SOW Attachment_Sample Final Report.pdf

PAVER Implementation at U.S.

Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center, MD Final Report

June 2013

Distribution authorized to U.S. Government Agencies only. Other requests for this document shall be referred to the U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center.

U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center, MD June 2013 i

Table of Contents

PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................... v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... vi

Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... vi Pavement Condition Index ......................................................................................................... vi Paver Recommended Maintenance and Repair Requirements ................................................. vii

Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1-1

Objective and Scope ................................................................................................................ 1-1 Description of Tasks Performed .............................................................................................. 1-1

Pavement Condition Survey ................................................................................................. 1-1 Implement the PAVER™ Pavement Management System ..................................................... 1-2

Database Creation ............................................................................................................... 1-2 Geographical Information System Update .......................................................................... 1-2 Pavement Deterioration Families ........................................................................................ 1-2 PAVER™ M&R Planning .................................................................................................... 1-2 M&R Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 1-3 Report Creation ................................................................................................................... 1-3

Installation Background Data .................................................................................................. 1-3 Location and History ........................................................................................................... 1-3 Climate Data ........................................................................................................................ 1-4

Chapter 2 : ISR-PCI RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 2-1

ISR-PCI Inspection Introduction ............................................................................................. 2-1 ISR-PCI Inspection Procedure ................................................................................................. 2-1 Pavement Life Cycle ................................................................................................................ 2-2 Pavement Management System Implementation and Products ............................................... 2-3 ISR-PCI Inspection Results ..................................................................................................... 2-3 Branch/Section Condition Summary ....................................................................................... 2-9 Pavement Deterioration Rates ................................................................................................ 2-18 ISR-PCI Prediction Models ................................................................................................... 2-29 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 2-31

Chapter 3 : PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX .................................................................... 3-1

Pavement Condition Index (ISR-PCI) ..................................................................................... 3-1 ISR-PCI Rating Results ........................................................................................................... 3-5

Chapter 4 : MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR BUDGET SCENARIOS .............................. 4-1

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 4-1 Budget Scenario Details ........................................................................................................... 4-1

Deterioration Family Models .............................................................................................. 4-1 Critical ISR-PCI Values ....................................................................................................... 4-1 Pavement M&R Priorities.................................................................................................... 4-2 Maintenance Policies and Unit Costs .................................................................................. 4-3

PAVER™’S M&R Work Plan .............................................................................................. 4-10 ii

Budget Scenario Results ........................................................................................................ 4-11 M&R Budget Recommendations and Projects ...................................................................... 4-13 Summary ................................................................................................................................ 4-16

APPENDIX A : PAVEMENT INVENTORY AND CONDITION INFORMATION ... A-1

APPENDIX B : MAPS.......................................................................................................... B-1 APPENDIX C : PAVER™ REPORTS ............................................................................... C-1 APPENDIX D : REFERENCES .......................................................................................... D-1 APPENDIX E : GLOSSARY ............................................................................................... E-1 APPENDIX F : USING THE ENCLOSED CD/DVD ........................................................ F-1 iii

List of Figures

Figure ES.1 – Pavement Condition Data by Use .......................................................................... vii Figure ES.2 – Budget Scenario Results and Comparison ............................................................ viii

Figure 1.1 – Temperature Data for Washington, DC ................................................................... 1-4 Figure 1.2 – Precipitation Data for Washington, DC ................................................................... 1-4

Figure 2.1 – ISR-PCI Rating Definition ...................................................................................... 2-1 Figure 2.2 – Pavement Life Cycle and M&R Repair Cost Example ........................................... 2-2 Figure 2.3 – Pavement Condition Data by Use ............................................................................ 2-6 Figure 2.4 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for MTRPOOL Pavements ....................................... 2-6 Figure 2.5 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for OTHER Pavements ............................................. 2-6 Figure 2.6 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for PARKING Pavements ........................................ 2-6 Figure 2.7 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for Roadway Pavements ........................................... 2-7 Figure 2.8 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for Storage Pavements .............................................. 2-7 Figure 2.9 – ISR Pavement Condition Data by Surface .............................................................. 2-8 Figure 2.10 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for AAC Pavements ................................................ 2-8 Figure 2.11 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for AC Pavements ................................................... 2-9 Figure 2.12 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for PCC Pavements ................................................. 2-9 Figure 2.13 – FLORAL Overview, Medium Edge Cracking and Alligator Cracking .............. 2-10 Figure 2.14 – GLENMORE Overview and low linear cracking ............................................... 2-10 Figure 2.15 – A0403_01 Section 01 Medium Weathering and Low Patching. ......................... 2-11 Figure 2.16 – A0403_02 Section 01 Medium Weathering. ....................................................... 2-11 Figure 2.17 – A0500_01 Medium Patching and Linear Cracking on the AC Section .............. 2-12 Figure 2.18 – A0601_01A Overview of the PCC Section ......................................................... 2-12 Figure 2.19 – AP205_01 Low Linear Cracking of the PCC Section ......................................... 2-13 Figure 2.20 – D0207_03 Large Patching and Joint Seal Damage on the PCC Section ............. 2-13 Figure 2.21 – D0500_01 Medium Patch .................................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2.22 – MPOOL_2 Medium Alligator Cracking ............................................................. 2-14 Figure 2.23 – P0500_01 High Alligator Cracking ..................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2.24 – PLOG_01 Block cracking ................................................................................... 2-15 Figure 2.25 – PLOG_02 Popouts ............................................................................................... 2-16 Figure 2.26 – S0105_02 Overview ............................................................................................ 2-16 Figure 2.27 – S0500_01 Medium Block Cracking .................................................................... 2-17 Figure 2.28 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for AC Pavements ................................................. 2-18 Figure 2.29 – Prediction model AC-Roadway & Primary pavements ....................................... 2-30 Figure 2.30 – Prediction model AC-Roadway, Secondary & Tertiary pavements .................... 2-30 Figure 2.31 – Prediction model PCC-Roadway-Primary, Secondary &Tertiary pavements .... 2-31

