Alternative Strategies for Rehabilitation
of Low-Volume Roads in Nevada
Gayle Maurer, Sohila Bemanian, and Patty Polish
An overview of the attempt by the Nevada Department of Transporta-
tion (NDOT) to find alternative rehabilitation strategies to rehabilitate
its low-volume road network effectively is provided. Because of Nevada’s
continuing growth, NDOT is faced with the challenge of how to bal-
ance its available funding between pavement preservation and capacity
improvement projects. NDOT is responsible for 13,000 lane miles of road-
way, of which 3,385 lane miles (26%) qualify as low-volume roads. The
low-volume roads have a two-directional average daily traffic of 400 or
less. Five roadway projects with a combined total of 111 centerline miles
were rehabilitated with 29 combinations of structural and surface
strategies. The rehabilitation strategies investigated included full-depth
reclamation with lime, cement, asphalts, and foamed asphalt. Various
cold-mix, cold-in-place recycling with millings and different rejuvenat-
ing agents, and surface treatment test sections were constructed. The
constructability issues that were reported during construction are dis-
cussed. In addition, pavement condition is examined and laboratory
testing is reviewed. Results suggest that NDOT can use alternative reha-
bilitation strategies in place of its conventional method of 2-in. plant-mix
bituminous surface overlay and chip seal to rejuvenate its low-volume
roadway network. A cost saving of approximately $100,000 per centerline
mile is anticipated.
Because of Nevada’s continuing growth, the Nevada Department of
Transportation (NDOT) is faced with the challenge of how to balance
its available funding between pavement preservation and capacity
improvement projects. This challenge is even greater for Nevada’s
low-volume road network. NDOT is responsible for 13,000 lane miles
of roadway of which 3,385 lane miles or 26% qualify as low-volume
roads. The low-volume roads have a two-directional average daily
traffic of 400 or less.
On the basis of NDOT’s experience, spending an average of
$257,000 per centerline mile is required for the expected 20-year
life cycle of a low-volume road. This cost is based on NDOT’s
conventional practice of placing a 2-in. plant mix bituminous sur-
face (PBS) overlay and chip seal and additional maintenance of two
chip seals, two flush seals, and isolated patching and crack filling over
a 20-year period. If NDOT continues to use this conventional prac-
tice, over $21,700,000 a year in expenditures would be required for
the low-volume road network.
Since improving urban area facilities has been a priority, the
low-volume road network is now deteriorating faster than rehabil-
Nevada Department of Transportation, 1263 South Stewart Street, Carson City,
NV 89712. Corresponding author: G. Maurer, gmaurer@dot.state.nv.us.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 1989, Vol. 2, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 309–320.
DOI: 10.3141/1989-78
309
itation is administered. Currently, NDOT is scheduling rehabilita-
tion for low-volume roads at a fraction of the percentage required
to maintain these roads. Subsequently, maintenance personnel are
frequently required to repair the roads by using short-term main-
tenance strategies such as chip seals and isolated patches. These
maintenance strategies may be effective to address short-term prob-
lems, but they may not be the most cost-effective strategy for the
long term.
NDOT cannot obligate the amount of funding required to accom-
modate the considerable need of its low-volume roadway network.
Thus, more cost-effective methods of maintenance and rehabilita-
tion must be determined and evaluated for inclusion in NDOT’s
pavement preservation strategies.
The objective of this study is to provide an overview of NDOT’s
attempt to find alternative rehabilitation strategies to rehabilitate
its low-volume road network. A total of 29 different combinations
of pavement structural and surface rehabilitation strategies have
been constructed through this effort. Five low-volume roads located
throughout the state were chosen as demonstration test sections. The
roads were age hardened and brittle and contained pavement crack-
ing types such as fatigue, nonwheelpath longitudinal, transverse, and
block. Raveling was noticeable in some areas.
TYPES OF REHABILITATION
STRATEGIES CONSTRUCTED
Full-depth reclamation (FDR), cold-mix overlays, cold in-place re-
cycling (CIR) with millings and three different rejuvenating agents,
and surface treatments were constructed in different environmen-
tal conditions. Table 1 contains a list of the routes, climate, and
types of rehabilitation strategies constructed on low-volume roads
in Nevada.
FDR Strategies
Several FDR strategies were constructed in an effort to find cost-
effective methods to improve structural deficiencies. Approximately
12 lane miles of FDR with lime and emulsified asphalt, a proprietary
liquid stabilizer, cement, a proprietary asphalt emulsion, and foamed
asphalt were constructed in northeastern Nevada.
A test section of FDR with lime and CMS-2S emulsified asphalt
was constructed. The pavement structure was pulverized 8 in. and
quicklime was added at a rate of 3% by mass to the pulverized
material. After preliminary grading, type CMS-2S emulsified as-
phalt was added at a rate of 1.5% by mass to the top 2.5 in. of
TABLE 1 Routes, Locations, Construction Strategies, and Surface Treatments

Route Milepost Direction Construction Strategy Surface Treatment Route Milepost Direction Construction Strategy Surface Treatment

