21Q1-E2-01: Develop a Study of Geosynthetic (Geogrid and ...

21Q1-E2-01: Develop a Study of Geosynthetic (Geogrid and Woven

Geotextile) Materials for Use in Reducing Pavement Section Thickness

Submitted To:

Nevada Department of Transportation Research Section

Attn: Manjunathan Kumar 1263 S. Stewart Street Carson City, NV 89712

December 22, 2020

Prepared By:

Adam J. Hand, Associate Professor of CEE Elie Y. Hajj, Professor of CEE

Thomas Van Dam, Principal at NCE

Pavement Engineering & Science Program Civil and Environmental Engineering

Board of Regents, NSHE, obo University of Nevada, Reno 1664 N. Virginia St./Mail Stop 0258

Reno, NV 89557-0258

Board of Regents, NSHE, obo University of Nevada, Reno NDOT 21Q1-E2-01 Develop a Study of Geosynthetic Materials for Use in Reducing Pavement Section Thickness

1

1. TITLE: Develop a Study of Geosynthetic (Geogrid and Woven Geotextile) Materials for Use in Reducing Pavement Section Thickness. 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS This project will be collaboratively conducted by UNR Pavement Engineering and Science and Nichols Consulting Engineers Chtd (NCE) staff.

• Dr. Adam J. Hand, Principal Investigator (PI), UNR, 1664 N. Virginia St./MS258, Reno, NV, 89557, (775) 784-1439, [email protected].

• Dr. Elie Y. Hajj, Co-PI, UNR, 1664 N. Virginia St./MS258, Reno, NV, 89557, (775) 784-1180, [email protected].

• Dr. Thomas Van Dam, NCE, 1885 S Arlington Ave, Suite 111, Reno, NV 89509, [email protected].

3. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) are continuously seeking to increase the value of pavement rehabilitation and maintenance investments by identifying design and construction practices that reduce rehabilitation costs and increase pavement life. DOTs commonly use geosynthetics as filters, separation layers, and subgrade restraint to facilitate construction on weak subgrades. Subgrade restraint is the use of geosynthetic at the subgrade/sub-base or subgrade/base interface. Recently, geosynthetics have been used to reinforce aggregate base courses, which increases the support from the base to the pavement structure. This is referred to as base reinforcement (AASHTO R 50) and is the focus of this proposal.

Design procedures and guidelines from industry claim base reinforcement provides increased pavement life or equivalent life with a reduced structural section. Improved pavement life is defined by a Traffic Benefit Ratio (TBR). TBR is the ratio of the number of load cycles of a reinforced pavement structure to reach a defined failure state, to the number of load cycles for the same unreinforced section to reach the same failure state (TBR > 1.0 indicates increase in pavement life). The base course reduction (BCR) is expressed as percent reduction in the unreinforced base thickness. TBR and BCR have been reported in literature with substantial variations in their values (e.g., geotextiles BCR 22–33%; geogrids BCR 30–50%). A 2016 Nevada DOT (NDOT) study examined use of geogrid for strengthening and reducing structural sections by means of large-scale laboratory pavement testing (NDOT Report No. 327-12-803). The inclusion of geogrid resulted in BCR of 11–44% with findings specific to materials and pavement structures used.

While laboratory studies are informative, prior to making a substantial change in design or construction practices, it is wise to begin validating findings with field studies. A great example of the value of studying in service pavements is the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program with over 2,500 test sections across the US and Canada. Nevada had 71 sections and 7 are still active. Each test section is part of a carefully designed experiment to study important considerations like impacts of design features, maintenance activities, and rehabilitation treatments on pavements. Since 1990, NCE has played a key role in implementation of LTPP experiments, collection of time-series performance data, and data analysis. In 2013, NCE designed a new experiment studying warm mix asphalt performances for FHWA (11 projects constructed program-wide including the 7 active LTPP test sections in Nevada).

4. BACKGROUND SUMMARY Geosynthetic is defined as “a class of products consisting of manufactured planar materials used in geotechnical applications, and is inclusive of both geotextiles and geogrids” (AASHTO M 288-17). The primary function of geosynthetics in pavement applications is reinforcement. A preliminary

mailto:[email protected]




2

review revealed over 10 manufactures of over 40 geosynthetic types for subgrade restraint and base reinforcement. The physical properties of geosynthetics are important indicators of the manufacturing material and physical body of the inclusion. These geosynthetic properties are typically independent of field conditions and are used for product identification, comparison, specification, and quality control. Mechanical properties of geosynthetics indicate the resistance of the fabric or grid to mechanical forces experienced under construction and traffic loads.

A 2014 FHWA study (FHWA/MT-14-002/7712-251), titled “Performance of Geosynthetics for Use as Subgrade Stabilization,” reported good correlation between geosynthetics strength/stiffness and pavement rutting performance. Forensic excavations conducted in trafficked areas with high rutting revealed rupturing of geogrid ribs; affecting the load distribution between geogrid and subgrade. Geogrid is expected to lose strength gradually during the life of the pavement and eventually rupture. The decay of geogrids overtime has a significant role on the long-term performance of pavements. Another concern arises when geogrids are used at elevated temperatures.

Influence of Elevated Temperatures. Performance of geosynthetics at elevated temperatures is a concern, especially in Southern Nevada. According to AASHTO LRFD (2007) design guidelines, temperatures are considered elevated when the “effective design temperature” at the site exceeds 86°F. A recent UNR study of Las Vegas, Laughlin, and Henderson determined the “effective design temperatures” as 88.1°F, 93.8°F and 86.7°F, respectively. At such elevated temperatures, design guidelines recommend conducting product-specific geosynthetic durability studies to evaluate long-term mechanical performance (i.e., tensile strength and stiffness degradation and creep) because the mechanical performance of geosynthetic materials, which are polymeric, is generally temperature-sensitive. UNR investigated the uncertainty of long-term mechanical performance of geosynthetic soil reinforcements at elevated temperatures for NDOT. The study concluded it is possible to account for tensile strength degradation and creep by introducing reduction factors to the unconditioned ultimate tensile strength of geosynthetic reinforcement determined at 68±3.6°F (e.g., ASTM D6637 2010) to obtain an appropriate long-term design strength value.

Table 1. Agency Examples of Structural Design Considerations for Base Reinforcement. Agency/

Reference Geosynthetic

Type Structural Design Considerations

Montana DOT/ Geotechnical Manual (2008)

Geotextiles and geogrids.

• Acknowledges structural contributions. • Lab and/or field tests with specific product with similar conditions to

quantify the contribution of geosynthetic materials. CODOT/ ME Pavement Design Manual (2021)

Geotextiles and geogrids (biaxial geogrid only).

• Follows NCHRP 01-50 model to calculate the enhanced modulus of the composite aggregate base or subgrade.

• Applicable for subgrade modulus between 0.5 and 5 ksi. • Can adjust thickness of aggregate base layer, but not that of HMA layer. • ≥6 inch of aggregate base or stabilized material above geosynthetic layer.