Figure 3.1 – ISR Rating Definition .............................................................................................. 3-1 Figure 3.2 – ISR- PCI Rating Summary at Adelphi Laboratory Center ...................................... 3-5

Figure 4.1 – M&R Prioritization in PAVER™ ........................................................................... 4-2 Figure 4.2 – Budget Scenario Results and Comparison ............................................................ 4-13 iv

List of Tables

Table ES.1 – Pavement Condition Data by Use ............................................................................ vi Table ES.2 – Eliminates M&R Backlog Annual Roadway / Parking Area Repair Budget ......... viii

Table 2.1 – Pavement Condition Data by Use. ............................................................................ 2-5 Table 2.2 – ISR Pavement Condition Data by Surface. ............................................................... 2-8 Table 2.3 – Condition/Deterioration Summary by Section ....................................................... 2-19

Table 3.1 – Section and Branch Area Weighted ISR-PCI ........................................................... 3-2

Table 4.1 – AC Preventive Maintenance Policies ....................................................................... 4-3 Table 4.2 – PCC Preventive Maintenance Policies ..................................................................... 4-4 Table 4.3 – AC Safety Maintenance Policies .............................................................................. 4-5 Table 4.4 – Current PCC Safety Maintenance Policies ............................................................... 4-5 Table 4.5 – Current Major IDIQ Contract Unit Costs ................................................................. 4-6 Table 4.6 – AC Preventive M&R Cost by Conditions ................................................................. 4-8 Table 4.7 – PCC Preventive M&R Cost by Conditions ............................................................... 4-8 Table 4.8 – AC Safety M&R Cost by Conditions ....................................................................... 4-9 Table 4.9 – PCC Safety M&R Cost by Conditions. .................................................................... 4-9 Table 4.10 – AC Major M&R Cost by Conditions .................................................................... 4-10 Table 4.11 – PCC Major M&R Cost by Conditions .................................................................. 4-10 Table 4.12 – Budget Scenario Results and Comparison ............................................................ 4-12 Table 4.13 – 3 year Major M&R Formulated Projects .............................................................. 4-14 v

PREFACE

The contents presented in this report document the findings of a pavement condition survey conducted at U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center, MD. The purpose of this study was to perform a detailed Pavement Condition Index (ISR-PCI) survey and determine the immediate and future maintenance and repair requirements of the roadway and parking pavements maintained by U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center. All data collected was entered into a PAVER™ pavement management system.

Funding for this study was provided by HQ Installation Management Command (HQIMCOM), G4, Public Works Directorate. HQ IMCOM Project Manager is Mr. Ali Achmar, 210-466-0458, ali.a.achmar.civ@mail.mi. The project and Garrison point of contact was Mr. Nate Potter, U.S.

Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center (PWD).

The work was performed by The PERTAN Group / PAVER Team for the USACE Transportation Systems Center (TSC). The Program Manager is Dr. M. Y. Shahin and the Project Manager is Mr. Danny Klima. The field investigation and database update were performed by The PERTAN Group / PAVER Team. This report meets the roadway and parking area pavement condition evaluation standards defined by the publications listed in Appendix D.

The field investigation was conducted in August 2012.

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to implement PAVER™, a pavement management system and to determine the current condition as well as the immediate and future maintenance and repair (M&R) requirements for maintaining the roadway and parking pavements at U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center, MD. This report documents the findings of the roadway and parking pavements condition study and is intended to assist the garrison DPW in developing maintenance and repair plan for the paved infrastructure for the Annual Work Plan.

Pavement Condition Index

The PERTAN Group/PAVER Team, under the direction of the US Army Corps of Engineers, performed a roadway installation status report - pavement condition index (ISR-PCI) survey at Adelphi Laboratory Center in August of 2012. The ISR-PCI survey was performed in accordance with “ASTM D6433-11: Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys.” The PAVER

TM

pavement management system was then used to develop pavement deterioration trends, predict future pavement conditions and develop multi-year M&R plans.

The inventoried area of this study was 1,023,386 SF. Of this area, 976,810 SF of roadway and parking pavements were inspected. Areas not inspected included areas under construction, areas that were not accessible at the time of inspection, and areas that were unpaved. The average ISR-PCI for all pavements inspected was determined to be 77. Map ES.1 depicts the surveyed ISR-PCI condition of the pavement in a three color rating code. The average ISR-PCIs of the inspected pavements are shown in Table ES.1 and Figure ES.1. Both the table and figure display the ISR-PCI values broken down by respective branch uses.

