8 2.6
60.1
2.9 0.3
61.1
1.4 0.0
68.4
5.7
72.7
21.3
72.5
27.7

Legend:
Pavement Condition
Very good
Good
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
Very poor
Serious
Failed

Color Code

55

I‐10
0.0
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
0.0

Fatigue Cracking
LTD Cracking (DV)
(DV)

I‐8 SR 74 I‐10 I‐8
0.0
17.8 4.2
0.0
0.0
25.1 2.1
0.0
15.9 0.0
0.0
9.5 1.2
0.0
20.7 0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0

SR 74 I‐10
28.2
17.5
29.1
35.2
27.0
31.0
11.2
18.6
51.3

I‐8 SR 74
16.4
22.4
25.6
27.3
28.0
33.4
31.6
38.3

Based upon the remaining pavement performance evaluation criteria, researchers made several
observations about the I‐10 and I‐8 sites:
 Despite the differences in traffic and environment, it is reasonable to evaluate the overall
performance of the I‐10 and I‐8 treatments together because they are the same at both sites.
The I‐10 sections experienced a higher rate of deterioration than the I‐8 sites, but the difference
was not so great that separate assessments were warranted.


The AR‐ACFC (1/2‐inch TSA control) treatment clearly provided the best overall performance.
Although no sections of this type were constructed along I‐8, it is logical to assume that
comparisons based solely on I‐10 results are valid since the deterioration rate along I‐10 was
significantly greater, especially for fatigue cracking. The AR‐ACFC (1/2‐inch TSA control)
exhibited very good skid resistance, weathering, bleeding, and fatigue cracking performance,
and satisfactory LTD cracking performance; however, its 60th percentile DV was lower than any
of the other treatments. This treatment’s average condition was very good.



The ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA), PEM (1‐1/4‐inch TSA), and AR‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) treatments all
ranked second in overall performance. All three exhibited very good skid resistance and
bleeding performance, although the PEM (1‐1/4‐inch TSA) treatment exhibited only good
performance at the I‐10 site. Each exhibited very good weathering performance, although the
ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) exhibited only good performance at the I‐10 site. All three exhibited
satisfactory LTD cracking performance. In terms of fatigue cracking, the AR‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA)
and ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) treatments were rated satisfactory to very good, while the PEM (1‐1/4‐
inch TSA) treatment performed slightly better (in the good to very good range). The average
condition of these treatments was good.



The SMA (3/4‐inch TSA) and P‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) ranked third in overall performance. In terms
of skid resistance, the P‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) treatment was ranked very good, while the SMA
(3/4‐inch TSA) ranked in the good to very good range. In contrast, the SMA (3/4‐inch TSA)
performed slightly better in terms of weathering (very good) than the P‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA)
treatment, which exhibited good to very good performance. Both treatments performed
identically in terms of bleeding (very good), fatigue cracking (satisfactory to very good), and LTD
cracking (fair to satisfactory). The average condition of these treatments was good.



All of the wearing course treatments constructed at the I‐10 and I‐8 sites performed well in
terms of the key pavement performance criteria (i.e., skid resistance, weathering, and bleeding).
In general, they also all performed very well in terms of other pavement performance criteria
typically applied to structural rehabilitation treatments—each of the wearing course treatments
was preceded by some type of mill and overlay treatment that likely had the greater effect on
structural performance.

56

Following are observations about the overall performance of the wearing course treatments constructed
on the SR 74 site. Again, no rutting or patching was observed at these sites and, therefore, neither
affects the performance assessment:
 The AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐28, CRA‐1) and P‐ACFC (PG 75‐22+) treatments performed similarly to the
typical AR‐ACFC and P‐ACFC treatments constructed on the I‐10 and I‐8 sites. However, they are
two years younger and there are some differences in the binder types. Accordingly, no
comparisons were made to treatment performance at the I‐10 and I‐8 sites.


The AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐28, CRA‐1) treatment provided the best overall performance at the SR 74
site. The levels of skid resistance and bleeding were very good while weathering was good. The
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐28, CRA‐1) treatment also exhibited a relatively low level of fatigue cracking
(ranked good), even though four of the seven sections were constructed on the original
pavement (without an HMA overlay). Its LTD cracking performance was fair, which may be
attributed to reflection cracking in the sections where the wearing course treatment was placed
directly on the original pavement. The average condition of this treatment was good.



The P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+) treatment ranked second in terms of performance at the SR 74 site. Like
the AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐28, CRA‐1) treatment, it exhibited very good skid resistance and bleeding
performance, and fair LTD cracking performance. However, the weathering and fatigue cracking
performances were only satisfactory. The average condition of the treatment was good.



As with the AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐28, CRA‐1) and P‐ACFC (PG 75‐22+) treatments, the TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐
22TR+) treatment exhibited very good skid resistance and bleeding performance, and fair LTD
cracking performance. However, weathering was satisfactory and fatigue cracking was only
poor. The higher levels of fatigue cracking and LTD cracking do not necessarily indicate a
problem with the treatment, as the two sections which did not receive a mill and overlay
exhibited the highest levels of fatigue cracking and LTD cracking. The average condition of this
treatment was satisfactory.

Treatment Cost‐Effectiveness
Since cost is an important factor in selecting an effective wearing course treatment, researchers
compared the cost‐effectiveness of each experimental treatment. They used a benefit/cost (B/C)
approach in which the benefit (B) was a measure of treatment performance and the cost (C) was an
estimate of the treatment unit cost. The basic formula used to calculate B was designed to consider an
increasing B as good and a decreasing B as not good. Since a high DV is not good, this meant that B had
to be determined based upon a reverse value (e.g., B = 100 ‐ DV). To ensure that the performance was
determined over a practical range of performance measure, researchers assigned a minimum threshold
value. For SN, the minimum threshold selected was 30, which is five points below the typical minimum
SN trigger value of 35. For DV, the minimum threshold value selected was 60, which corresponds to the

57

typical PCI trigger value for pavement rehabilitation. Based on these criteria, the equation used to
determine B based on SN was:
BSN = SN ‐ 30

(Eq. 2)

while the equation for B based upon the DV (for all other performance measures) was
BDV = 60 ‐ DV

(Eq. 3)

Researchers determined each treatment’s B/C as a ratio of B to C, where C was estimated based upon
the treatment cost data presented in Table 11. The B/C calculations for each wearing course treatment
were made and tabulated in a format similar to that used for the performance comparisons. To provide
for a visual comparison, the cells were shaded from light to dark to represent a very low to very high
range in B/C. Researchers established the SN and DV boundaries for each cost‐effectiveness level based
upon an analysis of a matrix of possible B/C ratios. Very high represents the top 10 percent of the
distribution, high represents the distribution between 75 and 90 percent, moderate represents the
distribution between 60 and 75 percent, low represents the distribution between 40 and 60 percent,
and very low represents the distribution below 40 percent. Table 28 presents the final results.
Using the results of Table 28 for the I‐10 and I‐8 sites, researchers assigned a cost‐effectiveness level
(very high = 5, high = 4, moderate = 3, and so on) for each performance measure and then averaged all
levels to calculate an overall mean cost‐effectiveness score (MCES) for each treatment. The wearing
course treatments were ranked based on the highest MCES.
 With an MCES of 4.3, the most cost‐effective treatment is the ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) treatment. It
was the lowest cost treatment and ranked in the second tier in terms of performance.
 With an MCES of 4.0, the AR‐ACFC (1/2‐inch TSA) treatment was the second‐most cost‐effective.
All five performance measures had a high level of cost‐effectiveness. Also, the treatment’s
performance was ranked best overall.
 The P‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) treatment’s MCES was 3.8, ranking third in cost‐effectiveness. It was
also ranked in the third tier in terms of performance.
 The MCES for both the AR‐ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA) and SMA (3/4‐inch TSA) treatments was 3.6,
which ranks them fourth in cost‐effectiveness. In terms of performance, the AR‐ACFR (3/4‐inch
TSA) was ranked in the second tier, while the SMA (3/4‐inch TSA) was ranked in the third tier.
 The PEM (1‐1/4‐inch TSA) treatment, with an MCES of 3.5, ranked the lowest. This treatment
had the highest estimated unit cost and did not perform as well as the other treatments in
terms of skid resistance and LTD cracking. This treatment’s performance, however, ranked in the
second tier.

58

59

Cost Effectiveness
Very High
High
Moderate
Low
Very Low

Legend:
For SN
≥ 10.0
7.50‐9.99
5.25‐7.49
3.00‐5.24
< 3.0

Estimated
Wearing Course Treatment
Cost
($/SY)
ACFC (3/4‐in TSA)
3.30
AR‐ACFC (1/2‐in TSA)
3.55
AR‐ACFC (3/4‐in TSA)
3.70
P‐ACFC (3/4‐in TSA)
3.40
PEM (1 1/4‐in TSA)
4.00
SMA (3/4‐in TSA)
3.50
AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐16, CRA‐1, 3/8‐in TSA)
3.75
P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+, 3/8‐in TSA)
3.40
TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐22 TR+, 3/8‐in TSA)
3.50
I‐8 SR‐74 I‐10
9.8
15.8
16.9
8.8
16.2
9.7
13.3
7.5
14.3
8.9
16.7
10.2
12.6
12.1

For DV
> 18.0
11.5‐18.0
8.5‐11.49
5.6‐8.49
< 5.6

I‐10
10.4
8.9
8.4
11.0
6.5
8.2
16.2
17.6
15.0
17.1

I‐8
18.2

Fatigue Cracking
Mean
LTD Cracking (DV)
(DV)
CE
SR‐74 I‐10 I‐8 SR‐74 I‐10 I‐8 SR‐74 Score
12.8 16.9
9.6 13.2
4.3
16.9
12.0
4.0
9.4 15.6
8.4 10.2
3.6
13.0 17.6
7.3 10.1
3.8
12.6 14.7
8.3 8.2
3.5
11.2 16.9
8.3 9.1
3.6
16.0
13.0
7.1 3.8
17.6
12.2
8.4 3.6
17.1
2.5
6.2 3.0

Bleeding (DV)

I‐8 SR‐74 I‐10
18.2
18.2
16.9
16.1
15.6
16.9
17.6
14.9
15.0
17.1
17.1
14.5
11.4
9.2

Skid Resistance
Weathering (DV)
(SN)

Table 28. Comparison of Cost‐Effectiveness of Phase I Wearing Course Treatments.

The rankings of the three wearing course treatments constructed at the SR 74 site follow:
 The AR‐ACFC (PG 64‐28, CRA‐1, 3/8‐inch TSA) treatment was the most cost‐effective because it
had an MCES of 3.8. This treatment’s performance was also ranked best.
 The P‐ACFC (PG 75‐22+, 3/8‐inch TSA) treatment had an MCES of 3.6 and was ranked second in
cost‐effectiveness. It was also ranked second in performance.
 The TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐22TR+, 3/8‐inch TSA) treatment had an MCES of 3.0 and was ranked last in
terms of both cost‐effectiveness and performance.
REVIEW OF PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE TREATMENTS AT PHASE II TEST SITES
Researchers used the data in Table 5 to analyze and compare the performance of the different
preventive maintenance treatments seven years after construction. From an analytical standpoint, three
important points can be made about the structure of this experiment:
 Comparing preventive maintenance treatment performance within an individual experimental
site is valid.
 Comparing preventive maintenance treatment performance between these sites is not
statistically valid because of the likely differences in traffic, environment, and underlying
pavement structure.
 Comparing treatment performance at the U.S. 191 sites are generally more meaningful than the
other three sites because they are based on the performance of four sections for a given
treatment rather than two.
As in the wearing course treatment evaluation, researchers used a statistics‐based approach to make
valid performance comparisons between the preventive maintenance treatments. In this case, only
three pavement distress/performance criteria were evaluated: weathering, flushing, and LTD cracking.
Because of the importance of considering skid resistance in assessing and comparing individual
treatment performance, the research team did plan to include SN as another performance criterion (as
in the wearing course experiment). Unfortunately, skid test data were collected at only one of the four
experimental sites: SR 83. Researchers attempted to compensate by estimating the SN for each
preventive maintenance experimental section using a relationship developed from MPD and SN data
from the wearing course experiment and using a correlation developed under NCHRP Project 1‐43 (Hall
et al. 2009) that relates friction number to the CT meter and DF test results. Unfortunately, the
correlation between SN and MPD was not very good in the first case, and in the second case, the
predicted SNs did not compare (at all) with the measured SNs at the SR 83 experimental site. However,
the average and standard deviation of the CT meter test results for the preventive maintenance sections
(1.49 mm and 0.43 mm, respectively) is basically the same as the average and standard deviation of the
CT meter test results for the wearing course sections (1.35 mm and 0.41 mm, respectively), which
suggests that the skid performance for the preventive maintenance sections was at least as good as that
60

of the wearing course sections. Since the SNs for all the wearing course sections ranged from 54 to 75, it
is reasonable to assume that all the preventive maintenance sections would rank in the good to very
good range.
In addition to SN, several other pavement distress and performance criteria were not evaluated:
 CT meter, outflow meter, and DF Tester: There was no basis to rank the output of these friction
testers into pavement conditions (good, satisfactory, fair, and so on) as was done for the other
performance distress and performance criteria.
 Rutting and fatigue cracking: There were no data on these distresses at the time the treatments
were placed, so it was not possible to estimate the increase in these distresses after the
treatments were placed.
 Bleeding: This was considered a surrogate for flushing and was, therefore, redundant.
Weathering and LTD cracking were characterized by DVs calculated using the USACE DV equations
(described in Appendix D) and the pavement distress data collected as part of the field performance
data collection operations. Flushing was characterized as an index value, flushing index (FI) as defined by
ADOT. The range of FI is between 0 and 5 where, according to ADOT criteria, 0 to 2 is objectionable and
3 to 5 is satisfactory. For this study, researchers employed engineering judgment to further parse
ADOT’s 0 to 5 range into different conditions used for the other distress and performance criteria:
 Failed: FI less than 2.0.
 Poor: FI between 2.0 and 2.99.
 Fair: FI between 3.0 and 3.49.
 Satisfactory: FI between 3.5 and 3.99.
 Good: FI between 4.0 and 4.49.
 Very good: FI between 4.5 and 5.0.
Researchers applied the same rigorous statistical approach (involving ANOVAs and Student’s t tests)
used to compare the wearing course treatments’ performance to compare the preventive maintenance
treatments’ performance. In addition, they used the simple yet practical approach (involving the
calculation of a 60th percentile DV and the ranking of each treatment at each site into one of eight
different conditions) to compare treatments’ overall performance. Again, researchers did not attempt
to introduce the results of the statistical analyses into the treatment rankings primarily because the
treatments could exhibit significantly different performance and still be ranked in the same overall
condition. It also did not make sense to rank a section higher just because its variability is unusually high.

61

Following is a discussion of the findings for the three pavement performance criteria.
Weathering
Table 109 in Appendix F provides the section data, calculated DVs (for weathering), mean and standard
deviation of DVs, and graphical results used to visually compare the weathering performance of the
Phase II sections. ANOVAs conducted on the weathering data from all four sites indicate that the overall
variability is low enough to compare the weathering performance of the treatments within each site.
Tables 29, 30, 31, and 32 summarize the weathering performance of the SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S.
191 sections, respectively. The sections are sorted from best to worst based on their 60th percentile DVs.
The graphical results in Table 109 suggest some consistency in weathering performance of the sections
for a given treatment at a given site. This is also reflected in Tables 29, 30, 31, and 32 by the relatively
low standard deviations in treatment performance at all four sites. In addition, some meaningful
differences exist in the treatments’ weathering performance:



SR 66 site. As shown in Table 29, the 13 treatments constructed on SR 66 exhibited good to very
good weathering performance. Thus, with the range in 60th percentile DVs only from 0 to 14, it is
difficult to draw much practical significance from the results of the Student’s t tests. Five of the
treatments (chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount, ACFC/ADOT, AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing,
microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry, and chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion) exhibited no
weathering and were ranked very good. Based on the threshold between good and very good
performance, another four treatments (AR‐ACFC/ADOT, Novachip/Koch Materials,
DACS&B/ADOT, and double application/unknown) were also grouped with the top five in the
very good range. The remaining four treatments (chip seal CM‐90/Navajo Western, chip seal
CRS‐2P/ADOT, chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown, and chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate) were ranked good.



SR 83 site. Table 30 shows that the weathering performance of the 14 treatments is in the good
to very good range. The corresponding range in 60th percentile DVs is only 0 to 13, again making
it difficult to draw much practical significance from the Student’s t results. Four of the
treatments (AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing, chip seal HF CRS‐2P/CS, chip seal PASS
CR/Western Emulsion, and slurry seal/Southwest Slurry) exhibited no weathering and were
grouped in the very good range. Six more treatments (double chip seal/ADOT, chip seal CM‐
90/Koch Materials, chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT, AR‐ACFC/unknown, chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown, and chip
seal CRS‐2P/ADOT) were grouped with the top four treatments because their 60th percentile DVs
were less than the threshold between good and very good performance. The remaining four
treatments (P‐ACFC/Paramount, chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount, AR‐ACFC/ADOT, and
Novachip/Koch Materials) were grouped in the good range.



SR 87 site. Table 31 shows the summary statistics for the nine treatments constructed along
SR 87. At serious to very good, the range in weathering performance of these treatments is very
wide. In this case, the Student’s t test results clearly distinguish the difference in performance
62

between the very good treatments and the rest. The control sections (three sections that
received a 2‐inch mill and overlay but no preventive maintenance treatment) along with three
other treatments (chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount, DACS&B/ADOT, and Novachip/Koch
Materials) exhibited no weathering and were grouped in the very good range. The five
remaining treatments were grouped into four conditions: the double chip seal/ADOT was
ranked satisfactory; the chip seal CM‐90/Navajo Western and chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate were
ranked fair; the chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion was ranked poor; and the chip seal CRS‐
2P/Crown was ranked serious.



U.S. 191 site. As noted earlier, the performance comparisons from the preventive maintenance
treatments constructed along U.S. 191 are more meaningful than the other sites, primarily
because the performance is based on four sections per treatment (rather than two). As can be
seen in Table 32, the weathering performance of the 15 treatments varies from good to very
good. Based on the DV threshold between good and very good weathering performance, 10 of
the treatments (double chip seal/ADOT, chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown, chip seal HF‐CRS‐2P/ADOT,
chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT, chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount, AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing,
chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT, slurry seal/Southwest Slurry, chip seal HF‐CRS‐2P/Copperstate, and chip
seal CM‐90/Koch Materials) were ranked very good, while the remaining five treatments (P‐
ACFC/Paramount, Novachip/Koch Materials, control/no treatment, AR‐ACFC/ADOT, and chip
seal CRS‐2P/ADOT future construction) were ranked good. The Student’s t test results indicate
that like the other sites, statistically valid performance comparisons can be made between
individual treatments and the best‐performing treatment. However, these comparisons do not
offer much insight when the 60th percentile DVs for all treatments are only between 1 and 11.

63

Table 29. Weathering Performance of the SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
ACFC/
ADOT
AR‐chip/
International
Slurry Surfacing
Microsurfacing/
Southwest Slurry
Chip seal
PASS oil/
Western Emulsion
AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
Novachip/
Koch Materials
DACS&B/
ADOT
Double application/
unknown
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Navajo Western
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
Copperstate

Weathering DV

Student’s t Test Results

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Cond.

Vari‐
ance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

2

0

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

0

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

0

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

0

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

0

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

1.0

0‐2

1.4

1.4

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

2

1.3

0‐2.5

1.8

1.7

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

2

1.8

1.5‐2

0.4

1.8

Equal

7.00

1.89

0.010

Reject

2

2.7

0‐5.3

3.7

3.6

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

2

4.4

0‐8.7

6.2

5.9

Good

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

4

6.1

2.5‐
11.3

3.7

7.0

Good

Equal

2.19

1.53

0.047

Reject

2

7.8

0‐15.6

11.0

10.6

Good

Un‐
equal

1.00

3.08

0.250

Accept

2

12.4

7.9‐
16.8

6.3

13.9

Good

Equal

2.78

1.89

0.055

Reject

Sections

64

Very
good
Very
good
Very
good
Very
good

Table 30. Weathering Performance of the SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Sections
Treatment,
Mean
Producer
AR‐chip/
International
2
0
Slurry Surfacing
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
2
0
Copperstate
Chip seal
PASS CR/
2
0
Western
Emulsion
Slurry seal/
Southwest
2
0
Slurry
Double chip
2
0.5
seal/ADOT
Chip seal
CM‐90/Koch
2
1.0
Materials
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
2
1.3
ADOT
AR‐ACFC/
3
2.3
unknown
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
1
3.1
Crown
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
2
2.8
ADOT
Chip seal
P‐ACFC/
2
5.8
Paramount
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
2
6.3
Paramount
AR‐ACFC/
2
9.4
ADOT
Novachip/
2
10.4
Koch Materials

Weathering DV

Student’s t Test Results
th

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

Cond.

Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

0‐0.9

0.6

0.6

Very
good

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

0‐2.0

1.4

1.4

Very
good

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

0‐2.5

1.8

1.7

Very
good

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

1.5‐3.0

0.8

2.5

Very
good

Equal

4.10

1.64

0.013

Reject

3.1

–

3.1

Very
good

–

–

–

–

Accept

0‐5.5

3.9

3.7

Very
good

Equal

1.00

1.89

0.211

Accept

5.3‐6.2

0.6

5.9

Good

Equal

12.8

1.89

0.003

Reject

0.9‐
11.6

7.6

8.2

Good Unequal

1.17

3.08

0.225

Accept

5.5

10.8

Good

Equal

2.41

1.89

0.069

Reject

8.4

12.5

Good Unequal

1.74

3.08

0.166

Accept

5.5‐
13.3
4.4‐
16.3

65

Table 31. Weathering Performance of the SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
Control
(2‐inch mill
and overlay)
DACS&B/
ADOT
Novachip/
Koch Materials
Double chip
seal/ADOT
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Navajo
Western
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
Copperstate
Chip seal
PASS oil/
Western
Emulsion
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown

Weathering DV
Sections

Mean Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Student’s t Test Results
Cond. Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

2

0

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

3

0

0

0

0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

0

0

0

0

–

–

–

–

–

2

0

0

0

0

–

–

–

–

–

4

12.8

4.4‐
26.8

10.4

15.4

2

30.9

22.8‐
38.9

11.4

33.7

2

31.9

41.8‐
21.9

14.1

2

47.4

43.6‐
51.1

2

81.2

78.5‐
83.8

Very
good
Very
good
Satis‐
factory

Un‐
equal

2.45 1.64

0.046

Reject

Fair

Un‐
equal

3.83 3.08

0.081

Reject

35.4

Fair

Un‐
equal

3.20 3.08

0.096

Reject

5.3

48.7

Poor

Equal

16.9 1.64

–

Reject

3.7

82.1 Serious

Equal

41.1 1.64

–

Reject

66

Table 32. Weathering Performance of the U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer

Sec‐
tions

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

Cond.

