Chapter Skim View of: APPENDIX D: AGENCY SURVEY RESPONSES

Currently Skimming:

APPENDIX D: AGENCY SURVEY RESPONSES
Pages 67-119

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 67... ... Alabama DOT Nebraska DOR Alaska DOT&PF Nevada DOT Alberta Transportation New Brunswick DOTI Arizona DOT New Jersey DOT California DOT New York State DOT Colorado DOT Ohio DOT Connecticut DOT Oklahoma DOT Florida DOT Ontario MOT Hawaii DOT Oregon DOT Idaho TD Pennsylvania DOT Indiana DOT Saskatchewan MHI Kansas DOT South Carolina DOT Kentucky TC South Dakota DOT Maine DOT Tennessee DOT Manitoba I&T Texas DOT Maryland SHA Virginia DOT Michigan DOT Washington State DOT Minnesota DOT West Virginia DOH Mississippi DOT Wisconsin DOT Missouri DOT Table D-2. Agency experience with premature material failure or accelerated pavement distress in newly constructed asphalt pavements due to presence of water. Read the entire page →
From page 68... ... Oklahoma DOT • Pay attention to the need for proper drainage in the pavement design. • Include drainable pavement layers in the typical section. Read the entire page →
From page 69... ... No Premature Failures or Premature Failures or Past Issue Minimized by Accelerated Distress Accelerated Distress Current Practices Alaska DOT&PF Alabama DOT Idaho TD Florida DOT Alberta Transportation Mississippi DOT Hawaii DOT Arizona DOT Nevada DOT Manitoba I&T California DOT Oklahoma DOT Maryland SHA Colorado DOT Pennsylvania DOT Minnesota DOT Connecticut DOT Nebraska DOR Indiana DOT Ohio DOT Kansas DOT Ontario MOT Kentucky TC South Dakota DOT Maine DOT Washington State DOT Michigan DOT Missouri DOT New Brunswick DOTI New Jersey DOT New York State DOT Oregon DOT Saskatchewan MHI South Carolina DOT Tennessee DOT Texas DOT Virginia DOT West Virginia DOH Wisconsin DOT 11 agencies 23 agencies 5 agencies Table D-5. Practices for resolving premature material failure or accelerated pavement distress in rehabilitated asphalt pavement due to the presence of water. Read the entire page →
From page 70... ... No Premature Failures or Premature Failures or Past Issue Minimized by Accelerated Distress Accelerated Distress Current Practices Alaska DOT&PF Alabama DOT Idaho TD Arizona DOT California DOT Indiana DOT Connecticut DOT Colorado DOT Pennsylvania DOT Florida DOT Kansas DOT Hawaii DOT Kentucky TC Manitoba I&T Maine DOT Maryland SHA Missouri DOT Minnesota DOT Nevada DOT Mississippi DOT New Brunswick DOTY Nebraska DOR New Jersey DOT Ohio DOT Oregon DOT Oklahoma DOT Saskatchewan MHI Ontario MOT Texas DOT South Carolina DOT Wisconsin DOT South Dakota DOT Tennessee DOT Virginia DOT Washington State DOT 18 agencies 14 agencies 3 agencies Table D-7. Practices for resolving premature material failure or accelerated pavement distress in preservation activities of asphalt pavements due to the presence of water. Read the entire page →
From page 71... ... pavements due to presence of water. Do Not Construct New No Premature Failures or Premature Failures or Composite Pavements Accelerated Distress Accelerated Distress Alabama DOT Alberta Transportation New Jersey DOT Alaska DOT&PF Arizona DOT Colorado DOT California DOT Connecticut DOT Hawaii DOT Florida DOT Minnesota DOT Idaho TD Mississippi DOT Indiana DOT Nebraska DOR Kansas DOT Nevada DOT Kentucky TC Oregon DOT Maine DOT South Carolina DOT Manitoba I&T Texas DOT Maryland SHA Virginia DOT Missouri DOT Washington State DOT New Brunswick DOTI New York State DOT Ohio DOT Oklahoma DOT Ontario MOT Pennsylvania DOT Saskatchewan MHI South Dakota DOT Tennessee DOT West Virginia DOH Wisconsin DOT 24 agencies 13 agencies 1 agency 71 Read the entire page →
From page 72... ... pavements due to presence of water. No Premature Failures or Premature Failures or Past Issue Minimized by Accelerated Distress Accelerated Distress Current Practices Alaska DOT&PF Alabama DOT Oklahoma DOT Alberta Transportation California DOT Pennsylvania DOT Arizona DOT Colorado DOT South Carolina DOT Florida DOT Connecticut DOT Hawaii DOT Indiana DOT Idaho TD Kansas DOT Maryland SHA Kentucky TC Minnesota DOT Maine DOT Mississippi DOT Manitoba I&T Missouri DOT New Jersey DOT Nebraska DOR New York State DOT Nevada DOT Oregon DOT New Brunswick DOTI South Dakota DOT Ohio DOT Wisconsin DOT Ontario MOT Tennessee DOT Texas DOT Saskatchewan MHI Virginia DOT Washington State DOT West Virginia DOH 21 agencies 14 agencies 3 agencies Table D-10. Read the entire page →
From page 73... ... pavements due to presence of water. No Premature Failures or Premature Failures or Past Issue Minimized by Accelerated Distress Accelerated Distress Current Practices Alaska DOT&PF Alabama DOT Indiana DOT Arizona DOT Colorado DOT Pennsylvania DOT California DOT Connecticut DOT Florida DOT Kansas DOT Hawaii DOT Maine DOT Idaho TD Missouri DOT Kentucky TC New Jersey DOT Manitoba I&T Wisconsin DOT Maryland SHA Minnesota DOT Mississippi DOT Nebraska DOR Nevada DOT New Brunswick DOTI New York State DOT Ohio DOT Oklahoma DOT Ontario MOT Oregon DOT Saskatchewan MHI South Carolina DOT South Dakota DOT Tennessee DOT Texas DOT Virginia DOT Washington State DOT West Virginia DOH 27 agencies 8 agencies 2 agencies Table D-12. Read the entire page →
