01a_CETSC PCI 2012 report.pdf

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

CONDITION REPORT

And Pavement Maintenance Plan

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

SELFRIDGE AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE

SELFRIDGE, MICHIGAN

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

CIVIL ENGINEERING TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

July 2012

C

E

C N

H

S A L

C I

RE V I

T E

IGNE

VIC

LI

NE

T

SE

E C

N R

E

GNI

R

R T HON

M I

N O

T , DAK

O

T A

N G B / A 7 OC

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

CONDITION REPORT

And Pavement Maintenance Plan

Michigan Air National Guard Selfridge Air National Guard Base

Selfridge, Michigan

NGB A7OC

Pavement Maintenance Management Team Members:

Mark Schumaker, Jeffrey Love, Joeseph Buch, Frank Fasulo, Joel Hansen And

Paul Merkel

National Guard Bureau Civil Engineering Technical Services Center

3430 2nd St. NE Minot, North Dakota 58703-0527

July 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONDITION

PAVEMENT ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PLAN

STREETS AND ROADS

PAVEMENT DATA AND HISTORY

PAVEMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY

MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

GLOSSARY

CONVERSION FACTORS

REFERENCES

DISTRIBUTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Pavement Maintenance Management Team from the National Guard Bureau's Civil Engineering Technical Services Center at Minot, North Dakota conducted a pavement condition survey for the Michigan Air National Guard in July 2012. The team evaluated the 127th Wing Group airfield pavement at Selfridge ANGB, Selfridge, Michigan. The purpose of the survey was to determine the present Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of the airfield pavement, identify reasons for existing or potential pavement distress and assist in the development of a pavement maintenance plan.

Overall, most of the operational pavements are in “Good” to “Satisfactory” condi-tion. However, repair and maintenance is still required for spalling, fault-ing/settlement, cracks, joint sealing and patching. The weighted average PCI of 70 rates the ANG pavements in “Fair” condition.

On the Runway, the North Overrun (O02D) has deteriorated to “Fair” condition, while the South Overrun (O01D) has deteriorated to “Poor” condition. The asphalt shoulders of the runway are also severely deteriorated and should be replaced.

On the Aprons, the old Hush House Apron (A14C) and the Homeland Security Hangar Apron (A45C) have deteriorated to “Poor” condition, while Building 1436 Apron (A11C-1), Building 1429 Apron (A11C-8) and the Hot Cargo Pad (A47B) have deteriorated to “Very Poor” condition.

Several portions of the Taxiways have deteriorated to “Fair” and “Poor” condition.

The West Apron Access Taxiway (T42B) has deteriorated to “Very Poor” condition while a portion of Taxiway F (T21A - 1) has deteriorated to “Serious” condition.

Work is ongoing by the Air National Guard to maintain the pavements in support of the flying mission. Repairs have been made since the last visit in October, 2004 that have helped to maintain the overall condition of the pavements and reduce the effects of traffic and climatic changes. Most of the repairs made were constructed correctly and are performing well. However the concrete pavements have patches that were constructed across existing joints and/or cracking and spalling at the edges. Also noted was linear cracking, corner breaks, durability cracking, shattered slabs, spalling and faulting/settlement of some slabs. Some areas also exhibited various degrees of joint sealant failure. The asphalt pavements have various types of cracking, patches, swelling and rutting as well as weathering and raveling at various degrees of severity.

Work remains to be accomplished to keep the pavements above the maintenance threshold. As a result of this evaluation, a project is recommended for repair and maintenance (Project Number VGLZ132012). The cost of the project is estimated from MicroPAVER’s extrapolated distress data shown on page 30 of this report. The total cost of the repair and maintenance project is estimated at $5,900,000. The estimate includes 10% for Contingency and an additional 5% for Supervision, In-spection, Overhead and Profit. A copy of the form DD 1391 for this project is includ-ed in this report. The DD 1391 encompasses the entire airfield, including the run-way, taxiways and aprons with the exception of Taxiway G east of Runway 1/19 and a small amount of the southern portion of Taxiway F which falls under a current repair project (Project Number VGLZ 112020). Due to the estimated cost of the needed repairs, it is likely that several smaller projects would have to be initiated as funding becomes available.

A Pavement Engineering Assessment (EA) was generated for the operational air-field pavement and is graphically illustrated on page 21 of this report. It is recom-mended that this assessment be used for future Facility Investment Metric (FIM) ratings. Forty Four of the operational pavement facilities are within the PCI limits of the ADEQUATE rating, thirteen are rated at the DEGRADED level and twenty four are rated at the UNSATISFACTORY level. However, combined low PCI num-bers with high FOD potential and/or high ACN/PCN ratios mandates a DEGRADED rating in a total of twenty four of the operational pavements and thirty one are at the UNSATISFACTORY level. This leaves a total of twenty six of the operational pavements rated at the ADEQUATE level.

A cursory pavement evaluation was performed on the streets and parking lots maintained by the MI ANG at Selfridge ANGB. Some of the paving will require repairs and/or maintenance to help extend the service life. Pavement surfaces showing signs of oxidation should receive a surface treatment. The application of a seal coat or fog seal would greatly extend the service life of the asphalt. Also, open cracks or previously sealed cracks that have opened should be sealed to prevent further deterioration.

DRAWN BY: FILE NAME:

J.G. HANSEN

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

M. SCHUMAKER

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE

MICHIGAN

MI, SELFRIDGE ANGB P1

SUPERVISOR:

JULY 2012

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DATE:

PAVEMENT CONDITION AS SHOWN

SCALE:

AIRFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER:

N

BRANCH DESIGNATION PCC - PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE

PAVEMENT THICKNESS AND TYPE. APC - ACC OVER PCC

ACC - ASPHALT CEMENT CONCRETE

DBST - DOUBLE BITUMINOUS SURFACE TREATMENT

1. BRANCH DESIGNATION DENOTES TYPE OF BRANCH, NUMBER OF BRANCH

FOR A GIVEN BRANCH TYPE AND TRAFFIC TYPE.

2. TRAFFIC AREA DESIGNATIONS ARE BASED ON AFM 88-6, CHAPTER 1.

BRANCH TYPE

3. SEE CONSTRUCTION HISTORY FOR ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT LAYER INFORMATION.

A - A TRAFFICA - APRON

R - RUNWAY

T - TAXIWAY

O - OVERRUN

TRAFFIC TYPE

B - B TRAFFIC

D - D TRAFFIC

C - C TRAFFIC

PAVEMENT TYPET01A

12"

PCC

RATING

GOOD

SATISFACTORY

SERIOUS

POOR

0-

FAILED

10-

40-

VERY POOR

55-

FAIR

PCI

100-

NOT

EVALUATED

11"

PCC

A04B

4"ACC

13" PCC

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

PCC

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A

14"PCC

R14D

14"PCC

T16A(2)

3"ACC

PCC

12"

T16A(1)

9"PCC

T17A

4"ACC

13"PCC

3.5" ACC

R11A

14"PCC

R09C

14"PCC 14"PCC

R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13C

PCC

13"

A14C 9"10"

PCC PCC

13"