Vari‐
ance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

Double chip seal/
ADOT

4

0.9

0.4‐
1.5

0.5

1.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

4

1.4

0.4‐
2.5

1.0

1.6

Very
good

Equal

0.80

1.44

0.228 Accept

4

1.5

0.9‐
2.0

0.5

1.6

Very
good

Equal

1.73

1.44

0.067

4

1.4

0.2‐
3.0

1.3

1.7

Very
good

Equal

0.67

1.44

0.263 Accept

4

1.6

0.4‐
2.5

0.9

1.9

Very
good

Equal

1.37

1.44

0.109 Accept

4

2.0

1.5‐
2.5

0.6

2.1

Very
good

Equal

2.94

1.44

0.013

4

2.3

0.4‐
4.8

1.9

2.8

Very
good

Equal

1.43

1.44

0.101 Accept

4

2.9

2.0‐
5.0

1.4

3.3

Very
good

Equal

2.66

1.44

0.019

4

3.1

0.4‐
8.9

4.0

4.1

Very
good

Equal

1.05

1.44

0.167 Accept

4

3.9

1.5‐
8.6

3.2

4.7

Very
good

Equal

1.84

1.44

0.057

Reject

4

6.4

1.4

6.7

Good

Equal

7.51

1.44

0.000

Reject

4

7.5

2.9

8.3

Good

Equal

4.46

1.44

0.002

Reject

4

6.6

8.8

8.8

Good

Un‐
equal

1.28

1.64

0.145 Accept

4

8.5

4.4

9.6

Good

Equal

3.41

1.44

0.007

4

8.2

10.6

10.8

Good

Un‐
equal

1.37

1.64

0.133 Accept

Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
ADOT
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
AR‐chip/
International Slurry
Surfacing
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Slurry seal/
Southwest Slurry
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
Copperstate
Chip seal
CM‐90/Koch
Materials
P‐ACFC/
Paramount
Novachip/
Koch Materials
Control (no
treatment)
AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT future
construction

Weathering DV

4.8‐
7.9
3.4‐
10.2
1.5‐
19.8
4.4‐
14.8
1.5‐
23.8

Student’s t Test Results
th

67

Reject

Reject

Reject

Reject

Flushing
Table 110 in Appendix F provides the section data, FI, mean and standard deviation of FIs, and graphical
results used to visually compare the flushing performance of the Phase II sections. ANOVAs conducted
on the flushing data from all four sites indicate that the overall variability was low enough to compare
the flushing performance of the treatments within each site. Tables 33, 34, 35, and 36 summarize the
flushing performance of the SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S. 191 sections, respectively. The sections are
sorted from best to worst based on their 60th percentile FIs.
The graphical results in Table 110 along with the summary results in Tables 33, 34, 35, and 36 indicate
that there were some meaningful differences in the flushing performance of the different treatments.
The variability of flushing performance within the different treatments was generally low, providing a
better basis for performance comparisons. Following are more specific observations about treatment
performance at each site from both a statistical and practical standpoint:
 SR 66 site. Table 33 shows a wide range (poor to very good) in flushing performance of the 13
treatments. Novachip/Koch Materials exhibited no flushing, while microsurfacing/Southwest
Slurry exhibited very little. Both ranked very good. ACFC/ADOT, AR‐ACFC/ADOT, AR‐
chip/International Slurry Surfacing, and chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate were ranked good, while
DACS&B/ADOT, chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT, chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion, and double
application/unknown were ranked satisfactory. Of the remaining three treatments, chip seal
AC15‐5TR/Paramount and chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown were ranked fair, and chip seal CM‐
90/Navajo Western was ranked poor. Overall, the Student’s t tests showed a clear distinction in
the performance of the best‐performing treatments and the lesser treatments. (It occurs at a
60th percentile FI of 4.25.) Also, the results indicate that the flushing performance of the top two
sections in the good range was basically the same as the two sections in the very good range.


SR 83 site. Table 34 shows a relatively wide range (fair to very good) in flushing performance of
the 14 treatments. Three of the treatments (AR‐ACFC/unknown, Novachip/Koch Materials, and
P‐ACFC/Paramount) exhibited no flushing and were ranked very good. Based on the Student’s t
test results, the performance of these three treatments was significantly better than the
remaining 11 treatments. However, because they exhibited a very minor amount of flushing, it
was practical to include three more treatments (AR‐ACFC/ADOT, chip seal PASS CR/Western
Emulsion, and chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown) that were ranked very good. Of the remaining eight
treatments, one (chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials) was ranked good; five (chip seal AC15‐
5TR/Paramount, double chip seal/ADOT, chip seal HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate, AR‐
chip/International Slurry Surfacing, and chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT) were ranked satisfactory; and
two (chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT and slurry seal/Southwest Slurry) were ranked fair.



SR 87 site. Table 35 also shows a relatively wide range (fair to very good) in flushing
performance of the nine treatments. Four treatments (chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate, chip seal
CRS‐2P/Crown, Novachip/Koch Materials, and chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion) showed no
68

flushing and were ranked very good. Two more treatments (double chip seal/ADOT and the
control treatment [2‐inch mill and overlay]) exhibited only a minor amount of flushing and were
ranked very good. According to the Student’s t test results, all six treatments performed the
same and significantly better than the three remaining treatments. Two of those treatments
(chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount and DACS&B/ADOT) were ranked good, and the last (chip seal
CM‐90/Navajo Western) was ranked fair.


U.S. 191 site. As previously noted, the performance comparisons of treatments constructed
along U.S. 191 are more meaningful than the other sites, primarily because the performance is
based on four sections per treatment instead of two. That noted, the data for the 15 treatments
in Table 36 show some similarities with the other three sites, including a relatively wide range
(poor to good) in flushing performance. Only one section (slurry seal/Southwest Slurry) did not
exhibit flushing and was ranked very good. Based upon the Student’s t test results, this section’s
performance was significantly better than any of the other treatments. Nevertheless, five more
treatments (control/no treatment, Novachip/Koch Materials, AR‐ACFC/ADOT, chip seal HF CRS‐
2P/Copperstate, and P‐ACFC/Paramount) were ranked very good because they exhibited only a
minor amount of flushing. Of the remaining nine treatments, four (chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT, chip
seal CRS‐2P/ADOT future construction, chip seal HF CRS‐2P/ADOT, and chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT)
were ranked good; two (chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown and AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing)
were ranked satisfactory; two (chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials and chip seal AC15‐
5TR/Paramount) were ranked fair; and one (double chip seal/ADOT) was ranked poor.

69

Table 33. Flushing Performance of the SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer

Sections

Novachip/
Koch Materials
Microsurfacing/
Southwest
Slurry
ACFC/
ADOT
AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
AR‐chip/
International
Slurry Seal
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
Copperstate
DACS&B/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Chip seal
PASS oil/
Western
Emulsion
Double
application/
unknown
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Navajo
Western

Flushing Index

Student’s t Test Results

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Cond.

Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

2

5.0

5.0‐
5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

4.8

4.5‐
5.0

0.4

4.7

Very
good

Equal

1

1.89

0.211

Accept

2

4.5

0.7

4.3

Good

Equal

1

1.89

0.211

Accept

2

4.5

0.7

4.3

Good

Equal

1

1.89

0.211

Accept

2

4.3

4.0‐
4.5

0.4

4.2

Good

Equal

3

1.89

0.048

Reject

2

4.0

4.0‐
4.0

0

4.0

Good

Equal

65535

1.89

–

Reject

2

3.8

3.5‐
4.0

0.4

3.7

Satis‐
factory

Equal

5

1.89

0.019

Reject

4

3.8

3.5‐
4.5

0.5

3.6

Satis‐
factory

Equal

3.33

1.53

0.014

Reject

2

3.8

3.0‐
4.5

1.1

3.5

Satis‐
factory

Equal

1.67

1.89

0.119

Accept

2

3.5

3.5‐
3.5

0

3.5

Satis‐
factory

Equal

65535

1.89

–

Reject

2

3.0

3.0‐
3.0

0

3.0

Fair

Equal

65535

1.89

–

Reject

2

3.0

3.0‐
3.0

0

3.0

Fair

Equal

65535

1.89

–

Reject

2

2.8

2.5‐
3.0

0.4

2.7

Poor

Equal

9

1.89

0.006

Reject

4.0‐
5.0
4.0‐
5.0

70

Table 34. Flushing Performance of the SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Sections
Treatment,
Producer

Flushing Index

Student’s t Test Results
th

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

Cond.

Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

AR‐ACFC/
Unknown

3

5.0

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

Novachip/
Koch
Materials

2

5.0

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

Equal

–

–

–

Accept

P‐ACFC/
Paramount

2

5.0

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

Equal

–

–

–

Accept

2

4.5

4.5‐4.5

0

4.5

Very
good

Equal

65535

1.64

–

Reject

2

4.5

4.5‐4.5

0

4.5

Very
good

Equal

65535

1.64

–

Reject

1

4.5

4.5

0

4.5

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

4.0

4.0‐4.0

0

4.0

Good

Equal

65535

1.64

–

Reject

2

4.0

3.5‐4.5

0.7

3.8

Satis‐
factory

Equal

2.68

1.64

0.037

Reject

2

4.0

3.5‐4.5

0.7

3.8

Satis‐
factory

Equal

2.68

1.64

0.037

Reject

2

4.0

3.5‐4.5

0.7

3.8

Satis‐
factory

Equal

2.68

1.64

0.037

Reject

2

3.8

3.5‐4.0

0.4

3.7

Satis‐
factory

Equal

6.71

1.64

0.003

Reject

2

3.8

3.5‐4.0

0.4

3.7

Satis‐
factory

Equal

6.71

1.64

0.003

Reject

2

3.5

3.0‐4.0

0.7

3.3

Fair

Equal

4.02

1.64

0.014

Reject

2

3.5

2.5‐4.5

1.4

3.1

Fair

Equal

2.01

1.64

0.069

Reject

AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
Chip seal
PASS CR/
Western
Emulsion
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Koch
Materials
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
Double chip
seal/ADOT
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
Copperstate
AR‐chip/
International
Slurry
Surfacing
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Slurry seal/
Southwest
Slurry

71

Table 35. Flushing Performance of the SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
Copperstate
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Novachip/
Koch Materials
Chip seal
PASS oil/
Western
Emulsion
Double chip
seal/ADOT
Control
(2‐inch mill and
overlay)
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
DACS&B/
ADOT
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Navajo Western

Flushing Index

Student’s t Test Results

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Cond. Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

2

5.0

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

5.0

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

5.0

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

5.0

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

4

4.9

4.5‐5.0

0.3

4.8

Very
good

Equal

0.67

1.53

0.270

Accept

3

4.7

4.5‐5.0

0.3

4.6

Very
good

Equal

1.55

1.64

0.110

Accept

2

4.3

4.0‐4.5

0.4

4.2

Good

Equal

3

1.89

0.048

Reject

2

4.0

4.0‐4.0

0

4.0

Good

Equal

65535

1.89

–

Reject

2

3.5

3.0‐4.0

0.7

3.3

Fair

Equal

2

1.89

0.048

Reject

Sections

72

Table 36. Flushing Performance of the U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Sections
Treatment,
Mean
Producer
Slurry seal/
Southwest
4
5.0
Slurry
Control (no
treatment)
Novachip/
Koch Materials
AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
Copperstate
P‐ACFC/
Paramount
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT future
construction
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
AR‐chip/
International
Slurry Seal
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Koch Materials
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
Double chip
seal/ADOT

Flushing Index

Student’s t Test Results
th

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

Cond.

Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

5.0‐5.0

0

5.0

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

Very
good

Equal

1.73

1.44

0.067

Reject

Equal

1.73

1.44

0.067

Reject

Equal

65535

1.44

–

Reject

4

4.8

4.5‐5.0

0.3

4.7

4

4.8

4.5‐5.0

0.3

4.7

4

4.5

4.5‐4.5

0

4.5

4

4.5

4.5‐4.5

0

4.5

Very
good

Equal

65535

1.44

–

Reject

4

4.5

4.5‐4.5

0

4.5

Very
good

Equal

65535

1.44

–

Reject

4

4.6

3.5‐5.0

0.8

4.4

Good

Equal

1

1.44

0.356

Accept

4

4.4

4.0‐5.0

0.5

4.3

Good

Equal

6

1.44

0.020

Reject

4

4.3

3.5‐4.5

0.5

4.1

Good

Equal

3

1.44

0.012

Reject

4

4.1

3.5‐4.5

0.5

4.0

Good

Equal

3.66

1.44

0.005

Reject

4

4.0

3.5‐4.5

0.6

3.9

Satis‐
factory

Equal

3.46

1.44

0.007

Reject

4

3.9

3.5‐4.0

0.3

3.8

Satis‐
factory

Equal

9

1.44

–

Reject

4

3.1

3.0‐3.5

0.3

3.1

Fair

Equal

15

1.44

–

Reject

4

3.3

2.0‐4.0

1.0

3.0

Fair

Equal

3.66

1.44

0.005

Reject

4

2.8

2.0‐4.0

0.9

2.5

Poor

Equal

5.2

1.44

0.002

Reject

73

Very
good
Very
good

LTD Cracking
Table 111 in Appendix F provides the section data, LTD cracking DVs, mean and standard deviation of
DVs, and graphical results used to visually compare the LTD cracking performance of the Phase II
sections. ANOVAs conducted on the LTD cracking data from all four sites indicate that the overall
variability was low enough to compare the LTD cracking performance of the treatments within each site.
Tables 37, 38, 39, and 40 summarize the LTD cracking performance of the SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S.
191 sections, respectively. The sections are sorted from best to worst based on their 60th percentile DVs.
The graphical results in Table 111 along with the summary results in Tables 37, 38, 39, and 40 indicate
that there are some meaningful differences in the treatments’LTD cracking performance. The variability
of flushing performance within the different treatments was generally low, providing a better basis for
performance comparisons. Following are more specific comments about treatment performance at each
site from both a statistical and practical standpoint:
 SR 66 site. Table 37 shows a wide range (poor to very good) in LTD cracking performance in the
13 treatments. Only one treatment (chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown) exhibited low LTD cracking that
could be ranked very good based upon the threshold between the good and very good range.
However, the Student’s t test results indicate that the next five treatments (with 60th percentile
DVs less than 16.2) exhibited equal performance. Four treatments (chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT, chip
seal CM‐90/Navajo Western, Novachip/Koch Materials, and ACFC/ADOT) were ranked good. Of
the next eight treatments, six (chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion, AR‐chip/International Slurry
Surfacing, chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate, microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry, AR‐ACFC/ADOT, and
chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount) were ranked satisfactory; one (double application/unknown)
was ranked fair; and one (DACS&B/ADOT) poor.


SR 83 site. The 14 preventive maintenance treatments shown in Table 38 also exhibit a relatively
wide range (fair to very good) in LTD cracking. Three of the treatments (chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown,
chip seal PASS CR/Western Emulsion, and AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing) were ranked
very good. The Student’s t test results suggest that eight of the next nine treatments exhibited
the same performance; however, many of them have higher levels of variability that make
discriminating performance among them more difficult. Of the remaining 11 treatments, five
(AR‐ACFC/ADOT, Novachip/Koch Materials, chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials, chip seal HF CRS‐
2P/Copperstate, and chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount) were ranked good; five more (chip seal
CRS‐2/ADOT, slurry seal/Southwest Slurry, chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT, double chip seal/ADOT, and
AR‐ACFC/unknown) were ranked satisfactory; and one (P‐ACFC/Paramount) was ranked fair.

74

Table 37. LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Navajo Western
Novachip/
Koch Materials
ACFC/
ADOT
Chip seal
PASS oil/
Western
Emulsion
AR‐chip/
International
Slurry Surfacing
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
Copperstate
Microsurfacing/
Southwest
Slurry
AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
Double
application/
unknown
DACS&B/
ADOT

LTD DV

Student’s t Test Results

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Cond. Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

2

3.6

3.1‐4.0

0.6

3.7

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

4

5.5

0‐21.8

10.9

8.3

Good

Unequal

0.36

1.64

0.370

Accept

2

8.1

3.3‐
12.9

6.8

9.8

Good

Equal

0.94

1.89

0.222

Accept

2

8.5

0‐17.0

12.0

11.5

Good

Unequal

0.58

3.08

0.332

Accept

2

10.0

0.6‐
19.3

13.2

13.3

Good

Unequal

0.68

3.08

0.309

Accept

2

11.9

0‐23.7

16.8

16.1

Satis‐
Unequal
factory

0.70

3.08

0.306

Accept

2

17.2

15.3‐
19.0

2.6

17.8

Satis‐
factory

7.14

1.89

0.010

Reject

2

15.0

5.6‐
24.3

13.2

18.3

Satis‐
Unequal
factory

1.22

3.08

0.219

Accept

2

21.3

18.4‐
24.2

4.1

22.3

Satis‐
factory

6.04

1.89

0.013

Reject

2

17.0

0‐34.0

24.0

23.1

Satis‐
Unequal
factory

0.79

3.08

0.287

Accept

2

22.3

16.5‐
28.1

8.2

24.4

Satis‐
Unequal
factory

3.22

3.08

0.096

Reject

2

33.6

29.4‐
37.8

5.9

35.1

Fair

Equal

0.87

1.53

0.217

Accept

2

43.6

36.8‐
50.3

9.5

46.0

Poor

Unequal

5.91

3.08

0.053

Reject

Sections

75

Equal

Equal

Table 38. LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Chip seal
PASS CR/
Western Emulsion
AR‐chip/
International
Slurry Surfacing
AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
Novachip/
Koch Materials
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Koch
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
Copperstate
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
ADOT
Slurry seal/
Southwest Slurry
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Double chip seal/
ADOT
AR‐ACFC/
unknown
P‐ACFC/
Paramount

LTD Cracking Deduct Value
Sections

Student’s t Test Results

th

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

Cond.

Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

1

1.5

1.5

0.0

1.5

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

2.0

0.8‐3.2

1.7

2.4

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

3.0

1.4‐4.5

2.2

3.5

Very
good

Equal

0.49

1.89

0.338

Accept

2

6.3

3.8‐8.7

3.5

7.1

Good

Equal

1.56

1.89

0.130

Accept

2

6.9

4.3‐9.5

3.7

7.8

Good

Equal

1.71

1.89

0.115

Accept

2

7.1

3.7‐
10.5

4.8

8.3

Good

Equal

1.41

1.89

0.146

Accept

2

9.3

8.8‐9.7

0.6

9.4

Good

Equal

5.66

1.89

0.015

Reject

2

7.0

0‐14.0

9.9

9.5

Good

Unequal

0.70

3.08

0.305

Accept

2

14.8

8.0‐
21.5

9.5

17.2

Satis‐
factory

Unequal

1.86

3.08

0.157

Accept

2

14.8

7.9‐
21.7

9.8

17.3

Satis‐
factory

Unequal

1.83

3.08

0.159

Accept

2

13.9

6.7‐
33.4

17.1

18.2

Satis‐
factory

Unequal

1.35

3.08

0.203

Accept

2

14.9

16.7

19.1

Unequal

1.09

3.08

0.237

Accept

3

18.6

5.0

19.8

Equal

4.29

1.64

0.011

Reject

2

34.0

8.1

36.0

Unequal

5.44

3.08

0.058

Reject

3.1‐
26.7
13.0‐
22.8
28.2‐
39.7

76

Satis‐
factory
Satis‐
factory
Fair

Table 39. LTD Cracking Performance of the SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
DACS&B/
ADOT
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Navajo
Western
Double chip
seal/ADOT
Chip seal
PASS oil/
Western
Emulsion
Novachip/
Koch Materials
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
Control
(2‐inch mill and
overlay)
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
Copperstate

LTD Cracking DV

Student’s t Test Results

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

Cond.

Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

2

2.5

2.2‐2.7

0.4

2.5

Very
good

–

–

–

–

–

2

6.0

5.8‐6.2

0.3

6.1

Good

Equal

11.09

1.89

0.004

Reject

2

9.5

4.1‐14.8

7.6

11.4

Good

Unequal

1.31

3.08

0.208

Accept

4

10.6

6.3‐14.7

3.7

11.6

Good

Equal

2.95

1.53

0.021

Reject

2

11.4

10.0‐12.8 2.0

11.9

Good

Equal

6.29

1.89

0.012

Reject

2

17.3

13.3‐21.2 5.6

18.7

Satis‐
factory

Equal

3.74

1.89

0.032

Reject

2

16.7

10.4‐22.9 8.8

18.9

Satis‐
factory

Unequal

2.27

3.08

0.132

Accept

3

20.6

13.0‐31.4 9.6

23.1

Satis‐
factory

Unequal

3.28

1.89

0.041

Reject

2

21.0

14.4‐27.5 9.3

23.3

Satis‐
factory

Unequal

2.82

3.08

0.108

Accept

Sections

77

Table 40. LTD Cracking Performance of the U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Preventive
Maintenance
Treatment,
Producer

Sections

Double chip seal/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT (future
construction)
Control (no
treatment)
Chip seal
CM‐90/
Koch
Chip seal
AC15‐5TR/
Paramount
Chip seal
CRS‐2/
ADOT
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
Crown
AR‐ACFC/
ADOT
P‐ACFC/
Paramount
Chip seal
CRS‐2P/
ADOT
AR‐chip/
International
Slurry Surfacing
Novachip/
Koch Materials
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
ADOT
Chip seal
HF CRS‐2P/
Copperstate
Slurry seal/
Southwest Slurry

LTD Cracking DV

Student’s t Test Results
th

Mean

Range

Std.
Dev.

60
%ile

Cond. Variance

t

tcrit

P
(t<tcrit)

Null
Hyp.

4

6.1

0.2‐15.5

6.9

7.8

Good

–

–

–

–

–

4

7.1

0.0‐15.6

8.2

9.1

Good

Equal

0.19

1.44

0.427

Accept

4

7.9

0.0‐15.2

7.3

9.7

Good

Equal

0.36

1.44

0.364

Accept

4

10.5 0.8‐20.4

10.8

13.2

Good

Equal

0.69

1.44

0.258

Accept

4

11.6 7.4‐23.7

8.1

13.6

Good

Equal

1.04

1.44

0.169

Accept

4

14.4 11.6‐16.9 2.4

15.0

Satis‐
factory

Equal

2.28

1.44

0.031

Reject

4

14.8 6.0‐22.2

6.7

16.5

Satis‐
factory

Equal

1.82

1.44

0.060

Reject

4

15.3 5.3‐25.8

9.2

17.6

Satis‐
factory

Equal

1.60

1.44

0.081

Reject

4

17.7 11.2‐27.4 7.2

19.5

Satis‐
factory

Equal

2.34

1.44

0.029

Reject

4

15.9 0.5‐44.1

19.5

20.8

Satis‐
factory

Equal

0.95

1.44

0.189

Accept

4

19.5 10.4‐25.3 6.8

21.2

Satis‐
factory

Equal

2.79

1.44

0.016

Reject

4

24.0 19.6‐31.5 5.5

25.4

Satis‐
factory

Equal

4.08

1.44

0.003

Reject

4

24.8 10.8‐40.5 13.2

28.1

Satis‐
factory

Equal

2.52

1.44

0.023

Reject

4

37.9 31.1‐46.1 6.2

39.5

Fair

Equal

6.88

1.44

–

Reject

4

42.0

26.0‐
57.3

46.1

Poor

Equal

4.13

1.44

0.003

Reject

16.0

78



SR 87 site. The performance of the nine preventive maintenance treatments in Table 39 shows a
range in LTD cracking from satisfactory to very good. Only one treatment (chip seal AC15‐
5TR/Paramount) was ranked very good. Considering the Student’s t test results as well as the
performance variability, none of the remaining treatments performed as well. Four of the
treatments (DACS&B/ADOT, chip seal CM‐90/Navajo Western, double chip seal/ADOT, and chip
seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion) were ranked good, and four (Novachip/Koch Materials, chip
seal CRS‐2P/Crown, control [2‐inch mill and overlay], and chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate) were
ranked satisfactory.



U.S. 191 site. Table 40 shows a relatively wide range (poor to good) in LTD cracking performance
for the 15 treatments. None of the treatments satisfied the 60th percentile DV criteria to be
ranked very good. Five treatments (double chip seal/ADOT, chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT future
construction, control [no treatment], chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials, and chip seal AC15‐
5TR/Paramount) were ranked good. According to the Student’s t test results, these five
treatments performed significantly better than the rest. Of the remaining 10 treatments, six
(chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT, chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown, AR‐ACFC/ADOT, chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT, P‐
ACFC/Paramount, and AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing) were ranked satisfactory; three
(Novachip/Koch Materials, chip seal HF CRS‐2P/ADOT, and chip seal HF CRS‐2P/CS) were ranked
fair; and one (slurry seal/Southwest Slurry) ranked poor.

Overall Assessment of Preventive Maintenance Treatments
Treatment Performance
Table 41 summarizes the pavement performance rankings for all the preventive maintenance
treatments in the Phase II experiment. As previously described, these rankings are based upon the
calculated 60th percentile DV (or FI, in the case of flushing) and the pre‐established ranges for the
different pavement conditions. Several overall observations can be made about the treatments based
upon the three pavement performance evaluation criteria used in this study:



The overall assessment of treatment performance is based on an analysis of the performance
data available for each preventive maintenance treatment. Each of the three distress types is
weighted equally for comparison and ranking.



As indicated in the experiment design, not all of the preventive maintenance treatments were
placed at all four sites. Consequently, researchers evaluated treatment performance based on
data from one, two, three, or four sites. In comparing treatment performance, researchers did
not account for the higher uncertainty associated with the treatments constructed at only one
or two sites. However, they gave more weight to the performance of treatments constructed on
U.S. 191 because each treatment’s performance was defined based on four sections (compared
to two sections for the other three sites).