SR230 is located at an elevation of 5,500 ft, has approximately 216 freeze–thaw days per year, and receives 8 in. of precipitation per year.a
SR230 MP 0.30–2.00 Eastbound — Double chip seal SR230 MP 0.30–2.00 Westbound Nonwoven polypro- Double chip seal
pylene geotextile
fabric
SR230 MP 2.00–3.30 Eastbound FDR using CMS-2S and Double chip seal SR230 MP 2.00–3.30 Westbound — Double chip seal
lime (8 in. pulverized (original plan)
and mixed with quick- (as-built—1.5-in. PBS
lime at a rate of 3% by and single chip seal)
mass; and type CMS-2S
emulsified asphalt at
1.5% by mass added to
top 2.5 in.)
SR230 MP 3.30–4.80 Eastbound FDR using 3-in. soil Double chip seal SR230 MP 3.30–4.80 Westbound FDR using foamed Single chip seal
stabilization with a pro- (original plan) asphalt (5 in. pul-
prietary product (6 in. (as-built—1.5-in. PBS verized and AC-10
pulverized and propri- and single chip seal) asphalt added at
etary liquid stabilizer 3% by mass and
added to top 3 in.) cement added at
2% by mass)
SR230 MP 4.80–6.30 Eastbound 2-in. cold mix with Single chip seal SR230 MP 4.80–6.30 Westbound 2-in. cold mix with Double chip seal
CMS-2S (emulsified MC-800 (liquid
asphalt added 7.4% by asphalt added at
mass to specially graded a rate of 6.5% by
aggregates) mass)
SR230 MP 6.30–7.80 Eastbound FDR using foamed asphalt Single chip seal SR230 MP 6.30–7.80 Westbound FDR using 4.5% Double chip seal
(5 in. pulverized and cement (8 in. pul-
AC-10 asphalt added at verized and mixed
3% by mass and cement with cement added
added at 2% by mass) at a rate of 4.5%
by mass)
SR230 MP 7.80–9.30 Eastbound Nonwoven polypropylene Double chip seal SR230 MP 7.80–9.30 Westbound FDR using 6-in. Double chip seal
geotextile fabric soil stabilization (original plan)
with a proprietary (as-built—1.5-in. PBS
product (7 in. and single chip seal)
pulverized and
proprietary liquid
stabilizer added to
top 6 in.)
SR230 MP 9.60–11.10 Eastbound 2-in. cold mix with Single chip seal SR230 MP 9.60–11.10 Westbound 2-in. cold mix with Single chip seal
HFMS-2S (emulsified CMS-2S (emulsi-
asphalt added at a rate fied asphalt added
of 7% by mass) 7.4% by mass to
specially graded
aggregates)
SR230 MP 11.10–12.60 Eastbound FDR using 3% cement Double chip seal SR230 MP 11.10–12.60 Westbound FDR using proprietary Double chip seal
(8 in. pulverized and emulsion (5 in. (original plan)
mixed with cement pulverized and (as-built—1.5-in. PBS
added at a rate of 3% by mixed with asphalt and single chip)
mass) emulsion at a rate
of 4% by mass)
US006 is located at an elevation of 5,500 ft, has approximately 145 freeze–thaw days per year, and receives 7 in. of precipitation per year.b
1 1
US006 MP 73.80–75.00 Eastbound — ⁄2-in. single chip seal US006 MP 73.80–75.00 Westbound — ⁄2-in. single chip seal
with proprietary with proprietary
polymer-modified polymer-modified
emulsified asphalt emulsified asphalt
1 1
US006 MP 75.00–78.00 Eastbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle ⁄2-in. single chip seal US006 MP 75.00–78.00 Westbound 3-in. cold in-place ⁄2-in. single chip seal
with CMS-2S and lime with CRS-2NV emul- recycle with CMS- with CRS-2NV emul-
sified asphalt and 2S and lime sified asphalt and
type 3 slurry seal type 3 slurry seal
US006 MP 78.00–84.00 Eastbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle Double chip seal (stock- US006 MP 78.00–84.00 Westbound 3-in. cold in-place Double chip seal (stock-
with CMS-2S and lime piled or “dirty” chips) recycle with CMS- piled or “dirty” chips)
with emulsified 2S and lime with emulsified
asphalt asphalt
US006 MP 84.00–85.00 Eastbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle Double chip seal (stock- US006 MP 84.00–85.00 Westbound 3-in. cold in-place Double chip seal (stock-
with proprietary emulsi- piled or “dirty” chips) recycle with CMS- piled or “dirty” chips)
fied asphalt and no lime with emulsified 2S and lime with emulsified
asphalt asphalt
US006 MP 85.00–88.00 Eastbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle Double chip seal with US006 MP 85.00–88.00 Westbound 3-in. cold in-place Double chip seal with
with proprietary emulsi- CRS-2NV emulsified recycle with CMS- CRS-2NV emulsified
fied asphalt and no lime asphalt 2S and lime asphalt
US006 MP 88.00–90.00 Eastbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle Type 3 microsurfacing US006 MP 88.00–90.00 Westbound 3-in. cold in-place Type 3 microsurfacing
with proprietary emulsi- recycle with CMS-
fied asphalt and no lime 2S and lime
US006 MP 90.00–91.00 Eastbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle Double chip seal with US006 MP 90.00–91.00 Westbound 3-in. cold in-place Double chip seal with
with CMS-2S and lime proprietary polymer- recycle with CMS- proprietary emulsified
modified emulsified 2S and lime asphalt
asphalt
US006 MP 91.00–94.00 Eastbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle Double 3⁄8-in. chip seal US006 MP 91.00–94.00 Westbound 3-in. cold in-place Double 3⁄8-in. chip seal
with CMS-2S and lime with proprietary emul- recycle with CMS- with proprietary emul-
sified asphalt 2S and lime sified asphalt
3 3
US006 MP 94.00–96.00 Eastbound — ⁄8-in. single chip seal US006 MP 94.00–96.00 Westbound — ⁄8-in. single chip seal
with proprietary with proprietary
polymer-modified polymer-modified
emulsified asphalt and emulsified asphalt and
type 3 slurry seal type 3 slurry seal
(continued on next page)
TABLE 1 (continued) Routes, Locations, Construction Strategies, and Surface Treatments