From page 74... ... Agencies with a Design Checklist No Design Checklist Florida DOT Alabama DOT Maryland SHA Alaska DOT&PF New Jersey DOT Alberta Transportation Arizona DOT California DOT Colorado DOT Connecticut DOT Hawaii DOT Idaho TD Indiana DOT Kansas DOT Kentucky TC Maine DOT Manitoba I&T Minnesota DOT Mississippi DOT Missouri DOT Nebraska DOR Nevada DOT New Brunswick DOTI New York State DOT Ohio DOT Oklahoma DOT Ontario MOT Oregon DOT Pennsylvania DOT Saskatchewan MHI South Carolina DOT South Dakota DOT Tennessee DOT Texas DOT Virginia DOT Washington State DOT West Virginia DOH Wisconsin DOT 3 agencies 35 agencies 74 Read the entire page →
From page 75... ... . Agency Curbed Flat Sag Vertical Roadways Terrain Curves Alberta Transportation 6 3 6 California DOT ⎯ 6 ⎯ Colorado DOT 5 5 5 Florida DOT ⎯ 9 ⎯ Indiana DOT 9 9 9 Maine DOT 11 ⎯ ⎯ Manitoba I&T 6 6 6 Minnesota DOT 5 5 5 Nebraska DOR 9 8 ⎯ Nevada DOT 1 3 6 New Brunswick DOTI 6 6 6 New Jersey DOT 6 4 9 New York State DOT 6 5 ⎯ Ohio DOT 11 8 ⎯ Ontario MOT 12 12 12 Tennessee DOT 8 8 ⎯ No. Read the entire page →
From page 76... ... . Agency Interstate Principal Minor Collector Superelevated Arterial Arterial Curves to Shoulders Indiana DOT 4 4 4 4 2 Kentucky TC 4 4 4 4 8 Maine DOT 2 2 2 2 6 Manitoba I&T 2 2 2 3 6 Maryland SHA 2 2 2 2 2 Minnesota DOT 4 4 4 4 7 Mississippi DOT 4 4 4 4 7 Nebraska DOR 2 2 2 2 7 New Jersey DOT 4 4 4 4 7 New York State DOT 6 6 6 6 8 Ohio DOT 4 4 4 4 ⎯ Ontario MOT 6 6 6 6 12 Pennsylvania DOT 4 4 4 4 8 Tennessee DOT 2 2 2 2 2 No. Read the entire page →
From page 77... ... Agency No Agency Rational DRIP PAVDRN Specific Procedure/ Method Software Software Procedure Other Alabama DOT  ― ― ― ― Alaska DOT&PF  ― ― ― ― Arizona DOT ― ―  ― ― California DOT ―   ― ― Colorado DOT ― ― ―  ― Florida DOT ―   ― ― Hawaii DOT ―  ― ― ― Indiana DOT   ―  ― Kentucky TC  ― ― ― ― Maine DOT ― ―  ― ― Manitoba I&T  ― ― ― ― Maryland SHA ―  ― ― ― Minnesota DOT  ― ― ― ― Mississippi DOT  ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT ―  ― ― ― Nebraska DOR ― ―  ― ― Nevada DOT ―   ― ― New Brunswick DOTI ―   ― ― New York State DOT  ― ― ― ― Ohio DOT ―   ―  Oklahoma DOT  ― ― ― ― Ontario MOT  ― ― ― ― 1 Oregon DOT ― ― ― ― Pennsylvania DOT ―   ― ― 2 Saskatchewan MHI ― ― ― ― South Dakota DOT  ― ― ― ― 3 Tennessee DOT ― ― ― ― Washington State DOT  ― ― ― ― Wisconsin DOT ― ―  ― ― No. of Responses 12 13 10 2 1 1 Use saturated properties of subgrade and base in design. Read the entire page →
From page 78... ... Mississippi DOT  ― ― Missouri DOT ― ― Longitudinal gradient; typical spacing – 250 ft to 500 ft Nebraska DOR ― ― Typical spacing – 100 ft for slopes less than 1%; 200 ft for slopes greater than 1% Nevada DOT  ― ― New Brunswick DOTI  ― ― New York State DOT ― ― Drain cleaning equipment reach; typical spacing – 150 ft to 300 ft Ohio DOT  ― ― Oklahoma DOT  ― ― Ontario MOT  ― ― Oregon DOT  ― ― Pennsylvania DOT ― ― Agency-based procedure Saskatchewan MHI  ― ― South Dakota DOT  ― ― Tennessee DOT ― ― Geopack drainage Washington State DOT  ― ― Wisconsin DOT ―  Typical spacing – 300 ft to 600 ft No. of Responses 18 3 10 ⎯ N/A 78 Read the entire page →
From page 79... ... . Agency Interstate Principal Minor Arterial Collector Arterial Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Rural Ditches 21 30 21 30 20 28 18 24 Curb and gutter 21 6 31 12 29 13 24 9 Underdrain 18 16 17 16 11 10 8 8 Daylighted base 10 18 9 17 10 17 9 13 Edge drains 17 16 14 14 9 9 8 8 Aggregate permeable base 10 11 10 11 10 11 9 9 Geosynthetic separator layer 12 13 10 11 9 10 6 6 French drains 9 11 9 11 7 8 7 6 Asphalt permeable base 11 11 8 8 4 4 4 4 Retrofit edge drains 9 8 5 8 2 3 1 2 Open-graded friction course 8 8 7 6 2 2 2 2 Cement permeable base 6 5 4 3 2 2 1 1 Permeable friction course 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 Fin drains 2 2 2 3 0 1 0 0 Additional comments: • Hawaii DOT uses aggregate permeable base and underdrain systems at some locations. Read the entire page →
From page 80... ... Agency Standard Standard Plans Specification/ Available Special Provisions Online Alabama DOT ― Online Arizona DOT Online Online California DOT Online Online Colorado DOT Online ― Florida DOT Online ― Hawaii DOT Online Online Idaho TD Online Online Indiana DOT Online ― Kentucky TC Upon request ― Maryland SHA Online ― Minnesota DOT ― Online Missouri DOT ― Online Nebraska DOR Online Online Nevada DOT Online ― New York State DOT Online ― Ohio DOT Online ― Ontario MOT Online Online Pennsylvania DOT ― Online Saskatchewan MHI Online ― South Carolina DOT Online Online Tennessee DOT Online Upon request Texas DOT Online ― Wisconsin DOT Online ― No. of Responses 19 12 ⎯ N/A 80 Read the entire page →