79

Table 41. Overall Performance Comparison of Phase I Wearing Course Treatments
Based on 60th Percentile DVs and FIs.
`
Treatment
Control
No treatment
ACFC
ADOT
AR‐ACFC
ADOT
AR‐ACFC
Not Identified
P‐ACFC
Paramount
AR‐Chip
International Slurry
Chip Seal (AC15‐5TR)
Paramount
Chip Seal (CM‐90)
Navajo Western
Koch Materials
Chip Seal (CRS‐2)
ADOT
Copperstate
Chip Seal (CRS‐2P)
ADOT
ADOT (FC)
Crown
Chip Seal (HF CRS‐2P)
ADOT
Copperstate
Chip Seal (PASS Oil) Western Emulsion
Chip Seal (PASS CR)
Western Emulsion
DACS&B
ADOT
Double Chip Seal
ADOT
Double Application
Not Identified
Microsurfacing
Southwest Slurry
Slurry Seal
Southwest Slurry
Novachip
Koch Materials

Weathering (DV)
Flushing (FI)
LTD Cracking (DV)
SR‐66 SR‐83 SR‐87 US‐191 SR‐66 SR‐83 SR‐87 US‐191 SR‐66 SR‐83 SR‐87 US‐191
0.0
8.8
4.6
4.7
23.1
9.7
0.0
4.3
13.3
1.4
10.8
9.6
4.3
4.5
4.5
23.1
7.1
17.6
2.5
5.0
19.8
5.9
6.7
5.0
4.5
36.0
19.5
0.0
0.0
2.1
4.2
3.7
3.8
17.8
3.5
21.2
0.0
8.2
0.0
1.9
3.0
3.8
4.2
3.0
24.4
9.5
2.5
13.6
5.9
33.7
2.7
3.3
9.8
11.4
1.4
4.7
4.0
3.1
8.3
13.2
1.7
1.7
3.7
4.0
17.2
15.0
13.9
35.4
4.0
5.0
18.3
23.3
7.0
3.7
2.8
3.6
3.3
4.4
8.3
18.2
20.8
10.8
4.3
9.1
10.6
3.1
82.1
1.6
3.0
4.5
5.0
3.9
3.7
1.5
18.9 16.5
1.6
4.1
28.1
0.0
4.1
3.8
4.5
9.4
39.5
0.0
48.7
3.5
5.0
16.1
11.9
0.0
4.5
2.4
1.8
0.0
3.7
4.0
46.0
6.1
0.6
15.4
1.0
3.8
4.8
2.5
19.1 11.6
7.8
3.6
3.5
35.1
0.0
4.7
22.3
0.0
3.3
3.1
5.0
17.3
46.1
1.7
12.5
0.0
8.3
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.7
11.5
7.8
18.7 25.4

Legend:
Pavement Condition
State
Very Good
Good
Satisfactory
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Serious
Failed



Color Code

Of the 24 sections in the preventive maintenance experiment (summarized in Table 41), six
stand out in terms of the performance quality and consistency, and were assigned a
performance ranking of 1:
o Chip seal PASS CR/Western Emulsion. This treatment was constructed at only one site
(SR 83); however, it exhibited the best performance (very good range) in all three categories
(weathering, flushing, and LTD cracking). The average condition of this treatment would be
considered very good.

80

o

o

o

o

o



AR‐ACFC/not identified. This treatment was also constructed only at SR 83. Weathering and
flushing were both in the very good range, while LTD cracking was in the satisfactory range.
The average condition of this treatment would be considered good.
Novachip/Koch Materials. This treatment was one of three constructed at all four
experimental sites. Weathering performance was in the good to very good range, while
flushing performance was in the very good range. The LTD cracking performance was in the
satisfactory to good range. This treatment’s average condition would be considered good.
ACFC/ADOT. This treatment was constructed at SR 66. Its weathering performance was very
good, while the flushing and LTD cracking performance were both in the good range. The
average condition of this treatment would be considered good.
Microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry. This treatment was also only at SR 66, and its
performance was identical to the AR‐ACFC/not identified treatment. Weathering and
flushing were both in the very good range while LTD cracking was in the satisfactory range.
The average condition of this treatment would be considered good.
Control. The control sections constructed at the SR 87 and U.S. 191 sites performed as well
as the above sections. This is especially noteworthy for the four sections at the U.S. 191 site
since they did not receive any treatment. It is less significant for the two sections at the
SR 87 site since they received a 2‐inch mill and overlay. Weathering performance was rated
very good for the SR 87 sections and good for the U.S. 191 sections, while flushing was in
the very good range at both sites. LTD cracking was rated satisfactory for the SR 87 sections
and good for the U.S. 191 sections. The average condition of this treatment would be
considered good.

Nine more treatments provided evidence of good performance and received a performance
ranking of 2. The average condition of all these treatments would be considered good.
o Chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT future construction. This treatment was constructed at U.S. 191. It
exhibited good weathering, flushing, and LTD cracking performance.
o AR‐ACFC/ADOT. This treatment was constructed at SR 66, SR 83, and U.S. 191. Weathering
and flushing were both in the good to very good range while LTD cracking was in the
satisfactory to good range.
o P‐ACFC/Paramount. This treatment was constructed at SR 83 and U.S. 191. It exhibited
good weathering performance, very good flushing performance, and fair to satisfactory LTD
cracking performance.
o Chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT. This treatment was constructed at SR 83 and U.S. 191. It provided
very good weathering performance, satisfactory flushing performance, and satisfactory LTD
cracking performance.
o AR‐chip/International Slurry Surfacing. This treatment was constructed at SR 66, SR 83, and
U.S. 191. Its performance ranking was based upon weathering in the very good range,
flushing in the satisfactory to good range, and LTD cracking in the satisfactory to very
good range.

81

o

o

o

o

Chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT. This treatment was placed at SR 66, SR 83, and U.S. 191. It
exhibited good to very good weathering performance, fair to good flushing performance,
and satisfactory to good LTD cracking performance.
Chip seal HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate. This treatment was constructed at SR 83 and U.S. 191. It
exhibited very good weathering performance, satisfactory to very good flushing
performance, and fair to good LTD cracking performance.
Chip seal HF CRS‐2P/ADOT. This treatment was constructed at U.S. 191. It exhibited very
good weathering performance, good flushing performance, and satisfactory LTD cracking
performance.
Chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials. This treatment was constructed at SR 66 and SR 87. It
exhibited very good weathering performance, fair to good flushing performance, and good
LTD cracking performance.



Five treatments exhibited generally good performance, but were assigned a performance
ranking of 3 because of the ratings dropped off and because one site for each treatment
exhibited a potential performance problem (i.e., poor or fair rating). The average condition of all
of these treatments would be considered satisfactory.
o Double chip seal/ADOT. This treatment was placed at SR 83, SR 87, and U.S. 191.
Weathering performance was in the satisfactory to very good range while LTD cracking was
in the satisfactory to good range. Flushing performance was satisfactory to very good at two
sites, but poor at the third.
o DACS&B/ADOT. This treatment was constructed at SR 66 and SR 87. It exhibited very good
weathering performance and satisfactory to good flushing performance. However, LTD
cracking was poor at one site and good at the other.
o Chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion. This treatment was constructed at two sites (SR 66
and SR 83). It exhibited satisfactory to very good flushing performance and satisfactory to
good LTD cracking performance. Weathering performance was very good at one site, but
poor at the other.
o Chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate. This treatment was constructed at SR 66 and SR 87. Its LTD
cracking performance was satisfactory, while flushing was in the fair to good range. Its
weathering performance was satisfactory at one site and fair at the other.
o Double application/not identified. This treatment was placed only at SR 66. It exhibited
very good weathering performance, satisfactory flushing performance, and fair LTD cracking
performance.



The last four of the 24 treatments were placed in a “questionable” performance category and
assigned a performance ranking of 4 because two or more sites exhibited a potential
performance problem. Since these treatments were characterized as questionable, there is
some uncertainty about how future sections would perform. Thus, researchers recommend that
these treatments be investigated further.

82

o

o

o

o

Chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount. This treatment was constructed at all four sites. It provided
good to very good weathering performance, fair to good flushing performance, and
satisfactory to very good LTD cracking performance. The average condition of this treatment
would be considered satisfactory.
Slurry seal/Southwest Slurry. This treatment was placed at SR 83 and U.S. 191. Weathering
performance was very good, while flushing performance was fair to very good. LTD cracking
was satisfactory at one site, but poor at the other. The average condition of this treatment
would be considered satisfactory.
Chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown. This treatment was placed at all four sites. LTD cracking
performance was satisfactory to very good. Three of the sections exhibited satisfactory to
very good weathering performance; however, the fourth was very poor. Similarly for
flushing, three of the sections exhibited satisfactory to very good performance, but the
fourth was poor. The average condition of this treatment would be considered satisfactory.
Chip seal CM‐90/Navajo Western (SR 66 and SR 87). This treatment was constructed at two
sites. LTD cracking performance was good. However, flushing performance was only poor to
fair, and weathering performance was only fair to good. The average condition of this
treatment would be considered fair.

Treatment Cost‐Effectiveness
Researchers used the same B/C approach to evaluate the wearing course treatments that was used to
evaluate the preventive maintenance treatments. The benefit equation used to calculate the benefit
associated with DV was the same. The FI benefit equation was:
BFI = FI – 2

(Eq. 4)

Researchers used a threshold value of 2 because it corresponds to the failed level for FI.
Like the wearing course treatments, the cost‐effectiveness for each preventive maintenance treatment
was determined as a ratio of B to C, where C was estimated based upon the treatment cost data
presented in Table 11. The B/C calculations for each wearing course treatment were made and
tabulated, and the cells were shaded from light to dark to represent a very low to very high range in B/C.
The results are presented in Table 42. No B/C results are shown for the control sections since technically
no cost is associated with these sections.

83

Table 42. Comparison of Cost‐Effectiveness of Phase II Preventive Maintenance Treatments.

Using the B/C results, researchers calculated an overall MCES for each treatment by assigning a cost‐
effectiveness level (very high = 5, high = 4, moderate = 3, and so on) for each of the three performance
measures and then calculating the average. The rankings of the preventive maintenance course
treatments were calculated based on the MCES. The most cost‐effective treatments were ranked in the
A category if the MCES was greater than 4.6. The remaining rankings were based on the following: B (4.6
≤ MCES > 4.25), C (4.25 ≤ MCES > 3.9), D (3.9 ≤ MCES > 3.5), E (3.5 ≤ MCES > 3.0), and F (3.0 ≤ MCES). The
results of the ranking process are shown in the last column of Table 42.
Table 43 presents the results of the B/C analysis in which the preventive maintenance treatments are
ordered by their cost‐effectiveness ranking and then by their performance ranking. Also shown is the
number of experimental sections, the estimated (unit) cost, and MCES for each treatment.
Following are comments about the treatments under each cost‐effectiveness ranking in Table 43:
 A cost‐effectiveness ranking. These treatments were all at the low end of the cost range and
generally exhibited good to very good performance.

84

Table 43. Ranking of Phase II Preventive Maintenance Treatments Based on
Cost‐Effectiveness and Performance.

Cost
Effectiveness
Ranking
A

B

C
D

F

o

o

o

Estimated
Mean Cost
No. of
Cost
Treatment
Effectiveness
Sections
($/SY)
Score
Chip Seal (PASS CR)
Western Emulsion
2
1.80
5.00
Microsurfacing
Southwest Slurry
2
2.00
5.00
Chip Seal (CRS‐2)
ADOT
6
1.70
5.00
Chip Seal (CRS‐2P)
ADOT (FC)
4
1.80
5.00
Chip Seal (CM‐90)
Koch Materials
6
1.50
4.83
Chip Seal (CRS‐2P)
ADOT
8
1.80
4.78
Chip Seal (HF CRS‐2P)
ADOT
4
1.80
4.67
Chip Seal (HF CRS‐2P)
Copperstate
6
1.80
4.67
Chip Seal (CRS‐2)
Copperstate
4
1.70
4.83
Chip Seal (AC15‐5TR)
Paramount
10
1.80
4.67
ACFC
ADOT
2
3.30
4.33
Chip Seal (PASS Oil)
Western Emulsion
4
1.80
4.50
Slurry Seal
Southwest Slurry
6
1.60
4.50
Crown
10
1.80
4.42
Chip Seal (CRS‐2P)
Chip Seal (CM‐90)
Navajo Western
4
1.50
4.33
DACS&B
ADOT
4
2.25
4.17
Double Chip Seal
ADOT
8
2.75
4.11
AR‐ACFC
Not Identified
2
3.65
3.67
AR‐ACFC
ADOT
8
3.65
3.78
P‐ACFC
Paramount
6
3.20
3.67
AR‐Chip
International Slurry
8
3.50
3.67
Double Application
Not Identified
2
2.75
3.67
Novachip
Koch Materials
10
6.50
2.42

Performance
Ranking
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
1
3
4
4
4
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
1

The data for the chip seal PASS‐CR/Western Emulsion and the microsurfacing/Southwest
Slurry indicate that they are the best performing (level 1) as well as the most cost‐effective.
However, since both treatments are represented by only two sections each, there is some
uncertainty about their future performance and cost‐effectiveness.
Compared to the chip seal PASS‐CR/Western Emulsion and the microsurfacing/
Southwest Slurry treatments, the chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT and the chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT
future construction exhibited the same very high level of cost‐effectiveness, but a slightly
lower performance (level 2). On the other hand, because they were represented by six and
four sections, respectively, there is less uncertainty in their rankings.
The chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials, the chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT, chip seal HF CRS‐2P/ADOT,
chip seal HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate, and chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate all exhibited slightly
lower performance (level 2 or 3) and slightly lower cost‐effectiveness. In addition, each was
represented by four to eight sections, so the rankings are meaningful.

85

Despite the low overall performance rating, the chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount was still
ranked in the highest cost‐effectiveness level. This treatment was represented by 10
sections, so the findings are reasonably certain.
B cost‐effectiveness ranking. Four of the five treatments in this group were at the low end of
the cost range and on the lower end of the performance range. The fifth treatment had a cost in
the midrange and a high level of performance.
o The ACFC/ADOT treatment had the lowest cost‐effectiveness in this group because of the
higher cost associated with a friction course. However, it was promoted to first because it
had the high performance ranking (level 1). There is some uncertainty associated with this
ranking since the treatment was represented by only two sections.
o The chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion had the highest MCES in this group, but was listed
second because of the lower performance ranking (level 3). This treatment was represented
by four sections, so the ranking is less uncertain than those treatments represented by only
two sections.
o The slurry seal/Southwest Slurry, chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown, and chip seal CM‐90/Navajo
Western were included in this group because of their relatively high cost‐effectiveness.
However, they were listed at the bottom of the group because of their low relative
performance (level 4). Each of these treatments was well‐represented by four to 10
sections, so the rankings are meaningful.
C cost‐effectiveness ranking. Only two treatments were assigned to this cost‐effectiveness
group—the DACS&B/ADOT and double chip seal/ADOT—because of their lower level of cost‐
effectiveness and performance (level 3). These treatments were represented by four and eight
sections, respectively, so the findings are meaningful.
D cost‐effectiveness ranking. These treatments were generally twice the cost of the treatments
in the other groups. However, with one exception, they each exhibited a relatively high level of
performance.
o As a friction course, the AR‐ACFC/not identified treatment had a relatively high cost.
However, it was ranked in the high level of performance (level 1). This treatment was
represented by only two sections, so there is some uncertainty about its future performance
and cost‐effectiveness.
o The AR‐ACFC/ADOT, P‐ACFC/Paramount, and AR‐chip/International Slurry treatments all
had a relatively high cost and generally good performance (level 2). Each was represented
by six to eight sections, so the findings are reasonably certain.
o The double application/not identified treatment had a significantly lower cost than any of
the other treatments in this group. However, it also had lower overall performance (level 3).
This treatment was represented by only two sections.
E cost‐effectiveness ranking. There were no treatments in this category.
F cost‐effectiveness ranking. There was only one treatment in this category—the
Novachip/Koch Materials—because its cost was more than three times the cost of the lower
cost treatments. Its performance, however, was among the best (level 1). It was represented by
10 sections, so its performance and cost‐effectiveness are reasonably certain.
o










86

CHAPTER 5. SUMMARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report summarizes the performance data gathered during the Phase I, Wearing Course
Experiment, and the Phase II, Preventive Maintenance Experiment, and documents the findings of
detailed data analyses based on condition survey data collected at a single time. Following is a
summary of the key findings and recommendations:



Seven pavement performance measures were considered in the evaluation of the wearing
course treatments. They included skid resistance, weathering, bleeding, fatigue cracking,
LTD cracking, rutting, and patching. Rutting and patching were dropped from the evaluation
after a review of the data showed almost no rutting and no patching.



For the preventive maintenance treatments, only weathering, flushing, and LTD cracking
were used in the evaluation. Skid resistance was not included because skid testing was
performed at only one of the four sites. Researchers made various attempts to consider
other measures of surface friction and texture, but none was successful. (The one finding
from reviewing the localized field test data, however, was that all of the preventive
maintenance treatments maintained a very high level of surface texture and/or friction
through 2007.) Rutting and fatigue cracking were not included in the evaluation because no
data were available about conditions prior to the treatment. Therefore, there was no basis
to determine the increase in either rutting or fatigue cracking after the treatment. Instead of
bleeding, flushing data were used to evaluate each treatment’s propensity to bleed or flush
under high temperatures and traffic loading. Patching was not evaluated in the evaluation
because only two of the treatments required patching during the test period.



The wearing course experiment design made it possible to investigate the impact of milling
depth and overlay thickness on wearing course treatment performance in terms of SN,
weathering, fatigue cracking, and LTD cracking. Milling depth was the key variable in the
experiment. For the I‐10 and SR 74 sections, the overlay thickness varied in a colinear
fashion with milling depth, so it was not possible to evaluate the independent effects. For
the I‐8 sections, the overlay thickness was a constant 2 inches and only the milling depth
varied. Overall, the analysis results varied considerably and did not support a finding that
milling depth and its corresponding overlay thickness have a consistent and meaningful
effect on any of the performance measures. (Of the four, the analysis for LTD cracking came
the closest.) Table 44 summarizes the relevant findings for each experimental site‐
performance type combination.

87

Table 44. Effect of Milling Depth on Treatment Performance.
Distress/
Performance
Type

SN

Weathering

Fatigue cracking

LTD cracking

I‐10 Site

I‐8 Site

The correlations were
generally good, but the
results indicate that
higher milling depth
results in lower SNs over
time. Sensitivity was low
for all treatments.
No correlation (and no
effect) for ACFC and AR‐
ACFC. Correlations for
remaining treatments
were poor and produced
counterintuitive results.
No correlation (and no
effect) for AR‐ACFC.
Remaining correlations
were significant despite
having poor fits. SMA
correlation showed effect
opposite to expectation.

No correlation (and no
effect) for ACFC and PEM.
Effect was small enough
to be considered
negligible for AR‐ACFC, P‐
ACFC, and SMA.

No correlation (and no
effect) for AR‐ACFC and
P‐ACFC. Correlation for
TB‐ACFC is poor, and
sensitivity is low.

No correlation (and no
effect) for any of the
treatments.

No correlation (and no
effect) for TB‐ACFC.
Correlations for AR‐ACFC
and P‐ACFC are valid, but
produce counterintuitive
results.
Good correlation for TB‐
ACFC and fair correlations
for AR‐ACFC and P‐ACFC.
TB‐ACFC and P‐ACFC
correlations showed high
sensitivity to milling
depth. P‐ACFC showed
opposite effect.
No correlation (and no
effect) for P‐ACFC. Good
correlation for TB‐ACFC
that showed high
sensitivity. Poor
correlation for AR‐ACFC
that showed medium
sensitivity.

Correlations for AR‐ACFC
and SMA were poor and
produced unreasonable
results. Correlations for
ACFC, PEM, and P‐ACFC
were good and produced
valid results.

Correlations are mostly
poor and sensitivity is
low. For example, the
reduction in DV after
8 years for AR‐ACFC (the
best relationship) is 4.4
for a 2‐inch mill (and 2‐
inch overlay).
Correlations are
significant and effect is
meaningful for all five
treatments. The effect of
a 2‐inch mill and overlay
on the DV after 8 years
ranges from 10 (ACFC) to
30 (PEM).

SR 74 Site



Because of the inconsistent results with regard to the effect of milling depth on treatment
performance, no attempt was made to account for milling depth effects in the performance
comparisons. Thus, the variability associated with those effects became part of the overall
performance variability associated with each treatment.



Data analyses involving the use of statistical tools (i.e., ANOVA and Student’s t testing) were
employed to compare treatment performance at each experimental site. The primary

88

problem that made it difficult to make practical as well as statistically valid comparisons was
high variability in the performance data. For example, when two sections with different
mean performance values (such as SN = 55 vs. SN = 65) have high performance variability,
the statistical result may indicate that the difference in the means is not significant (or the
performance is the same). A second problem occurred at times when comparing treatments
that exhibited very good performance and had low variability. For example, if two sections
exhibited very little LTD cracking (such as DV = 0 vs. DV = 2) and had a corresponding low
variability, the statistical result may indicate that difference is significant, although from an
engineering standpoint, it was not. In the end, researchers used the primary result of the
statistical analyses to determine which treatments performed as well as the best‐
performing treatment and which did not (for each treatment within each experimental site).



Grouping (or ranking) the treatments within the different performance categories based
upon their 60th percentile distress level provided a good practical approach for evaluating
and comparing treatment performance. The performance ranges were based upon those
used in the PCI rating procedure (ASTM 2011), and each treatment was grouped based upon
its 60th percentile performance measures (e.g., 60th percentile DV).
The experimental wearing course treatments along I‐10 and I‐8 were constructed in 1999
and were surveyed and tested in 2007 after eight years of service. Table 45 provides a
performance summary and overall ranking of the wearing course treatments within the two
sites. The performance ranking was divided into three levels. Since all of the treatments
performed well overall, the distinctions between the three levels are relatively small, but
worth defining.
The AR‐ACFC (1/2‐inch TSA) control was the overall best‐performing treatment. It was only
applied at the I‐10 site; however, that site exhibited more fatigue and LTD cracking than the
I‐8 site, so the assessment is reasonable.

 After the performance assessment, researchers evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of the I‐10
and I‐8 wearing course sections using a B/C approach. The benefit for each performance
measure was calculated as the difference between the measured performance at the 2007
testing date and a nominal minimum performance level. For example, in the case of LTD
cracking where the DV at seven years was 11 and the selected nominal DV was 60 (which
corresponds to a PCI trigger level for rehabilitation of 40), the calculated benefit is 60 minus
11, or 49. The cost component of the B/C approach was the unit cost of the treatment (in
$/sy). If the unit cost of the treatment was $3.50/sy, the calculated B/C was 14.0 (for LTD
cracking). Table 28 summarized the B/C values for all six wearing course treatments and all
five performance measures. This table also shows that the B/C value for each performance
measure and treatment type was assigned a cost‐effectiveness level ranging from very low
to very high. The breakpoints between the cost‐effectiveness levels were determined by
89

Table 45. Performance Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the I‐10 and I‐8 Experimental Sites.

Performance
Treatment
Ranking

1

2

3

AR‐ACFC
(1/2‐inch
TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(3/4‐inch
TSA)
PEM
(1¼‐inch
TSA)
ACFC
(3/4‐inch
TSA)
P‐ACFC
(3/4‐inch
TSA)
SMA
(3/4‐inch
TSA)

Performance Measure
SN

Bleed‐
Weathering
ing

Fatigue
Cracking

LTD
Cracking

Average
Condition

Very
good

Very
good

Very
good

Very good Satisfactory

Very good

Very
good

Very
good

Very
good

Satisfactory
to very Satisfactory
good

Good

Good
to
very
good

Good to
very
good

Very
good

Good to
Satisfactory
very good

Good

Very
good
Very
good
Good
to
very
good

Good to
very
good
Good to
very
good
Very
good

Satisfactory
to very
Satisfactory
good
Satisfactory
Very
Fair to
to very
good
satisfactory
good

Very
good

Very
good

Satisfactory
Fair to
to very
satisfactory
good

Good

Good

Good

examining a factorial of B/C combinations and dividing them into percentiles (very high = 90
to 100, high = 75 to 90, moderate = 60 to 75, low = 40 to 60, and very low = 0 to 40).
Researchers then calculated an MCES for each treatment based upon the average of the
cost‐effectiveness values for each treatment. Since there are five cost‐effectiveness levels,
the MCES values can range from 0 to 5. The MCES values were then used to rank the overall
cost‐effectiveness of each treatment. Table 46 provides the overall cost‐effectiveness
ranking of each treatment. Letters were used to differentiate the cost‐effectiveness rankings
from performance rankings.