Caltrans/ Highway Design Manual (2020)

Geotextiles and geogrids (poly-propylene punched and drawn geogrid only).

• Topic 665 provides guidelines for subgrade improvement with geosynthetic.

• Geosynthetics not recommended for subgrade with R-value > 40 or CBR > 6.5 or Mr > 9,500 psi.

• Aggregate base enhancement with biaxial geogrid only. • Subgrade Effective R-value ≤20 Max BCR = 25% • Subgrade Effective 20<R-value ≤40 Max BCR = 20%

ADOT/Pavement Design Manual (2017)

Geogrids. • Use only for soils with R-value between 10 and 19. • Increase R-Value by 10 when a geosynthetic is used.

USACE/ Technical letter No. 1110-1-189

Geotextiles and geogrids.

• Design and construction guidelines: geogrid placed at the bottom of a base with <14 inches thick; and in the middle of a base with ≥14 inches thick.


3

Design Considerations. Table 1 summarizes findings from a preliminary review of select peer agencies for design structural considerations using geosynthetic for base reinforcement. The data show that different design guidelines are being used by agencies. Colorado DOT (CODOT), California DOT (Caltrans), and Arizona DOT (ADOT) specify a range of subgrade strength or stiffness for which base reinforcement can be used. CODOT also makes use of findings from NCHRP Project 01-50 “Quantifying the Influence of Geosynthetics on Pavement Performance” to obtain an enhanced modulus for use in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME. Members of the proposed UNR Team served as lead researchers on NCHRP Project 01-50. The enhanced modulus of the composite aggregate base or subgrade is estimated using the Composite Geosynthetic-Base Course Model, which is a computer subroutine developed to predict performance of pavements with geosynthetics (http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/176362.aspx).

5. PROPOSED RESEARCH The research objective is to develop a study to evaluate and quantify structural benefits from use of geosynthetics placed within or at the bottom of aggregate base layers only under Nevada conditions. To successfully achieve this objective, the tasks listed in Table 2 will be completed.

Many practical lessons have been learned from studying test sections over several years via LTPP that include the importance of documentation, having clear guidelines and processes in place, and being flexible about technological advancement. Staff turnover is inevitable, so maintaining support over time is also critical. The UNR Team has experience with all of these and will consider them in developing the project plan. This plan will address not just the technical elements of designing and constructing the test sections, but careful guidance on what data should be collected and how frequently, how to document construction activities, how to store the data for future use, and codifying NDOT buy-in for supporting the sections during the entire performance life of the test sections. Task 1: Literature Review The objective of this task is to review the literature and peer agency practices as input to development of the experimental design (Task 2), testing plan (task 3), and specifications and construction guidelines (Task 4). As noted in the Research Problem Statement, this study will develop a plan focused on geosynthetic (geogrid and woven geotextile) reinforcement to reduce pavement section structural thickness. The literature review will identify the characteristics that need to be considered in experimental design and specification requirements (Table 2). Recognizing the proprietary aspect of most products, the literature will aim at classifying the geosynthetics into groups with similar types and characteristics that need to be further examined in the experimental design. The literature search will include:

• Documented case histories of base reinforcement. If needed, the UNR Team will contact stakeholders to discuss their experience and findings with select case histories. Available studies on full depth reclamation of geosynthetic-reinforced pavements will also be collected.

• Types of geosynthetics used within/at the bottom of unbound layers for base reinforcement. • Geosynthetic properties and associated test procedures that are related to pavement

performance (including test procedures for interface characteristics). • Available practical modeling techniques of geosynthetic-reinforced pavements. • Material selection criteria and pavement design methods or tools for base reinforcement. • Economic analyses (i.e., benefits) for base course reinforcement. • Available State DOT specifications and practices for use and installation of geosynthetics. • Available manufacturers’ guidelines and procedures for use and installation of geosynthetics. • Requirements and practices for post-construction performance evaluation.

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w235.zip


http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/176362.aspx


4

Table 2. Overall Key Considerations of Field Study Plan. Tasks Elements Factors Examples

Literature Review (Task 1)

Base reinforcement

Base course reduction (BCR)

Case histories; application and location of geosynthetic; guidelines or procedures to determine BCR; etc.

Geosynthetics Types and characteristics

Geosynthetics types for further evaluation; available test methods and criteria to assess properties of geosynthetics.

Specifications and practices

Material, design, and construction

Available State DOT specifications and practices for use and installation of geosynthetics; manufacturers’ guidelines; material selection criteria; design methodologies; etc.

Experimental Design (Task 2)

Site Selection Project type New construction; reconstruction; major rehabilitation. Road functional classification

Class 4 (minor arterial); Class 5 (major collector); Class 6 (minor collector).

Road geometrics

Number of lanes; vertical and horizontal curve limits; grade limits; slopped shoulder.

Site specific conditions

Subgrade classification and strength; water table level; climatic conditions; overall site uniformity.

Traffic Traffic volume; truck volume. Test Site Layout

Characteristics Single lane or multiple lanes; number and physical order of test sections; length of test sections; etc.

Pavement Design

Design method AASHTO 1993, AASHTOWare Pavement ME. Asphalt layer Thickness (thick versus thin). Aggregate base Thickness; quality; magnitude and thickness of aggregate

confinement. Subgrade Strength or resilient modulus Geosynthetic Type and grade of reinforcement; location of geosynthetic

(within the base layer or underneath the base layer). Evaluation and Testing Plan (Task 3)

Pre-construction

Condition of existing alignment

Roadway geometry; original construction records; pavement condition and performance; geotechnical report; FWD testing to locate most suitable location for the test site; etc.

Evaluation of new alignment

Geotechnical soil investigations; sampling and laboratory analysis of subgrade soils; DCP; APLT, etc.

Construction Preparation and placement

Subgrade and base compaction and trimming; monitoring of construction sequences; preparation of construction report, etc.

In-situ testing In-place density; DCP; LWD; FWD; APLT, etc. Laboratory testing

Field samples: subgrade, base, and plantmix specification conformance; engineering properties (asphalt mixture dynamic modulus; resilient modulus of reinforced base; etc.)

Post Construction

Initial Survey FWD; APLT; initial rutting and profile; manual pavement inspection; etc.

Routine Monitoring

Inertial profilometer survey; FWD; APLT, pavement condition inspection.

Specifications and Construction Guidelines (Task 4)

Contract documents, specifications, and construction drawings

Pavement materials

Top size of base course gradation; geosynthetic shipment, storage and handling; etc.

Construction requirements

Construction drawings; installation guidelines; placement and compaction; quality assurance procedures; inspection; repair.

Sampling and testing

Sampling frequency; testing plan; test methods.

Task 2: Experimental Design This task will develop and document an experimental design to be used for a single test site location with multiple test sections. The approach and developed guidelines could be replicated at other sites if NDOT desired. Three key elements for successful implementation of the experimental design are: (1) selecting an acceptable site; (2) proper layout of test sections within the site to draw meaningful results; and (3) pavement design and analysis of test sections.


