Two-Lift Paving - Contractor's Viewpoints
1 like472 views
The document discusses the insights from a two-lift paving workshop held in Austin, Texas, focusing on the concept, planning, and execution of two-lift paving techniques. It highlights the challenges faced, including weather delays and logistical issues, and emphasizes the importance of mix design and equipment for successful implementation. Key lessons learned include the economical benefits of this paving method and its potential to extend pavement life.
Two-Lift Paving - Contractor's Viewpoints
- 1. Two Lift Paving Contractors Perspective Two Lift Paving Workshop Austin, Texas May 23, 2013 Tim Gerhardt Koss Construction Company
- 2. Overview • Concept • Planning • Scheduling – Delays– Delays • Test Section – Lessons Learned • I-70 Paving
- 3. Concept • European Scan Tour – KDOT Representative • Market Need – Air Void Problems– Air Void Problems – Aggregate Quality of local market – Extended Pavement Life • Appropriate Project / Location • Exposed Aggregate Surface
- 4. Concept – Market Need
- 5. Concept - Project • I-70 in Saline County, Kansas – 2 year pavement reconstruction project • WBL in 2007 • EBL in 2008• EBL in 2008 – Rest Area on each side • Ideal for test sections – Revised Typical Section Required 24’ Paving • Uniform Shoulders on Variable Granular Base
- 6. Planning • Preliminary Discussion – April 2007 – Manhattan, KS • KDOT, FHWA, CP Tech Center, KSU, Koss • Highways for Life • Workshop• Workshop – June 2007 – Abilene, KS • Dr. Hermann Sommer (Austrian Engineer) • CP Tech Center • Dr. Rob Rasmussen
- 7. Planning • Mix Designs – Stiffness of Bottom Lift – Durability of Top Lift • Equipment and Logistics – Delivery and placement of bottom lift– Delivery and placement of bottom lift • Stiffness • Haul Road v. Front of Paver – Delivery and placement of top lift • Minimize deformation of bottom lift – Production and Delivery of Two Mixes
- 8. Planning • Test Section – Expectations – Location – Complexity– Complexity
- 9. Scheduling • Test Section – Late Summer / Fall 2007 • 2007 Season – Extremely Wet – Paving Crew Unavailable – Spring 2008 • More economical to re-schedule to location where a paving• More economical to re-schedule to location where a paving crew was already working – US-69 Side Road » Minimal risk » District IV • 2008 Season – Extremely Wet – Paving completed in June 2008
- 10. Test Section
- 11. Test Section
- 12. Test Section
- 13. Test Section
- 14. Test Section
- 15. Test Section
- 16. I-70 • Plant – Dual Drum – Two Silos • Split• Split – Aggregate Bins • Four
- 17. I-70 • Delivery – Product from either drum – Truck could delivery either – Color Coded Cards– Color Coded Cards
- 18. I-70 • Delivery
- 19. I-70 • Placement – Haul Road – Spreaders
- 20. I-70 • Placement – Top Lift • Distance
- 21. I-70
- 22. I-70
- 23. I-70
- 24. I-70
- 25. I-70
- 28. Jointing
- 29. Jointing
- 30. Jointing
- 31. Results 250 300 350 400 Total Length TopLength 0 50 100 150 200 Millimeters TopLength 4 per. Mov. Avg. (TopLength)
- 32. Conclusion • Practical Application • Limited Production Impact • Economical – Economize bottom lift– Economize bottom lift – Extended Pavement Life • No Problem • Team Effort