Route Milepost Direction Construction Strategy Surface Treatment Route Milepost Direction Construction Strategy Surface Treatment
3 3
US006 MP 96.00–97.00 Eastbound — ⁄8-in. single chip seal with US006 MP 96.00–97.00 Westbound — ⁄8-in. single chip seal with
polymer-modified polymer-modified
emulsified asphalt emulsified asphalt
US006 MP 97.00–97.50 Eastbound — Flush seal with propri- US006 MP 97.00–97.50 Westbound — Flush seal with propri-
etary restorative oil etary emulsified
asphalt
US006 MP 97.50–97.80 Eastbound — Flush seal with CSS-1H US006 MP 97.50–97.80 Westbound — Flush seal with CSS-1H
emulsified asphalt emulsified asphalt
US006 MP 97.80–98.00 Eastbound Do-nothing section Do-nothing section US006 MP 97.80–98.00 Westbound Do-nothing section Do-nothing section
SR226 is located at an elevation of 6,250 ft, has approximately 165 freeze–thaw days per year, and receives 14 in. of precipitation per year.c
SR226 MP 0.00–20.00 Northbound 3-in. cold in-place recycle Double chip seal SR226 MP 0.00–19.00 Southbound 3-in. cold in-place Double chip seal
with CMS-2S and lime recycle with CMS-
2S and lime
SR226 MP 19.00–20.00 Southbound 3-in. cold in-place Double chip seal
recycle with
proprietary-
emulsified asphalt
and no lime
SR168 is located at an elevation of 2,000 ft, has approximately 70 freeze–thaw days per year, and receives 4 in. of precipitation per year.d
SR168 MP 3.26–23.82 Northbound Mill 1 in. and add by Single chip seal SR168 MP 3.26–23.82 Southbound Mill 1 in. and add by Single chip seal
windrow 2 in. of stock- windrow 2 in. of
piled cold millings from stockpiled cold
local interstate millings from local
project for total of 3-in. interstate project
cold in-place recycle for total of 3-in.
with CMS-2S and lime cold in-place
recycle with CMS-
2S and lime
SR892 is located at an elevation of 6,000 ft, has approximately 170 freeze–thaw days per year, and receives 12 in. of precipitation per year.e
SR892 MP 1.32–30.00 Northbound 2-in. cold in-place recycle Double chip seal SR892 MP 1.32–30.00 Southbound 2-in. cold in-place Double chip seal
with proprietary polymer- recycle with pro-
modified emulsified prietary polymer-
asphalt and no lime modified
emulsified asphalt
and no lime
SR892 MP 30.00–35.92 Northbound 2-in. cold in-place recycle Double chip seal SR892 MP 30.00–35.92 Southbound 2-in. cold in-place Double chip seal
with proprietary emulsi- recycle with propri-
fied asphalt and no lime etary emulsified
asphalt and no lime

