Eight-Year Review of the Full

Depth Reclamation Process in the

City of Edmonton
Hugh Donovan, P.Eng.
Transportation Department

C-TEP/APWA Western Canada

Pavement Workshop
February 2-3, 2010
 Presentation Outline
 Introduction;
 Budget Information/Market Issues;
 In-Place Recycling – Why we do it;
 Roadway Evaluation Techniques;
 FDR Volumes and Performance of the
roads;
 FDR Materials Characterization;
 Questions
City of Edmonton
 General Road Structures in Edmonton
Granular/
Deep Strength Composite
Soil Cement
Asphalt Pavement
(63% of Network)
or ( 27% of Network)
Oil Mix
( 10% of Network) 50 - 250mm
100-150 mm
Hot Mix
Hot Mix
Asphalt
Asphalt

200-300mm
Hot Mix 150 - 300mm
Asphalt Granular Base 150-200mm
or or Portland
Oil Mix Soil Cement Cement
Base Concrete
 City of Edmonton Roadway
2007-2011 Construction Budget
2007 - 2011 CPP Funded Projects
175
Dollars (X 000,000)

150
125
100
75
50
25
0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year

Growth Art/Collector Rehabilitation Neighbourhood Rehabilitation (FDR)

 1978
1978 - 2026 Cumulative Aggregate Usage - Predicted
• 95 Million tonnes of Aggregate both Sand and Gravel
had actually been confirmed in 1978
1000
Tonnes (Million's)

900
2009
2009
800
700
600
•500By the end of the 2009 construction season it has
been estimated that we had used an additional 505
400
Million tonnes of sand and gravel in the Edmonton
300
region;
200
100
• By0 2026 given current growth we estimate that we
will have used an additional 400 to 550 Million
1978
1980

1982
1984

1986
1988

1990
1992

1994
1996

1998
2000

2002
2004
2006

2008
2010

2012
2014

2016
2018

2020
2022

2024
2026
tonnes of sand and gravel in the Edmonton region,
taking us to almost 1 Billion
Year tonnes
Gravel & Asphalt Combined Concrete Sand
 Aggregate Supply Issues
• Current Local Aggregate Sources:
 Are of poorer quality;
 Have smaller rock fraction
maximum size;
 More costly to process;
 Secondary processing to remove
deleterious materials;
 Further aggregate haul distances
Pavement Distresses Treated
 Cracking, in the form of:
 Age;
 Fatigue;
 Block;
 Longitudinal;
 Reflective;
 Discontinuity

 Loss of bond between pavement layers

 Loss of surface integrity due to
raveling, potholes, and bleeding
 Inadequate structural capacity
Pavement Distresses
Key Factors For Selection and Design
The outcome is contingent on:
 Proper analysis of the existing
pavement structure including visual and
structural assessments, investigations
and materials sampling;
 Use of an appropriate Mix Design
process;
 Use of an appropriate Pavement Design
process.
Preliminary Assessments, Investigations
and Materials Sampling
 Test Pitting
 Coring
 Subgrade Evaluation (Dynamic Cone
Penetrometer -DCP & Backcalculation)
 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR)
 Deflection Testing
 Visual distress survey
Field Investigations - Test Pitting,
DCP Testing & Coring
Road Radar - GPR Unit
(2004 – Current)
Ground Penetrating Radar
Asphalt on Asphalt on Asphalt
Soil Cement Base Concrete on on Soil
Granular Base Cement
Base
Core #9: 100mm AC Core #6: 92mm AC Core #50: 70mm AC
250mm+ Granular 258mm+ Granular 230+ Granular
 GPR Layer Thickness

Legend:
0 - 25 mm
26 - 50 mm
50 - 100 mm
101 - 150 mm
151 - 200 mm
201 - 250 mm
251 - 300 mm

Granular
Asphalt Fulton Place Neighbourhood 2010 Project
Deflection Testing Pre & Post
Construction

Dynaflect Falling Weight Deflectometer

 Deflection (mils)

0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
0+000
0+040
0+090
0+140
0+190
0+240
0+290
0+340
0+390
0+440
0+490
0+540
0+590
0+640
0+690
0+740

Station
Ebound

0+790
Dynaflect

0+840
0+890
0+940
0+990
Existing Roadway Prior to Construction

1+040
1+090
1+140
1+190
1+240
Ellerslie Road Deflection Profile - 142 to 156 Street

