Failure Probability of Resurfaced Preventive Maintenance Treatments

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of various pavement preventive maintenance treatments through investigation of the failure probability of different performance indicators, including roughness, alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, rutting, and friction. For the study, 354 resurfacing pavement preventive maintenance projects were collected from the Long-Term Pavement Performance program database, including ones that used thin asphalt overlay, chip seal, slurry seal, and fog seal. Survival models were employed to conduct the analyses because of their capability to capture unobserved failure events and to systematically incorporate influencing factors (e.g., traffic, climate, pavement structural capacity, and pretreatment pavement performance). The statistical analysis showed that poor pretreatment performance was a significant factor in treatment failure and that preventive treatments would not be effective on pavement in poor condition. Stronger structural capacity of pavement greatly reduced fatigue cracking on the treatment surface: the bending of asphalt layer was alleviated through stronger base and subgrade support. Climate factors had a significant influence on the failure of transverse cracking and rutting and on friction loss. A warmer climate tended to cause permanent deformation and friction loss, probably as the result of asphalt softening. In general, chip seal was the most effective overall, followed by thin asphalt overlay, slurry seal, and fog seal. However, chip seal was vulnerable to friction loss: the aggregates could be pulled out as a result of the loss of asphalt adhesion.

Territorial Infrastructure Support Index (ISIT)

“…Investment in the construction and maintenance of transport infrastructure is enormous, and its repercussions can be seen in all areas of society (Hildén et al 2004). Regarding this, the road infrastructure supply for better mobility and transportation performance is generally used as an indicator and can be measured from four perspectives: state of the pavement, traffic capacity, safety, and accessibility (Alavi et al 2016, Dong, Huang 2015, Song et al 2020. In terms of interurban roads, the importance of roadways in the entire national infrastructure is evident.…”

Effectiveness Evaluation of Preventive Maintenance Treatments on Asphalt Pavement Performance Using LTPP Data

“…Therefore, this study employed the short-term pavement performance in terms of longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking, alligator cracking, roughness, and rutting as indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the PM treatments. These research results have revealed that thin overlay is the most effective PM treatment, followed by chip seal, and slurry seal [2,11,19]. In contrast, crack seal does not have as good long-term effectiveness as the other PM treatments [2,20].…”

“…Previous studies also employed general statistical methods, regression models, survival analysis, etc. to compare the effectiveness of the PM treatments on mitigating pavement distresses, and the results showed that the effectiveness of PM treatments varies on different pavement distresses [10][11][12]. Therefore, the effectiveness evaluation of different PM treatments on each kind of pavement distress would be needed to support decision-making in the selection of an appropriate PM treatment for a pavement distress.…”

Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Parameters for Advanced Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement (CRCP) Punchout Calibration Model

“…LTPP database is worthy of the name of the largest pavement performance database, test sections from LTPP were used extensively in the calibration process, which can provide pavement engineers with historically recorded climate information, monitoring of distress and response, materials testing, maintenance, and especially pavement performance monitoring data. LTPP data were employed to conduct local and national calibration of the pavement performance by many researchers on both in-service flexible and rigid pavements [4][5][6][7], as well as survival analysis for preventive maintenance [8,9]. However, as mentioned by Prozzi and Madanat [10], the pavement distress is an event of high variety, and it was more reasonable to describe the failure of pavement by a function of probability density rather than by a fixed-point estimation.…”