Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Flexible Pavement Rehabilitation using Paving Fabric Quantifying the Benefit

C. Joel Sprague, P.E.1
TRI/Environmental, Inc., PO Box 9192, Greenville, SC 29604, PH: 864/242-2220,
FAX: 864/242-3107, E-mail: cjoelsprague@cs.com

Abstract
In 2002, the Greenville County, South Carolina, Department of Public Works
(GCDPW) was asked by a paving contractor to allow the substitution of a thicker
overlay in place of the specified paving fabric-thinner overlay remediation. The
request prompted the PWD to facilitate a review of pavement performance to
establish relative cost/effectiveness information for the various remediation methods
used on County roads. The review has provided the potential to independently
quantify the relative benefits of using paving fabric as compared to increased overlay
thickness or other maintenance techniques. This paper presents the tabulation of data
for an initial selection of roads, including the pavement condition at time of
maintenance, the selected pavement maintenance technique and associated costs, and
the subsequent pavement performance. Additionally, an evaluation of the data along
with conclusions related to evidence of the effectiveness of paving fabric is presented.
Background
For over a century, paved asphalt roadways have been constructed. Basic paving
materials and design methods have undergone few changes, but the evolution of
strategies for extending the life of these structures is ongoing. The need for
advancement in this area is unquestionable as the various levels of government devote
unprecedented time, resources, and dollars to roadway maintenance and repair.
As early as the 1930s, road builders in South Carolina began trying to improve the
structure of the pavement by inserting a fabric layer. These pioneers laid woven
cotton sheets between layers of asphalt. The next significant development in paving
technology was the incorporation of man-made fabrics known as geotextiles. This
began in 1966 with the decision of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to replace
heavy metal mesh plates with light-weight nonwoven polypropylene geotextiles in
emergency road construction. Unlike the cotton fabric, the synthetic fabrics would not

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

deteriorate due to chemicals or rot when exposed to water. In 1970, the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) instituted the National Experimental Evaluation
Program with the purpose of reducing reflective cracking in pavements. Of all the
measures investigated at that time, the polypropylene nonwoven fabric fared best and
was approved by the FHWA as a pavement interlayer. Independently of the FHWAs
research, California Department of Transportation quantified the positive effects of
nonwoven paving fabrics in 1972. In subsequent years, paving fabrics have achieved
various levels of acceptance from state-to-state and among local governments,
primarily related to various attitudes concerning cost-effectiveness. (Roschen, 1997)
Introduction
Greenville County, South Carolina, Department of Public Works (GCDPW) currently
maintains approximately 1600 centerline miles of roads, and due to significant growth
in the County, more are being added every year. Greenville County has over a
decade of documented experience with a variety of rehabilitation and resurfacing
techniques, including an aggressive road improvement program known as
Prescription for Progress, Paving County Roads (PFP) initiated by Greenville
County in 1997.
In 2002, the DPW decided that there was a need for a periodic evaluation of current
road improvement methods and proposed an independent study of available
information. To this end, a desired scope of study was developed by the GCDPW but
no funding was available to perform the study. Since paving fabric had been used as
one of the commonly used road improvement techniques, the Geosynthetic Materials
Association (GMA) was approached and agreed to fund a study. The GMA retained
the author to perform the study.
Outline of Comprehensive Study
Following is the DPWs proposed scope for a comprehensive study of County roads
that have been improved using current rehabilitation and resurfacing techniques.
Greenville County agreed to provide access to all available records, including
pavement condition surveys, field inspectors reports, and the records of costs
associated with each road project under the PFP.

Study roads rehabilitated/resurfaced to-date under the PFP.

Compile a listing of roads rehabilitated and/or resurfaced in each year, noting the
pavement condition rating at the time of rehabilitation/resurfacing. Add to this
listing the most recent pavement condition assessment and the associated date.
Note that earlier pavement assessments used a pavement condition index (PCI)
rating while more recent assessments used an overall condition index (OCI).
Using all available sources, identify roads with their respective rehabilitation
technique, including recycling, overlay with paving fabric with and without full
depth patching, and simple overlay.