1+290
1+340
1+390
 Pavement Design
 City of Edmonton’s asphalt overlay
design is based on deflection models

 For new construction our designs are

based on the AASHTO 1993
Pavement Design Guide;

 Gathering Resilient Modulus data for

use in the new AASHTO Mechanistic-
Empirical Pavement Design Guide.
Mix Design
 Mix Design as per latest
version of the Wirtgen
“Cold Recycling Manual”

 Mix design as per

Appendix 2

 “Mix Design
Procedures of
Stabilized Materials”;

 Samples obtained
utilizing WR2500;
Mix Design Laboratory Testing
 SIEVE ANALYSES;
 PLASTICITY;
 MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP;
 BITUMEN FOAMING CHARICTERISTICS;
 PREPARATION OF SAMPLES;
 MIX WITH STABILIZING AGENTS;
 CURING OF SAMPLES;
 INDIRECT TENSILE STRENGTH TESTING
 FOAM MIX DESIGN REPORT

Indirect Tensile
Client: City of Edmonton
Project : Ellerslie Road
Sample Number : 1
Material to be foamed

Strength Testing/
Location :
Asphalt content :
Insitu/Camron50/50 blend

Mix Design
Optimum moisture content : 5.5
Maximum dry density :
Asphalt cement used for foaming Foam requirements
Supplier : Husky Energy 2 Percentage "foaming" water :
Type: 150-200 pen 160 C Temperature of asphalt cement :
1% cement Additive and percentage :
Foamed asphalt treated material characteristics
Foamed asphalt added : 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Actual foamed asphalt added : 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
Diameter of specimen (mm) 101.0 101.0 101.0 101.0
Height of specimen (mm) : 64.0 64.7 65.2 64.7
Mass of specimen (g) : 1086.5 1105.0 1105.5 1104.5
Bulk density (kg/m3): 2118 2132 2117 2131
Relative density (kg/m3) :
ITS dry (kPa): 427 355 358 325
ITS soaked (kPa): 262 327 280 291
Retained ITS (%): 61 92 78 90
Resilient modulus (Mpa):
Foamed asphalt vs ITS dry Foamed asphalt vs ITS soaked

450 340

ITS soaked (kPa)

400 320
ITS dry (kPa)

300
350 280
300 260
240
250
220
200 200
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Foamed asphalt content Foamed asphalt content

Foamed asphalt vs Retained ITS Foamed asphalt vs Bulk relative density

100

80
2150

Bulk density (kg/m3)

60
2100
40

20 2050

0 2000
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Foamed asphalt content
Equipment Used - WR2500 or WR2500S
 The Recycling Train

Asphalt Tanker

Wirtgen 2500 S
Water Truck

Urban Application - WR2500 S

Residential/Collector Roadway Reconstruction
Process Asphalt & Granular/Soil Cement

Place 100 mm
New Hot Mix
50 - 100mm
Asphalt
Hot Mix Asphalt Existing Structure
Reconstructed Roadway

150 – 300mm
Place 300mm
Granular Base3-20 or 3-25
Granular Base
or
Soil Cement Base

Stabilize Subgrade 150mm Depth with 10Kg/m2 Cement

Residential/Collector Roadway Foam Process
Asphalt & Granular/Soil Cement
Place 50-100 mm
New Hot Mix
Asphalt

50 - 100mm
Hot Mix Asphalt Existing
Foaming Structure
& Final
Pre-pulverization Overlay
Process
Prepulverize
125-250mm
Foam and
Existing HotMix
Mix Asphalt &
150 –
125-250mm 300mm
Granular/Soil Cement
Granular
Pre-pulverizedBase
Materials
Materials
or
Soil Cement Base

50-75mm Remaining
Granular materials
 Cost Comparison Example 2009$
Project 20,000 M2 Residential Reconstruction/FDR with Foamed Asphalt
Existing Structure – 50mm AC over 175mm SC
Item Description unit Unit Cost Quantity Total Cost
Reconstruction Option – 100mm ACR, 300mm 3-20mm Granular Base on Stabilized Subgrade
11.032 Remove Asphalt Course (50mm) m2cm $ 0.97 1000 $ 970.00
11.034 Remove Soil Cement Course m2cm $ 0.90 3500 $ 3,150.00
16.021 Gravel 3-20 Base tonne $ 71.76 13200 $ 947,232.00
31.010 150 Cement Stabilized Subgrade m2 $ 7.28 20000 $ 145,600.00
31.030 Cement for Stabilizing Subgrade 10Kg $ 2.14 20000 $ 42,800.00
40.421 Asphalt Overlay (ACR) Mass tonne $ 114.00 5082 $ 579,348.00