Table ES.1 – Pavement Condition Data by Use

Pavement Branch Use

Pavement Sections

Pavement Sections (%)

Pavement Area (SF)

Pavement Area (%)

Age at Inspection (yrs.)*

ISR‐PCI

MTRPOOL 2 2 45,918 5 13 70

OTHER 17 19 63,322 6 12 82

PARKING 25 28 393,000 40 11 77

ROADWAY 38 43 438,375 45 11 78

STORAGE 7 8 36,195 4 16 69

All Inspected 89 100 976,810 100 12 77

*Area Weighted Average vii

Figure ES.1 – Pavement Condition Data by Use

The majority of the pavements at Adelphi Laboratory Center are in “Green” condition according to the three tier condition category scale used by the Army. “Green” pavements have an ISR- PCI rating between 71 and 100 on a 0-100 scale. The most common distresses found for AC pavements were weathering, alligator cracking, block cracking, patching, edge cracking and longitudinal/transverse cracking. The most common distresses found for PCC pavements were joint seal damage, divided slabs, joint spalling and linear cracking.

Paver Recommended Maintenance and Repair Requirements

PAVER

TM

was used to generate 7 year M&R budget plans for all of the inspected roadway and parking area pavements. The different budget scenarios used:

1. Eliminate major M&R backlog

2. Maintain current ISR-PCI condition

3. Stopgap/safety budget only

The analysis shows that the ideal alternative for the maintenance of the roadway and parking area pavements is the Eliminate Backlog in 7 years scenario. This option does have the highest allocation of funds in the initial 7 years when compared to the other scenarios. However, the overall outcome of this budget option will result in the highest ISR-PCI value and the lowest total cost at the end of the 7 year budget plan.

The Backlog Elimination Budget scenario results in an ISR-PCI increase from 77 in FY13 to 82 in FY19. This budget plan eliminates the M&R backlog by FY17. The average annual spending for first four years is $351K/year. For the three years following FY16 the average annual spending is approximately $79K/year. For the five years following FY19, the annual budget is approximately $137K/year. Table ES.2 summarizes the annual funded budget costs associated with the Backlog Elimination Budget scenario. A project list including all recommended work is presented in Table 4.13 in Chapter 4 of this report.

MTRPOOL OTHER PARKING ROADWAY STORAGE

84 81 81

77 78

PCI

viii

Table ES.2 – Eliminates M&R Backlog Annual Roadway / Parking Area Repair Budget

Elimination Backlog Budget by Fiscal Year

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 5 Years Following

$353 K $354 K $348 K $350 K $181 K $26 K $28 K $137 K

Figure ES.2 – Budget Scenario Results and Comparison

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

PCI

Fiscal Year

$234K/Year, Eliminate Backlog in Seven Years $214K/Year, Maintain Current PCI Stop Gap Budget Only

Condition History

PSOUT_01 (74)

P0103_01 (82)

PKUES_02 (78)

P0103_02 (74)

PEAST_01 (90)

DIAMOND_01 (92)

MPOOL_01 (89)

FLORAL_04 (82)

NORTH_01 (87)

S0105_01 (95)

D0203_01 (91)

P0107_01 (92)

MPOOL_02 (39)

SOUTH_01 (74)

GLENMORE_02 (71)

KUESTER_01 (94)

FLORAL_07 (71)

A0103_01 (87)

AP205_01 (48)

FLORAL_08 (62)

P0404_01 (90)

GLENMORE_01 (81)

GLENMORE_03 (94)

FLORAL_03 (95)

S0406_01 (87)

FLORAL_06 (53)

D0207_01 (84)

A0106_01 (76)

P0203_02 (91)

KUESTER_02 (62)

FLORAL_01 (75)

P0403_01 (74)

PVISI_01 (94)

DGPLA_01 (82)

FLORAL_02 (82)

D0207_02 (79)

GLENMORE_05 (94)

PLOG_01 (55)

D0205_01 (87)

FLORAL_05 (77)

A0403_01 (54)

GLENMORE_04 (83)

A0403_01 (54)

FLORAL_11 (84)P0103_02A (67)

D0207_04 (87)

D0204_01 (85)

P0205_02 (69)

P0205_01 (72)

DGPLA_02 (85)

GLENMORE_06 (72)

P0203_01 (62)

AP403_01 (68)

PSOUT_02 (90)

P0102_01 (88) PLOG_03 (76)

D0203_01A (75)

PLOG_02 (64)

PKUES_01 (93)

P0103_02A (67)

S0105_02 (45)

DR403_01 (63)

ANAVA_01 (77)

D0207_03 (81)

PLOG_03 (76)

PFUEL_01 (100)

PLOG_02 (64)

A0403_02 (55)

¹

Map ES.1: Adelphi

0 300 600 Feet

Not Inventoried/ Not Inspected

3-Color PCI Rating Scale FY2012 Green (71 - 100)

Amber (56 - 70)

Red (0 - 55)

PAVER Implementation

PCI Summary Map (3-Color) By Section Inspection Date: August 2012

Adelphi Laboratory Center Maryland

FLORAL_10 (85)

CHANCE_01 (66)

FLORAL_08 (62)

PCHAN_01 (68)

PCHAN_01 (68)

ACHAN_01 (74)

A0500_01 (64)

DAHLGREN_02A (58)

FLORAL_07 (71)

DAHLGREN_02 (45)

A0500_02 (83)

P0504_01 (88)

S0500_01 (22)

D0500_01 (45)

AURORA_01 (63)

S0504_01 (13)

DR500_02 (69)

A0505_01 (76)

DAHLGREN_03 (59)

P0500_01 (29)

FLORAL_06 (53)

AURORA_02 (82)

DAHLGREN_01 (70)

D0507_01 (93)

FLORAL_09 (84)

A0601_01 (87)

DR500_01 (77)

S0500_01A (53)

A0601_01A (39)

DFUEL_01 (76)

S0500_01B (51) S0500_01C (100)