5

Site Selection. The Research Problem Statement indicates the test site will be added to a routine NDOT 3R project. The ideal site will be an existing low traffic roadway that experiences relatively high truck traffic like a roadway servicing a mine or accessing an industrial park to test the efficacy of the geosynthetics. Low traffic volume is desired, as some of the experimental sections will be designed to experience early distress so that the influence of the geosynthetics can be demonstrated in a short time period.

The research test site will undergo frequent evaluations requiring lane closures and personnel working on-site. Good sight distance in advance of and through the site is critical for safety. To limit effects of vehicle dynamics on pavement performance, vertical curves in excess of 4% and horizontal curves in excess of 3 degrees must be avoided.

The subgrade soil at the test site is also a critical consideration. It must be relatively uniform so differences in pavement performance can be attributed to the efficacy of the geosynthetic and not variations in subgrade support. As a 3R project, the soil properties should be able to be verified through evaluation of existing geotechnical reports and by falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing prior to site selection. A high density of FWD test locations can be used to ensure thorough site coverage. If on new alignment, geotechnical reports, dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP), lightweight deflectometer (LWD), or Automated Plate Load Test (APLT) testing can be used to assess stiffness and uniformity.

The desired soil stiffness, as reflected in the average corrected backcalculated subgrade modulus, is also a key consideration. Since this is a study of the effectiveness of base reinforcement, the subgrade should not dominate performance. The size and location of test sections can be influenced by anticipated variation in subgrade soil properties. Guidelines will be developed to assist NDOT with selecting test sites.

Test Site Layout. Based on the findings from Task 1, guidelines for test site layout and number of test sections will be established. For example, a test site can include one standard pavement section (SPS), two reduced thickness unreinforced control sections (e.g., CS1 and CS2), and up to eight geosynthetic-reinforced pavement sections (e.g., GT1A, GT1B, GG1A, GG1B, GT2A, GT2B, GG2A, GG2B). The number of geosynthetic-reinforced sections depends on the number of geosynthetic groups identified in Task 1 warranting further evaluation. For example, the first set of reinforced test sections can use two woven geotextiles (GT1A, GT1B) and two geogrids (GG1A, GG1B). The pavement cross-section will be the same as CS1. A second set of reinforced test sections can use the same geosynthetics (GT2A, GT2B, GG2A, GG2B), but with adjusted CS1 cross-section by reducing the aggregate base thickness as illustrated in Figure 1.

Each test section will be separated by a transition zone. A minimum test section length will be proposed providing sufficient length to permit consistent construction throughout the project. A minimum length of the test site will then be established. All sections will have the same thickness and design of plantmix with the intent that the contractor constructs it uniformly throughout the project. SPS test sections will be present at the beginning and end of the test site, being incorporated into the experiment and undergoing the same level of evaluation during and after construction. Additional considerations will be given to planning of the test site layout including spanning areas of differing soil conditions, bridges, culverts, intersections, etc.

Figure 1. Illustration of an example test site layout (two control sections and eight

geosynthetic-reinforced pavement sections).

Top View

Pavement Cross Section


6

Pavement Design and Analysis. The experimental design will include: 1) designing a typical 20-year pavement section (SPS) per NDOTs’ pavement design methods; 2) designing a shorter life pavement section (5–10 years) using the same design methods (CS); and 3) designing geosynthetics reinforced pavement sections with reduced base thickness on the CS section (GT1A, GG1A, etc.). NDOT will be provided guidelines for designing the various pavement test sections for site-specific conditions. Design examples will be completed and included in the developed guidelines. Initial pavement designs for SPS and CS will be per NDOT’s 1996 Nevada Pavement Structural Design and Policy Manual. The pavement designs for the base reinforced sections will be per manufacturers’ recommendations and site-specific conditions. For example, SpectraPave4-PROTM design software adjusts layer coefficients of the reinforced base with Triax® geogrid based on subgrade resilient modulus and aggregate base thickness (layer coefficients of 0.186-0.273).

There must be confidence that sections with reduced thickness engage the geosynthetic reinforcement to demonstrate its value. Therefore, the sections will also be evaluated using the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software per the NDOT 2019 Manual for Designing Flexible Pavements in Nevada Using the AASHTOWareTM Pavement ME. Geosynthetics cannot be directly simulated in the software at this time. They will be indirectly simulated by modifying the unbound layer resilient modulus using the Composite Geosynthetic-Base Course Model from NCHRP Project 01-50. NDOT will be provided template files for AASHTOWare Pavement ME analysis for use once a project site is selected. Advanced pavement analysis and modeling may be needed to ensure some state of stress levels are exceeded so reinforcement is engaged. Task 3: Testing Plan A testing plan will be developed with three distinct phases as summarized in Table 2. Procedures and guidelines for proposed tests will be referenced and developed as needed. All collected data during the various phases of the testing plan need to be well-documented to help in future analysis of test sections performance. A database management system may be need to be established.

Pre-construction. The pre-construction testing plan depends on whether the test site will be part of pavement reconstruction and on the same alignment or on a new alignment. For an existing alignment, test site selection will begin with review of roadway geometry, original construction records, pavement condition information, and geotechnical reports. Based on this information, three to six viable test sites will be identified that meet the requirements for an acceptable test site described in Task 2. Test site location will be selected based on FWD test results, ideally with staggered tests at close intervals. Backcalculated subgrade stiffness (resilient modulus) will be used to locate the most suitable test site location. For a new alignment, FWD testing is not possible. Additional geotechnical soil investigation will be needed for candidate test site locations. Beside sampling and laboratory analysis of subgrade soils, DCP (ASTM D6951), LWD (ASTM E2583), or APLT (AASHTO T 221 and T 222) can be conducted along the alignment to ensure a relative degree of uniformity exists.

Construction. Considerable monitoring will be required during construction of the test site to ensure variability is minimized. At each stage of construction, standard quality assurance (QA) testing frequency is recommended to be increased. Details are presented in Table 2 and Task 4. Particular attention must be paid to subgrade preparation (compaction and trimming of the subgrade at transitions where the base changes thickness will be large and need to be carefully constructed); base preparation (thickness, density, trimming, and transitions between test sections); geosynthetic placement (location within test site, location within pavement cross section, and adherence to the manufacturers’ installation guidelines); plantmix placement (mat density, joint density, and thickness requirements). Following construction, the plantmix layer in each section will be sampled. Base, geotextile (when present), and subgrade will also be sampled using a split barrel spoon sampler



7

to verify layer thicknesses and the position of the geosynthetics. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) can be used to identify plantmix and aggregate base thicknesses throughout the entire test site. A report documenting pavement design, materials, and construction (as-built and QA) will need to be prepared so information will be readily available for future analysis of pavement performances.

Post-construction Monitoring—Initial Post-construction Survey. Upon completion of test site construction, the roadway surface profile will be measured with an inertial profilometer. Each test site is relatively short and therefore actual profile data will be analyzed to create baseline profiles for each section. FWD testing will be completed at test points precisely located using GPS. APLT testing can also be conducted. A straight edge will be used to verify rutting is not present at the end of construction, bisecting the FWD test points. The section will be manually inspected to ensure no surface distresses are present. The initial post-construction survey results will be documented in the construction report. Profile data will also be analyzed to provide a metric suitable for describing the ride quality over the test section. FWD data will also be evaluated at each test point, including presentation of normalized deflection data and backcalculated stiffness results for each layer.