a
The SR230 project was constructed in the summer of 2002.
b
The US006 project was constructed in the summer of 2003.
c
The SR226 project was constructed in the summer of 2004.
d
The SR168 project was constructed in the summer and fall of 2005.
e
The SR892 project was constructed in the fall of 2005.
Maurer, Bemanian, and Polish
material before final grading and compaction. The surface ma-
terial appeared to be too dry and started to ravel before a chip seal
could be placed. Because of a variety of circumstances, the ride
quality deteriorated to a point where a 1.5-in. PBS was placed to
remedy the situation. The strategy would have been more success-
ful if the CMS-2S emulsified asphalt had been added at a rate of
2.5% by mass and if the surface treatment had been applied within
a week.
A proprietary liquid stabilizer with nonionic formulation was
used on two separate test sections. The product was marketed as
having broad-spectrum effectiveness to increase density, moisture
resistance, bearing and shear strength, and stability on low-volume
roads. The product was purported to work in any soil conditions,
need no cure time, not require a seal coat, and be able to handle
traffic immediately after final compaction operations. The stabi-
lizer was added at a manufacturer-recommended rate as a dilute
solution during normal wetting, mixing, and compaction opera-
tions. However, the test sections raveled immediately, did not cure
as expected, and were not suitable to receive a chip seal surface
treatment. A 1.5-in. PBS overlay was placed to remedy the condi-
tion. The product manufacturer reviewed the area and determined
that the product works optimally if there is a minimum of 5% fine
aggregates in the pulverized material. The pulverized asphalt sur-
face over base material did not have the minimum fines content.
After this experience, the manufacturer claimed that in the future,
a seal coat is warranted for this type of application. In addition, the
manufacturer recommended that the pavement structure cure for a
minimum of 24 h before traffic is allowed. The manufacturer refunded
the cost of the product.
NDOT has over 20 years of experience with FDR and cement.
Standard practice has been to add cement at the rate of 2% by mass
for all soil conditions in Nevada. FDR sections with the addition of
cement at rates of 3% and 4.5% by mass were constructed to deter-
mine if additional cement would be more effective. A double chip
seal was placed as surface treatment for the sections with this strat-
egy. FDR with cement is a very effective strategy for eliminating
reflective cracking for long periods of time as long as the stiffness
of the layer is kept to a minimum level. On the basis of these test
sections, the use of cement should be limited to 2% by mass. The
sections with additional cement are already showing signs that the
layers are too stiff.
A test section of FDR with a proprietary asphalt emulsion was
built. The pavement structure was pulverized to a depth of 5 in. and
asphalt emulsion was added at a rate of 4% by mass. The result was
a spongy pavement structure that did not cure for days. Too much
water was added during processing, and the water drained to the
edge of the road and created a saturated mat. Consequently, the sec-
tion had to be reworked to allow the material to dry. This reworking
was accomplished by ripping up the section to aerate the material,
adding bags of cement, and remixing, grading, and compacting the
material. After reworking, the pavement structure remained in a
spongy condition, and the company providing the material paid for
a 1.5-in. PBS overlay to correct the situation.
Two foamed asphalt test sections were constructed. These sections
were built without difficulty. Similar to other FDR strategies, the
international roughness index (IRI) was not significantly improved.
The lack of improvement was due to use of a motor grader for shap-
ing operations by an inexperienced operator. It is imperative that a
skilled operator use good motor grader technique in order to achieve
a reasonable ride quality. Although the ride quality was not improved
313
as much as expected, NDOT considers the result adequate for its
low-volume road network.
Cold-Mix Overlays
Three types of cold-mix overlays were placed to improve the struc-
tural and functional quality of the pavement structure. Approxi-
mately 6 lane miles of cold mix with CMS-2S emulsified asphalt
added at 7.4% by mass to specially graded aggregates, MC-800 liq-
uid asphalt added at 6.5% by mass, and HFMS-2S emulsified as-
phalt added at 7% by mass were placed for comparison purposes.
Although mineral filler is typically used in cold mix, the mineral filler
was eliminated in this instance because of the hardship of adding the
material properly in a remote area with limited equipment.
The CMS-2S cold mix did not cure well initially and was too
sticky to blade lay. There were workability issues despite the use of
a paving machine, and profile grinding was required in several loca-
tions. The aggregates used in this cold mix were specially crushed
and graded on the basis of information from a mix design used by a
local western state. In addition, the aggregates were far more expen-
sive to make than the aggregates used in the other cold mixes. The
MC-800 cold mix was placed easily and displayed the most amount
of workability. The HFMS-2S cold mix had poor workability and
seemed to drag rather than flow through the paving machine. In
addition, the chip seal did not bond well with the HFMS-2S cold-mix
section.
NDOT was initially investigating material that could be blade laid
by NDOT maintenance forces. However, blade laying proved diffi-
cult because of the lack of cold-mix workability and inconsistent pro-
file grade and irregularities in the aged pavement structure. Therefore,
a standard paving machine with attached screed and pickup machine
was rented and the pavement structure was placed in a single pass.
CIR with Millings and Three Different
Recycling Agents
Approximately 94 centerline miles of CIR projects with various re-
juvenating agents or binders were constructed in an effort to find cost-
effective methods to rehabilitate low-volume roads with functional
deficiencies. NDOT has already constructed over 1,200 centerline
miles of CIR since the late 1990s. CMS-2S emulsified asphalt is used
as a standard rejuvenating agent. In addition, lime is added to the
mixture to improve the constructability and expedite the cure time.
Both the CMS-2S and lime are introduced at a rate of up to 1.5% by
mass. NDOT’s conventional use of CMS-2S binder and lime normally
requires a 1- to 2-h wait before compaction operations can begin after
recycling. This wait is to allow the moisture to evaporate out of the
mat. In addition, the newly recycled mat must be fog and sand sealed
before traffic is allowed at the end of each day. The CIR process
requires that the recycled mat be cured for a minimum of 10 days and
recompacted within 14 days after initial CIR operations.
CMS-2S is a solvent-based emulsified asphalt that is prohibited in
some states such as California. The asphalt is becoming more diffi-
cult and expensive to produce because of environmental restrictions.
Thus, NDOT has been investigating proprietary rejuvenating agents