From page 81... ... Agency Not an Increase Minimize Include a Place a Non- Increase Impose Other Issue Aggregate % Passing Free Frost- Bound Spring Load Base No. 200 on Draining Susceptible Layer Restrictions Thickness Aggregate Large Fill Material Thicknes Base Stone over the s Course Granular Subgrade Layer Alabama DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Alaska DOT&PF ― ―  ―  ―  ― Alberta Transportation ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Arizona DOT ―   ―   ― ― California DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Colorado DOT ―  ― ―  ― ― Include a Styrofoam layer Florida DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Idaho TD ―     ―  ― Indiana DOT ―      ― ― Kentucky TC  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Maine DOT ―     ―  ― Manitoba I&T ―    ―   Increase structure thickness Maryland SHA ―  ― ― ― ― ― ― Minnesota DOT ―   ―  ―  ― Mississippi DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Nebraska DOR ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Stabilize subgrade Nevada DOT ― ― ―  ― ―  ― New Brunswick DOTI ―  ―   ―  ― New York State DOT ―   ―  ― ― Add drainage 81 Read the entire page →
From page 82... ... 200 on Draining Susceptible Layer Restrictions Thickness Aggregate Large Fill Material Thicknes Base Stone over the s Course Granular Subgrade Layer Ohio DOT ― ―  ― ― ― ― Chemically stabilize subgrade Oklahoma DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Ontario MOT ―  ―   ―  ― Oregon DOT ―  ― ―  ― ― ― Pennsylvania DOT ―  ― ― ―  ― Apply a seasonal factor to the resilient modulus Saskatchewan MHI ― ―  ―    ― South Carolina DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― South Dakota DOT ―   ― ― ― ― ― Tennessee DOT ―  ―  ― ― ― ― Texas DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Washington State DOT ―       ― Wisconsin DOT ―  ―   ― ― ― No. of Responses 9 17 13 10 14 6 11 6 ⎯ N/A 82 Read the entire page →
From page 83... ... Agency Remove and Increase Increase Increase Stabilize Place a Replace with Aggregate Concrete Asphalt Weak Soil Geosynthetic Higher Quality Base Layer Thickness Layer Material Thickness (Composite Thickness Pavements) Alabama DOT  ― ― ―   Alaska DOT&PF  ― ― ― ―  Alberta Transportation ―  ―  ―  Arizona DOT       California DOT ― ― ― ―   Colorado DOT       Florida DOT  ― ― ―  ― Hawaii DOT   ―  ―  Idaho TD   ― ―   Indiana DOT   ― ―   Kentucky TC   ―    Maine DOT   ―  ―  Manitoba I&T ―  ―  ―  Maryland SHA   ―   ― Minnesota DOT  ― ― ― ―  Mississippi DOT  ― ―   ― Missouri DOT       Nebraska DOR ― ― ― ―  ― Nevada DOT   ―    New Brunswick DOTI   ― ― ―  New York State DOT   ― ― ―  Ohio DOT  ― ― ―  ― Oklahoma DOT ―  ― ―   Ontario MOT   ― ― ― ― Oregon DOT   ― ―   Pennsylvania DOT   ―  ― ― Saskatchewan MHI   ―  ―  83 Read the entire page →
From page 84... ... South Carolina DOT      ― South Dakota DOT   ― ―  ― Tennessee DOT   ―    Texas DOT  ― ― ―   Washington State DOT       Wisconsin DOT   ― ―   No. of Responses 28 24 5 16 22 24 ⎯ N/A 84 Read the entire page →
From page 85... ... Agency Not an Install Install Increase Depth Other Issue Culverts Edge of Ditch drains Alabama DOT ― ―   ― Alaska DOT&PF  ― ― ― ― Alberta Transportation ―  ― ― ― Arizona DOT    ― ― California DOT ― ― ― ― Use underdrains Colorado DOT ―    ― Florida DOT ― ―  ― Use asphalt base Hawaii DOT  ― ― ― ― Idaho TD ― ―   ― Indiana DOT ―    Use dry wells Kentucky TC  ― ― ― ― Maine DOT ―  ―  Use underdrains and ditches Manitoba I&T ―  ― ― Use subdrains Maryland SHA ― ―   ― Minnesota DOT ― ―   ― Mississippi DOT ― ―  ― Use French drain Missouri DOT  ― ― ― ― Nebraska DOR ― ―   ― Nevada DOT ― ―  ― Drain rock New Brunswick DOTI ―    ― New York State DOT ― ― ―  Use underdrains Ohio DOT  ― ― ― ― Oklahoma DOT ― ―  ― Use pipe underdrains Ontario MOT  ― ― ― Use subdrains Oregon DOT ― ― ―  Consider site-specific conditions during design and increase structural section Pennsylvania DOT  ― ― ― ― Saskatchewan MHI ―    ― South Carolina DOT ―    ― 85 Read the entire page →
From page 86... ... . Agency Not an Install Install Increase Depth Other Issue Culverts Edge of Ditch drains South Dakota DOT ― ―  ― ― Tennessee DOT ―    ― Washington State DOT  ― ― ― ― Wisconsin DOT ― ―  ― ― No. Read the entire page →
From page 87... ... loss Kentucky TC  15% ― ― ― ― ― Manitoba I&T ― ― ― 0.8-26 feet/day ― At least one Tried permeable base face for layer on one project gravel; two or more for crushed stone Maryland SHA 50% 12% ― ― ― ― Flat & Elongated, 15% max. Minnesota DOT 40% ― ― ― ― 85% two Insoluble residue less than face 10% Missouri DOT ― ―  ― ― ― Deleterious material Nevada DOT 37% ―  ― ― ― ― New Brunswick DOTI 25%1 ―  20% (max) Read the entire page →
From page 88... ... Deleterious, friable particles, glassy particles South Carolina DOT 65% ―  ― ― ― ― Tennessee DOT 50% 15% ― ― ― ― ― Washington State DOT ― ― ― ― ― ― Rock cap or permeable ballast are sometime used Wisconsin DOT 50% 18% ― ― ― ― ― 1 Micro-Deval (MTO LS-618) Read the entire page →