PCC

T37A

A15C 11"

PCC

T40A

A06B

PCC PCC17" 17"

PCC

17"

PCC

PCC

17"

17"

A07B 11"

PCC

A12C

PCC

UNK

17"

PCC

T46C(1)

13"

PCC

T41A 13"

T45B

17"

17"

PCC

17"

PCC

PCC

17"

PCC

A16C 10"

PCC

ACC

5"

T48C 16"

PCC

PCC

A05B 12"

A01B 16"

PCC

T42B 21"

PCC

R02D

T09C

7"ACC

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

21"

PCC

16"

PCC

R03A

R05C

T10A

UNK

ACC

PCC

13"

T03A

R01A A02B

PCC

12"

ACC

O02D

A03B 9"

PCC

12"

13"PCC

4"ACC

A29B

PCC

12"

12"

PCC

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

12"

PCC

T30A

11"

PCC

A10B

A30B 12"

PCC

14"PCC

14"PCC

21"PCC

2"ACC

20"PCC

2"ACC

20"PCC

2"ACC

21"PCC

2"ACC

20"PCC

2"ACC

21"PCC

2"ACC

16"PCC

2"ACC

16"PCC

2"ACC

10"PCC

6"ACC

12"PCC

T31A

4"ACC

4.5"ACC

12.5"PCC

T13C

1.5"ACC

6"PCC

10"PCC

UNK

A46C

PCC

4"ACC

9"PCC

21"PCC

2"ACC

14"PCC

7"PCC

3.5"ACC

16"PCC

T49A

3.5"ACC

21"PCC

T50A

8"

PCC

A44B

10"PCC

1.5"ACC

6"PCC

UNK

PCC

6"PCC

A42B

A45C

PCC

11"

9"PCC

2"ACC

A47B

R04D

14"PCC

R12D

14"PCC

R06D

14"PCC

T51A

7"ACC

PCC

14"

T52A

O01D 3"

ACC

A48B 8"

PCC

7"ACC

R07C

T53C

7"ACC

T54C

T55A

7"ACC

T56C

8"

ACC

8"

ACC

PCC

14"

PCC

14"ACC

3"

ACC

7"

R U

N W

A Y

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

X

IW

A

Y B

TA

X

IW

A

Y A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT

74T56C

T55A T54C T53C T52A

NET11B(2)

NET11B(1)

86A48B

PCIBRANCH PCIBRANCHPCIBRANCHPCI

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

NE

CONDITION, FY 2012

R12D

R14D

R09C R08D

T51A

A12C A11C(9) A11C(8) A11C(7) A11C(6) A11C(5) A11C(4) A11C(3) A11C(2)

A03B T01A(2)

T02A(2)

O01D O02D

A47B A46C A45C A44B A42B A30B

A29B A16C A15C A14C A13C

A11C(1) A10B A09B A08B A07B A06B A05B A04B

A02B A01B

T50A T49A T48C T47A

T46C(1) T45B T44B T43B T42B T41A T40A T37A T36A

T32C T31A T30A T29A T27A

T25A(1)

T21A(1) T19A

T13C T12A

T10A T09C T08C T03A

T02A(1)

T01A(1)

T17A

R13A

R11A R10D

R07C R06D R05C R04D R03A R02D R01A

BRANCH

A49B 12.75"

100A49B

17" PCC

T46C(2)

3.5" ACC

12" PCC

13"PCC

5" ACC

92T21A(2)

87T25A(2)

75T16A(1) 91T16A(2)

13" PCC

T21A(1)

100T46C(2)

PCC

13.5 PCC

16"PCC

16"PCC

7"ACC

AIRFIELD PAVEMENT CONDITION

The Selfridge ANGB is located in Selfridge, Michigan and is a joint DoD and DHS installation. The base is home to the 127th Wing Group, which operates the Boeing KC-135R/T Stratotanker, an aerial refueler and the Fairchild-Republic A-10 Thun-derbolt, a close air support aircraft.

Since the last visit in October, 2004 the airfield pavements (Aprons and Runway) remain in mostly good to satisfactory condition. However, some repair work needs to be performed in order to maintain or improve its current condition. Many of the Taxiways have deteriorated to fair or poor condition with some in serious condition and will also require repair.

The following photos are an example of the type of distresses found throughout the airfield pavements.

Runway:

The concrete pavements of Runway 1/19 have both joint and corner spalls of low and medium severity (as shown in the photos right and below).

R03A

R01A R06D

The joint seal itself in the concrete pave-ments of Runway 1/19 is in good condition (as shown in the photos left and below).

However, some areas are allowing water to penetrate below the sealant due to spalling of the concrete edges around the joint. Water infiltration will weaken the subgrade and lead to further deterioration of the concrete.

R01A

R09C R05C

The asphalt portions of Runway 1/19 have open cracks of low, medium and high severity mostly along the edges of the paving lanes (as shown in the photos below).

R08D R08D

The north and south Overruns to Runway 1/19 are also asphalt pavements and have open cracks of low, medium and high severity. Alligator cracking adjacent to the edges of the paving lanes of low and medium severity as well weathering and raveling of low severity that are also present (as shown in the photos below).

O01D O02D

The photos below and right are typical of the asphalt shoulders along Runway 1/19.

There are open cracks of low, medium and high severity. There is also alligator cracking adjacent to the runway edges of low and medium severity as well as weathering and raveling of low and medi-um severity. While some of the cracks have been sealed, it will continue to be a maintenance problem and increase FOD potential.

Aprons:

Failed patches of low, medium and high severity were found throughout the Aprons (as shown in the photos right and below). Several patches are cracking and/or spalling at the edges. Patches should not be constructed across existing joints.

A08B

A11C (8) A09B

Corner breaks of low and medium severity were found in several Apron branches (as shown in the photos below).

A45C A10B

Linear cracks of low, medium and high severity were noted in several apron branches (as shown in the photos left and below).

A09B

A30B A45C

Several Apron branches were found to have durability cracking of low, medium and high severity characterized by a pattern of cracks running parallel to the joints (as shown in the photo to the left).

A14C

Joint seal damage of varying degrees of severity is present throughout the Apron branches at joints between slabs as well as the interface between concrete and asphalt shoulders (as shown in the photos right and below). Water penetrating through cracked or missing joint sealant will weaken the base material and further deteriorate the concrete. This is evident from the vegetation growth through the joint.

A08B

A16C A16C

A few of the Apron branches exhibited dislodged aggregate or “popouts”. This is generally due to the freeze thaw cycle and can be accelerated by the use of deicing agents.

A11C (8)

Scaling was found on a few Apron branches of low, medium and high severity (high severity is shown in the photo to the left).

A10B

Several Apron branches had shattered slabs (slabs broken into 4 or more pieces) of low, medium and high severity.

A45C

Joint and corner spalls of low, medium and high severity were present throughout the Apron branches (as shown in the photos below).

A45C A45C

A16C A16C

One Apron branch (A47B) is ACC overlaid on PCC and has open cracks as well as sealed cracks that are reopening at varying degrees of severity (as shown in the photos below). Many of the cracks are due to joint reflection from the concrete below.