in its quest to find alternative CIR binders. Typically, NDOT over-
lays CIR projects with a PBS and chip seal or open-grade wearing
314
course. The significance of these low-volume road projects is that
NDOT extended its CIR limits by surfacing the CIR pavement struc-
ture with various chip seals, cape seal, and microsurfacing in lieu of
PBS and wearing course.
Solventless proprietary emulsified asphalt purported to have inno-
vative chemistry that provides a faster cure time was tried on several
different test sections. The product allowed for immediate com-
paction and did not require lime, fog seal, sand blotter, or any recom-
paction operations. Although there were initial workability issues
with the CIR using proprietary asphalt, the issues were eliminated
after the formula was adjusted to extend the setting time and after
contractors gained experience with the product. The need for lime,
fog seal, sand blotter, and recompaction may be eliminated with the
use of this particular binder.
A CIR test section with a proprietary solventless polymer-modified
emulsified asphalt was constructed. The CIR material did not require
lime, fog seal, sand blotter, or recompaction operations and could be
compacted immediately. The material sets up more quickly than con-
ventional CIR with CMS-2S and can be used with pavement surface
temperatures as low as 40°F. NDOT’s traditional CIR with CMS-2S
can only be used on pavements with surface temperatures of 60°F
and rising. This larger temperature window for CIR operations is sig-
nificant since it allows for the extension of the recycling season in
Nevada. Typically, CIR is accomplished from June through August
in Nevada. Use of CIR with the proprietary recycling agent suggests
that the recycling season can be extended from late April through
mid-September. This extension is a great benefit for NDOT and
contractors working toward an increase in production rates.
One low-volume road was overlaid with the leftover millings
from a local Interstate project. Preconstruction core data revealed
that the pavement structure was marginal for CIR operations, and
the use of recycled millings and chip seal was recommended. Stock-
piled millings were placed in a windrow in front of the recycling
train, the roadway was milled 1 in. with the recycling train to pro-
vide for good bond, and the material was recycled by using the CIR
train. This project was NDOT’s first attempt at using stockpiled
millings to create an improved pavement structure. Preliminary
results are encouraging and NDOT will use this strategy for future
projects in which logistics are feasible for incorporating stockpiled
millings into CIR operations.
Factors that may contribute to isolated problems when CIR projects
are constructed include pavement structures that are too thin, fast-
setting binder, raveling after the CIR mat is opened to traffic for less
than 24 h, and rutting. A pavement structure with enough depth to sup-
port the heavy CIR train is required. It is recommended that at least
1.5 in. of pavement structure be left after milling operations to support
the CIR train. Cores should be taken from the centerline to the edge
of pavement to ensure that a minimum depth exists full width.
NDOT has experienced situations in which the binder sets up
too fast when proprietary rejuvenating agents are used. Therefore,
it is important that a representative from the material supplier be
on site to make adjustments to the set time. Sometimes the addi-
tion of water can provide better coating while extending the set
time. Equipment is required that can handle the volume of water
required to moisture-condition the material properly.
Raveling can occur when an insufficient amount of rejuvenating
agent is added to the CIR material. Reprocessing the mat or apply-
ing more fog seal to the surface can correct raveling. If the raveled
areas are isolated, the contractor can remove the areas and replace
them with cold mix.
Transportation Research Record 1989
Rutting can occur if too much binder is added or if compaction is
not adequate during construction operations. Usually this rutting
happens at intersections or areas where there are excessive turning
motions. This problem can be mitigated by recompaction effort. If
severe rutting occurs, the area may need to be reprocessed or replaced
with cold mix.
Surface Treatments
On several routes, 16 lane miles of surface treatment strategies were
placed. The strategies included flush and chip seals with various
aggregate gradations and asphalts. In addition, a double chip seal
with a nonwoven polypropylene geotextile fabric was placed. The
nonwoven fabric with double chip seal would probably work well in
a drier climate, since the area where the product was placed was too
wet to get good performance. Moisture under the surface was heated
in the summer months, causing steam to occur, and bubbles appeared
in the fabric, causing chip loss. It was possible to pop the bubbles
by slitting the fabric. The fabric appeared to seal up with residual
asphalt. Despite the problem with bubbles in the summer months, the
fabric and chip seal sections have prevented much of the reflective
cracking that is expected with a double chip seal without fabric.
PAVEMENT EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE
Pavement roughness and condition surveys were conducted for each
project before and after construction. These surveys measure the func-
tional properties of the pavement structure. A high-speed profiler with
three laser sensors was used to collect IRI and rut data. The IRI is a
worldwide standard for measuring pavement smoothness. The lower
the IRI number, the smoother the ride. The ride quality is a function
of the type of equipment used on the project as well as the type of
workmanship. Higher-quality equipment and experienced construc-
tion personnel can produce results with better ride quality. NDOT
uses minimum specification requirements for ride quality. The maxi-
mum allowable profile index is 10 in. per mile with a California-type
profilograph. This quality control measure ensures NDOT that the
ride quality will meet or exceed expectations for the low-volume road
network. If the ride quality does not meet minimum specifications, the
contractor is required to correct the deviations. Table 2 is a summary
of the average reported pavement management system data for pres-
ent serviceability rating (PSR), IRI, rut depth, and common cracking
distresses for the projects both before and after construction.
The structural properties of the FDR and cold-mix sections were
tested through use of the falling weight deflectometer (FWD). This
evaluation was conducted to determine the structural capacity of the
pavement structures. In addition, field cores were sampled to deter-
mine the aging characteristics of the foamed asphalt and CIR ma-
terials. Laboratory evaluations for air voids (AASHTO T 269-97),
resilient modulus (Mr) and indirect tensile strength (ASTM D 4123),
retained strength (AASHTO T 283-03), and rutting susceptibility
properties (AASHTO TP 63-03) were performed. Table 3 contains
a summary of the laboratory testing results.
Roughness and Condition Surveys
The Federal Highway Administration set threshold values for accept-
able PSR and IRI in the performance plan for the National Highway
Maurer, Bemanian, and Polish 315