From page 89... ... 40 No. 200 1 Alabama DOT ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Alberta Transportation2 100 100 82–97 ― 52–79 35–64 ― ― ― 2–10 Arizona DOT 100 90–100 ― ― ― ― 35–55 ― ― 0–8 Colorado DOT ― ― 100 ― ― 30–65 25–55 ― ― 3–12 Florida DOT 95–100 ― 65–90 ― 45–75 35–60 ― 25–45 5–25 1–10 Idaho TD3 ― 100 90–100 ― ― 30–60 ― ― ― 0–7 Indiana DOT ― 100 75–95 40–70 20–50 0–15 0–10 ― ― ― Kentucky TC 100 95–100 ― 25–60 ― 0–10 0–5 ― ― ― Maryland SHA 95–100 ― 70–92 ― 50–70 35–55 ― ― 10–20 0–8 Minnesota DOT 100 95–100 65–95 ― 30–65 10–35 ― 3–20 0–8 0–3.5 Missouri DOT ― 100 ― 60–90 ― 35–60 ― ― 10–35 0–15 New Brunswick DOTI4 ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― New York State DOT5 100 ― ― 25–60 ― ― ― ― ― 2–7 Oklahoma DOT 100 100 95 ― ― 15 ― ― ― 5 Ontario MOT ― 100 85–100 65–90 50–73 35–55 ― 15–40 5–22 2–8 Pennsylvania DOT ― ― 52–100 ― 36–70 24–50 16–38 ― ― 0–10 1 AASHTO Gradation 57, 67, 68, and 78 with a constant head permeability > 2 in/second. Read the entire page →
From page 90... ... Kentucky TC  15% ― ― ― 1.5 in 1.5–2.5%  Maine DOT6 ― ― ―  85/80 1.5 in > 2% ― Minnesota DOT7 ― ―  ― ― ― JMF ― Missouri DOT 50% ―  ― ― 1 in 2.5% ― Nevada DOT8 37% 12%  ― 0/90 ― ―  New Brunswick DOTI9 25%6 ―  35% ― ― ―  Oklahoma DOT10 40% ― ― ― 100/0 ― 2.5% ― Ontario MOT11 ― ―  ― ― 1 in 1.8%±0.2 ― Pennsylvania DOT12 45% 20% ― ― Gravel 0/75; 1.5 in 2-3%  other 55/0 South Carolina DOT 60% ―    1 in JMF 1% hydrated lime3 Tennessee DOT 50% 9% ― ― ― ― ― ― 1 8 Percent 1 face/2 faces. Specific gravity: 2.85 max; absorption: 4% max; Plasticity Index: 2 Weight of binder. Read the entire page →
From page 91... ... California DOT 45% ― ― 1.5 IN ― 287 lb/yd3 w/c ~ 0.37 Kentucky TC  15% ― 1.5 in ― ― Compressive Strength Missouri DOT 50% ―  1 in ― 235 lb/ yd3 Nevada DOT 45%   No. 57 ―  Sand equivalent 20% Oklahoma DOT 40% ― ― No. Read the entire page →
From page 92... ... . Agency Subgrade Subgrade Base Overlay Stress Drainage Separation Stabilization Reinforcement Absorption & System Reinforcement Alaska DOT&PF 729-2.01 729-2.01 729-2.05 ― ―― Arizona DOT 306 306 306 ― ― California DOT 4-88 4-19 4-26 4-39 4-68 Colorado DOT 420 420 ― 420 Class 3 Florida DOT ― ― 145 145 145 Hawaii DOT 716.02 716.06 716.06-07 716.04 716.03 Idaho TD 718.07 718.07 718.07 718.08 718.07 Kentucky TC 214 304 304 ― ― Maine DOT 620 620 620 ― 620 Manitoba I&T Class 2, non-woven ― ― ― ― Minnesota DOT Type 5 ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT 1011 1011 1011 ― ― Nebraska DOR1 ― ― ― ― ― Nevada DOT 731 731 731 731 731 New Brunswick DOTI ASTM ISO 10319/ ― ― ― D4533/D4633 ASTM D5262 New York State DOT 207.11 204.14 ― ― 207.12 Oklahoma DOT 325 ― 326 ― ― Ontario MOT ― ― ― ― 1860 Oregon DOT 002320 ― ― ― ― Pennsylvania DOT 735, 212 735, 212 735, 212 ― 735, 604 South Dakota DOT 831 831 831 ― 680, 690, 831 Texas DOT Special Spec 5165 ― Special Spec 5261 356 ― Washington State DOT 2-41 2-41 ― ― 2-41 Wisconsin DOT 645 645 ― ― ― No. Read the entire page →
From page 93... ... Agency Dense-Graded Open-Graded Gap-Graded Alabama DOT   ― Alaska DOT&PF  ― ― Alberta Transportation  ― ― Arizona DOT    California DOT  ―  Colorado DOT  ― ― Florida DOT   ― Hawaii DOT  ― ― Idaho TD  ― ― Indiana DOT   ― Kentucky TC  ― ― Maine DOT  ― ― Manitoba I&T  ― ― Maryland SHA  ―  Minnesota DOT  ― ― Mississippi DOT   ― Missouri DOT  ―  Nebraska DOR  ― ― Nevada DOT   ― New Brunswick DOTI ―  ― New York State DOT  ― ― Ohio DOT  ― ― Oklahoma DOT  ― ― Ontario MOT  ― ― Oregon DOT  ― ― Pennsylvania DOT  ―  Saskatchewan MHI  ―  South Carolina DOT   ― South Dakota DOT  ― ― Tennessee DOT  ― ― Texas DOT   ― Washington State DOT  ― ― Wisconsin DOT  ― ― No. of Responses 33 9 6 ⎯ N/A 93 Read the entire page →
From page 94... ... Agency AASHTO T 283 AASHTO T 324 AASHTO T 340 ASTM D4867 Alabama DOT 80%1 ― ― ― Alaska DOT&PF2 ― ― ― ― Alberta Transportation 75% ― ― ― Arizona DOT No spec. requirement ― ― ― California DOT 70%3 ― ― ― Colorado DOT DOT modified ― ― ― Connecticut DOT4  ― ― ― Delaware DOT4  ― ― ― Florida DOT 80% ― ― ― Georgia DOT4 GDT 66 ― ― ― Idaho TD ― ― ≤ 0.2 in rut depth ― Indiana DOT 80% ― ― ― Iowa DOT4  ― ― Kansas DOT4 DOT modified ― ― ― Kentucky TC ― ― ― 80% Manitoba I&T No spec. Read the entire page →
From page 95... ... . Agency AASHTO T 283 AASHTO T 324 AASHTO T 340 ASTM D4867 New Mexico DOT4  ― ― ― New York State DOT 80% ― ― ― North Dakota DOT4  ― ― ― Ohio DOT 70% for low traffic; ― ― ― 80% for high traffic7 Oklahoma DOT 80% ― ― ― Ontario MOT 80% ― ― ― Pennsylvania DOT 80% ― ― ― Saskatchewan MHI8 ― ― ― ― South Carolina DOT4  ― ― ― South Dakota DOT9 ― ― ― SD309; 70-80% Tennessee DOT ― ― ― 80%; Tensile strength > 80psi/100 psi Texas DOT ― 0.5 in max. Read the entire page →