D0504_01 (100)

¹

Map ES.1: Adelphi

0 300 600 Feet

Not Inventoried/ Not Inspected

3-Color PCI Rating Scale FY2012 Green (71 - 100)

Amber (56 - 70)

Red (0 - 55)

PAVER Implementation

PCI Summary Map (3-Color) By Section Inspection Date: August 2012

Adelphi Laboratory Center Maryland

1-1

CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION

Objective and Scope

The objective of this study is to determine the current condition as well as the immediate and future maintenance and repair (M&R) requirements for the maintained roadway pavements at U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center, MD. The roadway pavement survey was performed in August of 2012. The total inventoried area of roadway pavements was 1,023,386 SF. Of this area, 976,810 SF of roadway and parking pavements were inspected. This study included the following major tasks:

Perform a Pavement Condition Index (ISR-PCI) inspection and enter collected ISR-PCI distress data into the created PAVER

TM

database.

Implement the PAVER™ pavement management system; subtasks included:

o Create the roadway physical pavement information in the PAVERTM database.

o Enter the data collected from the pavement condition survey and determine the average ISR-PCI values for all surveyed pavement sections. (Note: Herein, average means area-weighted average unless otherwise specified).

o Create the Geographic Information System (GIS) map of the roadway pavements and link the map to the PAVER

TM

database.

o Develop pavement deterioration family curves.

o Develop seven-year M&R plans for the roadway area pavements considering various budget scenarios.

o Provide engineering M&R recommendations.

Assimilate all findings into a report for the Adelphi Laboratory Center. Department of Public Works.

Description of Tasks Performed

Pavement Condition Survey

A pavement condition survey is a standard procedure that documents the quantity and severity of pavement distresses existing in a sample area of pavement. Once this data has been collected for a section of pavement, an ISR-PCI value can be determined. The ISR-PCI scale is based on values ranging from 0 to 100, where 0 is a failed pavement and 100 is a perfect, newly constructed pavement. The ISR-PCI value is used to objectively quantify a pavement’s condition. This ISR-PCI survey was conducted manually in accordance with, “ASTM D6433- 11: Standard Practice for Roadway and Parking Lot Pavement Condition Index Surveys.”

Appendices A, B and C present the detailed results of the ISR-PCI survey. In addition to performing the survey, GPS photographs were taken to document the general overall condition of the pavement as well as the location of common distresses found.

1-2

Implement the PAVER™ Pavement Management System

Database Creation

Adelphi Laboratory Center had an existing PAVERTM database that contained information from previous inspections. The physical inventory was created using the knowledge of the DPW civil engineer, as well as the field investigation. This data included:

1. New branch and section level definition

2. New construction history information

3. Real property information entry

4. Updating section area information from Geospatial data

After the physical inventory data was updated, the associated survey data was entered.

PAVER™ was then used to calculate the ISR-PCI value.

Geographical Information System Update

The GIS shapefile was updated using a georeferenced shapefile obtained from the GIS Department at Adelphi Laboratory Center. The shapefile was then linked to the PAVERTM database. The linked PAVER

TM

shapefile is provided in the enclosed CD / DVD, the contents of which are described in Appendix F.

Pavement Deterioration Families

Pavement deterioration families are created to model a pavement’s regression over time. In this process, pavement sections that have similar functional use, surface type and rank are grouped together. Using the groupings, individual pavement section ISR-PCI values and construction information, a regression analysis is used to produce family deterioration curves. These family curves are used to predict a pavement’s future condition, which is an essential component of M&R planning.

PAVER™ M&R Planning

PAVER

TM

’s M&R work planning economically identifies when and where M&R is required and how much it will cost. M&R plans can be developed either by assuming an annual budget or by identifying the desired pavement condition. The following budget scenarios were considered:

Cost to eliminate M&R backlog in seven years.

Cost to maintain the current area weighted average ISR-PCI for seven years.

Projected ISR-PCI if only safety M&R issues are addressed over a seven year period.

1-3

M&R Recommendations

Chapter 2 presents the branch level conditions for all primary ranked branches as well as areas with high deterioration rates. These branch level conditions are presented with photos and a discussion of the primary distresses present, overall usage of the pavement and general observations of the pavement performance. Section level M&R recommendations highlight the need and quantity of localized or major repair in Chapter 4. M&R recommendations presented are based on the PAVERTM output and engineering judgment.

Report Creation

Draft Reports will be distributed to relay the findings to Mr. Nate Potter, U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center (PWD). After incorporating any comments produced by the review of the draft report, final reports will be distributed accordingly.

Installation Background Data

Location and History

October 1992, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) was activated, growing out of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, the LAB 21 study, and other evaluations. The new lab consolidated the seven corporate labs of the Laboratory Command (LABCOM) with other Army research elements to form a centralized laboratory concentrating on scientific research, technology development, and analysis.

For more than 50 years, in laboratories belonging to the Army Materiel Command (AMC) and their antecedents in the Technical Corps, civilians have conducted the great majority of the Army's basic science programs, whether as in-house scientists and engineers or as contractors in private industry and academia. Among their many successes, these civilians helped develop the proximity fuze; worked to develop ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer), the first operational, general purpose and electronic digital computer; grew some of the first synthetic large quartz crystals; and developed the titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V. Currently, U.S.

Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center scientists and engineers are pioneering research in such areas as neuroergonomics, energetic materials and propulsion, individual war fighter protection, energy science, electronics technologies, network sciences, virtual interfaces and synthetic environments and autonomous systems.