90

Table 46. Cost‐Effectiveness Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the I‐10 and I‐8 Experimental Sites.
Cost‐
Effectiveness
Ranking
A
B
C
D
D
E

Wearing Course
Treatment
ACFC
(3/4‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(1/2‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC
(3/4‐inch TSA)
AR‐ACFC
(3/4‐inch TSA)
SMA
(3/4‐inch TSA)
PEM
(1‐1/4‐inch TSA)

MCES

Estimated
Treatment
Cost ($/sy)

Performance
Ranking

4.3

3.30

2

4.0

3.55

1

3.8

3.40

3

3.6

3.70

2

3.6

3.50

3

3.5

4.00

2

The most cost‐effective treatment, ACFC (3/4‐inch TSA), was the least expensive and had a
performance ranking of 2. The best‐performing treatment, AR‐ACFC (1/2‐inch TSA), had the
second highest cost‐effectiveness ranking.



The wearing course treatments at the SR 74 site were constructed in 2001 and were
surveyed and tested six years later in 2007. Table 47 provides a performance summary and
overall ranking of the wearing course treatments within the site. Again, the performance
ranking was divided into three levels, but the distinction between the treatments is greater,
especially between the P‐ACFC (PG 76‐22+) and the TB‐ACFC (PG 76‐22 TR+).



The cost‐effectiveness analysis of the SR 74 sections was done the same way as the I‐10 and
I‐8 sections. The cost‐effectiveness rankings mirrored the performance rankings (Table 48).



The experimental preventive maintenance treatments along SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S.
191 were constructed in 2000 and 2001, and were surveyed and tested in 2007. Table 49
provides a summary and overall performance ranking of the preventive maintenance
treatments at the four sites. The performance ranking was divided into four levels with five
treatments and the control sections exhibiting the best overall performance. The treatments

91

Table 47. Performance Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the SR 74 Experimental Site.

Performance
Treatment
Ranking
AR‐ACFC
(PG 64‐28,
CRA‐1)
P‐ACFC
(PG 76‐
22+)
TB‐ACFC
(PG 76‐22
TR+)

1

2

3

Performance Measure
SN

Weathering Bleeding

Fatigue
Cracking

LTD
Cracking

Average
Condition

Very
good

Good

Very
good

Good

Fair

Good

Very
good

Satisfactory

Very
good

Satisfactory

Fair

Good

Very
good

Satisfactory

Very
good

Poor

Fair

Satisfactory

Table 48. Cost‐Effectiveness Summary and Overall Ranking of Wearing Course
Treatments at the SR 74 Experimental Site.
Cost‐
Effectiveness
Ranking
C

D

F

Wearing Course
Treatment
AR‐ACFC
(PG 64‐16, CRA‐1,
3/8‐inch TSA)
P‐ACFC
(PG 76‐22+,
3/8‐inch TSA)
TB‐ACFC
(PG 76‐22 TR+,
3/8‐inch TSA)

92

MCES

Estimated
Treatment
Cost ($/sy)

Performance
Ranking

3.8

3.75

1

3.6

3.40

2

3.0

3.50

3

Table 49. Performance Summary and Overall Ranking of the Preventive Maintenance
Treatments at the SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S. 191 Experimental Sites.

Performance
Ranking

Performance Measure
Treatment

Weathering

Chip seal PASS CR/Western
Emulsion
AR‐ACFC/not identified
Novachip/Koch Materials

Very good
Very good
Good to very
good
Very good
Very good
Good to
very good

1
ACFC/ADOT
Microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry
Control sections
Chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT future
construction
AR‐ACFC/ADOT

Good
Good to
very good

P‐ACFC/Paramount

2

Good

Chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT
AR‐chip/Internationall Slurry
Surfacing
Chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT

Very good
Very good
Good to
very good

Chip seal HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate

Very good

Chip seal HF CRS‐2P/ADOT
Chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials

Very good
Very good

Double chip seal/ADOT

3

Satisfactory
to very good
Very good
Poor to very
good
Fair to
satisfactory
Good
Good to
very good

DACS&B/ADOT
Chip seal PASS oil/Western
Emulsion
Chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate
Double application/not identified
Chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount
Slurry seal/Southwest Slurry

Very good

4
Chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown

Satisfactory
to very good
Fair to good

Chip seal CM‐90/Navajo Western

93

Flushing

LTD
Cracking

Very good

Very good

Very good Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Very good
to good
Good
Good
Very good Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Very good
to good
Good

Good

Average
Condition
Very good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good

Good to very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
good
to good
Fair to
Satisfactory
Very good
satisfactory
Satisfactory Satisfactory Satisfactory
Satisfactory Satisfactory
Satisfactory
to good to very good
Satisfactory
Fair to good
Satisfactory
to good
Satisfactory
Fair to good Satisfactory
to very good
Good
Satisfactory Satisfactory
Fair to
Good
Satisfactory
satisfactory
Poor to very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
good
to good
Satisfactory Poor to good Satisfactory
Satisfactory Satisfactory
Satisfactory
to very good to good
Satisfactory
Satisfactory Satisfactory
to very good
Satisfactory
Fair
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Fair to good
Satisfactory
to very good
Fair to very
Poor to
Satisfactory
good
satisfactory
Poor to very Satisfactory
Satisfactory
good
to very good
Poor to fair
Good
Fair

that are ranked in the second and third performance levels all had an average condition in
the satisfactory range; however, the second tier was at the high end of the range and the
third tier was at the low end. Although they exhibited satisfactory performance on the
average, the treatments in the fourth performance tier were ranked in this category
because they had two or more sections that did not perform well. Researchers recommend
that these treatments be investigated further.
Table 49 lists the treatments in general ranking order of their performance; however, it
should be emphasized that the number of sections representing each treatment ranges
from two to 10, so it is not exactly an “apples to apples” comparison.



The preventive maintenance sections were evaluated for cost‐effectiveness using the same
B/C approach used for the wearing course treatments. Researchers calculated the benefit
for each of the three performance measures (weathering, flushing index, and transverse
cracking) as the difference between the measured performance at the 2007 testing date and
a nominal minimum performance level. The selected nominal DV was 60 for weathering and
LTD cracking while the nominal FI was 2.0. The cost component of the B/C approach was the
unit cost of the treatment (in $/sy).
Table 42 summarized the B/C values for all 23 preventive maintenance treatments and each
of the three performance measures. This table also shows that the B/C value for each
performance measure and treatment type was assigned a cost‐effectiveness level ranging
from very low to very high. The breakpoints between the cost‐effectiveness levels were the
same as those used for the wearing course treatment (i.e., very high = 90 to 100, high = 75
to 90, moderate = 60 to 75, low = 40 to 60, and very low = 0 to 40). The MCES was calculated
for each treatment based upon the average of the cost‐effectiveness values for each
treatment. (Since there are five cost‐effectiveness levels, the MCES values range from 0 to
5.) The MCES values were then used to rank the overall cost‐effectiveness of each
treatment, which are summarized in Table 50. Note that letters were used to differentiate
the cost‐effectiveness rankings from the numerical performance rankings.
Two treatments had the highest cost‐effectiveness ranking and the highest performance
ranking: chip seal (PASS) by Western Emulsion and microsurfacing by Southwest Slurry. Six
of the remaining eight treatments—all chip seals—were also in the highest cost‐
effectiveness ranking; however, they were in the second performance ranking level. The last
two treatments with the highest cost‐effectiveness ranking level were on the low end of the
performance rankings. The chip seal AC15‐5TR treatment made the highest cost‐
effectiveness ranking since it had some sections that did not perform well. However, the
rankings of the remaining preventive maintenance treatments clearly show that treatment
cost has more of an impact on the assessment of cost‐effectiveness than performance.

94

Table 50. Cost‐Effectiveness Summary and Overall Ranking of the Preventive Maintenance
Treatments at the SR 66, SR 83, SR 87, and U.S. 191 Experimental Sites.
Cost‐
Effectiveness
Ranking

MCES

Estimated
Treatment
Cost ($/sy)

Preventive Maintenance Treatment

Performance
Ranking

A

Chip seal PASS CR/Western Emulsion
Microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry
Chip seal CRS‐2/ADOT
Chip seal CRS‐2P/
ADOT future construction
Chip seal CM‐90/Koch Materials
Chip seal CRS‐2P/ADOT
Chip seal HF CRS‐2P/ADOT
Chip seal HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate
Chip seal CRS‐2/Copperstate
Chip seal AC15‐5TR/Paramount

5.00
5.00
5.00

1.80
2.00
1.70

1
1
2

5.00

1.80

2

4.83
4.78
4.67
4.67
4.83
4.67

1.50
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.70
1.80

2
2
2
2
3
4

B

ACFC/ADOT
Chip seal PASS oil/Western Emulsion
Slurry seal/Southwest Slurry
Chip seal CRS‐2P/Crown
Chip seal CM‐90/Navajo Western

4.33
4.50
4.50
4.42
4.33

3.30
1.80
1.60
1.80
1.50

1
3
4
4
4

C

DACS&B/ADOT
Double chip seal/ADOT

4.17
4.11

2.25
2.75

3
3

D

AR‐ACFC/not identified
AR‐ACFC/ADOT
P‐ACFC/Paramount
AR‐chip/International
Slurry Surfacing
Double application/not identified

3.67
3.78
3.67

3.65
3.65
3.20

1
2
2

3.67

3.50

2

3.67

2.75

3

2.42

6.50

1

F

Novachip/Koch Materials

95

96

REFERENCES
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). 2008. Construction Manual. Phoenix: Arizona
Department of Transportation.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). June 2011. 2011 Standard Practice for Roads
and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys. ASTM D6433‐11. West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2012. 2012 Standard Test Method for
Measuring Pavement Macrotexture Properties Using the Circular Track Meter. ASTM E2157.
West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania: American Society for Testing and Materials.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2003. Distress Identification Manual for the Long‐Term
Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program. Fourth revised edition. McLean, Virginia: Federal
Highway Administration.
Hall, J. W., K. L. Smith, L. Titus‐Glover, J. C. Wambold, T. J. Yager, and Z. Rado. February 2009. Guide
for Pavement Friction. NCHRP Web‐Only Document 108. Washington, D.C.: National
Cooperative Highway Research Program.
King, G. and H. King. August 2007. Spray Applied Polymer Surface Seals. Final Report. Austin, Texas:
Foundation for Pavement Preservation. Available for download at
www.pavementpreservation.org/fogseals/index.htm.
Peshkin, D.G. 2006. Assessment of Research Project SPR 371—Maintenance Cost Effectiveness Study.
FHWA‐AZ‐06‐371. Phoenix: Arizona Department of Transportation.
Ross, S. M. 2004. Introduction to Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists. Third edition.
New York: Elsevier Academic Press.

97

98

APPENDIX A
TEST SECTION DESCRIPTIONS

99

100

Table 51. Test Section Descriptions for I‐10 Wearing Course Treatments.

Test
Section
ID

Material

I-10 Eastbound (EB) MP 186.20 to MP 190.74
Mill
Overlay
Construction Thickness Thickness
MP
Date
(in)
(in)
From

99-1
AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control
99-2
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-3
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-4
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-5
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-6
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-7
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-8
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-9
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-10 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-11 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-12 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-13 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-14 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-15 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-16 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-17 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-18 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-19 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-20 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-21 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-22 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-23 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-24 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-25 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-26 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-27 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-28 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-29 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-30 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-31 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-32 AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control
Total Sections

5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999

3.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
2.5

101

3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0

186.20
186.48
186.76
187.05
187.33
187.61
187.90
188.18
188.47
188.75
189.03
189.32
189.60
189.89
190.17
190.45
190.74
191.02
191.31
191.59
191.88
192.16
192.44
192.73
193.01
193.30
193.58
193.86
194.15
194.43
194.72
195.00
32

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

186.48
186.76
187.05
187.33
187.61
187.90
188.18
188.47
188.75
189.03
189.32
189.60
189.89
190.17
190.45
190.74
191.02
191.31
191.59
191.88
192.16
192.44
192.73
193.01
193.30
193.58
193.86
194.15
194.43
194.72
195.00
195.28

0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28

1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40

Table 52. Test Section Descriptions for I‐8 Wearing Course Treatments.

Test
Section
ID

Material

I-8 Westbound (WB) MP 88.0 to 92.53
Mill
Overlay
Construction Thickness Thickness
Date
(in)
(in)

99-34 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-35 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-36 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-37 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-38 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-39 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-40 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-41 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-42 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-43 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-44 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-45 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-46 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-47 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-48 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-33 AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control
Total Sections

Test
Section
ID

Material

99-49 AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control
99-50 AR-ACFC(3/4-in TSA)
99-51 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-52 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-53 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-54 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-55 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-56 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-57 P-ACFC(3/4-in TSA)
99-58 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-59 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
99-60 AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-61 ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-62 P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
99-63 PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
99-64 SMA (3/4-in TSA)
Total Sections

6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/17/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

I-8 Eastbound (EB) MP 88.0 to 92.53
Mill
Overlay
Construction Thickness Thickness
Date
(in)
(in)
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/15/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999

2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

102

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

MP
From
88.00
88.56
88.84
89.17
89.41
89.74
89.99
90.26
90.50
90.83
91.11
91.36
91.68
91.98
92.25
92.53
16

MP
From
87.50
88.00
88.28
88.57
88.85
89.04
89.42
89.72
90.00
90.26
90.39
90.83
91.11
91.38
91.68
91.97
16

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

88.56
88.84
89.17
89.41
89.74
89.99
90.26
90.50
90.83
91.11
91.36
91.68
91.98
92.25
92.53
92.80

0.56
0.28
0.33
0.24
0.33
0.25
0.27
0.24
0.33
0.28
0.25
0.32
0.30
0.27
0.28
0.27

2956.80
1478.40
1742.40
1267.20
1742.40
1320.00
1425.60
1267.20
1742.40
1478.40
1320.00
1689.60
1584.00
1425.60
1478.40
1425.60

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

88.00
88.28
88.57
88.85
89.04
89.42
89.72
90.00
90.26
90.39
90.83
91.11
91.38
91.68
91.97
92.53

0.50
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.19
0.38
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.13
0.44
0.28
0.27
0.30
0.29
0.56

2640.00
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1003.20
2006.40
1584.00
1478.40
1372.80
686.40
2323.20
1478.40
1425.60
1584.00
1531.20
2956.80

Table 53. Test Section Descriptions for SR 74 Wearing Course Treatments.

Test
Section
ID
74-E11
74-E10
74-E09
74-E08
74-E07
74-E06
74-E05
74-E04
74-E03
74-E02

Material

SR-74 Eastbound (EB) MP 17 to 19
Sta 234+00 is MP 18 & Sta 181+10 is MP 19
Overlay
Mill
MP
Construction Thickness Thickness
(in)
From
(in)
Date

P-ACFC (PG 76-22+, 3/8-in
TSA)
P-ACFC (PG 76-22+, 3/8-in
TSA)
TB-ACFC (PG 76-22 TR+, 3/8in TSA)
P-ACFC (PG 76-22+, 3/8-in
TSA)
TB-ACFC (PG 76-22 TR+, 3/8in TSA)
TB-ACFC (PG 76-22 TR+, 3/8in TSA)
TB-ACFC (PG 76-22 TR+, 3/8in TSA)
P-ACFC (PG 76-22+, 3/8-in
TSA)
TB-ACFC (PG 76-22 TR+, 3/8in TSA)
AR-ACFC (PG 64-16, CRA-1,
3/8-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (PG 64-16, CRA-1,
3/8-in TSA)

74-E01
Total Sections

Test
Section
ID

Material

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

4/3/2001

2.0

2.0

20050

20350

0.06

300.00

4/3/2001

2.0

2.0

20350

20925

0.11

575.00

4/3/2001

2.0

2.0

20925

21720

0.15

795.00

4/3/2001

2.0

2.0

21720

22250

0.10

530.00

4/3/2001

2.0

2.0

22250

23060

0.15

810.00

4/3/2001

3.0

3.0

23060

24095

0.20

1035.00

4/3/2001

3.0

3.0

24095

25150

0.20

1055.00

4/3/2001

3.0

3.0

25150

26300

0.22

1150.00

4/3/2001

0.0

2.0

26300

27496

0.23

1196.00

3/14/2001

0.0

2.0

27496

28715

0.23

1219.00

3/14/2001

0.0

2.0

28715
11

29770

0.20

1055.00

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

SR-74 Westbound (WB) MP 17 to 19
Sta 234+00 is MP 18 & Sta 181+10 is MP 19
Overlay
Mill
MP
Construction Thickness Thickness
(in)
From
(in)
Date

AR-ACFC (PG 64-16, CRA-1,
74-W01 3/8-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (PG 64-16, CRA-1,
74-W02 3/8-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (PG 64-16, CRA-1,
74-W03 3/8-in TSA)
P-ACFC (PG 76-22+, 3/8-in
74-W04 TSA)
TB-ACFC (PG 76-22 TR+, 3/874-W05 in TSA)
AR-ACFC (PG 64-16, CRA-1,
74-W06 3/8-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (PG 64-16, CRA-1,
74-W07 3/8-in TSA)
Total Sections

MP To

3/28/2001

2.0

2.0

21625

23060

0.27

1435.00

3/28/2001

3.0

3.0

23060

24095

0.20

1035.00

3/28/2001

3.0

3.0

24095

25370

0.24

1275.00

4/3/2001

3.0

3.0

25370

26380

0.19

1010.00

4/3/2001

0.0

2.0

26380

27496

0.21

1116.00

3/28/2001

0.0

2.0

27496

28715

0.23

1219.00

3/28/2001

0.0

2.0

28715
7

29770

0.20

1055.00

103

Table 54. Test Section Descriptions for SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Treatments.

Test
Section
ID

Material

SR-66 Eastbound (EB) MP 110 to MP 123
Binder
Aggregate
Construction Application Application
(gal/sy)
(lb/sy)
Date

Double Application Chip Seal
66-E01 and Blotter, ADOT
66-E02 Double Application, ADOT
66-E03 AC15-5TR, Paramount
66-E04 CRS-2, Copperstate
66-E05 AR-ACFC, ADOT
66-E06 Novachip, Koch
66-E07 Microsurfacing, SW Slurry
66-E08 AR-Chip, Int'l Slurry Surfacing
66-E09 CRS-2P, ADOT
66-E10 CM-90, Navajo Western
66-E11 CRS-2P, Crown
66-E12 Pass Oil, Western Emulsion
66-E13 ACFC, ADOT
66-E14 CRS-2P, ADOT
Total Sections

8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/10/2000
8/11/2000
4/30/2001
8/24/2000
8/15/2000
8/11/2000
8/28/2000
8/11/2000
8/11/2000
8/12/2000
5/1/2001
8/28/2000

20 (1/2-in)
0.55
?? (3/8-in)
0.47
No Info
No Info
27 (5/8-in)
0.50
26 (5/8-in)
0.55
59 (??-in) 0.08 (tack)
65? (1/2-in)
0.19
33 (Type 3)
N/A
24 (??-in)
0.62
?? (3/8-in)
No Info
24 (5/8-in)
0.45
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
26 (5/8-in)
0.45
No Info
No Info
?? (5/8-in)
No Info

MP
From
110.75
111.50
112.75
113.50
114.15
116.25
117.00
117.75
118.50
119.23
120.00
120.65
121.50
122.25
14

SR-66 Westbound (WB) MP 110 to MP 123
Binder
Aggregate
MP
Construction Application Application
(gal/sy)
From
(lb/sy)
Date

Test
Section
ID

Material

66-W01
66-W02
66-W03
66-W04
66-W05
66-W06
66-W07
66-W08
66-W09
66-W10
66-W11
66-W12
66-W13
66-W14

Double Application Chip Seal
and Blotter, ADOT
Double Application, ADOT
CRS-2P, Crown
CRS-2, Copperstate
CRS-2P, ADOT
AC15-5TR, Paramount
Pass Oil, Western Emulsion
AR-Chip, Intl' Slurry Surfacing
CM-90, Navajo Western
ACFC, ADOT
Novachip, Koch
Microsurfacing, SW Slurry
AR-ACFC, ADOT
CRS-2P, ADOT 5/8"

8/29/2000
8/29/2000
8/11/2000
8/11/2000
8/28/2000
8/10/2000
8/12/2000
8/11/2001
8/11/2000
5/1/2001
8/24/2000
8/16/2000
4/30/2001
8/28/2000

28 (1/2-in)
0.55
22 (3/8-in)
0.47
No Info
No Info
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
23 (5/8-in)
0.55
?? (3/8-in)
No Info
27 (5/8-in)
0.50
26 (5/8-in)
0.45
24 (??-in)
0.62
23 (5/8-in)
0.47
No Info
No Info
65 (1/2-in)
0.19
33 (Type 3)
N/A
59? (??-in) 0.08 (tack)
?? (5/8-in)
No Info

Total Sections

104

110.25
111.50
112.75
113.50
114.25
116.25
117.00
117.75
118.50
119.35
120.00
120.75
121.50
122.25
14

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

111.50
112.75
113.50
114.15
115.00
117.00
117.75
118.50
119.23
120.00
120.65
121.50
122.25
123.00

0.75
1.25
0.75
0.65
0.85
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.73
0.77
0.65
0.85
0.75
0.75

3960.00
6600.00
3960.00
3432.00
4488.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3854.40
4065.60
3432.00
4488.00
3960.00
3960.00

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

111.50
112.75
113.50
114.25
115.00
117.00
117.75
118.50
119.35
120.00
120.75
121.50
122.25
123.00

1.25
1.25
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.85
0.65
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

6600.00
6600.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
4488.00
3432.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

Table 55. Test Section Descriptions for SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Treatments.