Post-construction Monitoring—Routine Monitoring. The first routine monitoring will occur within 6 months of opening the section to traffic. Follow up monitoring will be done twice a year. If located in an area subjected to freeze-thaw, monitoring will be done in the spring after the frost is out of the soil. The second monitoring will be done in late summer or early fall. If the site is located in a non-freeze-thaw area, monitoring will be done at roughly 6-month intervals. The monitoring will follow the same procedures described under the initial post-construction survey. FWD and APLT testing as well as rutting inspection will be conducted in the same locations using GPS coordinates. A detailed pavement distress survey will also need to be conducted. Task 4: Specifications and Construction Guidelines Specifications. Specifications integrating all materials requirements and installation procedures differing from the 2014 NDOT Standard Specifications will be developed to include the test sections on a typical NDOT contract. They will be written as modifications to the NDOT Standard Specifications and will potentially be the basis for future NDOT Standard Specifications. In the future construction phase of this effort, the effectiveness of the specifications and guidelines can be evaluated, and refinements can be made based on the test section construction experience. NDOT Standard Specifications currently referencing geosynthetics relevant to this project include:

• 203 Excavation and Embankment, which references Geotextiles. • 731 Engineering Fabrics, which references Pavement Reinforcing Fabric, Geotextile (Class

1), Geotextile (Class 2), Geogrid (biaxial only), and Geomembrane. Modifications to specifications will need to be made to include recently developed geosynthetics,

for example triaxial geogrid. Other modifications that may be needed include handling and storage, construction, and acceptance criteria for recently developed geosynthetics. Section 704 may need to be revised to include base course material with gradation(s) appropriate for geogrids.

A special provision will need to be developed for the test sections. Additional QA will be needed because the test sections will consist of small quantities. If standard acceptance is used for materials and construction, the test results will be insufficient to determine quality and consistency. So, sampling and testing frequencies will need to be increased. Fulltime inspection and fulltime observation by geosynthetic manufacturer representatives will be required. The special provision will also include tests required for research purposes that may not be integrated into future standard specifications. These may include materials sampled and tested in laboratories as well as in-situ testing like DCP, LWD, APLT, and FWD. Subgrade, base, and plantmix sampling for fundamental


8

engineering properties and performance testing including resilient modulus, dynamic modulus, flexural fatigue, repeated load triaxial and other testing will also be included.

Construction Guidelines. Geosynthetic manufacturers have installation guides developed to optimize their products performance. Common important elements include: substructure preparation (clearing, grubbing, trimming, and compaction); storage and handling, direction of placement depending on geosynthetic type and strength of underlying material; overlap requirements with shingling to avoid peeling; trimming and pinning or stapling; tensioning, placement of aggregates and spreading of aggregates while maintaining integrity of geosynthetic (displacement and waving); and grading and compaction. Items that will be particularly important and are not directly addressed in manufacturer guidelines include:

• Proper selection of geosynthetics and base materials based on site conditions. • Consistency of subgrade and borrow if used (base and plantmix asphalt are more consistent). • Other mainline paving activities on the same project that are performed before the

geosynthetic sections. This will ensure materials delivered to the project are as expected and that normal construction procedures are working well. For example, a test strip would be completed for the mainline paving, so any plantmix job mix formula (JMF) adjustments would be made and nuclear gauge calibrations would be completed. This is critical because the test sections will be too small to have separate test strips.

• Similar to Section 401.03.15 for Pavement Reinforcing Fabric of the NDOT Standard Specifications, geosynthetic manufactures will be required to have a company representative deliver informational training to educate personnel on proper installation procedures and specifications and ensure cooperation and understanding among the Department’s inspectors and Contractor personnel. Attendance of inspectors, consultants and contractor personnel involved with the project would be mandatory with advanced notification of the date, time and location of the training. Finally, bulk sampling of raw materials in adequate quantities for future testing will be necessary.

• It will be equally important to require that geosynthetic manufacturer representatives be on site to monitor the construction operations to ensure proper installation. They are familiar with products, potential installation issues, and techniques for preventing/correcting them.

Guidance on preparation of plans that include a schematic layout of all test sections along with a typical section for each individual test section will be provided. Cross sections of each test section will have to detail materials, thicknesses, slope and importantly location(s) of the geosynthetic(s) in the pavement sections. If instrumentation of test sections is desired, it will be detailed in the plans and specifications. A complete construction report will need to be prepared. Task 5: Report A Final report documenting all the findings and recommendations from Tasks 1–4 will be prepared and submitted at the end of the project duration. It will serve as the guide for building the test sections, documenting design inputs and as-built information, testing and monitoring, and will be a reference for future data analysts. It will also include an implementation plan for the future three phases (construction, data collection, and analysis) of the overall field study including a preliminary cost estimate. A draft copy will be submitted to NDOT for review and comments and the final copy will be revised accordingly.

6. URGENCY AND ANTICIPATED BENEFITS NDOT currently maintains 5,376 centerline miles of roadways that carry about 50% of the total vehicle miles travelled and 70% of all truck traffic in Nevada (State of Nevada, DOT, 2019 Facts


9

and Figures). About 51% of the NDOT maintained centerline miles are in fair to very poor condition, of which 28% are in mediocre to very poor condition that will require rehabilitation or reconstruction. Thus, NDOT’s pavement rehabilitation and maintenance budget is under increased demand. This makes it critical that the value of pavement rehabilitation is extended to maintain the state highway system at an acceptable condition and meet the NDOT goal to “efficiently operate and maintain the transportation system in Nevada.”

Roadways with poor pavement condition result in increased costs for taxpayers through additional vehicle operating costs and higher rehabilitation and reconstruction costs. Thus, NDOT is constantly looking for new technologies and design standards that will stretch paving dollars by reducing rehabilitation costs and increasing pavement life. Several studies have been conducted to demonstrate value added by geosynthetics in pavements. Since the benefits of geosynthetics may not be derived theoretically, field test sections are needed to quantify the benefits for Nevada’s conditions. This project will develop the proper study to evaluate and quantify pavement structural benefits resulting from the use of geosynthetics.

7. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This research is the first project of a multi-phased project that fits into Stage 3 of the Five Stages of Research Deployment. The primary deliverable is a plan to support a controlled field demonstration, with input regarding design, specifications and standards, all of which will allow for adjustments as needed in the time between the different phases of the overall field study (planning, construction, data collection, and data analysis).

The UNR Team is not aware of any institutional, political, or socio-economic barriers to implementation of the anticipated research results. Given the long-term nature of this project, it is possible, although not expected, that a barrier may arise over the next 10+ years, which is a reason to include documentation of Department buy-in as part of project initiation. Because this is a planning project and the scope of the field study is not yet defined, an implementation plan and estimate of the cost for implementation cannot be stated in this proposal. However, the final deliverables will include an implementation plan for the future phases and a preliminary cost estimate as noted in Task 5 of this proposal.