A47B A47B

Taxiways:

A small amount of alligator cracking of medium severity was found at the north-ern end of Taxiway A at the interface with Runway 1/19.

T55A

Block cracking of low and medium severi-ty was noted on several asphalt Taxiway branches.

T10A

Joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity was found in several of the Taxiways constructed with ACC over

PCC.

T02A

Weathering (the loss of fine aggregate) and Raveling (the loss of large aggregate) was found throughout the Taxiway Branches. Open cracks of low and medium severity were also noted along paving lanes and other locations on several of the Taxiway branches (as shown in the photos right and below).

T12A

T12A T12A

Current Conditions:

The east apron and adjacent taxiways along the south side of the apron were found to be in generally “Good” to “Satisfactory” condition with only taxiway T30A falling into the “Fair” category. The adjacent apron at the northwest corner (A15C) was found to be in “Fair” condition while (A48B) was in “Good” condition. Throughout this area the team identified the following distresses in the PCC pavements: corner breaks of low and medium severity, linear cracks of low and medium severity, patches of low, medium and high severity, shattered slabs of low severity, faulting of low and medium severity, scaling of low, medium and high severity, joint and corner spalls of low, medium and high severity, durability cracking of low and medium severity, and shrinkage cracking. The joint sealant in apron branch A08B is exhibiting moderate signs of deterioration such as hardening, oxidation and loss of bonding and should be replaced in the next two years. The joint sealant in apron branch A29B is exhibiting moderate to severe deterioration such as absence of sealant, weed growth, hardening, oxidation and loss of bonding and should be replaced as soon as possible.

The west apron and adjacent taxiways along the east end of the apron were found to be in generally “Good” to “Satisfactory” condition while taxiway T44B fell into “Fair” condition and taxiway T42B dropped into the “Poor” category. The adjoining taxiways and aprons (on the west side of the Apron) varied from “Good” to “Serious” condition. The apron access taxiways on the north and south ends were in “Fair” to “Poor condition. The Coast Guard apron and adjacent taxiway (A44B and T49A) located on the north end of the apron and Homeland Security apron (A45C) located on the west side of the apron are in “Poor” condition. Throughout this area the team identified the following distresses in the PCC pavements: durability cracking of low, medium and high severity, joint and corner spalls of low, medium and high severity, corner breaks of low and medium severity, linear cracks of low and medium severi-ty, faulting of low and medium severity, patches of low, medium and high severity, shattered slabs of low and medium severity, scaling of low severity, shrinkage cracking and popouts. The joint sealant in the following branches is exhibiting signs of deterioration ranging from moderate to severe such as absence of sealant, weed growth, hardening, oxidation and loss of bonding and should be replaced as soon as possible: apron branch A05B, A16C, T41A, T43B, T45B and T46C. The joint sealant in the following branches is exhibiting moderate signs of deterioration and should be replaced in the next two years: A07B, A45C, T42B and T44B. The team identi-fied the following distresses in the ACC pavements throughout the west apron area:

joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low, medium and high severity, weathering and raveling of low severity, oil spillage and polished aggregate.

The south Arm/De-arm apron (A49B) was found to to be in “Good” condition. The team identified the following distresses throughout the PCC pavements of the apron: joint spalls of low severity.

The north Arm/De-arm apron (A02B) was found to be in “Satisfactory” condition.

The team identified the following distresses throughout the PCC pavement of the apron: linear cracks of low and medium severity, patches, faulting and scaling of low severity, joint and corner spalls of low and medium severity. The joint sealant is showing signs of moderate to severe deterioration such as hardening, oxidation and loss of bonding and should be repaired within the next two years.

Runway 1/19 was found to be in “Good” to “Satisfactory” condition. However, the north overrun has deteriorated to “Fair” condition while the south overrun has deteriorated to “Poor” condition. The team identified the following distresses in the PCC pavements throughout the runway: patches of low and medium severity, joint and corner spalls of low and medium severity, faulting of low severity, linear cracks of low severity, and shrinkage cracks. The following distresses were identified in the ACC pavements on the runway: longitudinal and transverse cracking of low, medi-um and high severity, and patches of low severity. The following distresses were identified on the north and south overruns: alligator cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low, medium and high severity, patches of low severity, weathering and raveling of low severity. The asphalt shoul-ders along Runway 1/19 have deteriorated to “Poor” condition. The team identified the following distresses on the shoulders: alligator cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low, medium and high severity as well as weathering and raveling of low and medium severity.

Taxiway “A” was found to be in generally “Fair” condition with branches T31A and T55A falling into the “Poor” range. The team identified the following distresses in the ACC pavements throughout the taxiway: alligator cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, patches of low severity, weathering and raveling of low severity, block cracking and joint reflective of low and medium severity, depressions and swelling in the asphalt of low and medium severity.

Taxiway “B” was found to be in mostly “Poor” condition with only the shoulder areas on the southern portion (T02A-1) registering in the “Fair” range. The team identified the following distresses in the ACC pavements throughout the taxiway:

block cracking and joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity, longitudi-nal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, patches and weathering of low severity.

The southern portion of taxiway “F” was found to be in good condition while the northern portion ranged from “Fair” to “Serious” condition. The team identified the following distresses throughout the ACC pavements on the southern portion of the taxiway: longitudinal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, weath-ering of low severity, and a minor amount of oil spillage. The team identified the following distresses throughout the PCC pavements on the northern portion of the taxiway: linear cracks of low and medium severity, patches of low, medium and high severity, joint and corner spalls of low, medium and high severity, shattered slabs of low and medium severity, and shrinkage cracks. The joint sealant in the following branches is exhibiting signs of deterioration ranging from minor to severe such as absence of sealant, weed growth, hardening, oxidation and loss of bonding and should be replaced as soon as possible: taxiway branch T25A.

The western portion of taxiway “G” was found to be in “Satisfactory” to “Good” condition while the eastern portion has deteriorated to “Poor” condition. The team identified the following distresses throughout the PCC pavements of the taxiway:

linear cracks of low and medium severity, durability cracking of low and medium severity, patches of low medium and high severity, joint and corner spalls of low, medium and high severity, and shrinkage cracking. The joint sealant in the follow-ing branches is exhibiting signs moderate to severe deterioration such as weed growth, hardening, oxidation and loss of bonding and should be replaced within the next two years: taxiway branch T16A section 1. Taxiway T47A has minor joint seal damage but does not warrant any repairs at this time. The team identified the following distresses throughout the ACC pavements of the taxiway: longitudinal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, block cracking and joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity, weathering and raveling of low severity, shoving of low and medium severity, and swelling of low severity.

Taxiway “H” ranges from “Fair” to “Poor” condition. The team identified the follow-ing distresses throughout the ACC pavements of the taxiway: block cracking and joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, and weathering of low severity.

Taxiway “J” ranges from “Satisfactory” to “Poor” condition. The team identified the following distresses throughout the ACC pavements of the taxiway: block cracking and joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and trans-verse cracking of low and medium severity, depressions in the asphalt and weather-ing of low severity.