Test
Section
ID

Material

SR-87 Winslow Northbound (NB)
Binder
Aggregate
Construction Application Application
(gal/sy)
(lb/sy)
Date

87-N01
87-N02
87-N03

Double Application Chip Seal
and Blotter, ADOT
CM-90, Navajo Western
CM-90, Navajo Western

6/16/2000
6/13/2000
6/13/2000

87-N04

Double Chip Seal, ADOT

6/15/2000

87-N05
87-N06
87-N07
87-N08
87-N09

Double Chip Seal, ADOT
Novachip, Koch
Pass Oil, Western Emulsion
AC15-5TR, Paramount
Pass Oil, Western Emulsion

6/15/2000
7/6/2000
6/15/2000
6/12/2000
6/15/2000

20 (1/2-in)
0.47
8 (No. 4)
0.45
24 (5/8-in)
0.44
24 (5/8-in)
0.44
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
?? (3/8-in)
??
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
?? (3/8-in)
??
65 (1/2-in) 0.16 (tack)
26 (5/8-in)
0.45
28 (5/8-in)
0.45
26 (5/8-in)
0.45

Total Sections

Test
Section
ID

MP
From

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

385.000 385.750
387.227 388.250
388.250 389.000

0.750
1.023
0.750

3960.00
5401.44
3960.00

389.000 389.748

0.748

3949.44

389.748
390.477
391.142
392.015
392.750

390.477
391.142
392.015
392.750
393.462

0.729
0.665
0.873
0.735
0.712

3849.12
3511.20
4609.44
3880.80
3759.36

MP
From

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

385.000
385.750
386.500
387.466

385.750
386.500
387.466
388.250

0.750
0.750
0.966
0.784

3960.00
3960.00
5100.48
4139.52

388.250 389.000

0.750

3960.00

389.000
389.748
390.477
390.825
391.251
391.990
392.739

0.748
0.729
0.348
0.426
0.739
0.749
0.724

3949.44
3849.12
1837.44
2249.28
3901.92
3954.72
3822.72

MP To

9

Material

SR-87 Winslow Southbound (SB)
Binder
Aggregate
Construction Application Application
(gal/sy)
(lb/sy)
Date

87-S12
87-S11
87-S10
87-S09

Double Application Chip Seal
and Blotter, ADOT
Control, 2-in Mill and Overlay
Control, 2-in Mill and Overlay
AC15-5TR, Paramount

6/16/2000
6/1/1999
6/1/1999
6/12/2000

87-S08

Double Chip Seal, ADOT

6/15/2000

87-S07
87-S06
87-S05
87-S04
87-S03
87-S02
87-S01

Double Chip Seal, ADOT
CRS-2, Copperstate
Control, 2-in Mill and Overlay
Novachip, Koch
CRS-2, Copperstate
CRS-2P, Crown
CRS-2P, Crown

6/15/2000
6/14/2000
6/1/1999
7/6/2000
6/14/2000
6/14/2000
6/14/2000

20 (1/2-in)
0.47
8 (No. 4)
0.45
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
28 (5/8-in)
0.45
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
?? (3/8-in)
??
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
?? (3/8-in)
??
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
N/A
N/A
65 (1/2-in) 0.16 (tack)
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
26 (5/8-in)
0.48
26 (5/8-in)
0.48

Total Sections

12

105

389.748
390.477
390.825
391.251
391.990
392.739
393.463

Table 56. Test Section Descriptions for SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Treatments.
SR-83 Northbound (NB) MP 32 to MP 43
Aggregate
Binder
Construction Application Application
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)

Test
Section
ID

Material

83-001
83-002
83-003
83-004
83-005
83-006
83-007
83-008
83-009
83-010
83-011
83-012
83-013
83-014

Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
Double Chip Seal, ADOT
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC, ADOT
AR-ACFC (replaced CRS-2P)
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CRS-2P, ADOT
Asphalt Rubber Chip, ISS
P-ACFC, Paramount
Novachip, Koch
CM-90, Koch
CRS-2, ADOT
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
Pass CR, Western Emulsion

7/14/2001
No Info
6/8/2001
No Info
7/20/2001
6/26/2001
7/25/2001
7/14/2001
6/11/2001
8/3/2001
6/26/2001
No Info
7/24/2001
7/23/2001

36 (Type 3)
N/A
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
37 (5/8-in)
0.51
30 (5/8-in)
0.48
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
0.20 (tack)
27 (5/8-in)
0.53
26 (5/8-in)
0.50
33 (5/8-in)
0.56
?? (5/8-in)
0.45

Total Sections

Test
Section
ID

MP
From

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

33.20
33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64
41.26
41.87
42.48
43.09

33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64
41.26
41.87
42.48
43.09
43.50

0.71
0.61
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.62
2.44
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.41

3748.80
3220.80
3273.60
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3273.60
12883.20
3273.60
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
2164.80

MP
From

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

33.20
33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64

33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64
41.26

0.71
0.61
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.62
2.44
0.62

3748.80
3220.80
3273.60
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3273.60
12883.20
3273.60

41.26
41.87
42.48
43.09

41.87
42.48
43.09
43.50

0.61
0.61
0.61
0.41

3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
2164.80

14

Material

SR-83 Southbound (SB) MP 32 to MP 43
Aggregate
Binder
Construction Application Application
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)

83-015
83-016
83-017
83-018
83-019
83-020
83-021
83-022
83-023
83-024

AR-ACFC
CRS-2, ADOT
Asphalt Rubber Chip, ISS
CM-90, Koch
AR-ACFC, ADOT
CRS-2P, ADOT
Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
AC15-5TR, Paramount
P-ACFC, Paramount
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate

6/8/2001
No Info
7/14/2001
7/23/2001
No Info
7/25/2001
7/14/2001
6/26/2001
6/12/2001
7/24/2001

83-025
83-026
83-027
83-028

Double Chip Seal, ADOT
CRS-2P, Crown
Novachip, Koch
Pass CR, Western Emulsion

7/25/2001
7/26/2001
8/3/2001
7/24/2001

No Info
26 (5/8-in)
No Info
No Info
No Info
No Info
30 (Type 3)
34 (5/8-in)
No Info
No Info
25 (5/8-in)
?? (3/8-in)
30 (5/8-in)
No Info
?? (5/8-in)

Total Sections

No Info
0.50
No Info
0.51
No Info
No Info
N/A
0.48
No Info
No Info
0.58
0.64
0.55
No Info
No Info

14

106

Table 57. Test Section Descriptions for U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Treatments.
US-191 Northbound (NB) MP 181 to MP 185
Aggregate
Binder
Construction Application Application
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)
From

Test
Section
ID

Material

191-001
191-002
191-003
191-004
191-005
191-006

CRS-2P, ADOT
Control
CRS-2P (future const), ADOT
CRS-2P, ADOT
CRS-2P (future const), ADOT
Control

7/2/2001
Original
Original
7/2/2001
Original
Original

32 (5/8-in)
N/A
No Info
33 (5/8-in)
No Info
N/A

0.51
N/A
No Info
0.57
No Info
N/A

Total Sections

181.00
181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35
185.00

0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.65

3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3432.00

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35
185.00

0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.65

3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3432.00

6
US-191 Southbound (SB) MP 181 to MP 185
Aggregate
Binder
Construction Application Application
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)
From

Test
Section
ID

Material

191-007
191-008
191-009
191-010
191-011
191-012

CRS-2P, ADOT
Control
CRS-2P (future const), ADOT
CRS-2P, ADOT
CRS-2P (future const), ADOT
Control

7/2/2001
Original
Original
7/2/2001
Original
Original

31 (5/8-in)
N/A
No Info
29 (5/8-in)
No Info
N/A

Total Sections

0.54
N/A
No Info
0.53
No Info
N/A

181.00
181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35
6

107

Table 57. Test Section Descriptions for U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Treatments (Continued).

Test
Section
ID

Material

US-191 Northbound (NB) MP 200.5 to MP 219.25
Aggregate
Binder
Construction Application Application
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)
From

191-013
191-014
191-015
191-016
191-017
191-018
191-019

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

AR-Chip, ISS
CRS-2, ADOT
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CM-90, Koch
AR-ACFC, ADOT
HF CRS-2P, ADOT
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64191-020 28

No Info
6/27/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
No Info
6/18/2001
6/25/2001

No Info
27 (3/8-in)
28 (5/8-in)
30 (5/8-in)
?? (5/8-in)
No Info
27 (3/8-in)

No Info
0.48
0.571
0.522
?? (5/8-in)
No Info
0.462

200.50
201.25
202.00
202.75
203.50
204.25
205.00

201.25
202.00
202.75
203.50
204.25
205.00
205.75

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

6/15/2001

205.75

206.50

0.75

3960.00

191-021
191-022
191-023
191-024
191-025
191-026
191-027
191-028
191-029
191-030
191-031
191-032
191-033

Double Chip Seal, ADOT
Novachip, Koch
Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CRS-2, ADOT
CM-90, Koch
AR-Chip, ISS
Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
AR-ACFC, ADOT
Novachip, Koch
HF CRS-2P, ADOT
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64191-034 28
191-035 HF CRS-2P, Copperstate

6/29/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
6/25/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
No Info
No Info
6/27/2001
6/19/2001
6/21/2001
6/25/2001

No Info
No Info
29 (5/8-in)
0.548
23 (3/8-in)
0.501
90 (?-in) 0.20 (tack)
23 (Type 3)
N/A
29 (5/8-in)
0.51
29 (5/8-in)
0.547
28 (5/8-in)
0.535
27 (3/8-in)
0.475
?? (5/8-in) ?? (5/8-in)
No Info
No Info
32 (Type 3)
N/A
No Info
No Info
90 (?-in) 0.20 (tack)
27 (3/8-in)
0.475

206.50
207.25
208.00
208.75
210.25
211.00
211.75
212.50
213.25
214.00
214.75
215.50
216.25

207.25
208.00
208.75
209.75
211.00
211.75
212.50
213.25
214.00
214.75
215.50
216.25
217.00

0.75
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
5280.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

217.00
217.75

217.75
218.50

0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00

191-036 Double Chip Seal, ADOT

6/29/2001

218.50

219.25

0.75

3960.00

6/15/2001
6/25/2001

No Info
32 (5/8-in)
29 (5/8-in)
22 (3/8-in)

Total Sections

No Info
0.50
0.569
0.495

24

108

Table 57. Test Section Descriptions for U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Treatments (Continued).

Test
Section
ID

Material

US-191 Southbound (SB) MP 200.5 to MP 219.25
Aggregate
Binder
Construction Application Application
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)
From

191-037
191-038
191-039
191-040
191-041
191-042
191-043

MP To

Length
(mi)

Distance
(ft)

AR-Chip, ISS
CRS-2, ADOT
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CM-90, Koch
AR-ACFC, ADOT
HF CRS-2P, ADOT
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64191-044 28

No Info
6/27/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
No Info
6/18/2001
6/25/2001

No Info
27 (3/8-in)
28 (5/8-in)
29 (5/8-in)
?? (5/8-in)
No Info
27 (3/8-in)

No Info
0.444
0.55
0.52
?? (5/8-in)
No Info
0.441

200.50
201.25
202.00
202.75
203.50
204.25
205.00

201.25
202.00
202.75
203.50
204.25
205.00
205.75

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

6/15/2001

205.75

206.50

0.75

3960.00

191-045
191-046
191-047
191-048
191-049
191-050
191-051
191-052
191-053
191-054
191-055
191-056
191-057

Double Chip Seal, ADOT
Novachip, Koch
Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CRS-2, ADOT
CM-90, Koch
AR-Chip, ISS
Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
AR-ACFC, ADOT
Novachip, Koch
HF CRS-2P, ADOT
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64191-058 28
191-059 HF CRS-2P, Copperstate

6/29/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
6/25/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
No Info
No Info
6/27/2001
6/19/2001
6/21/2001
6/25/2001

No Info
No Info
29 (5/8-in)
0.567
23 (3/8-in)
0.529
90 (?-in) 0.20 (tack)
31 (Type 3)
N/A
29 (5/8-in)
0.45
28 (5/8-in)
0.506
28 (5/8-in)
0.496
27 (3/8-in)
0.446
?? (5/8-in) ?? (5/8-in)
No Info
No Info
30 (Type 3)
N/A
No Info
No Info
90 (?-in) 0.20 (tack)
27 (3/8-in)
0.469

206.50
207.25
208.00
208.75
210.25
211.00
211.75
212.50
213.25
214.00
214.75
215.50
216.25

207.25
208.00
208.75
209.75
211.00
211.75
212.50
213.25
214.00
214.75
215.50
216.25
217.00

0.75
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
5280.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

217.00
217.75

217.75
218.50

0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00

191-060 Double Chip Seal, ADOT

6/29/2001

218.50

219.25

0.75

3960.00

6/15/2001
6/25/2001

No Info
29 (5/8-in)
29 (5/8-in)
??

Total Sections

No Info
0.49
0.507
??

24

109

110

APPENDIX B
AVAILABLE BINDER AND AGGREGATE DETAILS

111

112

Table 58. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.

Asphalt
Cement type
Binder type
Viscosity
Penetration 32.9° F
Resilience 77° F
Softening point







Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

PG 64‐16 Aggregate type
Asphalt content
CRA‐1 Max size
3/4 in. Air void content
3500 Specific gravity
2.619
(Oven dry bulk)
36 Absorption
1.18%
33% Sand equivalent
88
143° F Flakiness index
16
LA abrasion
22%
(500)
% Fractured
98%
% Carbonates
0.3%
Source Comments

5.9%
4.0%

Aggregate CM0151 “special,” 3/16‐inch and 1/4‐inch from Salt River S&R (McKellips Rd Pit).
PG 64‐16 from Chevron.
CRA‐1 binder from FNF Construction.
Rubber WRF‐14 from Polytek Southwest.
Hydrated lime from Chemical Lime Co.
Table 59. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for SMA I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type

Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

PG 70‐28 Aggregate type
Asphalt content
Max size
3/4 in. Air void content
Specific gravity
2.594 Cellulose fiber
(Oven dry bulk)
Absorption
1.516%
Sand equivalent
67
LA abrasion
20%
(500)
% Fractured
99.1%
Source Comments

6.6%
4.0%
0.3%

 Aggregate from United Metro Plants 14131 (Maricopa Rd and Gila River) and 11111 (19th Ave and
Salt River).
 PG 76‐22, mineral filler, and cellulose fibers from FNF Construction.
 Hydrated lime from Chemical Lime Co.
113

Table 60. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for PEM I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type

Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

PG 76‐22 Aggregate type
Asphalt content
Max size
1‐1/4 in. Cellulose fiber
Specific gravity
2.588
(Oven dry bulk)
Absorption
1.15%
Sand equivalent
72
Flakiness index
3.50%
LA abrasion
20%
(500)
% Fractured
98.0%
% Carbonates
0.9%
Source Comments

5.5%
0.3%

 Aggregate from United Metro Plants 14131 (Maricopa Rd and Gila River) and 11111 (19th Ave and
Salt River).
 PG 76‐22, mineral filler, and cellulose fibers from FNF Construction.
 Hydrated lime from Chemical Lime Co.
Table 61. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for ACFC I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity

Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

PG 64‐16 Aggregate type
Asphalt content
Max size
3/4 in. Air void content
Specific gravity
2.617 Cellulose fiber
(Oven dry bulk)
Absorption
1.22%
Sand equivalent
88
Flakiness index
16
LA abrasion
22%
(500)
% Fractured
98%
% Carbonates
0.3%
Source Comments

 Aggregate CM0151 “special,” 3/16‐inch and 1/4‐inch from Salt River S&R (McKellips Rd Pit).
 PG 64‐16 from Chevron.
 Hydrated lime from Chemical Lime Co.
114

5.9%
4.0%
0.3%

Table 62. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for P‐ACFC I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type

Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

PG 76‐22 Aggregate type
Asphalt content
Max size
3/4 in. Air void content
Specific gravity
2.617 Cellulose fiber
(Oven dry bulk)
Absorption
1.22%
Sand equivalent
88
Flakiness index
16
LA abrasion
22%
(500)
% Fractured
98%
% Carbonates
0.3%
Source Comments

 Aggregate CM0151 “special,” 3/16‐inch and 1/4‐inch from Salt River S&R (McKellips Rd Pit).
 PG 76‐22 from Navajo Western.
 Hydrated lime from Chemical Lime Co.

115

5.9%
4.0%
0.3%

Table 63. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type

CRA‐1 Aggregate type

Cement type
Viscosity 177° C
Penetration 4° C
Softening point









Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

CM0288 Asphalt content
C‐1350
C‐1349
3/8 in. Rubber, WRF‐14
2.610

PG 64‐16 Max size
2.7 Pa∙S Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
12 Absorption
1.92%
62° C Sand equivalent
64
Flakiness index
20%
LA abrasion
20%
(500)
% Fractured
85%
% Carbonates
1.2%
Source Comments

Aggregate CM0288 3/8‐inch: SR, 1/4" IN, and C‐Fine from Salt River S&R (Sub City).
Aggregate C‐1350 3/8‐inch H from Hanson Material (123rd Ave and Camelback).
Aggregate C‐1349 C‐Fine from FNF New River Pit.
Asphalt cement PG 64‐16 from Koch Navajo.
Binder CRA‐1 from FNF Construction.
Rubber WRF‐14 from Polytek Southwest.
Hydrated lime from Chemical Lime Co.

Table 64. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for P‐ACFC SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 135° C
Dynamic shear
76° C (original)
Dynamic shear
76° C (RTFO)

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 76‐22+ Aggregate type
1.3 Pa∙S Max size
1.32 kPa Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
2.88 Absorption

116

Mix
Asphalt content
3/8 in. Air void content

9.2%

22%

Table 65. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for TB‐ACFC SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 135° C
Dynamic shear
76° C (original)
Dynamic Shear
76° C (RTFO)

PG 76‐22 TR Aggregate type
4.2 Pa∙S Max size
2.1 kPa Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
4.75 Absorption

Mix
Asphalt content
3/8 in. Air void content

Table 66. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Softening point
Float test 60° C

PG 64‐28 Aggregate type
≥ 75, ≤ 400 Max size
133.5° F
927

Mix

Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content
Stability
Flow
Cellulose fiber

6.0%
7.7%
1170
12
0.3%

Table 67. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Novachip/Koch Materials
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 135° C
Softening point
Penetration 25° C
Flash point

Mix

PG 70‐28 Aggregate type
Asphalt content
≤ 3.0 Max size
1/2 in. Air void content
≥ 60° C Specific gravity
2.743
(oven dry bulk)
33 Absorption
1.32
≥ 230° C Sand equivalent
79.5
LA abrasion
16.2
(500)
Source Comments

 PG 70‐28 from United Metro.
117

10.8%

Table 68. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for PASS CR/Western Emulsion
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 77° F
pH
Residue by
evaporation

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 64‐16 Aggregate type
≥ 15, ≤ 150 Max size
≥ 2, ≤ 6
≥ 65

Mix
5/8 in.

Table 69. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 122° F
Softening point
Float test 60° C
Penetration 77° F

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 64‐22 Aggregate type
≥ 50, ≤ 400 Max size
≥ 60° C
≥ 1200
≥ 40, ≤ 100
Source Comments

 PG 64‐22 from Diamond Shamrock (Ardmore, Oklahoma).

118

Mix
Asphalt content
Air void content
Polymer content

3%

Table 70. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Microsurfacing/Southwest Slurry
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 77° F
Softening point
Residue by
evaporation
Penetration 77° F

Mix

PG 64‐16 Aggregate type
≥ 15, ≤ 100 Max size
≥ 140° F
≥ 60

Asphalt content

≥ 40, ≤ 90
Source Comments

 Southwest Slurry Type III (ISS): RTE emulsion (Paramount, Phoenix, AZ, Product #512).
 HN‐16 rubber scraps (ISS/Polytek Southwest Item #171860, Queen Creek, Arizona).
 PG 64‐16 (Paramount Flagstaff, Arizona).

Table 71. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC/ADOT
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Cement type
Binder type

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 58‐22 Aggregate type
CRA‐2 Max size
Sand equivalent
Flakiness index
% Carbonates

Mix
1/2 in.
63
15%
2.4%

Source Comments






Aggregate CM0348 3/8‐inch and CCFINE from Hamilton Pit.
CRA‐2 binder from FNF Construction.
Asphalt PG 58‐22 from Koch.
Rubber WRF‐14 from Polytek Southwest.
Hydrated lime from Chemical Lime Co.

119

12±1.0%

Table 72. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
SR 66 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 135° C
Softening point
Penetration 25° C
Flash point

Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

Aggregate type
≤ 2000 Max size
5/8 in.
≥ 60° C
33
≥ 232° C
Source Comments

 Mohave Cave (Kingman) source for AC 15‐5 TR chips.
 1‐1/2‐inch Crushed Rock and 1/2‐inch Chips from Mohave.
 Emulsion from Channel View, Texas (Houston).

Table 73. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Softening point
Float test 60° C

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 64‐28 Aggregate type
≥ 75, ≤ 400 Max size
133.5° F Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
927 Absorption
Sand equivalent
Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Fractured
% Carbonates

120

Mix

Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content
2.588 Stability

6.0%
7.7%
1170

1.15% Flow
72 Cellulose fiber
3.50%
20%

12
0.3%

98.0%
0.9%

Table 74. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC/ADOT
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
COC flash point
Softening point
Tire rubber content

Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

PG 76‐22 Aggregate type
TR+
≥ 450° F Max size
≥ 140° F Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
≥ 8% Absorption
Sand
equivalent
Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Fractured
% Carbonates
Source Comments

CM0371 Asphalt content

6.5%

3/8 in.
2.528
1.94%
65
10%
19%
89%
10.6%

 Aggregate CM0371 granite chips, chat, and sand from United Metro (Swan Pit, San Xavier 5/8‐
inch and 3/8‐inch).
 Asphalt PG 76‐22TR+ from Koch Navajo.
 Lime from Chemical Lime Co.
Table 75. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CM‐90/Koch Materials
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Viscosity 135° C
Flash point

Common Properties
Aggregate
Multigrade Aggregate type
≥ 400 Max size
≤ 2000 Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
≥ 66° C Absorption
Sand equivalent
Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Fractured
% Carbonates
121

Mix

Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content
2.588 Stability

6.0%
7.7%
1170

1.15% Flow
72 Cellulose fiber
3.50%
20%

12
0.3%

98.0%
0.9%

Table 76. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 122° F
Softening point
Float test 60° C
Penetration 77° F

Common Properties
Aggregate
Emulsion Aggregate type
≥ 50, ≤ 400 Max size
≥ 63.5° C Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
1503 Absorption
49 Sand equivalent
Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Fractured
% Carbonates

Mix

Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content
2.588 Stability

6.0%
7.7%
1170

1.15% Flow
72 Cellulose fiber
3.50%
20%

12
0.3%

98.0%
0.9%

Table 77. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Viscosity 135° C
Flash point
Softening point
Penetration 25° C

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 70‐22 Aggregate type
≥ 1500 Max size
≤ 2000 Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
≥ 232° C Absorption
≥ 60° C Sand equivalent
55‐90 dmm Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Fractured
% Carbonates

122

Mix

Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content
2.588 Stability

6.0%
7.7%
1170

1.15% Flow
72 Cellulose fiber
3.50%
20%

12
0.3%

98.0%
0.9%

Table 78. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Slurry Seal/Southwest Slurry
SR 83 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 77° F
Evaporation
residue
Polymer content

Common Properties
Aggregate
emulsion, Aggregate type
CSS‐1h
≥ 15 ≤ 100 Max size
≥ 60% Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
≥ 4% Absorption
Sand equivalent
Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Fractured
% Carbonates

Mix
Asphalt content

6.0%

Air void content
2.588 Stability

7.7%
1170

1.15% Flow
≥ 50 Cellulose fiber
3.50%
20%

12
0.3%

98.0%
0.9%

Table 79. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Viscosity 135° C
Flash point
Penetration 25° C
Soft point

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 64‐28 Aggregate type
≤ 1500 Max size
≤ 2000
≥ 232
≥ 75, ≤ 125
≥ 50

123

Mix
Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content

Table 80. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CM‐90/Navajo Western
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Viscosity 135° C
Flashpoint
Float test 60° C

Mix

multigrade Aggregate type
≥ 400 Max size
≤ 2000
≥ 66
≥ 1200

Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content

Table 81. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for PASS Oil/Western Emulsion
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 77° F
Viscosity 140° F
Residue from
evaporation
pH

Mix

Patented Aggregate type
emulsion
75.2 Max size
Too viscous
65.7

5/8 in.

4.5

Table 82. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Novachip/Koch Materials
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity, 135° C
Flash point

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 70‐28 Aggregate type
0.30 Pa∙S Max size
≥ 230° C Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
Absorption
Sand equivalent
Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Carbonates

124

Mix

Asphalt content
1/2 in. Air void content
2.804
1.92%
83
15.3%
37.2%
4.9%

11.2%

Table 83. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 50° C
Penetration 25° C
Residue from
evaporation

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 64‐28 Aggregate type
≥ 100, ≤ 400 Max size
≥ 40, ≤ 100
≥ 66

Mix
5/8 in.

Table 84. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2LM/Copperstate
SR 87 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 122° F
Penetration 77° F

Common Properties
Aggregate
Aggregate type
≥ 75, ≤ 400 Max size
≥ 40, ≤ 90 Specific gravity
(oven dry bulk)
Absorption
Sand equivalent
Flakiness index
LA abrasion
(500)
% Fractured
% Carbonates

Mix

Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content
2.588 Stability

6.0%
7.7%
1170

1.15% Flow
72 Cellulose fiber
3.50%
20%

12
0.3%

98.0%
0.9%

Table 85. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CM‐90/Koch Materials
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Viscosity 135° C
Flash point

Common Properties
Aggregate
Multigrade Aggregate type
≥ 400 Max size
≤ 2000
≥ 66° C

125

Mix
Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content

Table 86. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AC15‐5TR/Paramount
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Viscosity 135° C
Flash point
Softening point
Penetration 25° C

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 70‐22 Aggregate type
≥ 1500 Max size
≤ 2000
≥ 232° C
≥ 60° C
55‐90 dmm

Mix
Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content

Table 87. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for CRS‐2P/Crown
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 60° C
Penetration 25° C

Common Properties
Aggregate
PG 64‐28 Aggregate type
≥ 75, ≤ 400 Max size
80‐150
dmm

126

Mix
Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content

Table 88. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for AR‐ACFC/ADOT
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type
Cement type
Rubber type






Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

CRA‐2 Aggregate type
CM0017 Asphalt content
PG 58‐22 Max size
3/8 in. Rubber content
Type B Specific gravity
2.565
(oven dry bulk)
Absorption
1.21%
Sand equivalent
65
Flakiness index
14%
LA abrasion
19%
(500)
% Carbonates
0.3%
Source Comments

9.5%
20.5%

Aggregate CM0017 from Brimhall (Snowflake).
Asphalt PG 58‐22 from Copperstate.
Asphalt CRA‐2 from ISS.
Rubber from FNRI.