National defense is one of the most critical duties performed by the federal government for the American people. Cutting-edge technology research and development offer incredible potential to improve the Army's chances of surviving and winning any future conflicts. U.S. Army Garrison, Adelphi Laboratory Center, as the Army's corporate or central laboratory for combat materiel, will play a constructive, key role in the national defense as it executes its strategies to take full advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead.

The history was from http://www.arl.army.mil/ web site.

1-4

Climate Data

Figure 1.1 – Temperature Data for Washington, DC

The annual average high temperature is 66.8 °F. The annual average low temperature is 49.7 °F and the average temperature is 58 °F (see Figure 1.1).

Figure 1.2 – Precipitation Data for Washington, DC

The probability that precipitation will be observed at this location is likely throughout the year.

The average annual precipitation is 3.3 inches (see Figure 1.2).

Month Average High

Average Low

January 43º F 29º F

February 47º F 31º F

March 56º F 38º F

April 67º F 47º F

May 75º F 56º F

June 84º F 66º F

July 89º F 71º F

August 87º F 70º F

September 80º F 63º F

October 68º F 51º F

November 58º F 41º F

December 47º F 33º F

Month Average

January 2.81 in.

February 2.71 in.

March 3.48 in.

April 3.06 in.

May 3.99 in.

June 3.78 in.

July 3.73 in.

August 2.93 in.

September 3.72 in.

October 3.40 in.

November 3.17 in.

December 3.05 in.

2-1

CHAPTER 2 : ISR-PCI RESULTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ISR-PCI Inspection Introduction

The Adelphi Laboratory Center PCI inspection was performed in August of 2012. The PCI inspection was performed in accordance with “ASTM D6433-11: Standard Practice for Roads and Parking Lots Pavement Condition Index Surveys.” This report represents the findings of the roadway pavement evaluation at Adelphi Laboratory Center.

ISR-PCI Inspection Procedure

The PCI procedure was developed to help engineers and managers quantify a pavement’s condition consistently and objectively. The PCI inspection procedure for roadways and parking is described in ASTM D6433-11.

A pavement network is broken down into smaller areas to be managed effectively. As described in the ASTM standards, a pavement network is broken into branches and within those branches, sections. Sections are then divided into sample units. Sample unit areas for roadway area pavements are 2500 ft2 ± 1000 ft2 for AC pavements and 20 slabs ± 8 slabs for PCC pavements.

Visual pavement distress type, quantity and severity are recorded at the sample unit level. These three factors go into the calculation of the ISR-PCI for each sample unit. Inspecting all sample units within a section would over expend resources and add a considerable cost to the project. A project level inspection was done for the roadway pavements at Adelphi Laboratory Center. A project level inspection surveys to a 95% ISR-PCI confidence interval of ± 5 ISR-PCI points per sample unit within a pavement section.

The ISR-PCI is a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is a failed pavement and 100 is a perfect, newly constructed pavement. The ISR-PCI scale can be further defined into condition categories, where pavements with similar ISR-PCI values can be grouped together and analyzed more effectively. The Army prefers a three tiered condition category scale. Each category within this scale provides a general idea of maintenance requirement needs. Figure 2.1 displays the U.S.

Army preferred three tier category rating scale.

ISR‐PCI ISR‐PCI Category Rating

71 ‐ 100 Green

56 ‐ 70 Amber

0 ‐ 55 Red

Figure 2.1 – ISR-PCI Rating Definition

2-2

Pavement Life Cycle

A pavement’s life cycle is the relationship between its condition and age. A newly constructed pavement is considered in perfect condition, but as it gets older factors such as use, applied load and climate cause its condition value to decrease. The deterioration rate of condition vs. age is not always linear. A properly designed pavement will usually have a slow deterioration rate during the first part of its life. At some condition value and age, the pavement’s deterioration rate will increase rapidly. The condition value at this point in a pavement’s life is called the critical condition. Also associated with condition is a cost to repair. A pavement with a good to fair overall condition will not need as many M&R dollars to repair as a pavement with a very poor condition. Finding a pavement’s critical condition and performing M&R before it reaches its critical condition is the key to saving M&R dollars. Figure 2.2 shows a pavement’s typical life cycle as related to M&R cost to repair.

Figure 2.2 – Pavement Life Cycle and M&R Repair Cost Example

Modeling the deterioration of a single pavement’s life cycle is difficult unless there are many conditions vs. age data points available. Pavements with similar characteristics like use, surface and traffic patterns usually follow the same deterioration life cycle pattern.

For Adelphi Laboratory Center, the pavements with similar life cycle characteristics were grouped together. Prediction models were developed using these pavement groups. These family models are critical in the prediction of a pavement’s future condition, which is an essential component of M&R planning.

2-3

Pavement Management System Implementation and Products

The DPW Civil Engineer is normally responsible for the tasks of planning, programming, budgeting, and executing Garrison infrastructure M&R activities. Shrinking budgets and re-organizations have resulted in a predominantly “reactive” style of M&R management. Projects are frequently developed and funded in response to either impending or critical failure and/or customer complaints. Reactive M&R management is both inconvenient and costly. The poor condition of an installation’s facilities and infrastructure resulting from such an approach ultimately affects both mission readiness and the quality of life for the personnel.

“Proactive” management – unlike reactive management – determines what maintenance should be planned, when it should be programmed and what the consequences will be if the maintenance is not completed. A proactive approach uses a long-term, life-cycle perspective and takes advantage of sound, engineering-based procedures. With today’s smaller multitasking engineering staff, a pavement management system is a useful software tool that enables a proactive approach to this complex calculation and data laden environment.