8. PROJECT SCHEDULE The duration of this project will be 18 months per the task-time schedule shown in Table 3. Quarterly progress reports will be submitted following NDOT format and schedule.

Table 3. Time Schedule of the Proposed Research Project in Months. Task Months

3 6 9 12 18 1. Literature Review 2. Experimental Design 3. Testing Plan 4. Specifications & Construction Guidelines 5. Report D F Meetings K M M M M M Quarterly Reports X X X X X

Notes: K=kickoff meeting; M=progress meeting; D=draft final report; F=final report.

9. FACILITIES AND EXPERTISE The UNR and NCE research facilities are fully equipped to conduct the searches, evaluations, analyses, and documentation for the proposed research. The UNR Team has designed, constructed, monitored, and analyzed test sections in Nevada, and across the country. Team members have also developed, implemented, and updated a wide variety of specifications for Nevada and other State


10

DOTs. Balancing technical expertise with on-the-ground experience is critical in successful long-term pavement studies. Each member for the proposed research team brings unique and beneficial qualities for the performance of the study. The following are highlights of the strength of the key members of the UNR Team (resumes for team members are included in Appendix A).

Adam J. Hand, Ph.D., P.E., Associate Professor. Dr. Hand joined the CEE Department at UNR in 2016 and has over 25 years of industry and academic experience in the paving materials and construction business. He is a registered Professional Engineer in several States and six sigma blackbelt. Prior to joining UNR, he worked for Granite Construction Inc. for 16 years serving in several roles and was the VP of Quality Management the last 6 years. He actively serves the industry and community via numerous technical committees and advisory panel/board of director appointments including several non-profits.

Elie Y. Hajj, Ph.D., Professor. Dr. Hajj is a Professor (2020) in the CEE Department at UNR. He has over 17 years of experience in academia and industry with an emphasis on sustainability of pavement systems, advanced materials evaluation, and advanced pavement design and analysis. In direct relation to this project, Dr. Hajj served as the UNR-PI (sub to Texas A&M) on NCHRP 01-50 “Quantifying the Influence of Geosynthetics on Pavement Performance” that developed a methodology for quantifying the influence of geosynthetics (geogrid and geotextile) on pavement performance for use in the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software.

Kevin Senn, P.E., Principal. Mr. Senn is a Principal Engineer at NCE and manages NCE’s Nevada Region, where he is responsible for planning, growth, client relations, quality control and day-to-day activities. He has over 25 years of experience in pavement design, materials, construction, highway research, performance monitoring, database management and design. Mr. Senn served for 13 years as the Project Manager for the Western Regional Support Contract of the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program. He was a Senior Engineer on NCE’s contract to develop a Warm Mix Asphalt Experiment Design for the LTPP Program that was successfully implemented, including test sections constructed in Washoe Valley, NV.

Thomas Van Dam, Ph.D., P.E., Principal. Dr. Van Dam has over 35 years of civil engineering experience, specializing in pavement design and evaluation, forensic investigations, materials assessment, and sustainability. He is an active researcher and has an excellent record in both the private sector and in academia. Over the past 12 years he has been a Principal responsible for directing pavement design, materials, and sustainability groups with great success, having worked on research projects for the NDOT, Caltrans, FHWA, NCHRP, and ACRP as well as for industry and local agencies.

10. BUDGET The estimated budget for this research is summarized in Figure 2. The estimated cost for the entire project is $101,477.64 over the 18 months duration.

11. PROJECT CHAMPION, COORDINATION, AND INVOLVEMENT (OTHER DIVISIONS)

The project champions are Mr. Peter Schmalzer, Principal Materials Engineer (NDOT Materials), [email protected]; and Ms. Anita Bush, Chief Maintenance and Asset Management Engineer, (NDOT Maintenance and Asset Management), [email protected]. The UNR Team reached out to both Mr. Schmalzer and Ms. Bush to obtain clarification on questions encountered during the preparation of this proposal (e.g., geosynthetic types, anticipated number of field projects, construction related aspects, etc.). The research team plans to seek input from the primary stakeholders for this study, which are NDOT Materials Division, Maintenance and Asset Management Division, and Construction Division during execution of the project.




xi

Figure 2. Proposed UNR Budget.

Name Position / Title % Fringe Benefit

Total Fringe Benefit

Hourly Wage Hours Total Monthly Wage

Total Year 1 (12 months)

Adam Hand PI / Professional 2.30 $132.99 $103.26 56 $481.86 $5,915.34 Elie Hajj Co-PI / Professional 2.30 $101.51 $91.95 48 $367.81 $4,515.20 Raj V. Siddharthan Researcher / Professional 2.30 $13.40 $116.53 5 $48.55 $596.05 1 CEE Graduate Student Res. Ass. / Graduate 12.10 $1,270.50 $20.19 520 $875.00 $11,770.50

Year 1 Total $1,518.41 $331.93 629 $1,773.22 $22,797.09

Name Position / Title % Fringe Benefit

Total Fringe Benefit

Hourly Wage Hours Total Monthly Wage

Total Year 2 (6 months)

Adam Hand PI / Professional 2.30 $85.50 $103.26 36 $619.54 $3,802.72 Elie Hajj Co-PI / Professional 2.30 $67.68 $91.95 32 $490.41 $3,010.13 Raj V. Siddharthan Researcher / Professional 2.30 $13.40 $116.53 5 $97.11 $596.05

Year 2 Total $166.57 $311.74 73 $1,207.06 $7,408.90

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4$22,797.09 $7,408.90 $0.00 $0.00

$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

$25,000.00 $0.00

$47,797.09 $7,408.90 $0.00 $0.00 $21,030.72 $3,259.92 $0.00 $0.00

$2,016.00 $0.00 $8,745.00 $11,220.00

$79,588.81 $21,888.82 $0.00 $0.00 $101,477.64

Notes:

J. Subcontractor (in excess of the first $25,000)

K. TOTAL PROJECT COSTS PER YEAR (sum of G thru J)TOTAL PROJECT COST

1) DEPARTMENT only pays for travel that is essential for the completion of the project and cost are per state rates. Travel costs to professional and other meetings are not allowed. Out-of-state travel requires DEPARTMENT approval in advance.