Table 89. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for P‐ACFC/Paramount
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.

Asphalt
Binder type

Common Properties
Aggregate

Mix

PG 64‐28 TR Aggregate type
CM0017 Asphalt content
Max size
3/8 in.
Specific gravity
2.565
(oven dry bulk)
Absorption
1.21%
Sand equivalent
65
Flakiness index
14%
LA abrasion
19%
(500)
% Carbonates
0.3%
Source Comments

 Aggregate CM0017 from Brimhall (Snowflake).
 Asphalt PG 64‐28TR from Paramount.
127

6.5%

Table 90. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for HF CRS‐2P/Copperstate
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 122° F
Softening point
Float test 60° C
Penetration 77° F

Emulsion
≥ 50, ≤ 400
≥ 65° C
≥ 1200
≥ 40, ≤ 100

Aggregate type
Max size

Mix
Asphalt content
5/8 in. Air void content

Table 91. Binder and Aggregate Details Available for Slurry Seal/Southwest Slurry
U.S. 191 Preventive Maintenance Sections.
Common Properties
Aggregate

Asphalt
Binder type
Viscosity 77° F
Evaporation
residue
Polymer content

Emulsion, Aggregate type
CSS‐1h
≥ 15 ≤ 100 Max size
≥ 60%
≥ 4%

128

Mix
Asphalt content
Air void content

APPENDIX C
PERFORMANCE/CONDITION DATA FOR WEARING COURSES AND
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE EXPERIMENTS

129

130

Table 92. Performance/Condition Data for I‐10 Wearing Course Sections.
I-10 Eastbound (EB) MP 186.20 to MP 190.74
I-10 Eastbound (EB) MP 186.20 to MP 190.74

Test
Section
ID
99-1
99-2
99-3
99-4
99-5
99-6
99-7
99-8
99-9
99-10
99-11
99-12
99-13
99-14
99-15
99-16
99-17
99-18
99-19
99-20
99-21
99-22
99-23
99-24
99-25
99-26
99-27
99-28
99-29
99-30
99-31
99-32
Total
Sections

Material
AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control

Construction Mill Thick.
Date
(in)
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/19/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999
5/25/1999

3.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
2.5

Inspection Data / Distresses

Overlay
Thick
(in)

MP
From

MP To

3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0

186.20
186.48
186.76
187.05
187.33
187.61
187.90
188.18
188.47
188.75
189.03
189.32
189.60
189.89
190.17
190.45
190.74
191.02
191.31
191.59
191.88
192.16
192.44
192.73
193.01
193.30
193.58
193.86
194.15
194.43
194.72
195.00

186.48
186.76
187.05
187.33
187.61
187.90
188.18
188.47
188.75
189.03
189.32
189.60
189.89
190.17
190.45
190.74
191.02
191.31
191.59
191.88
192.16
192.44
192.73
193.01
193.30
193.58
193.86
194.15
194.43
194.72
195.00
195.28

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.28

1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1478.40

0.81
0.79
1.00
1.37
1.26
1.06
0.77
0.98
1.25
1.23
0.86
1.23
1.18
0.74
1.04
1.06
1.09
0.83
1.02
1.38
1.32
1.03
0.78
1.14
1.22
1.33
1.05
1.34
0.73
1.10
1.29
0.82

-

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

69
68
64
71
59
68
65
66
58
69
60
58
69
61
64
58
64
61
59
56
68
64
60
58
65
55
63
53
57
57
66
58

32

131

-

4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.5

730
880
940
790
760
700
786
600
630
700
614
490
636
526
640
442
538
600
534
536
510
430
490
490
510
430
322
370
440
300
390
442

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)

500

250

470

400

430
300
430

1100
1200

300
350

1200

150
12

45
60
50
40
80
350
800
300
600
80
100
220

0.1%
200
200
310
300
250
500

1000

100

1200
350
1000
400

450
800
2500
1200

4

160
20
40
350
100
120
30

12
20

600
480
300

1400
600
3200

750
1200
60

Table 93. Performance/Condition Data for I‐8 Wearing Course Sections.
I-8 Westbound (WB) MP 88.0 to 92.53
Test
Section
ID
99-34
99-35
99-36
99-37
99-38
99-39
99-40
99-41
99-42
99-43
99-44
99-45
99-46
99-47
99-48
99-33

Material

I-8 Westbound (WB) MP 88.0 to 92.53
Overlay
Construction Mill Thick. Thick
Date
(in)
(in)

AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control

6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/17/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.5

1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

Total
Sections

MP
From

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
MP To
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid

88.00
88.56
88.84
89.17
89.41
89.74
89.99
90.26
90.50
90.83
91.11
91.36
91.68
91.98
92.25
92.53

88.56
88.84
89.17
89.41
89.74
89.99
90.26
90.50
90.83
91.11
91.36
91.68
91.98
92.25
92.53
92.80

0.56
0.28
0.33
0.24
0.33
0.25
0.27
0.24
0.33
0.28
0.25
0.32
0.30
0.27
0.28
0.27

2956.80
1478.40
1742.40
1267.20
1742.40
1320.00
1425.60
1267.20
1742.40
1478.40
1320.00
1689.60
1584.00
1425.60
1478.40
1425.60

1.07
1.56
1.42
1.26
1.04
1.14
1.49
1.37
1.09
1.74
1.61
1.28
1.32
1.43
1.49
1.09

1.158
1.319
1.266
1.373
1.185
1.158
1.266
1.266
1.239
1.454
1.078
1.212
1.292
1.292
1.292
1.078

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

62
62
64
61
64
63
63
63
62
62
65
63
65
64
59
60

-

5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0

760
718
812
766
954
334
322
534
796
692
37
298
660
298
722
834

Inspection Data / Distresses
Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
300
150
200
250
300

3

100
180

300
90

16
I-8 Eastbound (EB) MP 88.0 to 92.53

Test
Section
ID
99-49
99-50
99-51
99-52
99-53
99-54
99-55
99-56
99-57
99-58
99-59
99-60
99-61
99-62
99-63
99-64
Total
Sections

Material

I-8 Eastbound (EB) MP 88.0 to 92.53
Overlay
Construction Mill Thick. Thick
Date
(in)
(in)

AR-ACFC (1/2-in TSA) Control
AR-ACFC(3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC(3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)
AR-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
P-ACFC (3/4-in TSA)
PEM (1 ¼-in TSA)
SMA (3/4-in TSA)

6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999
6/16/1999
6/16/1999
6/15/1999
6/18/1999
6/18/1999

2.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

Inspection Data / Distresses
MP
From

MP To

87.50
88.00
88.28
88.57
88.85
89.04
89.42
89.72
90.00
90.26
90.39
90.83
91.11
91.38
91.68
91.97

88.00
88.28
88.57
88.85
89.04
89.42
89.72
90.00
90.26
90.39
90.83
91.11
91.38
91.68
91.97
92.53

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
0.50
0.28
0.29
0.28
0.19
0.38
0.30
0.28
0.26
0.13
0.44
0.28
0.27
0.30
0.29
0.56

2640.00
1478.40
1531.20
1478.40
1003.20
2006.40
1584.00
1478.40
1372.80
686.40
2323.20
1478.40
1425.60
1584.00
1531.20
2956.80

0.93
0.55
1.16
1.48
1.68
1.28
1.57
1.37
1.33
1.10
1.49
1.12
1.07
1.36
1.22
1.39

0.863
0.433
1.024
1.266
1.427
1.266
1.131
1.185
1.346
1.212
1.319
1.105
0.997
1.292
1.319
1.212

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

63
62
63
62
59
62
64
63
62
60
60
62
62
63
58
62

16

132

-

5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

400
600
550
620
996
690
586
394
408
658
982
572
610
794
471
538

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
190
214
188
500
350
250
200
100

50
50

1400
80
300
150

50
250
100
400
80

40
500

80
35

15

Table 94. Performance/Condition Data for SR 74 Wearing Course Sections.
SR-74 Eastbound (EB) MP 17 to 19

Test
Section
ID
74-E11
74-E10
74-E09
74-E08
74-E07
74-E06
74-E05
74-E04
74-E03
74-E02
74-E01

Material

Sta 234+00 is MP 18 & Sta 181+10 is MP 19
SR-74 Eastbound (EB) MP 17 to 19
Overlay
Construction Mill Thick. Thick
Sta
Date
(in)
(in)
From

P-ACFC, PG 76-22+
P-ACFC, PG 76-22+
Paramount, PG 76-22, TR+
P-ACFC, PG 76-22+
Paramount, PG 76-22, TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22, TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22, TR+
P-ACFC, PG 76-22+
Paramount, PG 76-22, TR+
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
3/14/2001
3/14/2001

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

Total
Sections

20050
20350
20925
21720
22250
23060
24095
25150
26300
27496
28715

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
Sta To
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
20350
20925
21720
22250
23060
24095
25150
26300
27496
28715
29770

0.06
0.11
0.15
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.20
0.22
0.23
0.23
0.20

300.00
575.00
795.00
530.00
810.00
1035.00
1055.00
1150.00
1196.00
1219.00
1055.00

2.33
2.13
2.61
2.33
2.21
2.55
1.96
2.37
2.01
1.33
1.30

1.427
1.427
1.534
1.534
1.427
1.534
1.427
1.534
1.427
1.292
1.105

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

72
74
75
73
72
75
75
81
76
70
70

-

4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.0

400
626
660
500
550
410
244
190
900
660
604

Inspection Data / Distresses
Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
146
400
350
316

360
600
750
500
600

350

650
900
1050
1200
1000
1450
2100
2250
2500
700
500

100
250
200
200
350
400
750
1000

70
180
800
650
125

2200
60
150

11
SR-74 Westbound (WB) MP 17 to 19

Test
Section
ID
74-W01
74-W02
74-W03
74-W04
74-W05
74-W06
74-W07
Total
Sections

Material

Sta 234+00 is MP 18 & Sta 181+10 is MP 19
SR-74 Westbound (WB) MP 17 to 19
Overlay
Construction Mill Thick. Thick
Sta
Date
(in)
(in)
From

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
P-ACFC, PG 76-22+
Paramount, PG 76-22, TR+
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

3/28/2001
3/28/2001
3/28/2001
4/3/2001
4/3/2001
3/28/2001
3/28/2001

2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

2.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

21625
23060
24095
25370
26380
27496
28715

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
Sta To
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
23060
24095
25370
26380
27496
28715
29770

0.27
0.20
0.24
0.19
0.21
0.23
0.20

1435.00
1035.00
1275.00
1010.00
1116.00
1219.00
1055.00

1.30
1.85
1.48
2.09
2.01
1.12
1.40

0.997
1.319
1.212
1.427
1.239
1.212
1.212

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

71
69
66
69
67
68
68

7

133

-

4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
4.5

358
360
200
216
750
360
486

Inspection Data / Distresses
Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
300
540
450
600
280
300

600
800
900
1250
900
300
350

200
300
250
300

1400
80

Table 95. Performance/Condition Data for SR 66 Wearing Course Sections.
SR-66 Eastbound (EB) MP 110 to MP 123

Test
Section
ID

Material

SR-66 Eastbound (EB) MP 110 to MP 123
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
ion
MP
Construction Application
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy) From
Date

66-E01 Double Application Chip, ADOT
66-E02 Double Application
66-E03 AC15-5TR, Paramount

n/a
n/a
8/10/2000

66-E04 CRS-2, Copperstate
66-E05 AR-ACFC, ADOT

8/11/2000
4/30/2001

66-E06
66-E07
66-E08
66-E09

8/24/2000
8/15/2000
8/11/2001
n/a

Novachip, Koch
Type III Microsurface, SW Slurry
AR-Chip, Intl' Slurry Surfacing
CRS-2P, ADOT 3/8"

66-E10 CM-90, Navajo Western

8/11/2000

66-E11 CRS-2P, Crown

8/11/2000

66-E12 Pass Oil, Western Emulsion
66-E13 ACFC, ADOT
66-E14 CRS-2P, ADOT 5/8"

8/12/2000
5/1/2001
n/a

1/2" chip @
20, 3/8"
0.55 &
chip n/a
0.47
n/a
n/a
26
0.50
5/8" agg @
26
0.55
59
0.08
1/2" agg @
65
0.19
33
n/a
24
0.62
n/a
n/a
5/8" agg @
24
0.45
5/8" agg @
26
0.50
5/8" agg @
26
0.45
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

Total
Sections

Inspection Data / Distresses

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
MP To
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)

110.75
111.50
112.75

111.50
112.75
113.50

0.75
1.25
0.75

3960.00
6600.00
3960.00

1.48
1.49
0.72

1.292
1.454
1.266

-

0.524
0.387
0.348

3.5
3.5
3.0

766
600
596

300
400

113.50
114.15

114.15
115.00

0.65
0.85

3432.00
4488.00

1.00
1.30

1.319
1.212

-

0.441
0.355

4.0
5.0

600
900

172
200

116.25
117.00
117.75
118.50

117.00
117.75
118.50
119.23

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.73

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3854.40

1.54
0.92
1.61
1.26

1.319
1.212
1.319
1.292

-

0.396
0.428
0.402
0.440

5.0
5.0
4.5
3.5

615
250
500
75

350
136

119.23

120.00

0.77

4065.60

0.91

1.212

-

0.434

2.5

180

50

2400

200

350

1600

120.00

120.65

0.65

3432.00

1.23

1.212

-

0.383

3.0

120.65
121.50
122.25

121.50
122.25
123.00

0.85
0.75
0.75

4488.00
3960.00
3960.00

0.76
1.32
1.87

0.675
1.105
1.427

-

0.523
0.391
0.478

3.0
4.0
3.5

250

1200
700
1500

50

100
300
200

900

450

600

240
700

2000
225

500
400
60

2400
40

180
150
800

186
150

600

14
SR-66 Westbound (WB) MP 110 to MP 123

Test
Section
ID

Material

SR-66 Westbound (WB) MP 110 to MP 123
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
ion
Construction Application
MP
(lb/sy)
Date
(gal/sy) From

66-W01 Double Application Chip, ADOT
66-W02 Double Application

n/a
n/a

66-W03 CRS-2P, Crown

8/11/2000

66-W04 CRS-2, Copperstate
66-W05 CRS-2P, ADOT 3/8"
66-W06 AC15-5TR, Paramount

8/11/2000
n/a
8/10/2000

66-W07 Pass Oil, Western Emulsion
66-W08 AR-Chip, Intl' Slurry Surfacing

8/12/2000
8/11/2001

66-W09 CM-90, Navajo Western
66-W10 ACFC, ADOT

8/11/2000
5/1/2001

66-W11
66-W12
66-W13
66-W14

8/24/2000
8/16/2000
4/30/2001
n/a

Total
Sections

Novachip, Koch
Type III Microsurface, SW Slurry
AR-ACFC, ADOT
CRS-2P, ADOT 5/8"

1/2" agg @
28, 3/8"
0.55 &
agg @ 22
0.47
n/a
n/a
5/8" agg @
26
0.50
5/8" agg @
23
0.55
n/a
n/a
28
0.50
5/8" agg @
26
0.45
24
0.62
5/8" agg @
23
0.47
n/a
n/a
1/2" agg @
65
0.19
33
n/a
59
0.08
n/a
n/a

Inspection Data / Distresses

MP To

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)

110.25
111.50

111.50
112.75

1.25
1.25

6600.00
6600.00

1.30
1.31

1.212
1.427

-

0.384
0.347

4.0
3.5

800
500

112.75

113.50

0.75

3960.00

1.24

1.534

-

0.397

3.0

174

113.50
114.25
116.25

114.25
115.00
117.00

0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

2.32
1.48
1.10

1.534
1.427
1.427

-

0.534
0.441
0.353

4.0
4.5
3.0

248
550
400

156
330

117.00
117.75

117.75
118.50

0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00

0.47
1.27

0.353
1.427

-

0.533
0.432

4.5
4.0

300
400

310
128

118.50
119.35

119.35
120.00

0.85
0.65

4488.00
3432.00

1.21
1.37

0.326
0.863

-

0.335
0.359

3.0
5.0

474
90

120.00
120.75
121.50
122.25

120.75
121.50
122.25
123.00

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

1.48
0.85
1.20
1.83

1.319
0.353
0.782
1.534

-

0.379
0.477
0.411
0.463

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5

50
450

14

134

552
300

250

200
600

400
900

50

2000

1500

2200
300

300
100
1200

600
500

400
50

150

450
1800

1000

900

300

16

250
800

100
450

50
50

150

20

Table 96. Performance/Condition Data for SR 87 Wearing Course Sections.
SR-87 Winslow Northbound (NB)

Test
Section
ID
87-N01
87-N02
87-N03
87-N04
87-N05
87-N06
87-N07
87-N08
87-N09

SR-87 Winslow Northbound (NB)
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
Material
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)
Double Application Chip, ADOT
6/16/2000
1/2" @ 20
0.47
CM-90, Navajo Western
6/13/2000
5/8" @ 24
0.44
CM-90, Navajo Western
6/13/2000
5/8" @ 24
0.44
Double Chip Seal, ADOT
6/15/2000
1/2" @ 26
0.50
Double Chip Seal, ADOT
6/15/2000
1/2" @ 26
0.50
Novachip, Koch
7/6/2000
1/2" @ 65
0.17
Pass Oil, Western Emulsion
6/15/2000
5/8" @ 26
0.45
AC15-5TR, Paramount
6/12/2000
5/8" @ 28
0.45
Pass Oil, Western Emulsion
6/15/2000
5/8" @ 26
0.45

Total
Sections

Inspection Data / Distresses

MP
From
385.000
387.227
388.250
389.000
389.748
390.477
391.142
392.015
392.750

MP To
385.750
388.250
389.000
389.748
390.477
391.142
392.015
392.750
393.462

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
DF
LTD
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid Test Flushing (L)
0.750 3960.00
1.44
1.427
0.467
4.0
226
1.023 5401.44
1.78
1.534
0.484
3.0
204
0.750 3960.00
1.47
1.346
0.440
4.0
220
0.748 3949.44
1.74
1.534
0.472
5.0
144
0.729 3849.12
1.77
1.427
0.450
5.0
350
0.665 3511.20
1.94
1.427
0.423
5.0
400
0.873 4609.44
2.56
1.534
0.521
5.0
192
0.735 3880.80
1.45
1.427
0.430
4.5
144
0.712 3759.36
3.11
1.534
0.458
5.0
470

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
80
400
240
180
1200
208
650
350
300
180
120
500
25
110
600
250
200
100
150
950
300
350
500

700

350

9
SR-87 Winslow Southbound (SB)

Test
Section
ID
87-S12
87-S11
87-S10
87-S09
87-S08
87-S07
87-S06
87-S05
87-S04
87-S03
87-S02
87-S01
Total
Sections

Material

SR-87 Winslow Southbound (SB)
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy)

Double Application Chip, ADOT
Control, Do Nothing
Control, Do Nothing
AC15-5TR, Paramount
Double Chip Seal, ADOT
Double Chip Seal, ADOT
CRS-2, Copperstate
Control, Do Nothing
Novachip, Koch
CRS-2, Copperstate
CRS-2P, Crown
CRS-2P, Crown

6/16/2000
orig
orig
6/12/2000
6/15/2000
6/15/2000
6/14/2000
orig
7/6/2000
6/14/2000
6/14/2000
6/14/2000

1/2" @ 20
n/a
n/a
5/8" @ 28
1/2" @ 26
1/2" @ 26
5/8" @ 26
n/a
1/2" @ 65
5/8" @ 26
5/8" @ 26
5/8" @ 26

0.47
n/a
n/a
0.45
0.50
0.50
0.50
n/a
0.17
0.50
0.48
0.48

Inspection Data / Distresses

MP
From

MP To

385.000
385.750
386.500
387.466
388.250
389.000
389.748
390.477
390.825
391.251
391.990
392.739

385.750
386.500
387.466
388.250
389.000
389.748
390.477
390.825
391.251
391.990
392.739
393.463

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
0.750
0.750
0.966
0.784
0.750
0.748
0.729
0.348
0.426
0.739
0.749
0.724

3960.00
3960.00
5100.48
4139.52
3960.00
3949.44
3849.12
1837.44
2249.28
3901.92
3954.72
3822.72

1.75
1.11
1.26
1.34
1.71
1.74
2.72
1.48
1.78
2.21
2.43
2.40

1.534
1.105
0.890
1.534
1.534
1.319
1.534
1.400
1.400
1.507
1.534
1.427

-

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)
0.468
0.504
0.459
0.445
0.486
0.496
0.534
0.483
0.461
0.448
0.526
0.453

12

135

4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0

214
500
440
160
300
209
430
500
500
262
292
392

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
80
116
78
250
166
130
304
334
168
180
300

300
600
1000

200

120

350
40

300

900
800
600

250
500
500

120
850
1000

Table 97. Performance/Condition Data for SR 83 Wearing Course Sections.
SR-83 Northbound (NB) MP 32 to MP 43

Test
Section
ID
83-001
83-002
83-003
83-004
83-005
83-006
83-007
83-008
83-009
83-010
83-011
83-012
83-013
83-014

Material

SR-83 Northbound (NB) MP 32 to MP 43
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy) From

Type III Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
Double Chip Seal, ADOT
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC, ADOT
AR-ACFC (replaced CRS-2P)
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CRS-2P, ADOT
Asphalt Rubber Chip, ISS
P-ACFC, Paramount
Novachip, Koch
CM-90, Koch
CRS-2, ADOT
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
Pass CR, Western Emulsion

7/14/2001
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
6/26/2001
7/25/2001
7/14/2001
n/a
8/3/2001
6/26/2001
n/a
7/24/2001
7/23/2001

36
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
37
30
n/a
n/a
n/a
27
26
33
n/a

n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.51
0.48
n/a
n/a
0.20
0.53
0.50
0.55
0.45

Total
Sections

33.20
33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64
41.26
41.87
42.48
43.09

Inspection Data / Distresses

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
MP To
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64
41.26
41.87
42.48
43.09
43.50

0.71
0.61
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.62
2.44
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.41

3748.80
3220.80
3273.60
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3273.60
12883.20
3273.60
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
2164.80

0.54
0.98
1.31
1.43
1.42
1.76
0.58
1.26
1.53
2.06
1.84
1.65
2.73
2.08

0.970
1.105
1.158
1.212
1.212
1.319
0.568
0.702
1.319
1.346
1.507
1.239
1.400
1.534

51
71
63
70
62
63
63
68
60
68
-

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)
0.206
0.409
0.381
0.332
0.337
0.414
0.271
0.282
0.359
0.333
0.359
0.368
0.365
0.407

2.5
4.5
5.0
4.5
5.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5

790
550
390
340
388
512
750
120
880
366
396
320
372
96

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
230
100

600
350

1800
200
600
350
150

200
250

450
500
450

75

450
750
1200
700

150

300
450
250
200
250

800
50
250
60

600
500
250
300

350
30
300

800
800
250
200

60

14
SR-83 Southbound (SB) MP 32 to MP 43

Test
Section
ID
83-015
83-016
83-017
83-018
83-019
83-020
83-021
83-022
83-023
83-024
83-025
83-026
83-027
83-028
Total
Sections

Material

SR-83 Southbound (SB) MP 32 to MP 43
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy) From

AR-ACFC
CRS-2, ADOT
Asphalt Rubber Chip, ISS
CM-90, Koch
AR-ACFC, ADOT
CRS-2P, ADOT
Type III Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
AC15-5TR, Paramount
P-ACFC, Paramount
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
Double Chip Seal, ADOT
CRS-2P, Crown
Novachip, Koch
Pass CR, Western Emulsion

n/a
n/a
7/14/2001
7/23/2001
n/a
7/25/2001
7/14/2001
6/26/2001
n/a
n/a
7/25/2001
7/26/2001
8/3/2001
7/24/2001

n/a
26
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
30
34
n/a
n/a
25
30
n/a
n/a

n/a
0.50
n/a
0.51
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.48
n/a
n/a
0.58
0.55
n/a
n/a

