Hot Mix Gone Wild - tti.tamu.edu

3MB Size 9 Downloads 20 Views

Ernesto De La Garza, P.E. Corpus Christi District Lab . [email protected] . Title: Hot Mix Gone Wild Author: MPINON Created Date: 11/22/2011 11:01:24 AM ...
Hot Mix Gone Wild Ernie De La Garza, P.E. Corpus Christi District

Project Facts          

District: 16 County: Kleberg Project: STP 2010(828) Control: 0102-06-029 Length: 12.068 Miles Type: Overlay Roadway Limits: From Brooks County Line to US 77 Cost: $2,420,230.18 Let Date: April 2010 ADT: 10238, % TRK ADT 16%, ESAL 4 MIL

Location Map

Typical Sections

Typical Sections

Typical Sections

Develop Approach Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5:

Drive to project and take photos Gather information and ask questions Test to verify Conclusion / Solutions Lessons Learned

Step 1: Drive to project and take photos 

During Construction



After Construction (Project Accepted 2/11)

During Construction

During Construction

During Construction

During Construction

During Construction

During Construction

During Construction

After Construction

After Construction

After Construction

After Construction

After Construction

Step 2: Gather information and ask questions 





Material Hot mix production data Hot mix placement data Personnel Contractor / Inspector / Area Engineer / Maintenance Forces Get the Story

Hot Mix Production/Placement Data Type "D" CA - Martin Marietta Limestone Beckmann FA - Wrights Material Sand FM 3088 RAP -1/2" Fractionated Asphalt - PG 64-22S NuStar Asphalt Content: Contr= 5.2% Txdot= 5.1% Sieve #8: Contr= 37.5% Txdot= 37.2% Sieve #200: Contr= 6.1% Txdot= 6.4% Density: Contr= 97.1% Txdot= 97.0% Ga: Contr= 2.340 Txdot= 2.338 Rice Gravity: Contr= 2.409 Txdot= 2.409 Air Voids: 7.2%

Hot Mix Production/Placement Data 





Segregation profile 17 lots (avg. 136.3, avg. high to low 2.4, avg. to low 1.2 pcf) Joint density avg. confined diff. -2.0, avg. unconfined diff. -2.4 Thermal profile avg. temp diff. 7 degrees F

Personnel    

Contractor Area Office Maintenance Office CST Division

Get the story and ask questions

Step 3: Test to verify story 

Core



GPR



FWD / LAB

Core that Bonded

Core After Failure

Core After Failure

GPR Riviera SH 285 East Bound K1, Inside lane only

Extra depth? Maybe not milled? Maybe extra layer inRM540 Original structure?

Cold Mix + overlay? RM542

FWD / LAB 





Subgrade (Sandy/Clay) Sta. 151+00 Classification 3.6 Subgrade (Sandy/Clay) Sta. 396+00 Classification 4.1 Subgrade (Sandy/Clay) Sta. 500+00 Classification 3.7

FWD / LAB

Step 4: Conclusion /Solutions 

Short Term Solution



Long Term Solutions

Short Term Solution

Short Term Solution

Short Term Solution

Short Term Solution

ID Repair Sections

ID Repair Sections

Good Patch

Good Crews (Kleberg Maintenance is #1)

Cannot Keep Up!

Long Term Solution? 





Evaluate how patches are holding up to see if a mill and overlay will work Possibly consider reconstruction for a majority of the project if underlying layers do not hold up HIR maybe?

Step 5: Lessons Learned 

Preliminary evaluation is critical



IDP- Inform inspectors



Production Adjustments- Use all of your lab tools

Questions Ernesto De La Garza, P.E. Corpus Christi District Lab [email protected]

Comments