The pavement management system PAVER™ was implemented to aid the engineers at Adelphi Laboratory Center.

During the pavement management implementation, PAVER™ was used to:

1. Develop, organize and summarize the pavement inventory (Detailed in Appendix A).

2. Assess the current condition of pavements (Detailed in Appendix A and C)

3. Include a GIS map representation (Detailed in Appendix B included in the final CD/DVD only).

4. Develop prediction models to predict conditions and report on past and future pavement performance (Detailed in Chapter 2).

5. Develop scenarios for M&R based on budget or condition requirements (Detailed in

Chapter 4).

ISR-PCI Inspection Results

The 2012 ISR-PCI of the inspected pavements at Adelphi Laboratory Center was 77. A total of 976,810 SF (89 sections) were inspected, which accounts for 95% of the total inventoried area and 95% of the roadway and parking pavements. This portion of the report summarizes the ISR- PCI data found. Detailed inventory condition information may be found in the following three appendixes:

Appendix A contains summary tables and figures showing inventory and condition data.

Appendix B contains summary maps that show inventory identification, information and associated ISR-PCI data.

Appendix C contains tables detailing branch and section level condition reports, inspection reports and section level extrapolated distress values.

2-4

The majority of the roadway and parking pavement sections at Adelphi Laboratory Center are in “Green” condition according to the three tier condition category scale used by the U.S. Army.

“Green” pavements have an ISR-PCI rating between 71 and 100 on a 0-100 scale. The most common distresses found were: alligator cracking, block cracking, patching, edge cracking, longitudinal cracking and weathering for asphalt pavements and joint seal damage, linear cracking and divided slabs for PCC pavements. The following tables and figures further summarize and break down the results found during the roadway and parking condition survey.

2-5

Table 2.1 – Pavement Condition Data by Use.

Pavement Condition Data by Use

Branch Use

Pavement Sections

Pavement Sections (%)

Pavement Area (SF)

Pavement Area (%)

Age at Inspection (yrs.)*

ISR‐PCI *

MTRPOOL 2 2 45,918 5 13 70

OTHER 17 19 63,322 6 12 82

PARKING 25 28 393,000 40 11 77

ROADWAY 38 43 438,375 45 11 78

STORAGE 7 8 36,195 4 16 69

All Inspected 89 100 976,810 100 11 77

*Area Weighted Average

Pavement Inventory Summary

Pavement Inventory

Pavement Sections

Pavement Sections (%)

Pavement Area (SF)

Pavement Area (%)

Age at Inspection (yrs)*

ISR‐PCI*

Inspected Roadway and Parking

89 96 976,810 95 11 77

Not Inspected Roadways and

Parking 4 4 46,576 5 N/A N/A

All Inventoried 93 100 1,023,386 100 N/A N/A

2-6

Figure 2.3 – Pavement Condition Data by Use

Figure 2.4 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for MTRPOOL Pavements

Figure 2.5 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for OTHER Pavements

Figure 2.6 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for PARKING Pavements

MTRPOOL OTHER PARKING ROADWAY STORAGE

77 78

PCI

39%

61%

Red

Amber

Green

8%

8%

84%

Red

Amber

Green

2% 12%

86%

Red

Amber

Green

2-7

Figure 2.7 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for Roadway Pavements

Figure 2.8 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for Storage Pavements

Sixty-two percent (62%) of the inspected pavement area was Asphalt Concrete (AC), thirty-two percent (32%) was asphalt over asphalt (AAC) and six percent (6%) was Portland Cement Concrete (PCC). The AC, AAC and PCC pavements have an ISR-PCI value of 78, 76, and 70, respectively. Table 2.2 breaks down the ISR-PCI values by the surface type category. Figure

2.9 summarizes the ISR-PCI values by surface type. Figures 2.10 through 2.12 break down the surface condition values by percent area.

6%

18%

76%

Red

Amber

Green

36%

64%

Red

2-8

Table 2.2 – ISR Pavement Condition Data by Surface.

Surface

Pavement Sections

Pavement Sections

Pavement Area (SF)

Pavement Area (%)

Age at Inspection (yrs.)

ISR‐PCI

AAC 13 15 308,642 32 8 76

AC 58 65 608,516 62 12 78

PCC 18 20 59,652 6 18 70

All Inspected 89 100 976,810 100 12 77

*Area Weighted Average

Figure 2.9 – ISR Pavement Condition Data by Surface

Figure 2.10 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for AAC Pavements

AAC AC PCC

76 78

PCI

12%

88%

Red

2-9

Figure 2.11 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for AC Pavements

Figure 2.12 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for PCC Pavements

Branch/Section Condition Summary

The Branch/Section Condition Summary shows the current conditions by branch and section. A representative photo or photos from each branch containing a primary section and each section with a high rate of deterioration or low ISR-PCI has been provided along with a description of the branch/section, common distresses and any other significant findings.

8%

15%

77%

Red

Amber

Green

32%

6% 62%

Red

2-10

Branch: FLORAL (Roadway)

Figure 2.13 – FLORAL Overview, Medium Edge Cracking and Alligator Cracking

Branch FLORAL serves as a primary roadway. FLORAL had both AAC sections and AC sections and the overall branch ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 78. The common distresses found on the primary AC sections were low alligator cracking, low block cracking, low edge cracking, medium lane/shoulder drop-off, low linear cracking, and low patching.