33.20
33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64
41.26
41.87
42.48
43.09

Inspection Data / Distresses

MP To
33.91
34.52
35.14
35.75
36.36
36.97
37.58
38.20
40.64
41.26
41.87
42.48
43.09
43.50

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
0.71
0.61
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.62
2.44
0.62
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.41

3748.80
3220.80
3273.60
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
3273.60
12883.20
3273.60
3220.80
3220.80
3220.80
2164.80

0.54
1.48
1.84
1.65
1.72
1.16
0.95
2.04
2.23
1.14
0.52
1.92
1.32
1.81

0.997
1.185
1.427
1.427
1.319
1.427
1.319
1.427
1.534
1.427
0.970
1.319
1.319
1.454

70
65
65
69
71
72
-

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)
0.362
0.392
0.395
0.360
0.349
0.414
0.376
0.354
0.450
0.392
0.217
0.375
0.373
0.377

14

136

5.0
3.5
3.5
4.0
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
3.5
3.5
4.5
5.0
4.5

600
400
216
192
194
240
300
36
560
344
172
124
210
176

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
(M)
(L)
150
220

80
68
250

300
100
150
50
600
450
300
100
350
300
350
200

25
500

900
900
400
150
150

500
400

80
100

250

700
700

180

100

150
250
1300

12
60
1500
550

80
180

800
1400
300

120
50

160

Table 98. Performance/Condition Data for U.S. 191 Wearing Course Sections.
US-191 Northbound (NB) MP 181 to MP 185

Test
Section
ID

Material

191-001
191-002
191-003
191-004
191-005
191-006

ADOT CRS-2P
Control
ADOT CRS-2P future
ADOT CRS-2P
ADOT CRS-2P future
Control

US-191 Northbound (NB) MP 181 to MP 185
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy) From
7/2/2001
orig
orig
7/2/2001
orig
orig

5/8" @ 32
n/a
n/a
5/8" @ 33
n/a
n/a

0.47
n/a
n/a
0.57
n/a
n/a

Total
Sections

181.00
181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35

Inspection Data / Distresses (Severity)

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
MP To
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35
185.00

0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.65

3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3432.00

1.30
2.19
1.91
1.60
2.02
2.23

1.400
1.507
1.507
1.454
1.534
1.534

-

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)
0.404
0.423
0.411
0.357
0.470
0.370

5.0
5.0
5.0
3.5
4.0
4.5

86
40
48
480
460
474

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
550
400
200
100
250
200

50
50

400
50
20

300
5

6
US-191 Southbound (SB) MP 181 to MP 185

Test
Section
ID

Material

191-007
191-008
191-009
191-010
191-011
191-012

ADOT CRS-2P
Control
ADOT CRS-2P future
ADOT CRS-2P
ADOT CRS-2P future
Control

Total
Sections

US-191 Southbound (SB) MP 181 to MP 185
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy) From
7/2/2001
orig
orig
7/2/2001
orig
orig

5/8" @ 32
n/a
n/a
5/8" @ 30
n/a
n/a

0.56
n/a
n/a
0.54
n/a
n/a

181.00
181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35

Inspection Data / Distresses

MP To
181.67
182.34
183.01
183.68
184.35
185.00

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.67
0.65

3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3537.60
3432.00

1.62
2.09
2.10
1.56
2.16
2.24

1.480
1.507
1.534
1.292
1.427
1.480

-

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)
0.386
0.414
0.400
0.366
0.453
0.415

6

137

5.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
4.0
5.0

256
182
72
840
566
551

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
150

400

50

75

300
2000
250
200
600
220

150
30
30
25

15

Table 98. Performance/Condition Data for U.S. 191 Wearing Course Sections (Continued).
US-191 Northbound (NB) MP 200.5 to MP 219.25

Test
Section
ID

Material

US-191 Northbound (NB) MP 200.5 to MP 219.25
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy) From

191-013
191-014
191-015
191-016
191-017
191-018
191-019
191-020

AR-Chip, ISS
CRS-2 ADOT
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CM-90, Koch
ADOT AR-ACFC
ADOT HF CRS-2P
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64-28

n/a
6/27/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
n/a
6/18/2001
6/25/2001
6/15/2001

191-021
191-022
191-023
191-024
191-025
191-026
191-027
191-028
191-029
191-030
191-031
191-032
191-033
191-034
191-035

ADOT Double Chip Seal
Novachip, Koch
Type III Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CRS-2 ADOT
CM-90, Koch
AR-Chip, ISS
Type III Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
ADOT AR-ACFC
Novachip, Koch
ADOT HF CRS-2P
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64-28
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate

6/29/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
6/25/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
n/a
n/a
6/27/2001
6/19/2001
6/21/2001
6/25/2001
6/15/2001
6/25/2001

191-036 ADOT Double Chip Seal

6/29/2001

n/a
n/a
200.50
3/8" @ 27
0.48
201.25
5/8" @ 28 0.571 202.00
5/8" @ 30 0.522 202.75
n/a
n/a
203.50
n/a
n/a
204.25
3/8" @ 27 0.462 205.00
n/a
n/a
205.75
5/8" @ 29
and 3/8" @ 0.548 &
23
0.501 206.50
90.0
0.20
207.25
22.7
n/a
208.00
5/8" @ 29
0.51
208.75
5/8" @ 29 0.547 210.25
5/8" @ 28 0.535 211.00
3/8" @ 27 0.475 211.75
n/a
n/a
212.50
n/a
n/a
213.25
32.2
n/a
214.00
n/a
n/a
214.75
90.0
0.20
215.50
3/8" @ 27 0.475 216.25
n/a
n/a
217.00
5/8" @ 32
0.50
217.75
5/8" @ 29
and 3/8" @ 0.569 &
22
0.495 218.50

Total
Sections

Inspection Data / Distresses

MP To

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

201.25
202.00
202.75
203.50
204.25
205.00
205.75
206.50

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

0.89
1.49
1.74
1.14
1.75
1.19
1.70
1.39

1.346
1.346
1.212
1.158
1.212
0.917
1.266
1.105

-

0.341
0.388
0.331
0.314
0.329
0.333
0.379
0.396

3.5
4.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
4.5
4.5
4.5

500
300
500
314
96
386
600
340

207.25
208.00
208.75
209.75
211.00
211.75
212.50
213.25
214.00
214.75
215.50
216.25
217.00
217.75
218.50

0.75
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
5280.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

1.01
1.80
1.78
1.58
1.21
0.76
1.42
1.43
0.94
0.65
1.08
0.81
1.07
1.71
2.10

0.890
1.480
1.158
1.319
1.319
1.292
1.105
0.890
1.212
0.943
1.078
1.292
0.997
1.266
1.534

-

0.363
0.341
0.475
0.337
0.375
0.402
0.350
0.350
0.355
0.439
0.354
0.334
0.359
0.325
0.356

2.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5

132
540
450
800
450
300
432
690
940
1400
240
1220
280
1032
650

219.25

0.75

3960.00

0.70

-0.372

-

0.259

2.5

280

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
128
180
70

100

200
100
100
100
300
1000
200
900

50
150

260
128

200
268
304
126
56

0.2%

0.2%

50

100
36
420

120
350

0.2%

200
1000
350
400
300
300
250
350
300
260
500
650
150
650
100

15

550
20
450
1100
1800

10
8

200
30

5
40

3000
100
180

25

30

60
100
800
200
2500
120
340

100
8

160
80

100

10

1650

24
US-191 Southbound (SB) MP 200.5 to MP 219.25

Test
Section
ID

Material

US-191 Southbound (SB) MP 200.5 to MP 219.25
Binder
Agg.
Applicat
Construction Application
ion
MP
Date
(lb/sy)
(gal/sy) From

191-037
191-038
191-039
191-040
191-041
191-042
191-043
191-044

AR-Chip, ISS
CRS-2 ADOT
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CM-90, Koch
ADOT AR-ACFC
ADOT HF CRS-2P
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64-28

n/a
6/27/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
n/a
6/18/2001
6/25/2001
6/15/2001

191-045
191-046
191-047
191-048
191-049
191-050
191-051
191-052
191-053
191-054
191-055
191-056
191-057
191-058
191-059
191-060

ADOT Double Chip Seal
Novachip, Koch
Type III Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
CRS-2P, Crown
AC15-5TR, Paramount
CRS-2 ADOT
CM-90, Koch
AR-Chip, ISS
Type III Slurry Seal, SW Slurry
ADOT AR-ACFC
Novachip, Koch
ADOT HF CRS-2P
P-ACFC, Paramount PG 64-28
HF CRS-2P, Copperstate
ADOT Double Chip Seal

6/29/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
6/25/2001
6/26/2001
6/21/2001
6/27/2001
n/a
n/a
6/27/2001
6/19/2001
6/21/2001
6/25/2001
6/15/2001
6/25/2001
6/29/2001

Total
Sections

n/a
n/a
3/8" @ 27 0.444
5/8" @ 28
0.55
5/8" @ 29
0.52
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
3/8" @ 27 0.441
n/a
n/a
5/8" @ 29
and 3/8" @ 0.567 &
23
0.529
90.0
0.20
30.6
n/a
5/8" @ 29
0.45
5/8" @ 28 0.506
5/8" @ 28 0.496
3/8" @ 27 0.446
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
29.5
n/a
n/a
n/a
90.0
0.20
3/8" @ 27 0.469
n/a
n/a
5/8" @ 29
0.49
5/8" @ 29 0.507

Inspection Data / Distresses

MP To

Length, Distance, Texture,
Outflow,
mi
ft
MPD (mm) MTD (mm) Skid

DF
LTD
Test Flushing (L)

200.50
201.25
202.00
202.75
203.50
204.25
205.00
205.75

201.25
202.00
202.75
203.50
204.25
205.00
205.75
206.50

0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

1.79
1.47
1.46
1.34
1.67
1.83
1.42
1.32

1.427
1.292
1.266
1.319
1.212
1.292
1.212
1.105

-

0.329
0.333
0.357
0.295
0.332
0.503
0.380
0.347

4.0
4.5
3.5
2.0
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.5

394
380
260
650
124
716
800
532

206.50
207.25
208.00
208.75
210.25
211.00
211.75
212.50
213.25
214.00
214.75
215.50
216.25
217.00
217.75
218.50

207.25
208.00
208.75
209.75
211.00
211.75
212.50
213.25
214.00
214.75
215.50
216.25
217.00
217.75
218.50
219.25

0.75
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75

3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
5280.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00
3960.00

1.26
1.18
1.58
2.19
1.21
1.01
1.64
1.36
0.94
1.85
1.23
0.97
0.75
1.34
1.08
1.41

0.943
1.373
1.212
1.427
1.105
1.266
1.319
1.400
1.185
1.534
1.292
0.890
0.836
1.078
1.266
1.292

-

0.376
0.362
0.486
0.360
0.336
0.334
0.425
0.341
0.306
0.443
0.371
0.324
0.297
0.393
0.399
0.351

2.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.0

72
540
420
650
450
300
484
740
880
1400
960
738
640
420
800
562

24

138

Edge
LTD Rutting Rutting Patching Patching Patching Weath. Weath. Weath. Bleeding Bleeding Fatigue Swelling Crk.
(M)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
(H)
(L)
(M)
Crk. (M)
(L)
(L)
(M)
(L)
60
160
50
142

350
120

150

225

200
100
150

75

50

128
366
256
206
42
24

50
150
100

360

50
460

100
75

200
80
120
200
200
900
200
800

150
1200
300
300
250
260
350
300
300
250
800
400
250
550
100
150

10

100
40
280
2500
900

10
30
10

130

6
12
300
20
12
35

4200
20
60

4
200

100
250
1300
400
2500
200

25

12

25

12

8
220

30
30

400

10
4

100
300

20

APPENDIX D
DEDUCT VALUE CALCULATION

This appendix describes the deduct value (DV) equations developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (ASTM 2011) to determine a roadway’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI).
PCI data collected for a particular roadway consists of distress type, severity, and extent (quantity).
The extent data is used to determine the percentage density value for the particular distress at low,
medium, and high severity.
The percentage density is obtained using the following equation:

Percentage Density 

Quantity of Distress ( for particular severity )
x 100
Sample Area

The DV for each distress type and severity level combination is obtained using the percentage DVs.
The DV curves are used to determine the DV. The value of percentage density, type of distress, and
severity of distress are required to refer the particular curve for obtaining the DV. For example, for
the given information, the DV is obtained using the curves as follows:
Type of distress = longitudinal and transverse cracking
Percentage density = 0.90
Severity of distress = Low
Referring to the DV curves for longitudinal and transverse cracking (see Figure 7), the DV is 4.8.

139

Figure 7. DV Curves for Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking (ASTM 2011).

The standard curves for distress type and severity level combination can be represented in the form
of an equation. The DV can also be determined from these equations. The standard form of the
polynomial equation can be represented as follows:
DV(i) = a0*x + a1*x2 + a2*x3 + a3*x3 + a4*x4 + a5*x5 + a6*x6
where
DV(i) = DV for each distress type and severity level
x = Percentage distress
a0, a1,a2,a3, etc. = DV coefficient

The DV coefficients for the polynomial equation vary with respect to the type of distress and
severity level. Tables 99, 100, and 101 provide the DV coefficients for the different distresses at low,
medium, and high severity, respectively.

140

Table 99. DV Coefficients for Low Severity Distresses.

Distress
Type
Alligator
cracking
Bleeding
Block
cracking
Bumps and
sags
Corrugation
Depression
Edge
cracking
Joint
reflection
cracking
Lane/
shoulder
drop‐off
Long and
trans
cracking
patching
Polished
aggregate
Potholes
Railroad
crossing
Rutting
Shoving
Slippage
cracking
Swell
Weather and
raveling

Dis‐
tress
Code

a0

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

1
2

11.57282
0.226389

14.47294
0.526314

5.323757
0.808991

1.59328
0.98469

‐0.8304
0.47562

0
0

0
0

3

0.653826

2.442088

3.661845

1.55629

‐0.3173

0

0

4
5
6

6.842161
1.719801
4.576458

13.21294
4.148407
1.56377

10.81703
5.883605
5.720728

6.6296
2.15801
7.57356

2.78335
‐0.697
0.9556

0
0
‐1.8667

0
0
0.01785

7

2.678353

3.009038

4.088985

2.31193

‐1.2464

0

0

8

2.368495

5.585601

4.304673

1.40666

0.31909

0

0

9

2.603195

2.571387

4.029737

2.46853

0.40699

0

0

10
11

2.026879
2.318707

7.027913
6.850561

1.52647
2.08319

‐0.764
‐1.119

0
0

0
0

12
13

0
58.0456

6.764295
5.967067
‐
0.141572
41.97506

3.588791
2.918861

‐1.6819
‐2.7756

1.21091
‐0.3735

0
0

0
0

14
15
16

2
7.864241
3.968421

5.51293
13.94023
9.926723

‐29.36848
7.431795
7.064671

76.942
‐0.3771
0.31435

‐55.301
‐0.733
‐0.792

12.4976
0
0

0
0
0

17
18

4.348589
2

11.43505
5.846334

14.15354
4.610276

0.39453
‐0.974

‐4.8667
0.52452

1.40584
0

0
0

19

1.518308

1.463035

1.225113

1.18395

‐0.0964

0

0

141

Table 100. DV Coefficients for Medium Severity Distresses.

Distress
Type
Alligator
cracking
Bleeding
Block
cracking
Bumps and
sags
Corrugation
Depression
Edge
cracking
Joint
reflection
cracking
Lane/
shoulder
drop‐off
Long and
trans
cracking
Patching
Polished
aggregate
Potholes
Railroad
crossing
Rutting
Shoving
Slippage
cracking
Swell
Weather
and
raveling

Dis‐
tress
Code

a0

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

1
2

21.06287
3.103022

21.87252
5.033304

5.430085
3.347506

‐2.25521
0.957058

0.524358
0.339835

0
0

0
0

3

2.505961

6.738529

5.642363

1.13416

‐0.27564

0

0

4
5
6

23.6662
15.52694
9.18211

24.87604
18.69575
3.496649

13.0282
6.45422
11.12484

11.5001
‐1.36052
11.6605

6.281742
0.354079
‐1.95889

0
0
‐3.85509

0
0
0.954007

7

8.118318

9.360312

7.534917

0.340772

‐1.95215

0

0

8

6.622707

14.02556

14.48692

2.16426

‐4.81981

0

0

9

4.506029

1.917193

4.716884

5.791711

2.48599

0

0

10
11

8.428558
9.573035

15.6896
12.04862

6.70787
7.786538

‐0.447
1.894723

0.106175
‐0.41622

0
0

0
0

12
13

0
89.72291

‐0.1415721
61.35048

3.588791
‐0.8974963

‐1.68193
‐7.80229

1.210908
‐1.24064

0
0

0
0

14
15
16

6
17.9108
9.312978

0.0940975
20.09714
14.62188

74.13531
6.764661
11.48379

‐52.6759
0.335158
1.394249

10.54689
‐0.60516
‐1.18064

0
‐0.362
0

0
0
0

17
18

10.77733
12

20.24104
21.45781

18.4704
‐9.318042

‐1.7614
14.77898

‐6.43406
‐4.38961

1.934033
0

0
0

19

8.216442

4.187497

3.774271

3.050996

‐0.75222

0

0

142

Table 101. DV Coefficients for High Severity Distresses.

Distress
Type
Alligator
cracking
Bleeding
Block
cracking
Bumps and
sags
Corrugation
Depression
Edge
cracking
Joint
reflection
cracking
Lane/
shoulder
drop‐off
Long and
trans
cracking
Patching
Polished
aggregate
Potholes
Railroad
crossing
Rutting
Shoving
Slippage
cracking
Swell
Weather
and raveling

Dis‐
tress
Code

a0

a1

a2

a3

a4

a5

a6

1
2

30.35494
5.174671

29.47183
6.973435

5.773053
7.552022

‐5.02079
3.26362

1.123057
‐0.08964

0
0

0
0

3

5.698064

11.97259

10.52476

2.565825

‐1.28441

0

0

4
5
6

52.43768
33.73598
16.2489

36.51803
22.8334
6.837703

5.190109
2.978519
13.47965

3.443652
2.716514
15.15847

2.333901
‐1.16458
‐3.98759

0
0
‐6.20127

0
0
2.053938

7

13.03806

15.51621

14.72085

0.336104

‐4.50659

0

0

8

14.01349

18.83563

25.97381

22.76282

‐14.5529

‐12.5832

5.580756

9

7.040119

5.204559

9.724312

8.009115

2.449223

0

0

10
11

18.19322
18.65748

22.18564
14.89525

14.63774
9.107156

12.49489
15.73892

‐0.00014
‐1.06098

‐5.2497
‐7.76801

0
2.162507

12
13

0
108.9686

‐0.1415721
58.37936

3.588791
0.97282088

‐1.68193
‐3.59034

1.210908
‐0.26399

0
0

0
0

14
15
16

20
27.35017
18.97428

32.91058
24.50075
15.49013

‐33.17019
5.838376
12.02632

138.5578
3.139074
13.36067

‐122.88
‐0.15555
‐3.0542

31.40176
‐1.00682
‐6.69051

0
0
2.213889

17
18

18.90548
34

30.13452
6.308562

25.77373
9.44694

2.893255
4.614884

‐11.3648
‐1.85515

‐1.77798
0

1.935406
0

19

15.03442

13.0601

12.93693

4.599652

‐3.3116

0

0

143

144

APPENDIX E
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON TABLES:
WEARING COURSE EXPERIMENT

145

146

Table 102. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Skid Number.
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8

99-05
99-07
99-14
99-16
99-21
99-26
Control
Control
99-01
99-06
99-13
99-17
99-22
99-28
99-03
99-09
99-12
99-20
99-24
99-30
99-04
99-08
99-11
99-19
99-25
99-27
99-02
99-10
99-15
99-18
99-23
99-29
99-35
99-40
99-45
99-52
99-57
99-62
Control
Control
99-34
99-39
99-44
99-51
99-56
99-61
99-36
99-41
99-46
99-53
99-58
99-63
99-37
99-42
99-47
99-54
99-59
99-64
99-38
99-43
99-48
99-55
99-60
99-65

Treatment

Top Overlay Mill
Std.
Size Thick- Thick- Skid
Mean
ness
No.
Dev.
Aggr. ness
(in)
(in)
(in)

ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA

3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4

2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

68
66
64
64
64
63
69
58
68
65
61
61
60
57
71
69
69
68
65
66
59
58
58
56
55
53
64
60
58
59
58
57
62
63
63
63
63
62
?
?
62
63
65
62
64
62
64
63
65
62
62
63
61
62
64
59
60
58
64
62
59
62
60
62

Skid Number (SN)
60th
%ile
0

64.8

1.8

64.4

63.5

7.8

61.5

62.0

3.9

61.0

68.0

2.2

67.4

56.5

2.3

55.9

59.3

2.5

58.7

62.7

0.5

62.5

--

--

--

63.0

1.3

62.7

63.2

1.2

62.9

60.7

2.2

60.1

61.5

1.8

61.1

147

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Table 102. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Skid Number (Continued).
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74

-------------------

Treatment

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,

PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+

Paramount, PG 72-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 72-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 72-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 72-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 72-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 72-22 TR+

Top Overlay Mill
Size Thick- Thick- Skid
Std.
Mean
Aggr. ness
Dev.
ness
No.
(in)
(in)
(in)
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

70
68
71
69
66
68
70
72
74
73
81
69
75
72
75
75
76
67

Skid Number (SN)
60th
%ile
0

68.9

1.7

68.4

73.8

4.4

72.7

73.3

3.4

72.5

148

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Table 103. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Weathering.
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8

99-05
99-07
99-14
99-16
99-21
99-26
Control
Control
99-01
99-06
99-13
99-17
99-22
99-28
99-03
99-09
99-12
99-20
99-24
99-30
99-04
99-08
99-11
99-19
99-25
99-27
99-02
99-10
99-15
99-18
99-23
99-29
99-35
99-40
99-45
99-52
99-57
99-62
Control
Control
99-34
99-39
99-44
99-51
99-56
99-61
99-36
99-41
99-46
99-53
99-58
99-63
99-37
99-42
99-47
99-54
99-59
99-64
99-38
99-43
99-48
99-55
99-60
99-65

Treatment

Top Overlay Mill
Std.
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Mean
Dev.
ness Value
Aggr. ness
(in)
(in)
(in)

ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA

3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4

2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

3
9
0
9
10
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
14
10
19
10
22
0
0
0
7
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
?
?
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
3
3
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

Deduct Value for Weathering
60th
%ile
0

6.7

4.1

7.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.0

7.2

14.8

2.2

2.8

2.9

0.9

2.2

1.4

0.1

0.2

0.1

--

--

--

0.3

0.8

0.5

2.1

1.8

2.6

0.2

0.4

0.3

0.0

0.0

0.0

149

10

20

30

40

50

60

Table 103. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Weathering (Continued).
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74

-------------------

Treatment

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,

PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+

Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+

Top Overlay Mill
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Std.
Mean
Aggr. ness
ness Value
Dev.
(in)
(in)
(in)
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

6
3
5
7
8
3
4
6
10
16
39
19
17
15
23
29
47
18

Deduct Value for Weathering
60th
%ile
0

5.2

2.0

5.7

18.0

13.0

21.3

24.7

11.9

27.7

150

10

20

30

40

50

60

Table 104. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Bleeding.
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8

99-05
99-07
99-14
99-16
99-21
99-26
Control
Control
99-01
99-06
99-13
99-17
99-22
99-28
99-03
99-09
99-12
99-20
99-24
99-30
99-04
99-08
99-11
99-19
99-25
99-27
99-02
99-10
99-15
99-18
99-23
99-29
99-35
99-40
99-45
99-52
99-57
99-62
Control
Control
99-34
99-39
99-44
99-51
99-56
99-61
99-36
99-41
99-46
99-53
99-58
99-63
99-37
99-42
99-47
99-54
99-59
99-64
99-38
99-43
99-48
99-55
99-60
99-65

Treatment

Top Overlay Mill
Std.
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Mean
Dev.
Aggr. ness
ness Value
(in)
(in)
(in)

ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA

3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4

2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

151

2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
?
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

60th
%ile

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.5

3.7

2.5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Table 104. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Bleeding (Continued).
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74

-------------------

Treatment

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,

PG
PG
PG
PG
PG

76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+

Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+

Top Overlay Mill
Std.
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Mean
Dev.
ness Value
Aggr. ness
(in)
(in)
(in)
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

152

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

60th
%ile

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Table 105. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Fatigue Cracking.
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8

99-05
99-07
99-14
99-16
99-21
99-26
Control
Control
99-01
99-06
99-13
99-17
99-22
99-28
99-03
99-09
99-12
99-20
99-24
99-30
99-04
99-08
99-11
99-19
99-25
99-27
99-02
99-10
99-15
99-18
99-23
99-29
99-35
99-40
99-45
99-52
99-57
99-62
Control
Control
99-34
99-39
99-44
99-51
99-56
99-61
99-36
99-41
99-46
99-53
99-58
99-63
99-37
99-42
99-47
99-54
99-59
99-64
99-38
99-43
99-48
99-55
99-60
99-65

Treatment

Top Overlay Mill
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Mean
Aggr. ness
ness Value
(in)
(in)
(in)

ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA

3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4

2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

3
56
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
31
0
54
0
47
20
0
0
0
0
27
6
9
0
0
0
3
0
6
0
72
16
0
0
0
0
0
?
?
6
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0

Deduct Value for Fatigue Cracking
Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile
0

12.1

22.3

17.8

0.0

0.0

0.0

19.3

22.8

25.1

11.0

19.1

15.9

6.9

10.4

9.5

13.5

28.7

20.7

2.6

6.3

4.2

--

--

--

1.5

2.4

2.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

1.8

1.2

0.5

1.2

0.8

153

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Table 105. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Fatigue Cracking (Continued).
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74

-------------------

Treatment

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,

PG
PG
PG
PG
PG

76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+

Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+

Top Overlay Mill
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Mean
ness Value
Aggr. ness
(in)
(in)
(in)
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0
3
0
18
27
0
12
2
16
49
0
0
56
0
9
0
99
78

Deduct Value for Fatigue Cracking
Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile
0

8.5

10.6

11.2

13.3

21.2

18.6

40.4

43.2

51.3

154

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Table 106. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison:
Longitudinal, Transverse, and Diagonal Cracking.