TABLE 2 Average Reported Results for PSR, IRI, Rut Depth, and Distresses Before and After Construction

Transverse Nonwheelpath Block

Cracking Cracking Cracking
Timing and PSR IRI Rut Depth Average Average Average
Route and Strategy Improvement Average Average Average (%) (%) (%)

SR230 Before construction 1.96 190 0.26 in. 7 1 0

FDR with lime and emulsified asphalt After construction 2.90 133 0.00 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 48 30 100 100 100 —
4-year evaluation 2.68 137 0.00 in. 3 0 0
SR230 Before construction 1.90 184 0.16 in. 0 0 20
FDR with proprietary liquid stabilizer (6-in.) After construction 3.09 117 0.07 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 62 36 56 — — 100
4-year evaluation 3.12 115 0.06 in. 0 0 0
SR230 Before construction 2.07 161 0.26 in. 0 0 20
FDR with 3% cement by mass After construction 2.43 175 0.07 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 17 — 73 — — 100
4-year evaluation 2.17 175 0.03 in. 8 0 0
SR230 Before construction 1.98 190 0.18 in. 4 5 0
FDR with 4.5% cement by mass After construction 2.40 178 0.09 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 21 6 50 100 100 —
4-year evaluation 2.37 181 0.08 in. 0 0 0
SR230 Before construction 2.12 161 0.18 in. 0 0 20
FDR with proprietary emulsion After construction 2.76 145 0.05 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 30 10 72 — — 100
4-year evaluation 2.75 146 0.03 in. 0 0 0
SR230 Before construction 1.80 182 0.23 in. 7 0 25
FDR with foamed asphalt After construction 2.42 177 0.08 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 34 3 62 100 — 100
4-year evaluation 2.12 186 0.05 in. 5 0 0
SR230 Before construction 2.36 149 0.27 in. 3.5 0 7
Cold mix (CMS-2S) After construction 2.22 193 0.08 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement — — 70 100 — 100
4-year evaluation 2.00 213 0.08 in. 1 0 0
SR230 Before construction 2.15 148 0.26 in. 3 0 25
Cold mix (HFMS-2S) After construction 2.07 189 0.14 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement — — 46 100 — 100
4-year evaluation 2.42 176 0.09 in. 0 0 0
SR230 Before construction 1.86 159 0.25 in. 0 0 50
Cold mix (MC-800) After construction 2.36 181 0.11 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 27 — 56 — — 100
4-year evaluation 2.76 145 0.02 in 0 0 0
SR230 Before construction 2.05 169 0.16 in. 3 0 25
Double chip seal After construction 2.33 172 0.13 in. 3 0 0
Percent improvement 14 — 19 — — 100
4-year evaluation 2.12 172 0.12 in. 10 3 0
SR230 Before construction 1.72 180 0.23 in. 4 2 50
Double chip seal with fabric After construction 2.41 175 0.16 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 40 2 30 100 100 100
4-year evaluation 2.24 181 0.19 in 2 0 0
US006 Before construction 3.48 78 0.10 in. 2 0.4 0.4
Cold in-place recycling with CMS-2S binder After construction 3.56 82 0.11 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 2 — — 100 100 100
3-year evaluation 3.43 86 0.09 1 0 0
US006 Before construction 3.52 75 0.12 in. 1.2 2.6 0
Cold in-place recycling with proprietary After construction 3.59 80 0.12 in. 0 0 0
emulsified asphalt binder Percent improvement 2 — — 100 100 —
3-year evaluation 3.40 89 0.13 in. 0.6 0 0
US006 Before construction 3.57 72 0.11 in. 2.3 1.3 0
Surface treatments After construction 3.58 81 0.11 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement — — — 100 100 —
3-year evaluation 3.40 86 0.04 in. 2 0.2 0
SR226 Before construction 2.74 119 0.29 in. 2 1 6
Cold in-place recycling with CMS-2S binder After construction 3.38 95 0.06 in. 0 0 0
Percent improvement 23 21 79 100 100 100
SR226 Before construction 2.46 113 0.06 in. 0 0 51
Cold in-place recycling with proprietary After construction 3.53 81 0.04 in. 0 0 0
emulsified asphalt binder Percent improvement 43 28 33 — — 100
(continued on next page)
316 Transportation Research Record 1989

TABLE 2 (continued) Average Reported Results for PSR, IRI, Rut Depth, and Distresses Before and After Construction

Transverse Nonwheelpath Block

Cracking Cracking Cracking
Timing and PSR IRI Rut Depth Average Average Average
Route and Strategy Improvement Average Average Average (%) (%) (%)

SR168 Before construction 2.68 123 0.17 in. 1 0 13

Cold in-place recycling with millings and After construction 3.30 100 0.10 in. 0 0 0
CMS-2S binder Percent improvement 22 19 41 100 — 100
SR892 Before construction 2.10 173 0.23 in. 6 4 1
Cold in-place recycling with proprietary After construction 2.62 118 0.02 in. 0 0 0
polymer-modified emulsified asphalt binder Percent improvement 25 32 91 100 100 100
SR892 Before construction 2.14 164 0.24 in. 6 3 1
Cold in-place recycling with proprietary After construction 2.61 131 0.03 in. 0 0 0
emulsified asphalt binder Percent improvement 21 20 87 100 100 100

System. Previous terms for rating Interstate and other roads included
very good, good, fair, mediocre, and poor. Poor was indicated when
roads other than Interstates had a PSR of less than 2.0 and an IRI rat-
ing that was greater than 220. Updated ride quality terms include
good, acceptable, and not acceptable for all functional classifications.
Agencies may use less stringent standards to classify lower functional
classification highways as acceptable. A PSR rating of over 2.5 is con-
sidered acceptable and an IRI rating of less than 170 is considered
acceptable for all functional classifications (1, 2).
PSR improved 17% to 62% after construction of the FDR strategies.
There was a 27% improvement in the MC-800 cold-mix section rat-
ing, although the other cold-mix sections showed no improvement.
The PSR was improved an average of 20% for the CIR strategies and
the results varied from 2% to 43%. The treatment of double chip seal
with fabric surface showed 40% improvement in the PSR and the dou-
ble chip seal without fabric was improved by only 14%. Other surface
treatments demonstrated no PSR improvement. The IRI ratings were
improved up to 36% for the FDR strategies. However, the average
improvement was 14%, and one FDR section indicated no improve-
ment. This varied improvement is indicative of the motor grader tech-
niques used for this type of strategy. A review of IRI improvement for
the CIR sections reveals that ride quality can be improved by 20% to
30% and the IRI rating can be expected to be approximately 100 to 120
after construction. There were no significant improvements in the IRI
ratings for cold-mix or surface treatment strategies. Rut depth evalua-
tions indicate that the 3- and 4-year-old surfaces are stabilized, since
there is no substantial change in rut depth since construction.
Pavement distresses including transverse, nonwheelpath, and block
cracking were eliminated on all routes postconstruction. Some trans-
verse cracking has occurred in a couple of FDR test sections that were
completed over 4 years ago. The extent of the cracking is indicative
of the rigidity of the pavement structure. For example, the section that
contains cement added at a rate of 3% by mass is experiencing 8%
transverse cracking and the foamed asphalt section that has cement
added at a rate of 2% by mass in addition to the foamed asphalt per mix
design requirements has 5% transverse cracking. Nominal amounts of
distress were observed in a couple of other sections.
if the rehabilitation treatments improved the integrity of the pavement
structure. The surface deflections were evaluated by using Sensor 1,
D1, corrected to 70°F and normalized to 11,000 lb for the following
sections (the legal load limit in the state is 22,000 lb):
• FDR with CMS-2S asphalt and lime averaged 51 mils (before)
and 20 mils (after).
• FDR with proprietary emulsion averaged 39 mils (before) and
25 mils (after),
• FDR with foamed asphalt averaged 41 mils (before) and 19 mils
(after),
• FDR with cement added at a rate of 3% by mass averaged 34 mils
(before) and 12 mils (after),
• FDR with cement added at a rate of 4.5% by mass averaged
30 mils (before) and 8 mils (after),
• Cold mix with CMS-2S and specially graded aggregates averaged
42 mils (before) and 32 mils (after),
• Cold mix with HFMS-2S averaged 31 mils (before) and 24 mils
(after), and
• Cold mix with MC-800 averaged 32 mils (before) and 20 mils
(after).
The pavement structures lacked structural integrity before FDR
rehabilitation. After FDR rehabilitation, the pavement structures
improved by 36% to 72% and were considered to be in a fair condi-
tion. The cement-treated pavement structures showed the most
improvement, and all FDR treatments improved the pavement struc-
tures from weak or poor capacity to a minimum of fair structural
capacity. The cold-mix sections were improved by 24% to 37%. The
MC-800 cold-mix section was the most improved of the cold-mix
sections. The CMS-2S cold-mix sections with specially graded
aggregates did not improve the pavement structure enough to be
considered acceptable.
Resilient Modulus, Indirect Tensile Strength,
Retained Strength, and Rutting Susceptibility