From page 96... ... by weight ― of binder Arizona DOT ≥ 1% ― ― ― Cement California DOT 0.8-1.5% by dry ― 0.8-1.5% by dry 0.25-1% by weight of Warm mix additives aggregate weight aggregate weight binder Colorado DOT 1% hydrated lime 70% water by < 90 days ― ― by weight of weight aggregate Connecticut DOT ― ― ―  ― Delaware DOT  ― ―  ― Florida DOT Typically 1% by 1% 1% 0.1% ― aggregate weight Georgia DOT  ― ― ― ― Idaho TD  ― ―  Warm mix additives Indiana DOT ― ― ―  ― Iowa DOT Hydrated lime not ― ―  ― typically used Kansas DOT ― ― ―  ― Kentucky TC ― ― ― 0.25-0.5% by weight ― Maine DOT  ― ―  ― Manitoba I&T ― ― ― No requirement ― Maryland SHA ― 1-1.5% ― 0.2% min. ― Massachusetts DOT   ― ― ― Michigan DOT  ― ―  ― Minnesota DOT  ― ―  ― 96 Read the entire page →
From page 97... ... . Agency Dry/Hydrated Lime Slurry Lime Slurry and Liquid anti-strip Other Lime Marination Mississippi DOT 1% by weight of ― ― Used if mixture does ― dry aggregate not meet TSR Missouri DOT ― ― ― ― Contractor's choice Montana DOT 1.4% by weight of ― ― Varies ― mix Nebraska DOR 1.5% by aggregate ― ― ≥ 0.25% with liquid ― weight WMA Nevada DOT  ― 1% coarse, 2% ― ― fine aggregate New Brunswick DOTI ― ― ― Redicote 82S, ― C3082; AD-here LOF6500, 7700; PaveBond T Lite; Travcor 4505; Innovalt W New Jersey DOT ― ― ― ― No requirements New Mexico DOT  ― ― ― ― New York State DOT ― ― ― ≥ 80% TSR for the ― AASHTO T 283 North Dakota DOT  ― ― ― ― Ohio DOT  ― ―  ― Oklahoma DOT  ― ― 0.5% by volume of ― binder for non Superpave open graded surface mixes Ontario MOT ― ― ― Variable by design ― Oregon DOT Typical 1% by mix ― ― ― ― Pennsylvania DOT Not typically used ― ― 0.25% min. Read the entire page →
From page 98... ... . Agency Dry/Hydrated Lime Slurry Lime Slurry and Liquid anti-strip Other Lime Marination Rhode Island DOT ― ― ―  ― Saskatchewan MHI 1% by weight of ― ― 1% by weight of  dry aggregate binder; variable by mix South Carolina DOT AASHTO M 303 ― ―  ― South Dakota DOT > 0.5% or ― ― ― ― 1% total weight Tennessee DOT  ― ― 0.25% or 0.5% by ― weight of binder Texas DOT 1-2% ― ― 0.25-0.5% by weight ― of binder Vermont DOT ― ― ―  ― Virginia DOT ― ― ―  ― Washington D.C. Read the entire page →
From page 99... ... Agency No During Mix During Field During Mix Testing Design Only Acceptance Design and Field Only Acceptance Alabama DOT ―  ― ― Alaska DOT&PF ―  ― ― Alberta Transportation ―  ― ― Arizona DOT1 ― ― ― ― California DOT ― ― ―  Colorado DOT ― ― ―  Florida DOT ―  ― ― Hawaii DOT  ― ― ― Idaho TD ―  ― ― Indiana DOT ―  ― ― Kentucky TC ―  ― ― Maine DOT2 ― ― ― ― Manitoba I&T ―  ― ― Maryland SHA3 ― ― ― ― Minnesota DOT ― ― ―  Mississippi DOT ― ― ―  Missouri DOT ― ―  ― Nebraska DOR ― ― ―  Nevada DOT ― ― ―  New Brunswick DOTI ― ― ―  New York State DOT ―  ― ― Ohio DOT ―  ― ― Oklahoma DOT ― ― ―  Ontario MOT ― ― ―  Oregon DOT ― ― ―  Pennsylvania DOT ―  ― ― Saskatchewan MHI ―  ― ― South Carolina DOT ―  ― ― South Dakota DOT ―  ― ― Tennessee DOT ― ― ―  Texas DOT ― ― ―  Washington State DOT ―  ― ― Wisconsin DOT ― ― ―  No. of Responses 1 15 1 13 1 IMC and TSR-Evaluation of out of specs materials. Read the entire page →
From page 100... ... outside shldr) Alabama DOT ―  ― ― ― Alaska DOT&PF  ― ― ― ― Alberta Transportation  ― ― ― ― Arizona DOT ―  ― ― ― California DOT ―  ― ― ― Colorado DOT ― ― ― ―  Connecticut DOT ― ― ― ― ― Florida DOT ―  ― ― ― Hawaii DOT ― ― ― ―  Idaho TD ―  ― ― ― Indiana DOT ―  ― ― ― Kansas DOT ― ― ― ― ― Kentucky TC ―  ― ― ― Maine DOT ―  ― ― ― Manitoba I&T  ― ― ― ― Maryland SHA ― ― ― ―  Michigan DOT ― ― ― ― ― Minnesota DOT ― ―  ― ― Mississippi DOT  ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT ― ― ― ―  Nebraska DOR ― ― ―  ― Nevada DOT ―  ― ― ― New Brunswick DOTI ―  ― ― ― New Jersey DOT ― ― ― ― ― New York State DOT ―  ― ― ― Ohio DOT ―  ― ― ― Oklahoma DOT ―  ― ― ― Ontario MOT ― ― ― ―  Oregon DOT ―  ― ― ― Pennsylvania DOT ―  ― ― ― Saskatchewan MHI ―  ― ― ― South Carolina DOT ―  ― ― ― South Dakota DOT ―  ― ― ― Tennessee DOT ―  ― ― ― Texas DOT ― ― ― ― ― Virginia DOT ― ― ― ― ― Washington State DOT ―  ― ― ― West Virginia DOH ― ― ― ― ― Wisconsin DOT ―  ― ― ― No. Read the entire page →
From page 101... ... Agency Standard Specification No Specification Requirement Alabama DOT ―  California DOT ―  Florida DOT 465 ― Hawaii DOT ―  Idaho TD 606.03-E ― Indiana DOT 718 ― Kentucky TC 704 ― Maine DOT ―  Maryland SHA 306 ― Minnesota DOT 2502 ― Nebraska DOR ―  New Brunswick DOTI Ditching-item 116, ― Subdrain-item 136, Subdrain outlet-item 137 New York State DOT ―  Ohio DOT 611 ― Oklahoma DOT  ― Oregon DOT ―  Pennsylvania DOT 610 ― Saskatchewan MHI  ― South Carolina DOT SC-M-714 ― South Dakota DOT ―  Tennessee DOT ―  Washington State DOT ―  Wisconsin DOT ―  No. of Responses 12 11 ⎯ N/A 101 Read the entire page →