F. Subcontracts (Only the first $25,000 on which indirect costs are allowed)

G. Subtotal of Direct Costs (sum of A thru F)H. Total Indirect Cost (% of G at the F&A rate of 44%)

I. Student Tuition and Fees

A. PersonnelB. TravelC. Operating CostsD. Final Report Preparation and SubmissionE. Other Costs

STANDARD BUDGET ITEMIZATION FOR DEPARTMENT RESEARCH PROJECTS

Project Title: 21Q1-E2-01 Develop a Study of Geosynthetic (Geogrid and Woven Geotextile) Materials for Use in Reducing Pavement Section ThicknessProject Duration: March 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022 – 18 months


xii

APPENDIX A – PROFESSIONAL RESUME Adam J.T. Hand, UNR, Associate Professor, (775) 784-1439, [email protected] Experience • Associate Professor, University of Nevada Reno, 2016-Present • Vice President, Quality Management, Granite Construction Inc., 2010-2016 • Director of Quality Management, Granite Construction Inc., 2009- 2010 • Engineering Services Manager, Granite Construction Inc., 2006-2009 • Alternative Procurement Pavement Designer, Granite Construction Inc., 2003-2006 • Quality Systems Engineer, Granite Construction Inc., 2000-2003 • Assistant Professor, Purdue University, Civil Engineering, 1998- 2000 • Research Faculty, Western Regional Superpave, University of Nevada, 1994-1998 Education/Licensure/Certification • Ph.D., Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, 1998 • M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, 1995 • B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, 1993 • Registered Professional Engineer: Indiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon • Six Sigma Black Belt Certified, CS International Inc. Qualifications Dr. Adam J.T. Hand has over 30 years of experience in industry and academia having worked for both general and heavy civil contractors, as well as two universities with leading pavement and materials programs. His management experience in construction has included multiple vertical construction projects, heavy civil individual business unit, engineering services group, forensic investigation teams, APD project design teams, and corporate roles with matrix reporting structure and staff across the country of up to 250 people with multi-billion dollar budgets. In addition to formal education Dr. Hand experienced several business management and leadership programs for managers and executives including Gallup Great Manager, Executive Supervisory Program, Leveraging Talent in Teams, Lean, Six Sigma. These were each 3 month to 1 year programs. He has served as a technical expert for multiple claims, disputes and trials providing depositions or testimony for arbitrations, dispute resolution boards, and trials. In the VP Quality Management role at Granite Construction Inc. he had responsibility for over a dozen AMRL accredited labs in vertically integrated businesses in the Western US with annual budgets up to $15M. He also had APD heavy civil project QM responsibility across the country with individual projects having up to $75M QM budgets.

Dr. Hand has served as a PI or Co-PI on multiple projects for NCHRP, FHWA, State DOTs (including Pooled Fund Study), and local governments. He served as the PI for several projects such as NCHRP 10-100 “Procedures and Guidelines for Validating Contractor Test Data” ($300K). Dr. Hand is an active member of the technical community having delivering over 100 invited presentations and with over 75 publications. He is a member of ASCE, ASTM, ASQ, AAPT, NAPA, and NSPE. He serves on the board of directors for AAPT, Greenroads Foundation, and the Nevada State Public Works Board, as well technical committees including 3 TRB, 2 NAPA, AAPT, NCHRP, and the FHWA Asphalt Mixture and Construction ETG.


xiii

Elie Y. Hajj, UNR, Professor, Associate Director of Western Regional Superpave Center (WRSC), (775) 784-1180, [email protected] Experience • Full Professor, Department of Civil & Env. Eng., UNR (07/20-present) • Associate Professor, Department of Civil & Env. Eng., UNR (07/16-06/20) • Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & & Env. Eng., UNR (07/11-06/16) • Research Assistant Professor, Department of Civil & Env. Eng., UNR (02/06-06/11) • Nevada Technology Transfer Center, Engineer and Trainer (02/06-09/11) • Laboratory Supervisor, Terracon Consulting Engineers & Scientists, NV (05/05-01/06) • Research/Teaching Graduate Assistant, University of Nevada, Reno (08/01-04/05) • Field Site Engineer, Campenon Bernard SGE-France, Egypt Branch (99-00) Education • Ph.D. Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno 2005 • M.S.C.E. Civil Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno 2002 • B.S.C.E. Civil Engineering, Lebanese University, Lebanon 1999 Qualifications Dr. Elie Y. Hajj has over 17 years of experience in academia and industry with an emphasis on asphalt pavement technologies. He authored/co-authored over 100 publications in journals, national and international conferences, and technical reports. He made more than 100 presentations in professional meetings, conferences, and workshops. He served as a PI on multiple projects for FHWA, FAA, State DOTs, local governments, etc. Dr. Hajj is currently the PI for several projects such as FHWA Agreement 693JJ318500010 “Development and Deployment of Innovative Asphalt Pavement Technologies” ($3.0M). He also served as the UNR-PI (sub to Texas A&M) on NCHRP 01-50 “Quantifying the Influence of Geosynthetics on Pavement Performance,” and the Co-PI on FDOT BE 321 “Structural Coefficient for High Polymer Modified Asphalt Mixes.” The NCHRP 01-50 project developed a methodology for quantifying the influence of geosynthetics (i.e., geogrid and geotextile) on pavement performance for use in pavement design and analysis. The methodology was consistent with the Pavement ME Design framework to facilitate incorporation into the AASHTOWare Pavement ME Design software. The project focused on the use of geosynthetics in unbound base/subbase layers or as a base/subgrade interface layer for flexible and rigid pavements. In particular, Dr. Hajj led the execution, analysis, and interpretation of the full scale flexible and rigid pavement testing experiments of base reinforced layers under dynamic loadings.

Dr. Hajj is currently a member of AAPT, ISAP, and three TRB Committees. He served as a chair for the TRB AFK50 committee “Structural Requirements of Asphalt Mixtures.” Dr. Hajj served on the advisory board of the international research project ALLBACK2PAVE: “Toward a sustainable 100% recycling of reclaimed asphalt in road pavements,” led by Technische Universität Dresden in Germany, together with the University of Nottingham in the UK and University of Palermo in Italy. He is currently an associate editor for the International Journal of Pavement Engineering (IJPE). Dr. Hajj provided technical review service for multiple national and international journals and granting agencies (e.g., NSF, Ministry of Science and Innovation-New Zealand). Dr. Hajj was featured in the national Asphalt Institute Magazine (“ASPHALT”) as a leading educator in the field of asphalt technology and important industry issues.


xiv

Selected Publications 1. Habbouche, J., Hajj, E. Y., Sebaaly, P. E., & Piratheepan, M. (2020). Mechanistic-based

verification of a structural layer coefficient for high polymer-modified asphalt mixtures. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 686–702.

2. Habbouche, J., Hajj, E. Y., Sebaaly, P. E., & Hand, A. (2020). Fatigue-based structural layer coefficient of high polymer-modified asphalt mixtures. Transportation Research Record, 2674 (3), 365–375.

3. Sebaaly, P. E., Ortiz, J. A., Hand, A. J., Hajj, E. (2019). Practical method for in-place density measurement of cold in-place recycling mixtures. Construction and Building Materials, 227.

4. Nimeri, M., Nabizadeh, H., Hajj, E., Siddharthan, R., Elfass, S. A., Piratheepan, M. (2019). Design, Fabrication, and Instrumentation of a Full-Scale Pavement Testing Box. American Society of Civil Engineers, 131-142.

5. Nabizadeh, H., Siddharthan, R., Hajj, E., Nimeri, M., Elfass, S. A. (2019). Validation of the subgrade shear strength parameters estimation methodology using light weight deflectometer: Numerical simulation and measured testing data. Transportation Geotechnics, 21.