FWD Evaluation
The FWD is used to determine the magnitude of surface deflections.
Surface deflections are an indication of the capacity or integrity of the
pavement structure. FWD measurements were taken both before and
after construction for the FDR and cold-mix test sections to determine
Field cores were sampled in early 2006 from the following locations
to determine the aging characteristics of the foamed asphalt and CIR
materials:
• Two foamed asphalt locations on SR230;
• Two CIR locations on US-006, two recycling agents (one
conventional and one proprietary);
TABLE 3 Summary of Postconstruction Material Properties: Air Voids, M r , Tensile Strength, and Rutting Susceptibility

SR892, CIR
SR168, CIR w/Millings (Core Sample Age = 0.5 years)
US006, CIR SR226, CIR (Core Sample Age = 0.5 years)
(Core Sample Age = 2.5 years) (Core Sample Age = 1.5 years) Proprietary
CMS-2S CMS-2S CMS-2S Polymer-
SR230, Foamed Asphalt Proprietary CMS-2S Proprietary CMS-2S Emulsified Emulsified Emulsified Proprietary Modified
(Core Sample Age = 3.5 years) Emulsified Emulsified Emulsified Emulsified Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Emulsified Emulsified
Asphalt, Asphalt Asphalt, Asphalt with Lime with Lime with Lime Asphalt, Asphalt,
Property Section 1 Section 2 No Lime with Lime No Lime with Lime (Section 1) (Section 2) (Section 3) No Lime No Lime

Air voids (%) 13.9 11.4 11.0 13.7 12.7 11.7 14.7 13.5 14.4 17.8 12.4
Height (in.) 2.47 2.49 2.55 2.59 2.24 2.38 1.90 2.50 2.47 1.4 1.7
Mr dry at 77°F (ksi) 380 818 345 381 135 342 342 326 433 134 924
Mr wet at 77°F (ksi) 408 439 229 254 76 255 215 230 354 a 529
Mr ratio (%) 100 54 66 67 56 75 63 71 82 a 57
Indirect tensile strength 50 96 88 79 30 51 59 55 63 23 139
(unconditioned)
at 77°F (psi)
Tensile strength (conditioned) 53 67 45 46 31 41 39 33 56 a 66
at 77°F (psi)
Indirect tensile strength (%) 100 70 51 58 100 80 65 59 89 a 48
(retained strength)
APA permanent deformation (mm) 3.6 4.3 14.0 3.6 13.0 8.9 5.5 3.2 8.4 9.82 6