From page 102... ... 200 sieve; else ±2% of optimum2,3 Florida DOT ― 98% ― ― (FM 1-T 180) Hawaii DOT  90-95% ― ±2% of optimum Idaho TD ― 95%2 ― ― Indiana DOT  LWD ― ±2% of optimum for clay with density < 105lb/ft3; within -2%-1% of optimum for clay with density between 105-114 lb/ft3; up to -3% of optimum for silty & sandy soil1 Kentucky TC  ― ― ― Maine DOT  ― ― ― Manitoba I&T ― 95% ―  Maryland SHA ― 97%1 ― ― Minnesota DOT4  100%2 4 65-102%2 Mississippi DOT ― 95-98% ― ― Missouri DOT  95% ― Optimum Nebraska DOR ― Proctor, nuclear ― Nuclear gauge or burner in field lab gauge or LWD Nevada DOT ― 90% ― For compaction New Brunswick ― 95% Variable ― DOTI New York State  95% ― ― DOT Ohio DOT  98-102%5 ― ― Oklahoma DOT ― 95%2 ― ― Ontario MOT ― 98% of target ― ― density Oregon DOT  95%2 ― ±2% of optimum Pennsylvania  100% ― Optimum to -3% of optimum DOT Saskatchewan  100% ―  MHI South Carolina  95%2 ― ― DOT6 South Dakota ― Section 120 ― ― DOT Tennessee DOT ― 100%2 ― ― 102 Read the entire page →
From page 103... ... of Passes Aggregate Thickness Density Gradation Alabama DOT  100%2 ―  Arizona DOT  100% ―  Colorado DOT  95%2 ―  Florida DOT1  98%2 ―  Hawaii DOT  ― ―  Idaho TD ― ― ―  Indiana DOT  LWD ―  Kentucky TC3 ― ― ―  Manitoba I&T  98% ―  Minnesota DOT  ― 4  Missouri DOT  95% ―  Nevada DOT  95% 3 min.  New Brunswick DOTI  95% Variable ― New York State DOT  ― ―  Oklahoma DOT  95-98%2 ― ― Ontario MOT  100% of target ―  density Oregon DOT4  95% ―  Pennsylvania DOT  100% ―  South Carolina DOT  100%2 ―  No. Read the entire page →
From page 104... ... Agency Placement Compaction Layer In-Place No. of Aggregate Binder Permeability/ Temperature Temperature Thickness Density Passes Gradation Content Drainability Alabama DOT Varies 150°F  94% of ―  2-3% ― target California DOT ≥ 260°F ≥ 140°F;  91-97% ― ― 2.5% ― ≥ 200°F rubberized asphalt Florida DOT ― ―  ― ― ― ― ― Idaho TD ― ― ― ― 21  ― ― Indiana DOT ― ― ― ― ― ―  ― Kentucky TC 180-260 ―  ― ―  1.5-2.5%  Maine DOT 50°F & rising ― ― ― ≥3 ― > 2% ― Minnesota DOT ― ―  ― 4  3% ― Missouri DOT ― ― ― ― ≥3 ― ― ― 2 Nevada DOT 300°F min. Read the entire page →
From page 105... ... Agency Layer In-Place Aggregate Cement Curing Thicknes Density Gradation Content Method s California DOT  95% relative  287 lb/yd3; ― compaction 0.37 w/c (TM 231) Hawaii DOT  ―    Kentucky TC1  ―  0.37 w/c Polyethylene sheeting, curing compound Missouri DOT  ―  ― Fine mist curing, wet burlap covers Nevada DOT2  92% ― > 282 Wax based lb/yd3 white pigmented curing compound Oklahoma DOT  95% ― ― ― (OHD L-53) Read the entire page →
From page 106... ... Agency Cores Nuclear Density Non-Nuclear Gauge Density Gauge Alabama DOT  ― ― Alaska DOT&PF  ― ― Alberta Transportation  ― ― Arizona DOT   ― California DOT   ― Colorado DOT   ― Connecticut DOT ― ― ― Florida DOT   ― Hawaii DOT  ― ― Idaho TD ―  PQI or Pavetraker Indiana DOT  ― ― Kentucky TC   ― Maine DOT   PQI Manitoba I&T   ― Maryland SHA  ― ― Minnesota DOT  ― ― Mississippi DOT   ― Missouri DOT   ― Nebraska DOR   PQI or equivalent Nevada DOT   ― New Brunswick DOTI   ― New Jersey DOT ― ― ― New York State DOT   Trans Tech PQI Ohio DOT   Trans Tech Oklahoma DOT   ― Ontario MOT  ― ― Oregon DOT ―  ― Pennsylvania DOT   Trans Tech PQI Model 300 or 301, Troxler PaveTracker Saskatchewan MHI   ― South Carolina DOT   ― South Dakota DOT   ― Tennessee DOT ―  ― Texas DOT  ― ― Washington State DOT ―  ― Wisconsin DOT ―  ― No. of Responses 28 24 6 ⎯ N/A 106 Read the entire page →
From page 107... ... New Rehabilitation Preservation Pumping 27 29 21 Stripping 23 29 24 Potholes 19 24 19 Alligator cracking 13 18 13 Delamination 10 14 13 Heaving 14 14 14 Raveling 14 14 11 Patching 9 12 9 Increased roughness 9 10 8 Longitudinal cracking 8 7 6 Rutting 7 7 6 Segregation 3 4 3 Bleeding 3 2 2 Transverse cracking 2 2 2 Additional comments: • California DOT – some distresses may not be caused by water but become more severe in the presence of water. • Nevada DOT – alligator cracking occurs at times when base has been compromised due to the presence of water. Read the entire page →
From page 108... ... Agency Agency Pavement Coring Trench Records NDT1 Laboratory Triggered by Personnel Condition Studies Review Testing Pavement Notification Survey (Asphalt) Management Alabama DOT  ―  ―  GPR  ― Alaska DOT&PF  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Alberta Transportation ― ―   ― ―  ― Arizona DOT ― ―  ― ― ―  ― California DOT ―  ― 2 ― ― ― ― Colorado DOT    ― ― ―  ― Florida DOT ― ―   ― ― ― ― Hawaii DOT  ―   ― ― ― ― Idaho TD ― ―  ― ― FWD ― ― Indiana DOT ― ―  ―  FWD, GPR   Kansas DOT ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Kentucky TC  ―  ―  FWD, GPR ―  Maine DOT ―    ― ―  ― Manitoba I&T  ―  ―  ―  ― Maryland SHA   ― ― ― ― ― ― Minnesota DOT ―   ― ― ― ― ― Mississippi DOT ― ―   ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT  ―  ― ― ― ― ― Nebraska DOR  ―  ― ― FWD  ― Nevada DOT ―   ―  ― ― ― New Brunswick DOTI ― ― ― ―  ―   New Jersey DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ― ― New York State DOT    ― ― ―   Ohio DOT ―   ―  FWD ― ― Oklahoma DOT ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Ontario MOT ―  ― ― ― ― ― ― Oregon DOT ―   ―  FWD   Pennsylvania DOT ―   ― ― ―  ― Saskatchewan MHI  ―  ―  FWD, GPR  ― 108 Read the entire page →