6. Habbouche, J., Hajj, E. Y., Piratheepan, M., Sebaaly, P. E., & Morian, N. E. (2019). Field Performance and Economic Analysis of Rehabilitated Pavement Sections with Engineered Stress Relief Course Interlayers. Transportation Research Record.

7. Batioja-Alvarez, D., Kazemi, S.-F., Hajj, E. Y., Siddharthan, R. V., & Hand, A. J. T. (2018). Statistical Distributions of Pavement Damage Associated with Overweight Vehicles: Methodology and Case Study. Transportation Research Record, 2672(9), 229–241.

8. Habbouche, J., Hajj, E. Y., Sebaaly, P. E., & Morian, N. E. (2018). Damage Assessment for ME Rehabilitation Design of Modified Asphalt Pavements: Challenges and Findings. Transportation Research Record, 2672(40), 228–241.

9. Bazi, G., Hajj, E. Y., Ulloa-Calderon, A., & Ullidtz, P. (2018). Finite element modelling of the rolling resistance due to pavement deformation. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 1–11.

10. Batioja-Alvarez, D. D., Kazemi, S.-F., Hajj, E. Y., Siddharthan, R. V., & Hand, A. J. T. (2018). Probabilistic Mechanistic-Based Pavement Damage Costs for Multitrip Overweight Vehicles. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part B Pavements, ASCE, 144(2).

11. Gu, F., Luo, X., Luo, R., Hajj, E. Y., & Lytton, R. L. (2017). A mechanistic-empirical approach to quantify the influence of geogrid on the performance of flexible pavement structures. Transportation Geotechnics, 13, 69–80.

12. Gu, F., Luo, X., Luo, R., Lytton, R. L., Hajj, E. Y., & Siddharthan, R. (2016). Numerical Modeling of Geogrid-Reinforced Flexible Pavement and Corresponding Validation using Large-Scale Tank Test. Construction and Building Materials, 122, 214–230.

13. Hajj, E. Y., Batioja-Alvarez, D., and R. V., Siddharthan (2016). “Assessment of Pavement Damage from Bus Rapid Transit: Case Study for Nevada,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2591, Vol. 3, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., pp. 70–79.


xv

Kevin A. Senn, PE, NCE, Principal Engineer, (775) 329-4955, [email protected] Education • MS, Civil Engineering, Washington State University, WA, 1995 • BS, Civil Engineering, Washington State University, WA, 1994 Registrations and Certifications • PE – NV #014808; CA #C058224; AZ #39621 Principal Engineer Kevin is a Principal Engineer at NCE and manages NCE’s Nevada Region, where he is responsible for planning, growth, client relations, quality control and day-to-day activities. He has over 25 years of experience in pavement design, materials, construction, highway research, performance monitoring, database management and design and Weigh-In-Motion evaluation and calibration.

Kevin served for 13 years as the Project Manager for the Western Regional Support Contract of the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) Program, where he managed a team of highly skilled professionals responsible for collecting and processing a wide variety of field data, performing quality control checks and managing the data in an Oracle database. He also has served as the Project Manager for on call research services with the Arizona Department of Transportation, where activities included data analysis of Arizona’s LTPP projects and highway noise data collection and reporting and the monitoring of pervious concrete test sections with the Nevada Department of Transportation, as well as Task Order Manager on multiple pavement topics for Caltrans.

In addition to his work on pavement research, Kevin has served as Project Manager on a number of contracts. One of these was with the Washoe County RTC in the reconstruction project to reconstruct Vista Boulevard between Brierly and Prater Way; another was with the Arizona Department of Transportation to support grant applications for the Safe Routes to School program. Other projects on which Kevin has worked since coming to NCE include the LTPP Warm Mix Asphalt Experiment Design contract and the LTPP Data Analysis contract. Representative Projects Pavement Research In his role as Project Manager, Kevin successfully led the NCE LTPP Western Regional team in providing FHWA with high quality work products while effectively optimizing cost. He was responsible for overall operations in the Western Region and now is a Senior Engineer with similar responsibilities as part of the singular LTPP Data Collection Contract. These include oversight of field data collection, data processing and quality control, materials sampling and testing, construction monitoring and coordination within the Western Region and also with FHWA and the other LTPP Contractors.

As Agency Coordinator for the Western Region, Kevin was responsible for maintaining communication with the states of Arizona, Colorado, California, Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Alberta, British Columbia and Hawaii on all LTPP-related issues, including construction, rehabilitation and maintenance and monitoring. He visited all his agencies on multiple occasions to discuss the quantity and quality of data provided to the LTPP program.

From 2014-2016, NCE was contracted with FHWA to develop an experimental design to compare the performance of Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) to conventional asphalt pavements. Mr. Adam Hand, then with Granite Construction, was an ETG member on this contract, and Mr. Senn served as a Senior Engineer. The project was successfully completed and resulted

BLOCKED::mailto:[email protected]


xvi

in over 70 test sections being constructed at 11 locations across the US and Canada, including seven in Washoe Valley.

Kevin is currently managing a pooled fund contract led by the Washington State Department of Transportation investigating pavement preservation on LTPP SPS-2 projects. As part of this work, he presented at SPS-2 Tech Days in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Iowa, Kansas, and North Dakota. He is also assisting on another pooled fund contract focused on forensic investigations of LTPP test sections.

As a Senior Engineer on the NCHRP 01-49 project team, Kevin assisted in development of the “Guide for Conducting Forensic Investigations of Highway Pavements.” Pavement Design and Construction Kevin recently completed a project for the Truckee Meadows Water Authority to rehabilitate the water recovery and water retention ponds. The significant slopes around the perimeter of the ponds presented unique challenges during the mill and overlay operations. He worked with the Washoe County RTC to reconstruct Vista Boulevard between Brierly Way and Prater Way that included both design and construction management components and was completed on time and under budget. He has also been involved in a number of other pavement design and construction projects, including serving a key role in developing a new dowel design for the I-15 design-build project in Salt Lake City. Kevin also spent the summers of 1989-1994 working on a survey crew for the Chelan County Department of Public Works and as a field inspector for the Washington State Department of Transportation. Selected Publications

Dufalla, N., Karamihas, Steven M., Puccinelli, J., and Senn (2017). K. Performance Evaluation of Arizona’s SPS-3 Project: Strategic Study of Maintenance Effectiveness for Flexible Pavements, Report 396-3, ADOT, Phoenix, AZ.

Puccinelli, J., Karamihas, Steven M., Yang, S., Minassian, J., and Senn, K. (2016) Performance Evaluation of Arizona’s SPS-9 Project: Strategic Study of Flexible Pavement Mix Design Factors, Report 396-9B, ADOT, Phoenix, AZ.

Schmalzer, P., Karamihas, Steven M., Meyer, H., Senn, K., and Puccinelli, J. (2015). Performance Evaluation of Arizona’s SPS-2 Project: Strategic Study of Structural Factors for Rigid Pavements, Report 396-2, ADOT, Phoenix, AZ.