a
Samples disintegrated after moisture conditioning.
318
• Two CIR locations on SR226, two recycling agents (one
conventional and one proprietary);
• Three CIR locations on SR168, conventional recycling agent
used with stockpiled millings; and
• Two CIR locations on SR892, two proprietary recycling agents
(one polymer modified).
The materials were tested for air voids, Mr, indirect tensile strength,
retained strength, and rutting susceptibility. The average results
reported for Mr and indirect tensile strength were from eight core
samples per location. Reported values for rutting susceptibility were
averaged from four core samples per location.
The results varied significantly for each strategy and for each
test section. At this time, the data are inconclusive and there is no
direct correlation between field performance and laboratory testing.
NDOT will continue to take core samples and attempt to establish
a correlation between the field performance and laboratory testing
results.
PROJECTED ECONOMIC BENEFITS
The following factors are used in a deterministic life-cycle cost
analysis of CIR with double chip seal, PBS with single chip seal,
foamed asphalt with single chip seal, and CIR with the addition of
millings or local aggregates and single chip seal:
• Analysis period: NDOT uses a 20-year analysis period for rural
areas;
• Discount rate: A 4% discount rate, the difference between
inflation and interest rate, is used;
• Rehabilitation strategy: The strategy includes all anticipated
future maintenance and rehabilitation efforts required to maintain
the roadway at an acceptable level of serviceability through the
analysis period;
• Costs: All costs necessary to carry the alternative through the
analysis period need to be considered, including construction, main-
tenance, salvage value, and user cost; the user cost in rural areas of
Nevada is minimal and was not considered for this analysis; and
• Present-worth method: The present worth method is an eco-
nomic analysis method involving the conversion of all present and
future expenses to a present-value cost.
LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS
A 20-year life-cycle cost analysis was conducted for 1 centerline
mile of low-volume roadway by using four different initial rehabil-
itation strategies. Based on NDOT’s construction experience, time
lines can be drawn for each initial strategy and subsequent mainte-
nance required to maintain the road through a 20-year life cycle.
Figure 1 illustrates the rehabilitation strategies and present-worth
costs for the scenarios.
Rehabilitation strategies that provide for remediation of functional
deficiencies include the following:
• 3-in. CIR and double chip seal, with additional chip and flush
seals in Years 3, 7, 10, 13, and 17; the present worth cost is $140,000
per centerline mile; and
Transportation Research Record 1989
• 2-in. PBS and single chip seal, with additional chip and flush
seals, crack filling, and isolated patching in Years 3, 7, 10, 13, and
17; the present-worth cost is $257,000 per centerline mile.
Rehabilitation strategies that provide for remediation of structural
deficiencies include the following:
• Foamed asphalt and single chip seal, with additional chip and
flush seals in Years 3, 7, 10, 13, and 17; the present-worth cost is
$181,000 per centerline mile;
• CIR with addition of millings or local aggregates and single
chip seal, with additional chip and flush seals in Years 3, 7, 10, 13,
and 17; the present-worth cost is $157,000 per centerline mile; and
• 2-in. PBS and single chip seal, with additional chip and flush
seals, crack filling, and isolated patching in Years 3, 7, 10, 13, and
17; the present-worth cost is $257,000 per centerline mile.
This life-cycle cost analysis shows that the use of CIR and
double chip seal at $140,000 per centerline mile on roads experienc-
ing functional distress is a more cost-effective strategy than NDOT’s
conventional strategy of placing a 2-in. PBS and chip seal. An addi-
tional benefit of CIR is that the reflective cracking is interrupted.
Furthermore, the use of foamed asphalt or CIR with the addition of
millings or local aggregates at $181,000 and $157,000 per center-
line mile is a more cost-effective rehabilitation strategy for roads
experiencing structural distress than use of a 2-in. PBS and chip seal.
A saving of $9,000 per year could be realized at the network level
if strategies other than PBS and chip seal were used on NDOT’s
low-volume road network. Since approximately 80% of NDOT’s
low-volume road network has sound pavement structures with func-
tional distress, a CIR and double chip seal would suffice to rehabil-
itate most roads. The other 20% of the network could use structural
rehabilitation. The use of foamed asphalt or CIR with the addition
of millings or local aggregates would be a good alternative for
structural remediation. It should be noted that if NDOT used its
conventional strategy of PBS and chip seal, the cost would be over
$21,700,000 per year to maintain the low-volume road system.
Alternatively, if NDOT were to use CIR with a double chip seal and
foamed asphalt or CIR with millings, the cost to maintain the system
would be an average of $12,300,000 per year.
CONCLUSION
NDOT cannot afford to use a “business as usual” approach when
managing its low-volume road network. Since funding is not avail-
able to rehabilitate the network with NDOT’s conventional method
of 2-in. PBS and surface treatment, more cost-effective options must
be utilized. Therefore, the agency is willing to accept some risk
while trying new and innovative ways of doing business. Agencies
should realize that the factor of safety that is built into conventional
ways of doing business is much higher than what is required for low-
volume roads since the consequences of failure due to traffic and
loading are minimal. NDOT will continue to monitor these test sec-
tions and develop results that are more conclusive in the future.
However, several findings can already be drawn from this research:
• Use of CIR with polymer-modified recycling agents can extend
the CIR construction season considerably and is a great benefit to
NDOT and contractors working toward increasing production rates.
 CIR and
Double Chip Seal

3" CIR and Double Chip Seal Flush Seal Chip Seal Flush Seal Chip Seal Flush Seal
Present Worth = $140K

2" PBS and

Single Chip Seal

2" PBS and Single Chip Seal Flush Seal Crack Filling & Flush Seal Chip Seal Isolated Patching
Present Worth = $257K Chip Seal (Approximately 20%)

Foamed Asphalt and

Single Chip Seal

6" Foamed Apshalt and Single Chip Seal Flush Seal Chip Seal Flush Seal Chip Seal Flush Seal
Present Worth = $181K

CIR with Addition of

Millings or Local Aggregates
and Single Chip Seal

3" CIR with Addition of Millings Flush Seal Chip Seal Flush Seal Chip Seal Flush Seal
or Local Aggregates and Single Chip Seal
Present Worth = $157K

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Time in Years

FIGURE 1 Twenty-year life-cycle costs for 1 centerline mile with various rehabilitation scenarios.
320
• Millings can be effectively cold-recycled to increase the pave-
ment structure of a roadway when it is not feasible to recycle the
surface layer because of lack of pavement structure depth.
• CIR with a double chip seal surface treatment can effectively
rehabilitate a roadway at approximately half the life-cycle cost of a
2-in. PBS and chip seal. In addition, an acceptable ride quality can
be achieved and all pavement distresses can be eliminated.
• Use of CIR, foamed asphalt, CIR with the addition of millings,
and chip seal surface treatment can save NDOT an average of
$100,000 per centerline mile in life-cycle costs over its conventional
use of PBS and chip seal for low-volume roads.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the Federal Highway Administration for its finan-
cial support during the course of this investigation. In addition, the
Transportation Research Record 1989
authors thank NDOT’s Maintenance Division for the expertise, fund-
ing, labor, equipment, and materials that ensured the successful
construction of the project test sections.
REFERENCES
1. Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2002 Condi-
tions and Performance Report. FHWA, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, 2003. www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2002cpr/ch3b.htm. Accessed
Sept. 15, 2006.
2. Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2004 Conditions
and Performance Report. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
2006. www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2004cpr/chap3b.htm#body. Accessed
Sept. 15, 2006.
The Committee on Low-Volume Roads: Research, Practice, and International
Technology Transfer sponsored publication of this paper.