From page 109... ... Management South Carolina DOT    ―  ―  ― South Dakota DOT  ―  ― ― ― ― ― Tennessee DOT ―     ―  ― Texas DOT ― ―   ― GPR  ― Washington State DOT ―   ― ― ― ― ― Wisconsin DOT ― ―    ― ― ― No. of Responses 14 14 28 9 12 9 17 5 1 Nondestructive testing (NDT) Read the entire page →
From page 110... ... Agency Edge Inspect Flush Unplug Mow Repair/ Clean Deepen Mow & Remove drain Pipe Edge Outlets, Around Replace Roadside Roadside Clean Debris Video Systems drains Filters, Outlet Components Ditches Ditches Ditches from Inspection & Pipes Culverts Drains 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Alabama DOT ― ― ― 1 1 1 Alaska DOT&PF ― ― ― ― ―  ― 1 Alberta Transportation ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 2-3 yrs1 1 1 1 1 1 Arizona DOT ― ― ― ― ― 1 1 1 1 1 1 California DOT ― ― Annual Annual1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Colorado DOT ― Annual ― 1 1 1 1 Florida DOT ― Annual ― ―  ― Hawaii DOT  ― ― ― ―   ― ― ― 1 1 1 1 Idaho TD ― ― ― ― ― ― Indiana DOT2 2 2 1,2 2 Biannual  every 7 every 7 Biannual 1 yrs yrs, if needed 3 3 4 2 2 Kentucky TC ― ―  ― ― 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Maine DOT ― ― 1 1 1 1 Manitoba I&T ― ― ― ― ― ― 1 1 Mississippi DOT ― ― ― ― Annual  ― Annual Minnesota DOT ― ― ― Annual ― ― ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT ― ― ― ― 3 x /yr ― Random Random 3 x /yr Random 1 1 Mississippi DOT ― Every 2 ― ― ― ― ― ― yrs 1 1 1 1 Nebraska DOR ― ― Based ― ― ― on growth 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nevada DOT Annual 1 1 1 New Brunswick DOTI ― ― ― ―  ― ― 1 1 New York State DOT ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 2 x /yr Ohio DOT ― Variable ― Variable ― Variable Variable ― Variable Variable 110 Read the entire page →
From page 111... ... . Agency Edge Inspect Flush Edge Unplug Mow Repair/ Clean Deepen Mow & Remove drain Pipe drains Outlets, Around Replace Roadside Roadside Clean Debris Video Systems Filters, Outlet Components Ditches Ditches Ditches from Inspection & Pipes Culverts Drains 1 1 Ontario MOT ― ― ― ― ―  ― ― 1 1 Oregon DOT ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― 1 1 1 Pennsylvania DOT ― Every ― ―  ― ― 4 yrs 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Saskatchewan MHI ― ― 1 1 1 1 1 1 South Carolina DOT Annual  Annual Annual South Dakota DOT ― ― ― 1-2 x/yr Annual  ― ― ― ― Tennessee DOT ― ― ― 20% 80%  ― ― 70% 60% 1 1 Washington State DOT ― ― ― ― ― ― ― ― Wisconsin DOT ― ― ― ― Annual  ― ―  ― No. Read the entire page →
From page 112... ... Agency Crack Surface Chip Seal Microsurfacing Thin Sealing Seal Asphalt Overlay 1 1 1 1 1 Alabama DOT 1 Alaska DOT&PF ― ― ― ― 1 1 1 1 1 Alberta Transportation not more than once 1 1 1 Arizona DOT 10-12 yrs 10-15 yrs low volume & non interstate 1 1 1 California DOT ― ― Colorado DOT 6-10 yrs 6-10 yrs 6-10 yrs ― 10-15 yrs 1 Florida DOT ― ― ― ― 1 1 1 1 Idaho TD ― Indiana DOT2 Every 3 yrs ― 1 1 1 Kentucky TC 6-8 yrs ― ― ― 10-15 yrs 1 1 1 Maine DOT ― 7 yrs minor collectors; others1 Manitoba I&T 2-5 yrs 7-10 yrs 7-10 yrs ― ― 1 1,2 1,2 Maryland SHA ― ― Minnesota DOT 50% of ― 50% of  ― roadway, roadway, every 3 yrs every 4-12 for overlays; yrs every 8 yrs for new construction 1 1 Mississippi DOT ― ― ― Nebraska DOR Every 3 yrs 5-9 yrs after Variable ― ― overlay Nevada DOT3 8 yrs after 4 yrs after 9 yrs after Case-by-case 1 overlay overlay overlay, 1 yr after crack seal New Brunswick DOTI4 Variable Variable Variable 1 ― New York State DOT 4-5 yrs ― ― ― 10-12 yrs Ohio DOT Variable Shoulders Variable Variable Variable occasionally Oklahoma DOT Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable 1 1 Ontario MOT 3 yrs ― ― 1 1 Oregon DOT ― 7-15 yrs ― Pennsylvania DOT 3-5 yrs ― 7 yrs 7 yrs 8 yrs 112 Read the entire page →
From page 113... ... . Agency Crack Surface Chip Seal Microsurfacin Thin Sealing Seal g Asphalt Overlay Saskatchewan MHI After second 5-7 yrs 10-12 yrs ― ― winter for thermal cracks; 5 7yrs for other cracks 1 1 1 1 South Carolina DOT ― South Dakota DOT 2 yrs after ― 3 yrs after ― ― construction construction 1 ; every 7 yrs Tennessee DOT Frequently Sparsely Sparsely 20+ projects/yr 20+ projects/yr 1 1 Texas DOT ― ― ― 1 Washington State DOT ― 6-10 yrs ― ― Wisconsin DOT Variable ― ― ― ― No. Read the entire page →