Schmalzer, P., Karamihas, Steven M., Punnackal, T., Meyer, H., Senn, K., and Puccinelli, J. (2015). Performance Evaluation of Arizona’s SPS-5 Project: Strategic Study of Rehabilitation of Asphalt Concrete Pavements, Report 396-5, ADOT, Phoenix, AZ.

Puccinelli, J., Karamihas, Steven M., Hall, K., Minassian, J., and Senn, K. (2015). Performance Evaluation of Arizona’s SPS-9 Project: Strategic Study of Flexible Pavement Binder Factors, Report 396-9A, ADOT, Phoenix, AZ.

Rada, G., Jones, D., Harvey, J., Senn, K., and Thomas, M. (2013). “Guide for Conducting Forensic Investigations of Highway Pavements”, NCHRP Report 747, Washington, D.C.

Puccinelli, J., Karamihas, Steven M., Hall, K., and Senn, K. (2013). Performance Evaluation of Arizona’s SPS-6 Project: Strategic Study of Rehabilitation Techniques, Report 396-6, ADOT, Phoenix, AZ.


xvii

Thomas Van Dam, P.E., PhD, FACI, LEED AP, Principal, [email protected] Education • Ph.D., Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1995 • M.S., Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1986 • B.S., Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1984 Registrations and Certifications • PE – NV #234424; MI #6201040662; IL #062.047665 • LEED Accredited Professional Principal Thomas J. Van Dam, Ph.D., P.E., FACI, LEED AP has over 35 years of civil engineering experience, specializing in pavement design and evaluation, forensic investigations, materials assessment, and sustainability. Major areas of interest include airport and highway pavement performance, durability, forensic investigations, training, and sustainable civil engineering infrastructure. Dr. Van Dam is an active researcher and has an excellent record in both the private sector and in academia. Over the past 12 years he has been a Principal responsible for directing pavement design, materials, and sustainability groups with great success. In total, Dr. Van Dam has published over 100 technical papers, articles, and reports and is a frequent presenter on pavements, concrete materials, and sustainability.

Dr. Van Dam was an Associate Professor at Michigan Technical University from 1995 to 2008. There, he directed the US DOT University Transportation Center for Materials in Sustainable Transportation Infrastructure and the Michigan DOT Transportation Materials Research Center. He taught undergraduate and graduate courses and conducted research in construction materials and pavement-related subjects. Dr. Van Dam has been an instructor for courses for the NHI, FHWA, and National Center for Concrete Pavement Technology. Representative Projects On-Call Pavement Engineering | Subject Matter Expert California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Dr. Van Dam is a subject matter expert for the Caltrans on-call pavement engineering and pavement testing services project. He has been contributing to task orders evaluating spall repair materials, tire chain/studded tire wear, high-early strength concrete repair materials, precast concrete pavements, continuously reinforced concrete pavements, plastic pavements, and a forensic evaluation of a pavement constructing with rapid-setting concrete. Sustainable Pavements Program | Co-PI Federal Highway Administration. Co-PI on this 10-year (Phase I and Phase II), multi-task order IDIQ contract issued by the FHWA to promote the sustainability of pavements. This work has included formation and management of a Sustainable Pavements Technical Working Group, the development of an extensive sustainable pavements reference manual, multiple tech briefs, a pavement life cycle assessment framework, presentations, and webinars. Local and low-volume roadways are included in the scope of this program. Implementation of Best Practices for Concrete Pavements | Co-PI Federal Highway Administration. Co-PI on this multi-year, multi-task order IDIQ contract issued by the FHWA to promote concrete pavement technology. Dr. Van Dam is one of the lead authors on the creation of the Concrete Pavement Notebook. The notebook addresses all elements of concrete pavement materials, design, construction, preservation, and rehabilitation


xviii

and is to be a compilation of updated current FHWA technical briefs and technical advisories and new stand-alone documents that are to facilitate implementation of best practices by FHWA and State DOT engineers. The entire notebook will also be web-based for easy access. Evaluation of Low Flexural Strength for Northern Nevada Concrete Paving Mixtures | PI Nevada Department of Transportation. PI on project evaluating the unique factors encountered in Northern Nevada that are contributing to low flexural strengths for concrete paving mixtures. The main factors being considered are materials-related (cementitious materials, aggregates) and construction factors (stockpile management). An experimental plan was developed for an extensive laboratory study to follow. The focus is on the development of guidance to shape future specifications to improve the flexural strength of concrete used for paving mixtures in Northern Nevada. Minimization of Cracking in New Concrete Bridge Decks | PI Nevada Department of Transportation. PI on project evaluating the unique factors encountered in Northern Nevada that are contributing to extensive premature cracking of bridge decks. Multiple environmental, materials, and construction factors are being considered and an experimental plan is being developed for an extensive laboratory study to follow. The focus was on the development of guidance to shape future specifications to minimize the risk of cracking in future bridge decks. Selected Publications

Stempihar, J., N. Weitzel, T. Van Dam, P. Schmalzer, and L. Pierce (2020). “Assessment of California’s Continuously Reinforced Concrete Pavement Practice and Performance.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Van Dam, T.J., N. Dufalla, and L. Pierce (2018). “A Tale of Two Pavements: Forensic Investigation of an Unbonded Concrete Overlay and a Concrete Pavement Reconstruction on I-40 Near Flagstaff Arizona.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.

Dufala, N., J. Stempihar, T. Van Dam, P. Schmalzer, N. Ghafoori, L. Sutter, and R. Corkhill (2017). Phase I: Evaluation of Low Flexural Strength for Northern Nevada Concrete Paving Mixtures. Report No. 665-15-803. NDOT, Carson City, NV.

Van Dam, T., N. Dufalla, and J. Stempihar (2016). Phase I: Minimization of Cracking in New Concrete Bridge Decks. Report No. 530-14-803. NDOT, Carson City, NV.

Van Dam, T., N. Dufulla, P. Ram, and K. Smith (2016). Recycled Construction Waste for Mutual Beneficial Use. FHWA-AZ-16-725. ADOT, Phoenix, AZ.

Van Dam, T.J., J.T. Harvey, S.T. Muench, K.D. Smith, M.B. Snyder, I.L. Al-Qadi, H. Ozer, J. Meijer, P.V. Ram, J.R. Roesler, and A. Kendall (2015). Towards Sustainable Pavement Systems: A Reference Document. FHWA-HIF-15-002. FHWA, Washington DC. pp. 456.

Ram, P.V., T.J. Van Dam, L.L. Sutter, G. Anzalone, and K.D. Smith (2014). “Field Study of Air Content Stability in the Slipform Paving Process.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2408. Washington, D.C. pp. 55-68.

Van Dam, T.J., D.G. Peshkin, F.J. Nelson III, and K.D. Smith (2011). “The Development of a Materials-Related Distress Rating System for Concrete Airfield Pavements.” Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2225, Washington, D.C.

21Q1-E2-01: Develop a Study of Geosynthetic (Geogrid and ...

Documents

Transcript of 21Q1-E2-01: Develop a Study of Geosynthetic (Geogrid and ...