Taxiway “K” ranges from “Good” to “Fair” condition. The team identified the follow-ing distresses throughout the PCC pavements of the taxiway: linear cracks of low and medium severity, patches of low and medium severity, faulting of low severity, joint and corner spalls of low, medium and high severity, and shrinkage cracks. The joint sealant in taxiway branch T03A exhibits minor to moderate deterioration such as hardening, oxidation and loss of bonding and should be replaced within the next two years.

Taxiway “L” ranges from “Satisfactory” to “Fair” condition. The team identified the following distresses throughout the ACC pavements of the taxiway: joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, patches of low severity, weathering and raveling of low severity, and a minor amount of oil spillage.

The northern portion of taxiway “M”, the Hot Cargo Pad apron (A47B) was found to be in “Very Poor” condition. The team identified the following distresses throughout the ACC pavements of the taxiway: block cracking and joint reflective cracking of low and medium severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, and raveling of low severity.

The Hush House aprons and adjacent taxiway ranged from “Satisfactory” to “Very Poor” condition. The team identified the following distresses throughout the PCC pavements of the aprons: linear cracks and corner breaks of low severity, patches of low and medium severity, shattered slabs of low severity, joint and corner spalls of low and medium severity, durability cracking of low severity, and shrinkage cracks.

The joint sealant in approximately 40% of the slabs on the Old Hush House apron (A14C) exhibit minor signs of deterioration but does not warrant any repair at this time. The team identified the following distresses throughout the ACC pavements of the Hush House taxiway (T13C): joint reflective cracking of low, medium and high severity, longitudinal and transverse cracking of low and medium severity, weath-ering of low severity, raveling of low and high severity, alligator cracking of low severity, swelling of low and medium severity, block cracking of low and medium severity, and patches of medium severity.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that all medium and high severity distresses as well as low severity joint and corner spalls be repaired in accordance with the “Maintenance and Repair” section of this report found on page 45. All other low severity distresses and distresses without a severity level (ie: shrinkage cracking and popouts found in the PCC pavements as well as oil spillage and polished aggregate found in the ACC and APC pavements) will not require any repairs at this time. In addition, partial and full depth concrete repairs should be completed in accordance to UFC 3-270-03 and UFC 3-270-04. Concrete joint sealant repair projects should be initiated for the branches identified in the preceding section of this report.

The ACP pavements of the “Hot Cargo Pad” (A47B) located on northern end of taxiway “M” would benefit most from a mill and overlay project. The extensive amount of cracking could be sealed and the surface deterioration repaired with a new surface treatment (seal coat or fog seal). However if this area is frequently used, a mill and overlay would be the most cost effective repair.

The ACC pavements on the shoulders along Runway 1/19 are in need of some repair. It is recommended that all cracks or previously sealed cracks that have reopened be sealed and areas with extensive cracking as well as areas with alligator cracking should be sawcut, removed and replaced. After repairs are made, the shoulders should receive a surface treatment (fog seal or seal coat) to further extend the service life of the pavements.

In addition to the necessary repairs on the ACC and ACP taxiways, it is our recom-mendation that a surface treatment (seal coat or fog seal) be applied to further extend the service life of the pavements.

For detailed explanations of the distresses noted in the preceding section and there causes, refer to the “Glossary” section of this report found on page 48.

PAVEMENT ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT

The Air Force has developed a standard and procedure to objectively analyze the impact of pavement conditions on flying missions and to help prioritize multiple airfield pavement maintenance and repair requirements as part of the Air Force Facility Investment Metric (FIM) Directive.

Air Force Engineering Technical Letter (ETL) 04-9, Pavements Engineering As-sessment (EA) Standards, provides a standardized procedure for identifying, vali-dating, prioritizing and rating airfield pavement projects. The primary product is an engineering condition assessment (health rating), determined using the Pave-ment Condition Index (PCI), Structural Index, Friction Index and Foreign Object Damage (FOD) Index. The FOD sensitivity of the organization’s assigned aircraft is also considered.

The standard rating procedure for airfield pavement uses the PCI as the basic rating criteria with adjustments when other factors do not meet specified stand-ards. Ratings of ADEQUATE, DEGRADED or UNSATISFACTORY are assigned to each airfield pavement branch based on the criteria in the following table.

RATING/

ASSESSMENT

CATEGORY

PAVEMENT

CONDITION

INDEX

(PCI)

FRICTION INDEX

(Mu)

(Runways Only)

STRUCTURAL

INDEX

(ACN/PCN)

FOREIGN

OBJECTS and

DEBRIS INDEX

(FOD)

ACC PCC

ADEQUATE 71 – 100

Griptester@ 65 km/h

> 0.49 Mu-meter@ 65 km/h

> 0.50 < 1.10 0 – 44 0 – 60

DEGRADED 56 – 70

Griptester @ 65 km/h

0.34 – 0.49 Mu-meter @ 65 km/h

0.35 – 0.50

1.10 – 1.40 45 – 60 61 – 78

UNSATISFACTORY 0 – 55

Griptester @ 65 km/h

< 0.33 Mu-meter @ 65 km/h

< 0.34 > 1.40 61 – 100 79 – 100

The Engineering Assessment Ratings for the 127th Wing Group’s airfield pavement at Selfridge ANGB are based on PCI rating and FOD Index obtained during this evaluation combined with the Structural Index (ACN/PCN) information obtained from the AFCESA Structural Pavement Evaluation conducted in June, 2012 for the MI ANG’s airfield pavements. The Friction Index is not applicable.