From page 114... ... Agency Crack Sealing Surface Chip SealMicrosurfac Thin Asphalt Seal ing Overlay Alabama DOT As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed Arizona DOT As needed As needed 10-12 yrs low As needed 10-15 yrs volume & non interstate California DOT As needed As needed – As needed – Colorado DOT 6-10 yrs 6-10 yrs 6-10 yrs – 10-15 yrs Indiana DOT1 Every 3 yrs – As needed As needed As needed Kansas DOT – – As needed As needed – Kentucky TC 6-8 yrs – – – 10-15 yrs Maine DOT As needed As needed – – 7 yrs minor collectors; others, As needed Manitoba I&T 2-5 yrs – 7-10 yrs – – Maryland SHA As needed – – As needed As needed Minnesota DOT 50% of – – – – roadways every 3 yrs Mississippi DOT – – – – As needed Nevada DOT 8 yrs after 4 yrs after 9 yrs after Varies – overlay overlay overlay, 1 yr after crack sealing Nebraska DOR Every 3 yrs 5-9 yrs 5-9 yrs – – New York State DOT 4-5 yrs – – – 10-12 yrs Ohio DOT Variable Shoulders Variable Variable Variable Oklahoma DOT Variable Variable Variable Variable Variable Ontario MOT 3 yrs – – As needed As needed Oregon DOT As needed – – – – Pennsylvania DOT 3-5 yrs – – 7 yrs 8 yrs South Carolina DOT As needed – As needed As needed As needed South Dakota DOT 2 yrs after – 3 yrs after – – construction, construction, As needed every 7 yrs Tennessee DOT As needed As needed As needed As needed As needed Texas DOT As needed – As needed When – scheduled Washington State DOT As needed – 6-10 yrs – – Wisconsin DOT Variable – – – – No. of Responses 24 11 15 15 15 1 Indiana DOT = Ultra-thin bonded wearing course. Read the entire page →
From page 115... ... New York State DOT • Add edge drains in sag vertical curves, the low side of super elevation, or other locations where damage is evident. Oklahoma DOT • Install edge drains or pipe under drain. Read the entire page →
From page 116... ... Agency Asphalt Unbonded Asphalt Mill & Mill, Cold In- Hot In- Re- Retrofit Overlay Concrete Overlay Asphalt Asphalt Place Place construct Edge Overlay & Saw & Overlay Overlay, Recycling Recycling drains Seal & Saw & Seal Alabama DOT  ― ―  ― ― ― ― ― Alaska DOT&PF ― ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Alberta Transportation  ― ―  ―  ― ― ― Arizona DOT ― ― ―  ― ― ―  ― California DOT ― ― ―  ―    ― Colorado DOT   ―  ―    ― Florida DOT ― ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Idaho TD1 ― ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Indiana DOT  ―     ―   Kentucky TC ― ― ―  ― ― ―   Maine DOT  ― ―  ―  ―   Maryland SHA  ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Minnesota DOT ― ― ―  ― ― ― ― ― Mississippi DOT  ― ―  ― ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT ― ― ―  ―    ― Nevada DOT2  ― ―  ― ― ―  ― New Brunswick DOTI  ― ―  ―  ―   New York State DOT  ― ― ― ― ― ―  ― Ohio DOT ― ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Oklahoma DOT   ―  ― ― ―  ― Ontario MOT ― ― ―  ― ― ― ―  Oregon DOT3  ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Pennsylvania DOT  ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Saskatchewan MHI  ― ―  ― ― ― ― ― South Carolina DOT  ― ―  ― ― ―   South Dakota DOT ― ― ― ― ― ― ―  ― 116 Read the entire page →
From page 117... ... . Agency Asphalt Unbonded Asphalt Mill & Mill, Cold In- Hot In- Re- Retrofit Overlay Concrete Overlay Asphalt Asphalt Place Place construct Edge Overlay & Saw & Overlay Overlay, & Recycling Recycling drains Seal Saw & Seal Tennessee DOT  ― ―   ―    Texas DOT ― ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Washington State DOT4 ― ― ―  ― ― ―  ― Wisconsin DOT ― ― ―  ― ― ― ― ― No. Read the entire page →
From page 118... ... Agency Asphalt Asphalt Mill & Mill, Asphalt Hot In- Re- Retrofit Overlay Overlay & Asphalt Overlay, & Place construct Edge Saw & Seal Overlay Saw & Seal Recycling Drains Alabama DOT  ―  ― ― ― ― Arizona DOT ― ―  ― ―  ― California DOT ― ― ― ― ― ―  Colorado DOT  ―  ―   ― Hawaii DOT ― ― ― ― ―  ― Indiana DOT     ―   Kentucky TC ― ―  ― ―   Maine DOT  ―  ― ―   Maryland SHA  ―  ― ―  ― Minnesota DOT ― ―  ― ― ― ― Mississippi DOT  ―  ― ― ― ― Missouri DOT ― ―  ―  ― ― Nebraska DOR ― ―  ― ― ― ― Nevada DOT ― ―  ― ―   New York State DOT  ― ― ― ― ―  Ohio DOT ― ―  ― ― ― ― Oklahoma DOT  ―  ― ― ―  Ontario MOT ― ―  ― ― ―  Oregon DOT ― ―  ― ― ― ― Pennsylvania DOT ―  ―  ―  ― South Carolina DOT  ―  ― ―  ― South Dakota DOT ― ― ― ― ― ―  Tennessee DOT ―  ―  ― ―  Texas DOT ― ―  ― ― ― ― Washington State DOT ― ―  ― ―  ― Wisconsin DOT ― ―  ― ― ― ― No. of Responses 9 3 20 3 2 11 10 – N/A 118 Read the entire page →
From page 119... ... Additional comments: • Pennsylvania DOT – age, traffic, or environment do not mitigate moisture damage to asphalt or composite pavements. • Indiana DOT – cement soil stabilization is a 4 on the rating scale. Read the entire page →

From page 67...

... Alabama DOT Nebraska DOR Alaska DOT&PF Nevada DOT Alberta Transportation New Brunswick DOTI Arizona DOT New Jersey DOT California DOT New York State DOT Colorado DOT Ohio DOT Connecticut DOT Oklahoma DOT Florida DOT Ontario MOT Hawaii DOT Oregon DOT Idaho TD Pennsylvania DOT Indiana DOT Saskatchewan MHI Kansas DOT South Carolina DOT Kentucky TC South Dakota DOT Maine DOT Tennessee DOT Manitoba I&T Texas DOT Maryland SHA Virginia DOT Michigan DOT Washington State DOT Minnesota DOT West Virginia DOH Mississippi DOT Wisconsin DOT Missouri DOT Table D-2. Agency experience with premature material failure or accelerated pavement distress in newly constructed asphalt pavements due to presence of water.

APPENDIX D: AGENCY SURVEY RESPONSES Pages 67-119

APPENDIX D: AGENCY SURVEY RESPONSES
Pages 67-119