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Group the compiled listings according to roads having comparable history and
traffic loadings.
Analyze each grouping to identify trends in relative performance of the various
rehabilitation /resurfacing techniques.
Attempt to explain any significant variations in performance of similar roads
having the same rehabilitation /resurfacing by performing an on-site inspection.
On-site inspection may include any or all of the following: visual evaluation of
drainage, unusual loading, or topographic factors or core drilling to examine the
quality of materials and the underlying subgrade.
If possible, Falling Weight Deflectometer and/or Ground Penetrating Radar
testing may be used on selected roads to quantify relative road performance.
Based on the review of records, field inspections and field testing, prepare and
submit a summary of rehabilitation /resurfacing performance findings, including
concerns and recommendations.

Phase 1 of Study
Because of the unknown quality and quantity of available data, the GMA agreed to
fund the study in phases. Phase 1 of the study included a review of the available
sources of data on the Countys pavement maintenance program, including over 1700
roads since the late 1980s. The following sources of information were identified:

Listing of roads in the pavement maintenance programs between 1987 and 1996.
Hand-written records related to the roads maintained between 1987 and 1996.
Micropaver database from late 1980s early 1990s.
Pavement Evaluation Reports by Eckrose/Green for years 1994-1996.
Listing of roads included in the 1997/98 PFP with associated 1996 PCI ratings.
1997/98, 1998/99, 1999/00, 2000/01 PFP Data Base
Listing of roads proposed for the 2002/03 PFP with associated 2000 PCI ratings.
County Roads Inventory as of January 2002 with associated 2000 PCI ratings.
Select 2003 Road Condition Ratings
Random traffic counts on less than 1/3 of the roads examined.

Phase 1 Primary Objective Roads with Maximum Historical Record

The primary objective of Phase 1 of the study was to assess how the available data
sources could be used to establish the most complete historical maintenance record
for selected roads. Thus, following are initial (Phase 1) tasks:
For a selection of roads, review and tabulate pavement condition at time of
maintenance, selected pavement maintenance technique, subsequent pavement
performance, and associated cost information.
Evaluate and draw conclusions based on the tabulated data.
Should it be concluded that the available records provide sufficient quantity and
quality of data, a proposal to review all of the roads rehabilitated/resurfaced in the
1997/98 PFP will be provided. Additionally, a field evaluation of selected roads
may be designed.

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

To this end it was decided to select roads from the first Prescription for Progress
(PFP) year 1997/98 and compile data as far back and as far forward as possible to
establish historical records from which performance evaluations could be made. The
1997/98 PFP program database provided both cost data and a known road condition
index of 100. Only those roads identified as having received a maintenance treatment
as part of the earlier 1987-1996 programs, providing an earlier time when the road
condition index was known to be 100, were selected from the 97/98 listing for
inclusion in Phase 1 of the study. Pavement condition index information from
intermediate years was also compiled. At least four different pavement evaluation
techniques/systems have been used by the County since the late 1980s making it
difficult to compare condition ratings from different time periods. In cases where
roads received different treatments at different segments along the roads length as
part of the 97/98 program, the different segments were treated as individual roads and
assigned different condition ratings, if available. After evaluating all the available
data sources, the following information was determined to be the most consistent and
was synthesized from the various sources of information on the 32 roads (42 sections)
included in Phase 1:

Road Name and Number;

Earliest documented pavement maintenance date and method (1987-1996);
Subsequent road condition rating (1994 to 1996 rating);
2003 road condition rating;
Maintenance method and cost from the 1997/98 PFP. Typical unit costs were:

Maintenance Treatment (Material + Labor) Unit Unit Price ($) Unit Unit Price ($)
Asphaltic Concrete Surfacing*
kg
0.043
ton
38.90
Full Depth Asphalt Patching
m2
23.179
yd2
19.38
Bituminous Surface Treatment (single trtmt) m2
0.897
yd2
0.75
Cold Process Recycling
m2
2.560
yd2
2.14
Crusher Run For Cold Recycling
kg
0.012
ton
11.00
Asphalt Emulsion CRS-2 For Recycle
l
0.174
gal
0.66
Road Base Aggregate
kg
0.016
ton
14.55
Construction of Stone Base
m2
3.588
yd2
3.00
3
Backfill Material For Shoulders
m
28.753
yd3
22.00
Grade Shoulders
m
2.230
ft
0.68
Ditchline Regrading
m
3.018
ft
0.92
Milling, Curb Reveal
m2
5.263
yd2
4.40
Non Woven Paving Fabric
m2
0.861
yd2
0.72
AC-20 Asphalt For Paving Fabric
kg
0.182
ton
165.00
Paving Markings
m
0.492
ft
0.15
Water Valve Adjustment
ea
25.000
ea
25.00
Manhole Adjustment
ea
50.000
ea
50.00
18" RCP, > 24'
m
226.320
ft
69.00
18" RCP, < 24'
m
246.000
ft
75.00
Seeding
m2
0.538
yd2
0.45
* 108-119 g/m2 (200220 lb/yd2) = 57-63 mm (2.252.5 in) compacted asphalt used for all surfacing.

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Data Evaluation

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The synthesized data facilitated the following evaluations:

Rate of road surface degradation before 1997/98 maintanance;
Rate of road surface degradation after 1997/98 maintanance to 2003;
Unit cost of each pavement maintenance technique (in 1997/98);
Annual depreciation cost and relative rate of degradation of each maintenance
technique based on road surface degradation.
1997/98 Pre-Maintenance Condition. The County and Contractor determined the
appropriate maintenance treatment (i.e. recycle vs. paving fabric & overlay vs.
overlay only) based on the condition of the pavement at the time of maintenance. The
only available quantitative assessment of the existing pavement condition, and the
ratings used to guide the Countys selection of roads for the program, was the
Eckrose-Green ratings of 1994-1996. Unfortunately, this meant that as many as four
years could have passed since the last road evaluation. This required the road
condition (PCI/OCI) at the time of maintenance to be projected from the 1994-1996
condition. Two techniques were used for this projection. Projection technique one
(PT1) assumed that the average annual rate of degradation from the earliest known
resurfacing (1987-1996) to the last condition survey would continue linearly until the
1997/98 maintenance.
Projection technique two (PT2) assumed a uniform
degradation (-5 points per year) occurred from the date of the last condition survey.
While much uncertainty is inherent in both projection techniques, it can reasonably be
assumed that pavement surface degradation would proceed up until the time of
maintenance. Similarly, it can be assumed that the maintenance technique chosen in
1997/98 was somewhat indicative of the state of distress of the pavement at the time
of maintenance. PT1 generally projected pavement conditions at the time of
maintenance much lower than those projected by PT2. Perhaps the two techniques
provide a lower and upper bound, respectively, to the likely surface conditions at the
time of maintenance.
Measuring Performance. Two measures of performance were used to evaluate the
data. First, the annual depreciation cost in $/sy/yr was used to determine the costeffectiveness of each type of treatment. The depreciation cost was calculated as the
unit cost of the treatment (in 1997/98 dollars) multiplied by the percent degradation
( PCI/100) per year in the pavement condition from 1997/98 to 2003. This
represents the value of the treatment used up over the time period.
Secondly, a degradation ratio was used to evaluate the improved rate of surface
degradation after the 1997/98 treatment as compared to the rate prior to 1997/98. The
degradation ratio would, theoretically, facilitate an assessment of before vs. after
performance for each treatment technique.