Branch Surface Type PCI FOD

Index

ACN/

PCN

Friction Index

Current Rating

Predicted Rating

A02B PCC 75 57 1.20 # DEGRADED

A04B PCC 88 10 1.24 # DEGRADED

A05B PCC 81 34 1.15 # DEGRADED

A07B PCC 91 17 1.08 # ADEQUATE

A08B PCC 83 17 1.38 # DEGRADED

A09B PCC 93 7 0.75 # ADEQUATE

A10B PCC 75 24 1.29 # DEGRADED

A11C(1) PCC 38 59 0.86 # UNSATISFACTORY

A11C(8) PCC 28 45 0.55 # UNSATISFACTORY

A13C PCC 74 21 1.87 # UNSATISFACTORY

A14C PCC 54 35 1.80 # UNSATISFACTORY

A15C PCC 67 33 1.15 # DEGRADED

A16C PCC 77 56 1.15 # DEGRADED

A29B PCC 75 52 1.03 # ADEQUATE DEGRADED-2015

A30B PCC 86 14 1.29 # DEGRADED

A42B PCC 91 9 1.18 # DEGRADED

A44B PCC 51 42 3.01 # UNSATISFACTORY

A45C PCC 47 64 1.13 # UNSATISFACTORY

A46C PCC 79 20 0.90 # ADEQUATE DEGRADED-2017

A47B PCC 40 60 6.01 # UNSATISFACTORY

A48B PCC 86 13 1.31 # DEGRADED

A49B PCC 100 0 0.80 # ADEQUATE

O01D ACC 54 45 1.36 # UNSATISFACTORY

O02D ACC 57 40 1.12 # DEGRADED UNSATISFACTORY-2013

R01A PCC 97 3 0.48 # ADEQUATE

R02D PCC 96 4 0.48 # ADEQUATE

R03A PCC 93 7 0.55 # ADEQUATE

R04D PCC 91 9 0.80 # ADEQUATE

R05C PCC 94 6 0.39 # ADEQUATE

R06D PCC 87 13 0.68 # ADEQUATE

R07C ACC 75 25 0.14 # ADEQUATE DERGADED-2015

R08D ACC 78 22 0.15 # ADEQUATE DEGRADED-2016

R09C PCC 79 21 0.74 # ADEQUATE DEGRADED-2017

R10D PCC 87 13 0.76 # ADEQUATE

R11A PCC 86 14 0.90 # ADEQUATE

R12D PCC 91 9 0.92 # ADEQUATE

R13A PCC 88 10 0.86 # ADEQUATE

R14D PCC 85 15 0.90 # ADEQUATE

Branch Surface Type PCI FOD

Index

ACN/

PCN

Friction Index

Current Rating

Predicted Rating

T01A(1) ACC 49 51 0.56 UNSATISFACTORY

T01A(2) ACC 41 59 0.54 UNSATISFACTORY

T02A(1) ACC 59 41 0.57 DEGRADED UNSATISFACTORY-2014

T02A(2) ACC 53 47 0.56 UNSATISFACTORY

T03A PCC 70 39 1.23 DEGRADED

T08C ACC 45 55 0.58 UNSATISFACTORY

T09C ACC 43 57 0.67 UNSATISFACTORY

T10A ACC 64 36 1.30 DEGRADED UNSATISFACTORY-2017

T12A ACC 62 37 2.46 UNSATISFACTORY

T13C ACC 37 61 0.92 UNSATISFACTORY

T16A(1) PCC 75 41 1.39 DEGRADED

T16A(2) ACC 91 9 1.20 DEGRADED

T17A ACC 41 58 3.61 UNSATISFACTORY

T19A PCC 50 47 1.55 UNSATISFACTORY

T21A(1) PCC 23 76 2.00 UNSATISFACTORY

T21A(2) ACC 92 8 2.08 UNSATISFACTORY

T25A(1) PCC 49 63 1.46 UNSATISFACTORY

T25A(2) ACC 87 13 1.18 DEGRADED

T27A PCC 93 6 0.97 ADEQUATE

T29A PCC 78 21 1.29 DEGRADED

T30A PCC 59 41 1.46 UNSATISFACTORY

T31A ACC 48 52 1.13 UNSATISFACTORY

T32C ACC 56 44 1.87 UNSATISFACTORY

T36A ACC 86 14 2.08 UNSATISFACTORY

T37A PCC 66 25 UNK DEGRADED

T40A ACC 48 52 0.58 UNSATISFACTORY

T41A PCC 66 55 1.55 UNSATISFACTORY

T42B PCC 26 78 0.54 UNSATISFACTORY

T43B PCC 71 48 0.93 ADEQUATE DEGRADED-2013

T44B PCC 63 29 0.58 DEGRADED UNSATISFACTORY-2016

T45B PCC 74 47 1.18 DEGRADED

T46C(1) PCC 14 96 0.53 UNSATISFACTORY

T46C(2) ACC 100 0 0.52 ADEQUATE

T47A PCC 80 20 0.86 ADEQUATE DEGRADED-2017

T48C ACC 59 41 1.24 DEGRADED UNSATISFACTORY-2014

T49A ACC 45 49 0.76 UNSATISFACTORY

T50A ACC 49 51 0.53 UNSATISFACTORY

T51A ACC 90 10 0.84 ADEQUATE

T52A PCC 90 10 1.00 ADEQUATE

T53C ACC 77 23 0.52 ADEQUATE DEGRADED-2016

T54C ACC 63 37 0.52 DEGRADED UNSATISFACTORY-2016

T55A ACC 53 38 0.79 UNSATISFACTORY

T56C ACC 74 26 1.26 DEGRADED

* = Not Available # = Not Applicable

Forty Four of the operational pavement facilities are within the PCI limits of the ADEQUATE rating, thirteen are rated at the DEGRADED level and twenty four one are rated at the UNSATISFACTORY level. However, combined low PCI num-bers with high FOD potential and/or high ACN/PCN ratios mandates a DEGRADED rating in a total of twenty four of the operational pavements and thirty one are at the UNSATISFACTORY level. This leaves a total of twenty six of the operational pavements rated at the ADEQUATE level.

The Engineering Assessment Ratings have been graphically illustrated in the following color-coded drawing, which shows the pavement condition at the time of the most recent evaluation. Any significant changes expected to occur within the next five years are shown in the following drawings.

It should be noted that the ACN/PCN ratios are based on AFCESA’s structural evaluation. The ACN is based on 50,000 passes of a fully loaded C-17. This is to simplify reporting for comparison among USAF bases. The ACN for a fully loaded KC-135 is less than that of a C-17. If the aircraft is not fully loaded, the ACN is reduced further and the pavement is more able to support this aircraft. For pave-ments where the ACN/PCN ratio is questionable, the preferred and more accurate method of determining whether the pavement can support an aircraft is to use the Allowable Gross Load (AGL). This data is also contained in the AFCESA report.

For example, for A42B of the main apron, the PCI is 91, yet the EA is rated as DEGRADED due to the PCN for the C-17. Looking at the AGL table, the AGL is 336Kips for 50,000 passes. Maximum load for a KC-135 is 376Kips. If passes are reduced to 15,000, the load may be increased to 375 Kips.

Another example would be A13C at the Hush House. The PCI is 74, but the ACN/PCN ratio is again UNSATISFACTORY. This pavement would not see a fully loaded aircraft and should be structurally capable for its use.

At T21A(2), the PCI is 92, yet the pavement is determined to be UNSATISFACTORY due to the ACN/PCN ratio. This pavement is taxiway F to the southern portion of the runway. Load restrictions are required for both C-17 and KC-135 traffic.

Pavement such as T01A(1) are structurally capable, but distresses in the pavement surface have reduced the PCI to an UNSATISFACTORY level.

A copy of the AFCESA report may be obtained by contacting AFCESA at:

139 Barnes Drive, Suite 1 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319

DSN: 523-6081

COMM: 850-283-6081

F. FASULO

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

M. SCHUMAKER

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE

MICHIGAN

MI, SELFRIDGE ANGB EA

SUPERVISOR:

DECEMBER 2012

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DATE:

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT N.T.S.

SCALE:

AIRFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER:

N

A04B

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A R14D

T16A(2) T16A(1)

T17A

R11A

R09C R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13CA14C

T37A

A15C

T40A

A06B

A07B

A12C

T46C(1) T41A

T45B

A16C

T48C

A05B

A01B

T42B R02D

T09C

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

R03A

R05C

T10A

T03A

R01A A02B O02D

A03B

A29B

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

T30A

A10B

A30B

T31A

T13C

A46C

T49A

T50A

A44B

A42B

A45C

A47B

R04D

R12D

R06D

T51A

T52A

O01D

A48B

R07C

T53C

T54C

T55A

T56C

R U

N W

A Y

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

XI

W

AY

B

TA

XI

W

AY

A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

FY 2012

A49B

T46C(2)

T21A(1)

ADEQUATE

DEGRADED

UNSATISFACTORY

F. FASULO

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

M. SCHUMAKER

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE

MICHIGAN

MI, SELFRIDGE ANGB EA

SUPERVISOR:

DECEMBER 2012

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DATE:

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT N.T.S.