Branch: GLENMORE (Roadway)

Figure 2.14 – GLENMORE Overview and low linear cracking

Branch GLENMORE serves as a primary roadway. The overall branch ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 81. The common distresses found on the primary AC sections were low alligator cracking, low block cracking, low edge cracking, low linear cracking, and low patching

2-11

Branch: A0403_01 (Roadway)

Figure 2.15 – A0403_01 Section 01 Medium Weathering and Low Patching.

Branch A0403 Section 01 serves as access for Building 403. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 54. The common distresses found on these AC section were low alligator cracking, low patching, high potholes, and medium weathering.

Branch: A0403_02 (Roadway)

Figure 2.16 – A0403_02 Section 01 Medium Weathering.

Branch A0403 Section 02 serves as access for Building 403. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 55. The common distresses found on the PCC section were low linear cracking, large patching, pop outs, and low corner spalling.

2-12

Branch: A0500_01 (Roadway)

Figure 2.17 – A0500_01 Medium Patching and Linear Cracking on the AC Section

Branch A0500 Section 01 serves as a secondary roadway. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 64. The common distresses found on the AC section were low to medium linear cracking, medium weathering, high pothole and medium patching.

Branch: A0601_01A(Roadway)

Figure 2.18 – A0601_01A Overview of the PCC Section

Branch A0601_01A serves as access for Building 601. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 39. The common distresses found on the PCC section were medium divided slab, low faulting, low joint seal damage, and low linear cracking.

2-13

Branch: AP205_01(Roadway)

Figure 2.19 – AP205_01 Low Linear Cracking of the PCC Section

Branch AP205 Section 01 serves as access and parking for Building 205. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 48. The common distresses found on the PCC section were low to medium linear cracking, low to medium corner break, low to medium divided slab, low small patching, low to high scaling, medium joint seal and low to medium joint spalling.

Branch: D0207_03 (Other)

Figure 2.20 – D0207_03 Large Patching and Joint Seal Damage on the PCC Section

Branch D0207 Section 03 serves as loading dock for Building 207. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 81. The common distresses found on the PCC section were high joint seal damage, low linear cracking, low large patching, low corner spalling, and low joint spalling.

2-14

Branch: D0500_01 (Other)

Figure 2.21 – D0500_01 Medium Patch

Branch D0500 Section 01 serves as loading dock for Building 204. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 45. The common distresses found on the AC section were medium to high alligator cracking, low to medium patching and medium weathering.

Branch: MPOOL_2 (Mtr. Pool)

Figure 2.22 – MPOOL_2 Medium Alligator Cracking

Branch MPOOL Section 02 serves as parking lot for the motor pool. The overall section ISR- PCI at the time of inspection was 39. The common distresses found on the AC section were medium alligator cracking and low linear cracking.

2-15

Branch: P0500_01 (Parking)

Figure 2.23 – P0500_01 High Alligator Cracking

Branch P0500 Section 01 serves as a parking lot for Building 500. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 29. The common distresses found on the AC section were high block cracking, high alligator cracking, medium to high patching, medium linear cracking and high weathering.

Branch: PLOG_01 (Parking)

Figure 2.24 – PLOG_01 Block cracking

Branch PLOG Section 01 serves as a parking lot for Building 107. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 55. The common distresses found on the AC section were low weathering and medium block cracking.

2-16

Branch: PLOG_02 (Parking)

Figure 2.25 – PLOG_02 Popouts

Branch PLOG Section 02 serves as a parking lot for Building 107. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 64. The common distresses found on the PCC section were low divided slab, medium joint seal damage, low linear cracking, low small patching, and polished aggregate.

Branch: S0105_02 (Parking)

Figure 2.26 – S0105_02 Overview

Branch S0105 Section 02 serves as a parking lot for Building 105. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 45. The common distresses found on the PCC section were high joint seal damage, low linear cracking, polished aggregate, high scaling, and shrinkage cracking.

2-17

Branch: S0500_01 (Storage)

Figure 2.27 – S0500_01 Medium Block Cracking

Branch S0500 Section 01 serves as storage for Building 500. The overall section ISR-PCI at the time of inspection was 22. The common distresses found on the AC section were medium raveling, high block cracking and medium depression.

2-18

Pavement Deterioration Rates

Pavement deterioration rates were analyzed for each section using last construction dates to determine age at inspection as well as current ISR-PCI information. The deterioration rate for AC pavement is considered high if the rate is 3.0 or higher. For PCC the deterioration rate of 1.3 or higher is considered high. These rates can provide information on which sections may be deteriorating at an unusually high rate, which highlights sections that may need to be evaluated further to determine a cause for the rapid condition drop.

Some pavement sections for Adelphi Laboratory Center lacked a previous construction date due to limited construction history. Therefore, last construction dates (LCD) were back-calculated assuming a deterioration rate of 2.0 ISR-PCI points per year for roadway and parking AC pavements and 1.20 points per year for roadway PCC pavements. These rates were set based on experience and known deterioration rates at surrounding installations. The back-calculation started from the first inspection following the section’s uncertain LCD, refer to Figure 2.28. For example, a section with an ISR-PCI of 89 in 2008 would have a back-calculated LCD of 2005, assuming a deterioration rate of 2.75 ISR-PCI points/year. The LCD tolerance is used to discard a calculated date if it is less than a specified time interval after the existing estimated construction date. The assumed deterioration rates used in determining LCDs were also used in predicting future pavement conditions. For further explanation of this process, please refer to the PAVER™ user manual, provided in the PAVER™ software in this report.