Route

Test
Section
Identifier
(TPSS
No.)

Treatment

Top
Size
Aggr.
(in)

I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8

99-05
99-07
99-14
99-16
99-21
99-26
Control
Control
99-01
99-06
99-13
99-17
99-22
99-28
99-03
99-09
99-12
99-20
99-24
99-30
99-04
99-08
99-11
99-19
99-25
99-27
99-02
99-10
99-15
99-18
99-23
99-29
99-35
99-40
99-45
99-52
99-57
99-62
Control
Control
99-34
99-39
99-44
99-51
99-56
99-61
99-36
99-41
99-46
99-53
99-58
99-63
99-37
99-42
99-47
99-54
99-59
99-64
99-38
99-43
99-48
99-55
99-60
99-65

ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA

3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4

Mill
Overlay
ThickThickness
ness (in)
(in)
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

Deduct Value for LTD Cracking
Deduct
Value

Mean

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile
0

44
41
18
24
12
8
20
12
24
22
15
33
27
41
48
42
19
40
17
26
43
33
23
22
12
10
25
17
8
30
51
32
21
8
7
24
10
17
?
?
37
9
0
27
26
16
25
15
18
43
14
22
34
25
7
45
18
13
41
19
20
32
26
15

24.4

15.0

28.2

16.0

5.8

17.5

26.8

9.1

29.1

31.9

13.1

35.2

23.8

12.9

27.0

27.3

14.6

31.0

14.6

7.0

16.4

19.0

13.5

22.4

22.8

10.9

25.6

23.7

14.0

27.3

25.6

9.8

28.0

155

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Table 106. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison:
Longitudinal, Transverse, and Diagonal Cracking (Continued).

Route

Test
Section
Identifier
(TPSS
No.)

SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74

-------------------

Treatment

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,

PG
PG
PG
PG
PG

76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+

Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+

Top
Size
Aggr.
(in)
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8

Mill
Overlay
ThickThickness
ness (in)
(in)
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

Deduct Value for LTD Cracking
Deduct
Value

Mean

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile
0

44
47
9
25
32
24
29
17
39
30
34
28
37
15
11
25
61
51

30.1

12.9

33.4

29.5

8.2

31.6

33.3

20.0

38.3

156

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Table 107. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Rutting.
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8

99-05
99-07
99-14
99-16
99-21
99-26
Control
Control
99-01
99-06
99-13
99-17
99-22
99-28
99-03
99-09
99-12
99-20
99-24
99-30
99-04
99-08
99-11
99-19
99-25
99-27
99-02
99-10
99-15
99-18
99-23
99-29
99-35
99-40
99-45
99-52
99-57
99-62
Control
Control
99-34
99-39
99-44
99-51
99-56
99-61
99-36
99-41
99-46
99-53
99-58
99-63
99-37
99-42
99-47
99-54
99-59
99-64
99-38
99-43
99-48
99-55
99-60
99-65

Treatment

Top Overlay Mill
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Std.
Mean
Aggr. ness
ness Value
Dev.
(in)
(in)
(in)

ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA

3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4

2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

157

2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
?
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

60th
%ile

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Table 107. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Rutting (Continued).
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74

-------------------

Treatment

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,

PG
PG
PG
PG
PG

76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+
76-22+

Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+

Top Overlay Mill
Std.
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Mean
Dev.
ness Value
Aggr. ness
(in)
(in)
(in)
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

158

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

60th
%ile

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Table 108. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Patching.
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-10
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8
I-8

99-05
99-07
99-14
99-16
99-21
99-26
Control
Control
99-01
99-06
99-13
99-17
99-22
99-28
99-03
99-09
99-12
99-20
99-24
99-30
99-04
99-08
99-11
99-19
99-25
99-27
99-02
99-10
99-15
99-18
99-23
99-29
99-35
99-40
99-45
99-52
99-57
99-62
Control
Control
99-34
99-39
99-44
99-51
99-56
99-61
99-36
99-41
99-46
99-53
99-58
99-63
99-37
99-42
99-47
99-54
99-59
99-64
99-38
99-43
99-48
99-55
99-60
99-65

Treatment

Top Overlay Mill
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Std.
Mean
Aggr. ness
ness Value
Dev.
(in)
(in)
(in)

ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA
SMA

3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1/2
1/2
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
1 1/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4
3/4

2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0

159

2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
?
?
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

60th
%ile

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

Table 108. ADOT Wearing Course Performance Comparison: Patching (Continued).
Test
Section
Route Identifier
(TPSS
No.)
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74
SR 74

-------------------

Treatment

AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1
AR-ACFC, PG 64-16, CRA-1

P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,
P-ACFC,

PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+
PG 76-22+

Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+
Paramount, PG 76-22 TR+

Top Overlay Mill
Size Thick- Thick- Deduct
Std.
Mean
ness Value
Aggr. ness
Dev.
(in)
(in)
(in)
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8
3/8

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

160

0.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

60th
%ile

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

APPENDIX F
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON TABLES:
PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE EXPERIMENT

161

162

Table 109. ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance Comparison: Weathering.
Deduct Values for Weathering
Mean
Hwy

Treatment

Producer

SR-66
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-66
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-66
ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-66
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-66
CM-90
Navajo Western
SR-66
CM-90
Navajo Western
SR-66
CRS-2
Copperstate
SR-66
CRS-2
Copperstate
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
Crown
SR-66
CRS-2P
Crown
SR-66
DACS&B
ADOT
SR-66
DACS&B
ADOT
SR-66
Dbl Applic
???
SR-66
Dbl Applic
???
SR-66 Microsurfacing Southwest Slurry
SR-66 Microsurfacing Southwest Slurry
SR-66
Novachip
Koch
SR-66
Novachip
Koch
SR-66
Pass Oil
Western Emulsion
SR-66
Pass Oil
Western Emulsion
SR-83
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-83
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-83
AR-ACFC
?
SR-83
AR-ACFC
?
SR-83
AR-ACFC
??
SR-83
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-83
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-83
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-83
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-83
CM-90
Koch
SR-83
CM-90
Koch
SR-83
CRS-2
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2P
Crown
SR-83 Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
SR-83 Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
SR-83
HF CRS-2P
Copperstate
SR-83
HF CRS-2P
Copperstate
SR-83
Novachip
Koch
SR-83
Novachip
Koch
SR-83
P-ACFC
Paramount
SR-83
P-ACFC
Paramount
SR-83
Pass CR
Western Emulsion
SR-83
Pass CR
Western Emulsion
SR-83
Slurry Seal
Southwest Slurry
SR-83
Slurry Seal
Southwest Slurry

Section
No.
E03
W06
E13
W10
E05
W13
E08
W08
E10
W09
E04
W04
E09
W05
E14
W14
E11
W03
E01
W01
E02
W02
E07
W12
E06
W11
E12
W07
N06
S22
N03
S15
N05
N04
S19
N08
S17
N11
S18
N12
S16
N07
S20
S26
N02
S25
N13
S24
N10
S27
N09
S23
N14
S28
N01
S21

DV

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile
0

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
8.7
7.9
12.4
16.8
5.3
2.5
6.1
5.3
11.3
0.0
7.8
15.6
2.0
1.8
1.5
0.0
2.7
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.3
2.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
6.3
11.6
1.5
2.3
2.5
3.0
13.3
9.4
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
2.5
1.3
0.0
0.0
2.8
5.5
3.1
3.1
0.0
0.5
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.4
10.4
16.3
5.3
5.8
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

1.4

1.4

0.0

0.0

6.2

5.9

6.3

13.9

3.7

7.0

11.0

10.6

0.4

1.8

3.7

3.6

0.0

0.0

1.8

1.7

0.0

0.0

7.6

8.2

0.8

2.5

5.5

10.8

0.0

0.0

1.4

1.4

1.8

1.7

3.9

3.7

--

--

0.6

0.6

0.0

0.0

8.4

12.5

0.6

5.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

163

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Table 109. ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment
Performance Comparison: Weathering (Continued).
Deduct Values for Weathering

Treatment

Producer

Section
No.

DV

Hwy
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191

AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
CM-90
CM-90
Control
Control
Control
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
DACS&B
DACS&B
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Novachip
Novachip
Pass Oil
Pass Oil
AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
CM-90
CM-90
CM-90
CM-90
Control
Control
Control
Control
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
HF CRS-2P
HF CRS-2P
HF CRS-2P
HF CRS-2P

Paramount
Paramount
Navajo Western
Navajo Western
No treatment
No treatment
No treatment
Copperstate
Copperstate
Crown
Crown
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
Koch
Koch
Western Emulsion
Western Emulsion
Paramount
Paramount
Paramount
Paramount
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ISS
ISS
ISS
ISS
Koch
Koch
Koch
Koch
No treatment
No treatment
No treatment
No treatment
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT (FC)
ADOT (FC)
ADOT (FC)
ADOT (FC)
Crown
Crown
Crown
Crown
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT

N08
S09
N02
N03
S05
S10
S11
S06
S03
S02
S01
N01
S12
S07
S08
N04
N05
N06
S04
N07
N09
016
040
026
050
018
042
031
055
013
037
029
053
017
041
028
052
006
012
002
008
014
038
027
051
004
010
001
007
005
011
003
009
015
039
025
049
021
045
036
060
019
043
033
057

0.0
0.0
22.8
38.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
41.8
21.9
78.5
83.8
0.0
0.0
5.3
14.7
4.4
26.8
0.0
0.0
43.6
51.1
0.4
1.5
2.5
2.1
14.8
7.9
4.4
7.0
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.5
3.0
8.6
1.5
1.7
3.4
19.8
0.4
0.2
2.0
3.0
0.4
1.5
4.8
2.5
23.8
5.3
1.5
2.0
0.4
0.6
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.9
0.4
0.9
1.5
1.5
0.9
2.0

Mean

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile

0.0

0.0

0.0

30.9

11.4

33.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

31.9

14.1

35.4

81.2

3.7

82.1

0.0

0.0

0.0

12.8

10.4

15.4

0.0

0.0

0.0

47.4

5.3

48.7

1.6

0.9

1.9

8.5

4.4

9.6

2.0

0.6

2.1

3.9

3.2

4.7

6.6

8.8

8.8

1.4

1.3

1.7

2.3

1.9

2.8

8.2

10.6

10.8

1.4

1.0

1.6

0.9

0.5

1.0

1.5

0.5

1.6

0

164

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Table 110. ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance Comparison: Flushing.
Flushing

Hwy

Treatment

Producer

SR-66
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-66
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-66
ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-66
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-66
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-66
CM-90
Navajo Western
SR-66
CM-90
Navajo Western
SR-66
CRS-2
Copperstate
SR-66
CRS-2
Copperstate
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-66
CRS-2P
Crown
SR-66
CRS-2P
Crown
SR-66
DACS&B
ADOT
SR-66
DACS&B
ADOT
SR-66
Dbl Applic
???
SR-66
Dbl Applic
???
SR-66 Microsurfacing Southwest Slurry
SR-66 Microsurfacing Southwest Slurry
SR-66
Novachip
Koch
SR-66
Novachip
Koch
SR-66
Pass Oil
Western Emulsion
SR-66
Pass Oil
Western Emulsion
SR-83
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-83
AC15-5TR
Paramount
SR-83
AR-ACFC
?
SR-83
AR-ACFC
?
SR-83
AR-ACFC
??
SR-83
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-83
AR-ACFC
ADOT
SR-83
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-83
AR-Chip
ISS
SR-83
CM-90
Koch
SR-83
CM-90
Koch
SR-83
CRS-2
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2P
ADOT
SR-83
CRS-2P
Crown
SR-83 Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
SR-83 Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
SR-83
HF CRS-2P
Copperstate
SR-83
HF CRS-2P
Copperstate
SR-83
Novachip
Koch
SR-83
Novachip
Koch
SR-83
P-ACFC
Paramount
SR-83
P-ACFC
Paramount
SR-83
Pass CR
Western Emulsion
SR-83
Pass CR
Western Emulsion
SR-83
Slurry Seal
Southwest Slurry
SR-83
Slurry Seal
Southwest Slurry

Std.
Mean
Dev.
Flush
Section
No.
No.
E03
W06
E13
W10
E05
W13
E08
W08
E10
W09
E04
W04
E09
W05
E14
W14
E11
W03
E01
W01
E02
W02
E07
W12
E06
W11
E12
W07
N06
S22
N03
S15
N05
N04
S19
N08
S17
N11
S18
N12
S16
N07
S20
S26
N02
S25
N13
S24
N10
S27
N09
S23
N14
S28
N01
S21

3.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.5
4.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
3.0
4.5
3.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
3.5
4.5
3.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
2.5
4.5

60th
%ile
0

3.0

0.0

3.0

4.5

0.7

4.3

4.5

0.7

4.3

4.3

0.4

4.2

2.8

0.4

2.7

4.0

0.0

4.0

3.8

0.5

3.6

3.0

0.0

3.0

3.8

0.4

3.7

3.5

0.0

3.5

4.8

0.4

4.7

5.0

0.0

5.0

3.8

1.1

3.5

4.0

0.7

3.8

5.0

0.0

5.0

4.5

0.0

4.5

3.8

0.4

3.7

4.0

0.0

4.0

3.8

0.4

3.7

3.5

0.7

3.3

4.5

--

--

4.0

0.7

3.8

4.0

0.7

3.8

5.0

0.0

5.0

5.0

0.0

5.0

4.5

0.0

4.5

3.5

1.4

3.1

165

1

2

3

4

5

Table 110. ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance
Comparison: Flushing (Continued).
Flushing

Hwy
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191

Treatment

Producer

AC15-5TR
Paramount
AC15-5TR
Paramount
CM-90
Navajo Western
CM-90
Navajo Western
Control
No treatment
Control
No treatment
Control
No treatment
CRS-2
Copperstate
CRS-2
Copperstate
CRS-2P
Crown
CRS-2P
Crown
DACS&B
ADOT
DACS&B
ADOT
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
Novachip
Koch
Novachip
Koch
Pass Oil
Western Emulsion
Pass Oil
Western Emulsion
AC15-5TR
Paramount
AC15-5TR
Paramount
AC15-5TR
Paramount
AC15-5TR
Paramount
AR-ACFC
ADOT
AR-ACFC
ADOT
AR-ACFC
ADOT
AR-ACFC
ADOT
AR-Chip
ISS
AR-Chip
ISS
AR-Chip
ISS
AR-Chip
ISS
CM-90
Koch
CM-90
Koch
CM-90
Koch
CM-90
Koch
Control
No treatment
Control
No treatment
Control
No treatment
Control
No treatment
CRS-2
ADOT
CRS-2
ADOT
CRS-2
ADOT
CRS-2
ADOT
CRS-2P
ADOT
CRS-2P
ADOT
CRS-2P
ADOT
CRS-2P
ADOT
CRS-2P
ADOT (FC)
CRS-2P
ADOT (FC)
CRS-2P
ADOT (FC)
CRS-2P
ADOT (FC)
CRS-2P
Crown
CRS-2P
Crown
CRS-2P
Crown
CRS-2P
Crown
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
Dbl Chip Seal
ADOT
HF CRS-2P
ADOT
HF CRS-2P
ADOT
HF CRS-2P
ADOT
HF CRS-2P
ADOT

Section
No.
N08
S09
N02
N03
S05
S10
S11
S06
S03
S02
S01
N01
S12
S07
S08
N04
N05
N06
S04
N07
N09
016
040
026
050
018
042
031
055
013
037
029
053
017
041
028
052
006
012
002
008
014
038
027
051
004
010
001
007
005
011
003
009
015
039
025
049
021
045
036
060
019
043
033
057

Flush
No.
4.5
4.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.5
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.0
3.5
3.0
3.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.5
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.5
3.5
3.5
4.5
4.5
2.5
2.0
2.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
3.5

Mean

Std.
Dev.

60th
%ile
0

4.3

0.4

4.2

3.5

0.7

3.3

4.7

0.3

4.6

5.0

0.0

5.0

5.0

0.0

5.0

4.0

0.0

4.0

4.9

0.3

4.8

5.0

0.0

5.0

5.0

0.0

5.0

3.3

1.0

3.0

4.5

0.0

4.5

3.9

0.3

3.8

3.1

0.3

3.1

4.8

0.3

4.7

4.1

0.5

4.0

4.6

0.8

4.4

4.4

0.5

4.3

4.0

0.6

3.9

2.8

0.9

2.5

4.3

0.5

4.1

166

1

2

3

4

5

Table 111. ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance Comparison: LTD Cracking.
Deduct Values for LTD Cracking
Std. 60th
Mean
Dev. %ile
Hwy

Treatment

Producer

Section
No.

DV

SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-66
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83
SR-83

AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
ACFC
ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
CM-90
CM-90
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
DACS&B
DACS&B
Dbl Applic
Dbl Applic
Microsurfacing
Microsurfacing
Novachip
Novachip
Pass Oil
Pass Oil
AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
CM-90
CM-90
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
HF CRS-2P
HF CRS-2P
Novachip
Novachip
P-ACFC
P-ACFC
Pass CR
Pass CR
Slurry Seal
Slurry Seal

Paramount
Paramount
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ISS
ISS
Navajo Western
Navajo Western
Copperstate
Copperstate
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
Crown
Crown
ADOT
ADOT
???
???
Southwest Slurry
Southwest Slurry
Koch
Koch
Western Emulsion
Western Emulsion
Paramount
Paramount
?
?
??
ADOT
ADOT
ISS
ISS
Koch
Koch
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
Crown
ADOT
ADOT
Copperstate
Copperstate
Koch
Koch
Paramount
Paramount
Western Emulsion
Western Emulsion
Southwest Slurry
Southwest Slurry

E03
W06
E13
W10
E05
W13
E08
W08
E10
W09
E04
W04
E09
W05
E14
W14
E11
W03
E01
W01
E02
W02
E07
W12
E06
W11
E12
W07
N06
S22
N03
S15
N05
N04
S19
N08
S17
N11
S18
N12
S16
N07
S20
S26
N02
S25
N13
S24
N10
S27
N09
S23
N14
S28
N01
S21

16.5
28.1
19.3
0.6
34.0
0.0
19.0
15.3
3.3
12.9
24.3
5.6
0.3
21.8
0.0
0.0
4.0
3.1
36.8
50.3
37.8
29.4
24.2
18.4
17.0
0.0
0.0
23.7
14.0
0.0
13.0
22.8
19.9
8.7
3.8
1.4
4.5
10.5
3.7
8.0
21.5
33.4
6.7
1.5
26.7
3.1
9.7
8.8
9.5
4.3
39.7
28.2
0.8
3.2
21.7
7.9

0
22.3

24.4

8.2

10.0 13.2 13.3
17.0 24.0 23.1
17.2

2.6

17.8

8.1

6.8

9.8

15.0 13.2 18.3

5.5

10.9

8.3

3.6

0.6

3.7

43.6

9.5

46.0

33.6

5.9

35.1

21.3

4.1

22.3

8.5

12.0 11.5

11.9 16.8 16.1
7.0

9.9

9.5

18.6

5.0

19.8

6.3

3.5

7.1

3.0

2.2

3.5

7.1

4.8

8.3

14.8

9.5

17.2

13.9 17.1 18.2
1.5

--

--

14.9 16.7 19.1
9.3

0.6

9.4

6.9

3.7

7.8

34.0

8.1

36.0

2.0

1.7

2.4

14.8

9.8

17.3

167

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Table 111. ADOT Preventive Maintenance Treatment Performance
Comparison: LTD Cracking (Continued).
Deduct Values for LTD Cracking
Std. 60th
Mean
Dev. %ile
Hwy

Treatment

Producer

Section
No.

DV

SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
SR-87
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191
US-191

AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
CM-90
CM-90
Control
Control
Control
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
DACS&B
DACS&B
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Novachip
Novachip
Pass Oil
Pass Oil
AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
AC15-5TR
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-ACFC
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
AR-Chip
CM-90
CM-90
CM-90
CM-90
Control
Control
Control
Control
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
CRS-2P
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
Dbl Chip Seal
HF CRS-2P
HF CRS-2P
HF CRS-2P

Paramount
Paramount
Navajo Western
Navajo Western
No treatment
No treatment
No treatment
Copperstate
Copperstate
Crown
Crown
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
Koch
Koch
Western Emulsion
Western Emulsion
Paramount
Paramount
Paramount
Paramount
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ISS
ISS
ISS
ISS
Koch
Koch
Koch
Koch
No treatment
No treatment
No treatment
No treatment
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT (FC)
ADOT (FC)
ADOT (FC)
ADOT (FC)
Crown
Crown
Crown
Crown
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT
ADOT

N08
S09
N02
N03
S05
S10
S11
S06
S03
S02
S01
N01
S12
S07
S08
N04
N05
N06
S04
N07
N09
016
040
026
050
018
042
031
055
013
037
029
053
017
041
028
052
006
012
002
008
014
038
027
051
004
010
001
007
005
011
003
009
015
039
025
049
021
045
036
060
019
043
033

2.2
2.7
4.1
14.8
31.4
13.0
17.5
27.5
14.4
22.9
10.4
6.2
5.8
9.1
14.7
6.3
12.4
13.3
21.2
10.0
12.8
7.8
23.7
7.4
7.4
10.2
19.7
5.3
25.8
18.4
10.4
25.3
23.9
0.8
1.5
19.1
20.4
12.9
15.2
0.0
3.4
15.7
16.9
11.6
13.2
13.1
44.1
0.5
5.9
12.5
15.6
0.0
0.2
14.3
6.0
16.7
22.2
1.8
0.2
6.7
15.5
30.0
40.5
10.8

0
2.5

0.4

2.5

9.5

7.6

11.4

20.6

9.6

23.1

21.0

9.3

23.3

16.7

8.8

18.9

6.0

0.3

6.1

10.6

3.7

11.6

17.3

5.6

18.7

11.4

2.0

11.9

11.6

8.1

13.6

15.3

9.2

17.6

19.5

6.8

21.2

10.5 10.8 13.2

7.9

7.3

9.7

14.4

2.4

15.0

15.9 19.5 20.8

7.1

8.2

9.1

14.8

6.7

16.5

6.1

6.9

7.8

24.8 13.2 28.1

168

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90