SCALE:

AIRFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER:

N

A04B

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A R14D

T16A(2) T16A(1)

T17A

R11A

R09C R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13CA14C

T37A

A15C

T40A

A06B

A07B

A12C

T46C(1) T41A

T45B

A16C

T48C

A05B

A01B

T42B R02D

T09C

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

R03A

R05C

T10A

T03A

R01A A02B O02D

A03B

A29B

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

T30A

A10B

A30B

T31A

T13C

A46C

T49A

T50A

A44B

A42B

A45C

A47B

R04D

R12D

R06D

T51A

T52A

O01D

A48B

R07C

T53C

T54C

T55A

T56C

R U

N W

A Y

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

XI

W

AY

B

TA

XI

W

AY

A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

FY 2013

A49B

T46C(2)

T21A(1)

ADEQUATE

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

M. SCHUMAKER

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE

MICHIGAN

MI, SELFRIDGE ANGB EA

SUPERVISOR:

DECEMBER 2012

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DATE:

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT N.T.S.

SCALE:

AIRFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER:

N

A04B

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A R14D

T16A(2) T16A(1)

T17A

R11A

R09C R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13CA14C

T37A

A15C

T40A

A06B

A07B

A12C

T46C(1) T41A

T45B

A16C

T48C

A05B

A01B

T42B R02D

T09C

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

R03A

R05C

T10A

T03A

R01A A02B O02D

A03B

A29B

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

T30A

A10B

A30B

T31A

T13C

A46C

T49A

T50A

A44B

A42B

A45C

A47B

R04D

R12D

R06D

T51A

T52A

O01D

A48B

R07C

T53C

T54C

T55A

T56C

R U

N W

A Y

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

XI

W

AY

B

TA

XI

W

AY

A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

FY 2014

A49B

T46C(2)

T21A(1)

ADEQUATE

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

M. SCHUMAKER

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE

MICHIGAN

MI, SELFRIDGE ANGB EA

SUPERVISOR:

DECEMBER 2012

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DATE:

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT N.T.S.

SCALE:

AIRFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER:

N

A04B

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A R14D

T16A(2) T16A(1)

T17A

R11A

R09C R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13CA14C

T37A

A15C

T40A

A06B

A07B

A12C

T46C(1) T41A

T45B

A16C

T48C

A05B

A01B

T42B R02D

T09C

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

R03A

R05C

T10A

T03A

R01A A02B O02D

A03B

A29B

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

T30A

A10B

A30B

T31A

T13C

A46C

T49A

T50A

A44B

A42B

A45C

A47B

R04D

R12D

R06D

T51A

T52A

O01D

A48B

R07C

T53C

T54C

T55A

T56C

RU

N

W

AY

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

XI

W

AY

B

TA

XI

W

AY

A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

FY 2015

A49B

T46C(2)

T21A(1)

ADEQUATE

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

M. SCHUMAKER

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE

MICHIGAN

MI, SELFRIDGE ANGB EA

SUPERVISOR:

DECEMBER 2012

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DATE:

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT N.T.S.

SCALE:

AIRFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER:

N

A04B

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A R14D

T16A(2) T16A(1)

T17A

R11A

R09C R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13CA14C

T37A

A15C

T40A

A06B

A07B

A12C

T46C(1) T41A

T45B

A16C

T48C

A05B

A01B

T42B R02D

T09C

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

R03A

R05C

T10A

T03A

R01A A02B O02D

A03B

A29B

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

T30A

A10B

A30B

T31A

T13C

A46C

T49A

T50A

A44B

A42B

A45C

A47B

R04D

R12D

R06D

T51A

T52A

O01D

A48B

R07C

T53C

T54C

T55A

T56C

R U

N W

A Y

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

XI

W A

Y B

TA

XI

W A

Y A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

FY 2016

A49B

T46C(2)

T21A(1)

ADEQUATE

AIR NATIONAL GUARD

CIVIL ENGINEERING

TECHNICAL SERVICES CENTER

MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

MICHIGAN AIR NATIONAL GUARD

M. SCHUMAKER

SELFRIDGE ANG BASE

MICHIGAN

MI, SELFRIDGE ANGB EA

SUPERVISOR:

DECEMBER 2012

PAVEMENT EVALUATION

DATE:

ENGINEERING ASSESSMENT N.T.S.

SCALE:

AIRFIELD

DRAWING NUMBER:

N

A04B

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A R14D

T16A(2) T16A(1)

T17A

R11A

R09C R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13CA14C

T37A

A15C

T40A

A06B

A07B

A12C

T46C(1) T41A

T45B

A16C

T48C

A05B

A01B

T42B R02D

T09C

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

R03A

R05C

T10A

T03A

R01A A02B O02D

A03B

A29B

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

T30A

A10B

A30B

T31A

T13C

A46C

T49A

T50A

A44B

A42B

A45C

A47B

R04D

R12D

R06D

T51A

T52A

O01D

A48B

R07C

T53C

T54C

T55A

T56C R

U N

W A

Y

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

XI

W

AY

B

TA

XI

W

AY

A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

PAVEMENT ASSESSMENT

FY 2017

A49B

T46C(2)

T21A(1)

ADEQUATE

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PLAN

A pavement maintenance plan is a method of evaluating pavement condition, predicting future pavement performance and scheduling pavement maintenance operations so that each pavement branch is kept at a selected optimum condition by the most economical means.

In a pavement maintenance plan, pavement branches requiring work can be orga-nized into logical groups for routine maintenance or repair projects. Routine maintenance is work that must be done on a regular basis in order to resist the affects of climatic and environmental factors. Repair projects typically require replacement of some or all of a pavement branch and may become necessary when routine maintenance is neglected, when maintenance cannot be economically justi-fied or when the pavement becomes structurally inadequate for its mission.

As a result of this evaluation, a project is recommended for repair and maintenance (Project Number VGLZ132012). The cost of the project is estimated from Micro- PAVER’s extrapolated distress data shown on the table below. The total cost of the repair and maintenance project is estimated at $5,900,000. The estimate includes 10% for Contingency and an additional 5% for Supervision, Inspection, Overhead and Profit. A copy of the form DD 1391 for this project is included in this report.