Figure 2.28 – ISR-PCI Rating Distribution for AC Pavements

Table 2.3 shows deterioration rates from the 2008 and 2012 surveys. Deterioration Comparison Rates between the 2008 survey and the 2012 survey data are included in the table. If the deterioration rates between 2008 and 2012 have decreased it’s shown by a negative comparison deterioration rate. In the seven year gap between surveys the increase in pavement condition may be caused by site improvements that are stop-gap in nature without any documentation and are described below as “Survival Phenomenon”. Sections with a comparison rate of -1.00 or less

2-19 are highlighted in a light blue color. The AC 2012 deterioration rate sections having a deterioration rate of 3.00 or greater and the PCC 2012 deterioration rate sections having a deterioration rate of 2.00 or greater are highlighted in orange. The sections shown in red lettering are sections from the 2008 survey that were not included in the 2012 survey. The red lettering also indicates the 2008 name that was changed in the 2012 survey. N/A indicates does not apply, N/I indicates not inspected in the 2012 survey and UC indicates under construction at the time of the 2012 survey.

Table 2.3 – Condition/Deterioration Summary by Section

Sections with a comparison rate of -1.00 or less

2012 AC sections having a deterioration rate of 3.00 or greater and 2012 PCC sections having a deterioration rate of 2.00 or greater

Branch

ID

Section

ID

Last Construction

Date

Branch Use

SURFACE

PCI

Det.

Rate

PCI

Det.

Rate

Det. Rate Between 2008 and Survey

Deterioration Rate

Comments

A0103 1 11/22/2006 ROADWAY AC 96 2.31 87 2.27 2.25

A0106 1 6/1/1997 ROADWAY AC 63 3.30 76 1.58 ‐3.25

Increase in PCI due to localized maintenance or variability in sample units surveyed in the field between 2008 and 2012 ‐

*SURVIVAL

PHENOMENON

A0403 1 6/1/1983 ROADWAY AC 27 2.89 54 1.57 ‐6.75

Increase in PCI due to localized maintenance or variability in sample units surveyed in the field between 2008 and 2012 ‐

*SURVIVAL

PHENOMENON

*“Survival Phenomenon” is ISR-PCI stabilization or an ISR-PCI increase by performing considerable localized maintenance.

2-20

Table 2.3 – Condition/Deterioration Summary by Section - Continued

Section

ID

Last Construction

Date

Branch Use

SURFACE

PCI

Det.

Rate

PCI

Det.

Rate

Det. Rate Between 2008 and Survey

Deterioration Rate Comments

A0403 2 1/29/1996 ROADWAY PCC 61 3.11 55 2.72 1.50

High deterioration rate due to low linear cracking, large patching, pop outs, and low corner spalling.

A0500 1 10/26/2001 ROADWAY AC 81 2.79 64 3.33 4.25

High deterioration rate due to increase in low patching, low to medium linear cracking, medium weathering, high pothole and medium patching

A0500 2 5/6/2000 ROADWAY AC 78 2.65 83 1.38 ‐1.25

Increase in PCI due to localized maintenance or variability in sample units surveyed in the field between 2008 and 2012 ‐

*SURVIVAL

PHENOMENON

A0505 A0505‐02

1 8/13/1992 ROADWAY PCC 77 2.83 76 1.20 0.25

A0505 2 6/1/1975 ROADWAY PCC 73 0.81 N/A N/A

A0601 1 4/28/2003 ROADWAY AC 73 0.81 87 1.39 ‐3.50

Increase in PCI due to localized maintenance or variability in sample units surveyed in the field between 2008 and 2012 ‐

*SURVIVAL

PHENOMENON

2-21

Section

ID

Last Construction

Date

Branch Use

SURFACE

PCI

Det.

Rate

PCI

Det.

Rate

Det. Rate Between 2008 and Survey

Deterioration Rate Comments

A0601 01A 5/24/1971 ROADWAY PCC 39 1.48 ‐9.75

Increase in PCI due to localized maintenance or variability in sample units surveyed in the field between 2008 and 2012 ‐

*SURVIVAL

PHENOMENON

ACHAN 1 11/15/2000 ROADWAY AC 79 2.70 74 2.21 1.25

ANAVA 1 4/18/2003 ROADWAY AC 100 0.00 77 2.46 5.75

AP205 1 4/18/1999 ROADWAY PCC 72 2.99 48 3.89 6.00

High deterioration rate due to increase in low to medium linear cracking, low to medium corner break, low to medium divided slab, low small patching , low to high scaling, medium joint seal and low to medium joint spalling

AP403 1 12/19/1993 ROADWAY AC 62 2.59 68 1.71 ‐1.50

Increase in PCI due to localized maintenance or variability in sample units surveyed in the field between 2008 and 2012 ‐

*SURVIVAL

PHENOMENON

AURORA

A0505‐01

1 7/11/2000 ROADWAY AC 77 2.83 63 3.05 3.50

High deterioration rate due to increase in low to medium patching, low to medium linear cracking, low to medium patching and medium weathering

2-22

Section

ID

Last Construction

Date

Branch Use

SURFACE

PCI

Det.

Rate

PCI

Det.

Rate

Det. Rate Between 2008 and Survey

Deterioration Rate Comments

AURORA

A0505‐01

2 11/13/2002 ROADWAY AC 77 2.83 82 1.84 ‐1.25

Increase in PCI due to localized maintenance or variability in sample units surveyed in the field between 2008 and…