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

An inescapable element of the data evaluation was to try to assess whether there were
likely to be unique factors affecting degradation that were unknown or out of the
ordinary for any of the roads. To identify these potential outlyers the data was
evaluated graphically by attempting various curve fits to the data until a graphically
reasonable curve was obtained. Apparently outlying data points were iteratively
excluded from the data sets to achieve the highest possible correlation.
The R2 value, also known as the correlation coefficient, is shown for each curve in
Figures 1 thru 4. A higher R2 value indicates that the curve is more closely related to
the data points to which it is fitted than is a curve having a lower R2 value. The
maximum possible R2 value is 1.
Annual Depreciation Costs. Figures 1 and 2 show the correlations for each type
of maintenance treatment between the depreciation cost and the initial pavement
condition using two different techniques for projecting the initial pavement condition
at the time of the 97/98 maintenance.
Figure 1 presents the depreciation cost for each road versus the initial pavement
condition projected from the last documented condition using the associated average
annual degradation rate (PT1). Figure 2 presents the depreciation cost for each road
versus the initial pavement condition based on a uniform degradation rate of 5 points
per year from the last documented condition (PT2). This latter approach to evaluating
the data provided the highest correlation coefficients as well as a clearer indication
that the cost-effectiveness of each treatment is related to the road condition at the time
of maintenance, as expected.
Degradation Ratio. Similarly, Figures 3 and 4 show the correlations for each type
of maintenance treatment between the degradation ratio and the initial pavement
condition using the same techniques for projecting the initial pavement condition at
the time of the 97/98 maintenance.
Figure 3 presents the degradation ratio for each road versus the initial pavement
condition projected from the last documented condition using the associated average
annual degradation rate (PT1). Figure 4 presents the degradation ratio for each road
versus the initial pavement condition based on a uniform degradation rate of 5 points
per year from the last documented condition (PT2). Both of these approaches to
evaluating the data provided indications similar to the depreciation cost data that the
effectiveness of each treatment is related to the road condition.
Correlations. Since nearly all of the R2 values for the curves in Figures 1 thru 4 are
less than 0.6, the curves should not be taken as confirming a specific relationship but,
rather, as suggesting relative trends that must be confirmed with additional data. The
one exception may be the curve in Figure 4 having an R2 value of 0.7672. Arguably,
this curve indicates a more likely relationship between the initial condition and the
measure of performance for the associated treatment in this case fabric and overlay
or patch, fabric, and overlay.

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions. The data compiled and evaluated in Phase 1 focused on only those
roads that had received a maintenance treatment as part of both the 1987-1996 and the
1997/98 pavement maintenance programs. This provided two earlier times when the
road condition index was known to be 100, as well as, cost data for the various
treatments used. Along with road condition surveys performed between 1994 and
1996 and during 2003, this data formed the basis for assessing whether the Countys
available records provide sufficient quantity and quality of data to determine the costeffectiveness and relative performance of various pavement maintenance techniques
used by the County. The data meeting all the Phase 1 criteria suggests that, as
expected, the cost-effectiveness and performance-enhancing capability of various
treatments is related to the pavement condition at the time of the maintenance
treatment. Specifically, the data suggest the following:

Recycling and a 60 mm (2.35 in) overlay is most cost-effective and produces

the greatest reduction in the rate of road degradation when used with pavements
that have condition ratings below 25 on a 100- point scale.

When the pavement condition rating is between approximately 30 and 65, the use
of paving fabric with a 60 mm (2.35 in) overlay appears to provide the greatest
cost-effectiveness and reduction in the rate of road degradation.

When the pavement condition rating is above 70, both a 60 mm (2.35 in)
asphalt overlay and a fabric/overlay system appear to provide comparable
performance and cost-effectiveness.

The identification/exclusion of likely erroneous (outlying) data and the above

conclusions were guided by two basic assumptions:
1. Below a certain PCI rating say 25 - the pavement structure must be
reconstructed to be effective in the long-term, therefore, an overlay or
fabric/overlay treatment is inappropriate.
2. There is a dual benefit to a fabric/overlay treatment immediate improved surface
condition and long-term pavement structure moisture-proofing therefore, the
full cost/benefit evaluation of fabric/overlay will likely require more than the 5+
years reported in this study.
Recommendations. These Phase 1 findings are based on limited data 42 road
sections of which 8 were considered outlyers. While the conclusions are based on
strong correlations, the most important finding may well be that both the depreciation
cost and the degradation ratio evaluations were consistent in suggesting that, as
expected, the cost-effectiveness and performance-enhancing capability of various
treatments is related to the pavement condition at the time of the maintenance
treatment.