ITEM U/M QUANTITY UNIT COST COST ($000)

Repair Seal Coat (ACC) SY 73,462 0.15 11.0 Crack Sealing (ACC) LF 111,032 3.70 410.8 Crack Sealing (PCC) LF 6,707 9.60 64.4 Joint Sealing (Localized) LF 7,860 2.90 22.8 Patch ACC (Deep) SF 11,256 5.30 59.7 Patch PCC (Full Depth) SF 29,418 89.10 2,621.1 Patch PCC (Partial Depth) SF 30,333 37.20 1,128.4 Slab Jacking SF 398 2.40 1.0 Slab Replacement SF 3,645 10.90 39.7 (4,358.9)

Maintenance Joint Sealing (Silicon) LF 197,378 3.70 730.3 (730.3)

1. COMPONENT FY 2013 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

DATA 2. DATE

ANG

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION 4. PROJECT TITLE

SELFRIDGE ANGB

MI ANG, SELFRIDGE, MICHIGAN MAINTAIN AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

5. PROGRAM ELEMENT 6. CATEGORY CODE 7. PROJECT NUMBER 8. PROJECT COST ($000)

52278F 113-321 112-211

111-111 VGLZ132012 5,900

9. COST ESTIMATES

ITEM

U/M

QUANTITY

UNIT

COST

COST

($000)

MAINTAIN RUNWAYS, APRONS AND TAXIWAYS

Concrete Pavement Repair

LS

(3,877.4)

Concrete Pavement Maintenance LS (730.3) Asphalt Concrete Pavement Repair Asphalt Concrete Pavement Repair (Runway Shoulders)

LS

LS

(366.8) (114.7)

Subtotal 5,089.2 Contingency (10%) 508.9 Total Contract Cost 5,598.1 Supervision, Inspection, Overhead & Profit (5%) 279.9 Total Request 5,878.0 Total Request (Rounded)

(5,900.0)

Sustainment Maintenance (840) Sustainment Repair (5,060)

10. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION: Maintain: Seal joints in PCC pavement. Repair:

Seal cracks and joints in PCC and ACC. Patch PCC and ACC (full and partial depth). PCC slab replacement and slab jacking operations. All Runway (including ACC shoulders), Taxiway and Apron Branches are included with the exception of Taxiway G, east of Runway 1/19 which is covered under project number VGLZ 112020.

11. REQUIREMENT:

CATEGORY CODE

113-321 112-211 111-111

REQUIREMENT

599,434 SY

345,297 SY

272,290 SY

ADEQUATE

0 SY

2,294 SY

0 SY

SUBSTANDARD

599,434 SY

343,003 SY

272,290 SY

PROJECT: Maintain Airfield Runway, Taxiway and Apron Pavements (Current Mission)

REQUIREMENT: The 127th Wing Group requires structurally sound pavement to support opera-tions of its KC-135 and A-10 aircraft.

CURRENT SITUATION: Corner and joint spalls, cracks and damaged joint sealant are a source of FOD potential. Water can enter the pavement structure through open cracks or joints and cause additional damage. The PCI ratings for the airfield pavements range from 14 to 100.

IMPACT IF NOT PROVIDED: The cost of pavement maintenance will increase as water continues to enter and damage the pavement base.

ADDITIONAL: This project has been generated as a result of a July 2012 airfield pavement condition survey of the MI ANG’s airfield pavement at Selfridge ANGB, Selfridge, Michigan by the NGB/A7OC Pavement Maintenance Management Team.

FY 2013 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

8. PROJECT COST ($000)5. PROGRAM ELEMENT

3. INSTALLATION AND LOCATION

2. DATE1. COMPONENT

INCLUDED IN THIS PROJECT

ANG

ANG

MI ANG, SELFRIDGE, MICHIGAN

6. CATEGORY CODE 7. PROJECT NUMBER

4. PROJECT TITLE

SELFRIDGE ANGB MAINTAIN AIRFIELD PAVEMENTS

52278F 113-321 / 112-211 VGLZ 132012 5,900

N

A04B

T21A(2)

T36A

T19A

T12A

T25A(2)

T47A

R13A R14D

T16A(2) T16A(1)

T17A

R11A

R09C R10D

T08C

T25A(1)

A13CA14C

T37A

A15C

T40A

A06B

A07B

A12C

T46C(1) T41A

T45B

A16C

T48C

A05B

A01B

T42B R02D

T09C

R08D

T32C

T44B

T43B

R03A

R05C

T10A

T03A

R01A A02B O02D

A03B

A29B

T27A

A08B

A09B

T29A

T30A

A10B

A30B

T31A

T15C

A46C

T49A

T50A

A44B

A42B

A45C

A47B

R04D

R12D

R06D

T51A

T52A

O01D

A48B

R07C

T53C

T54C

T55A

T56C

R U

N W

A Y

/1

TAXIWAY G

TA

X

IW

A

Y B

TA

X

IW

A

Y A

TAXIW

AY A

TWY K

TWY J

TWY H

TW

Y

F

TWY M

TWY L

A49B

T46C(2)

T21A(1)

111-111

STREETS AND ROADS

A cursory pavement evaluation was performed on the streets and parking lots maintained by the MI ANG at Selfridge ANGB, Selfridge, MI. Some of the paving will require some repairs and/or maintenance to help extend the service life.

Parking areas and roadways with open cracks or previously sealed cracks that have opened or deteriorated should be sealed to prevent water infiltration and further damage to the asphalt.

Pavement surfaces in parking areas and roadways showing signs of oxidation should receive a surface treatment. The application of a seal coat or fog seal would greatly extend the service life of the asphalt and prevent further deterioration.

PAVEMENT DATA AND HISTORY

FACILITY OVERLAY

PAVEMENT PAVEMENT

Branch Branch Area (SF) PCI Slab Size

(FT)

Thick.

(IN) Type Cons.

Date Thick.

(IN) Type Cons.

Date

East Parking Aprons and Access Taxiways A04B Parking Apron 1,034,312 88 18 x 18 11 PCC 1983 A08B Transient Apron 297,840 83 15 x 15 6 PCC 1983 10 PCC 1959 A09B Transient Apron 160,658 93 20 x 20 Unk PCC 2002 A10B Parking Apron 872,620 75 18 x 18 11 PCC 1986 A29B Transient Apron 214,200 75 20 x 20 12 PCC 1991 A30B Transient Apron 58,926 86 18 x 18 12 PCC 1998 A42B Parking Apron 55,577 91 20 x 20 6 PCC 2002 T27A West End 127,740 93 18 x 18 12 PCC 1983 T29A Center 45,900 78 15 x 15 6 PCC 1983 10 PCC 1943 T30A East End 85,590 59 18 x 18 12 PCC 1985

West Parking Aprons and Access Taxiways A05B Parking Apron 544,500 81 15 x 12.5 12 PCC 1986 A07B Parking Apron 665,550 91 20 x 20 11 PCC 1989 T40A North Access 29,640 48 2 ACC 1998 21 PCC 1959 T41A South Access 29,610 66 20 x 20 13 PCC 1989 T42B North End 40,000 26 25 x 23 21 PCC 1959 T43B North End 148,500 71 15 x 12.5 16 PCC 1986 T44B Center 34,700 63 25 x 25 21 PCC 1959 T45B South End 98,200 74 20 x 20 13 PCC 1989 T50A North Access 7,500 49 3.5 ACC 1998 21 PCC 1959

Branch Branch Area (SF) PCI Slab Size

(FT)

Thick.

(IN) Type Cons.

Date Thick.

Hangar / Facilities Aprons A11C-1 Hangar Apron 12,606 38 20 x 25 17 PCC 1959 A11C-8 Hangar Apron 9,914 28 20 x 25 17 PCC 1959 A13C Hush House Apron (New) 33,525 74 20 x 20 9 PCC 1991 A14C Hush House Apron (Old) 11,020 54 20 x 10 10 PCC 1994 A15C Corrosion Control Apron 25,620 67 15 x 12 11 PCC 1991 A16C Hangar Apron 35,990 77 15 x 20 10 PCC 1078 A44B Coast Guard Hangar Apron 63,336 51 25 x 20 8 PCC 1941 A45C Hangar Apron 9,500 47 16 x 12.5 11 PCC 1941 A46C Hangar Apron 9,432 79 20 x 20 Unk PCC 1986 A48B Hangar Apron 111,780 86 14 x 10.5 8 PCC 2004

Arm-Dearm Aprons / Hot Cargo Pad A02B North Arm-Dearm Apron 167,200 75 20 x 20 12 PCC 1991 A47B Hot Cargo Pad 83,250 40 2 ACC 1990 9 PCC Unk A49B South Arm-Dearm Apron 47,700 100 20 x 20 12.75 PCC 2011

Hangar / Facilities Access Taxiways T13C Hush House Access 53,020 37 4.5 ACC 2001 12.5 PCC 1991 T46C-1 Hangar Access 95,625 14 25 x 20 17 PCC 1959 T46C-2 Hangar Access 64,628 100 3.5 ACC 2010 17 PCC 1959 T48C Hangar Access 64,335 59 5 ACC 1978 T49A Coast Guard Hangar Access 76,875 45 3.5 ACC 1998 16 PCC 1959

Branch Branch Area (SF) PCI Slab Size

(FT)

Thick.

(IN) Type Cons.

Date Thick.

Taxiway A T10A North End 204,525 64 Unk ACC 1994 3 ACC 1951 T12A South End - East Side 377,880 62 6 ACC 1994 10 ACC Unk T31A South End - West Side 56,205 48 4 ACC 1994 12 PCC Unk T55A North End - At Runway 1/19 20,185 53 7 ACC 2001

Taxiway B T01A-1 Center – South End 187,217 49 2 ACC 1998 21 PCC 1958 T01A-2 Center – North End 141,950 41 2 ACC 1998 21 PCC 1958 T02A-1 Shoulders – South End 226,250 59 2 ACC 1998 20 PCC 1958 T02A-2 Shoulders – North End 92,500 53 2 ACC 1998 20 PCC 1958

Taxiway F T19A Taxiway F (South End) 15,000 50 25 x 20 12 PCC 1984 T21A-1 Taxiway F (Center - East Side) 2,625 23 25 x 17.5 13 PCC 1986 T21A-2 Taxiway F (Center - East Side) 26,250 92 4 ACC 2007 13 PCC 1986 T25A-1 Taxiway F (North End) 78,400 49 25 x 20 13 PCC 1980 T25A-2 Taxiway F (South End – West Side) 65,500 87 3.5 ACC 2007 13 PCC 1980 T36A Taxiway F (South End – East Side) 12,200 86 4 ACC 2007 13 PCC 1986 T37A Taxiway F (Center – West Side) 8,500 66 25 x 20 13 PCC 1994

Branch Branch Area (SF) PCI Slab Size

(FT)

Thick.

(IN) Type Cons.

Date Thick.

Taxiway G T16A-1 West End – East of Runway 1/19 89,400 75 20 x 11 12 PCC 1962 T16A-2 West End – East of Runway 1/19 32,250 91 3 ACC 2001 12 PCC 1962 T17A East End – East of Runway 1/19 412,500 41 4 ACC 1993 9 PCC 1943 T47A West End – West of Runway 1/19 105,000 80 20 x 19 14 PCC 1993 7 PCC Unk T51A East End – West of Runway 1/19 39,900 90 7 ACC 2001 13.5 PCC 1993

Taxiway H T08C West End 73,918 45 2 ACC 1998 16 PCC 1959 T54C East End 19,157 63 7 ACC 2001 16 PCC 1959

Taxiway J T09C West End 91,493 43 2 ACC 1998 16 PCC 1959 T53C East End 20,645 77 7 ACC 2001 16 PCC 1959

Taxiway K T03A West End 114,720 70 20 x 20 13 PCC 1991 T52A East End 28,630 90 20 x 20 14 PCC 2002

Taxiway L T32C East End 22,600 56 4 ACC 1994 9 PCC Unk T56C West End 16,968 74 7 ACC 2001

Branch Branch Area (SF) PCI Slab Size

(FT)

Thick.

(IN) Type Cons.

Date Thick.

Runway 1/19 O01D South End 40,000 54 3 ACC 2001 O02D North End 40,000 57 3 ACC 2001 R01A North End 87,420 97 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R02D North End - Shoulders 43,970 96 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R03A North End 106,500 93 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R04D North End - Shoulders 43,500 91 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R05C North End 60,000 94 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R06D North End - Shoulders 60,000 87 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R07C Center 427,500 75 7 ACC 2001 R08D Center - Shoulders 427,500 78 7 ACC 2001 R09C South End 37,500 79 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R10D South End - Shoulders 37,500 87 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R11A South End 126,312 86 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R12D South End - Shoulders 37,500 91 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R13A South End 169,270 88 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001 R14D South End - Shoulders 72,775 85 20 x 18.75 14 PCC 2001

PAVEMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY

The branch designations listed in Column 1 are not necessarily sequential, but may be organized into operational groups. These operational groups are the basis for development of maintenance or repair projects.

Columns 2 and 3 indicate the PCI values obtained from previous NGB/A7OC pave-ment evaluations, while Column 4 indicates the current PCI value. Column 5 indicates the lowest desirable PCI value for the pavement category. While a lower PCI value does not necessarily indicate an unsatisfactory or unserviceable pave-ment, it frequently indicates that some sort of maintenance is required.

Columns 6 and 7 indicate the pavement category and rank, respectively. In order to establish maintenance priorities, the pavement branches are categorized by use and function and ranked according to the pavement’s effect on the flying mission. The priority of a recommended project is normally based on the rank of the most critical branch within the operational group.

Columns 8, 9 and 10 indicate the primary causes of distress in each branch. This information can indicate when repair or reconstruction of a pavement branch may be more cost-effective than maintenance and may be useful for choosing among maintenance activities.

Column 11 is used for remarks.

Feature Pavement Condition Index

(PCI) Category Rank Distress Type

(Percent) Remarks 1999 2004 2012 Threshold Load Climate Other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

East Parking Aprons and Access Taxiways A04B 75 89 88 70 A P 26 0 74 A08B 75 84 83 70 K S 24 25 51 A09B 38 95 93 70 K S 37 0 63 A10B 78 72 75 70 A P 10 29 61 A29B 67 75 75 70 K S 5 45 50 A30B 97 83 86 70 K S 40 0 60 A42B 32 94 91 55 A P 11 0 89 T27A 52 76 93 70 T P 30 0 70 T29A 42 60 78 70 T P 72 0…