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

References
Roschen, Theron J., (1997) A Case Study into the Use of Pavement Reinforcing
Grid, Mastic, and Membrane Interlayers on Asphalt Concrete Overlays,
Geosynthetics 97 Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2, 725-748.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to acknowledge the Geosynthetic Manufacturers Association
for providing funding and guidance and the Greenville County Department of Public
Works for opening all available maintenance records for independent review.

Condition vs. Performance - Random '98 Data

Annual Cost Approach - PCI Degradation Rate = Linear Continuation / yr
Recycle

Patch, Fabric & Overlay

Fabric & Overlay Only

Overlay

Power (Recycle)

Linear (Patch, Fabric & Overlay)

Poly. (Fabric & Overlay Only)

Log. (Overlay)

$0.25

Recycle & Overlay

Patch, Fabric & Overlay

$0.20

R = 0.1863

R = 0.2554
Cost ($/sy/yr)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This suggests that simply using the data from the PFP years, including PCIs for 19941996 projected with a uniform -5/yr degradation rate, combined with the latest (2003)
pavement condition surveys should provide a sufficiently consistent, dependable body
of data upon which to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various pavement treatments.
It is recommended that Phase 2 of this study comprise this evaluation.

$0.15
Overlay Only
2

R = 0.5602

$0.10

$0.05
Fabric & Overlay Only
2

R = 0.1155
$0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

PCI at time of resurfacing

Figure 1. Select Depreciation Data - Degradation Rate = Linear Continuation

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Condition vs. Performance - Random '98 Data

Annual Cost Approach - PCI Degradation Rate = -5 / yr
Recycle
Overlay
Poly. (Fabric & Overlay Only)

Patch, Fabric & Overlay

Power (Recycle)
Poly. (Overlay)

Fabric & Overlay Only

Poly. (Patch, Fabric & Overlay)

$0.25
Recycle & Overlay
2

$0.20
Patch, Fabric & Overlay
2

Cost ($/sy/yr)

R = 0.4628
$0.15
Overlay Only
R2 = 0.4277
$0.10

Fabric & Overlay Only

$0.05

R2 = 0.4751

$0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PCI at time of resurfacing

Figure 2. Select Depreciation Data - Degradation Rate = -5 / yr

Condition vs. Performance - Random '98 Data
Degradation Rate Approach: PCI Degradation Rate = Linear Continuation / yr
Recycle

Patch, Fabric & Overlay

Fabric & Overlay Only

Overlay

Poly. (Recycle)

Linear (Patch, Fabric & Overlay)

Linear (Fabric & Overlay Only)

Poly. (Overlay)

1.00

R2 = 0.5993

Patch, Fabric & Overlay

and
Fabric & Overlay Only

Recycle & Overlay

R2 = 0.5902

0.90
0.80
Performance (Degr. Ratio)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

R = 0.2595

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30

Overlay Only
0.20

R2 = 0.2283

0.10
0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PCI at time of resurfacing

Figure 3. Select Degradation Ratio Data - Degradation Rate = Linear Continuation

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering

GSP 130 Advances in Pavement Engineering

Condition vs. Performance - Random '98 Data

Degradation Rate Approach - PCI Degradation Rate = -5 / yr
Recycle

Patch, Fabric & Overlay

Fabric & Overlay Only

Overlay

Poly. (Recycle)

Poly. (Patch, Fabric & Overlay)

Poly. (Fabric & Overlay Only)

Poly. (Overlay)

1.00

Patch, Fabric & Overlay

and
Fabric & Overlay Only

0.80
Performance (Degr. Ratio)

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Fundacion Universidad Del Notre on 08/11/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.90

R2 = 0.3641

0.70

R2 = 0.7672

Recycle & Overlay

0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30

Overlay Only
0.20

R = 0.2287

0.10
0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PCI at time of resurfacing

Figure 4. Select Degradation Ratio Data - Degradation Rate = -5 / yr

Copyright ASCE 2005

Advances in Pavement Engineering

Advances in Pavement Engineering