Total Cost Reconstruction $85.96/m2 $ 1,719,100

Foamed Asphalt Option – Prepulverize & Foam 150mm Depth with 75mm ACR Surface
31.047 Pre-pulverized Road Base m2 $ 3.91 20000 $ 78,200.00
31.048 Add/Delete 0.2% Oil m2 $ 0.46 20000 $ 9,200.00
31.049 Add/Delete 0.5% Cement m2 $ 0.66 20000 $ 13,200.00
31.051 150mm FDR using Foamed Asphalt m2 $ 13.49 20000 $ 269,800.00
40.421 Asphalt Overlay (ACR) Mass tonne $ 114.00 3811 $ 434,454.00

Total Cost Foamed Asphalt $40.24/m2 (47% Less) $ 804,854.00

Contract Totals Tendered by the City
of Edmonton 2001-2009
Year Contracts Locations Total Per Combined
year Total
(m2) (m2)

2001 One Contract 3 locations 45,000

2002 One Contract 14 locations 120,000
2003 Two Contracts 13 locations 160,000
2004 Three Contracts 2 neighbourhoods & 124,000
5 locations

2005 Six Contracts 4 neighbourhoods & 369,000

3 locations

2006 Five Contracts 2 neighbourhoods & 259,000

7 locations 1,929,000

2007 Six Contracts 3 neighbourhoods & 288,000

7 locations

2008 Seven Contracts 3 neighbourhoods & 166,000

6 locations
2009 Ten Contracts 4 neighbourhoods & 398,000
9 locations

2010 Nine Contracts 3 neighbourhoods & Total not yet Does not include 2010
locations
~15 locations available
156 Street, 137 to St. Albert Trail
– Rural Granular Cross-Section

Pre-Construction 2002 Post-Construction 2002 May, 2009

 150 Avenue, 94 to 88 Street -
Urban Soil Cement Cross-Section

Pre-Construction 2001 Post-Construction 2001 May, 2009

 Deflection Profile
150 Avenue, 87 Street to 94 Street

3.5
3.3
3.0
2.8
Deflection (mils)

2.5
2.3
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.3
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.0

Station
Pre - 2001 Post - 2001 Aug -02 May-05 May-07 May-09
Some Cracking
93 Avenue, 146 to 149 Street

Location Under Evaluation

Wet-Dry Testing
Wet-Dry Testing (Density vs. % Loss)
2,225
2,200

2,175
y = -43.909Ln(x) + 2168.2
2,150 R
2
= 0.7616
Maximum Allowable loss 11%
Density (kg/m3)

2,125
2,100
2,075

2,050
2,025
2,000

1,975
1,950

1,925
1,900
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
% Loss
Freeze-Thaw Testing
Freeze Thaw Testing (Density vs. % Loss)
2,275
2,250
y = -127.24Ln(x) + 2237.4
2,225 R2 = 0.7112
2,200
Density (kg/m3)

2,175
2,150
Maximum Allowable loss 11%
2,125
2,100
2,075
2,050
2,025
2,000
1,975
1,950
1,925
1,900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
% Loss
Wet/Dry - Freeze/Thaw
Resiliant Modulus FWD Backcalculation
Foamed Stabilized
Subgrade
Asphalt Materials
Resiliant
Resiliant modulus
Modulus Resilient Modulus
(Backcalculated)
(Backcalculated)
75
9,500 (Backcalculated)
3,500
70
9,250
65
(MPa)
Modulus (MPa)

3,250
9,000
60
8,750
3,000
55
8,500
2,750
50
Resiliant Modulus

8,250
45
2,500
8,000
40
2,250
7,750
35
7,500
2,000
30
Resiliant

7,250
Resilient

1,750
25
7,000
20
1,500
6,750
15
1,250
6,500
10
6,250
1,000
5
6,000
0
750
2000
2000
2000 2001
2001
2001 2002
2002
2002 2003
2003
2003 2004
2004
2004 2005
2005
2005 2006
2006
2006
Construction
ConstructionYear
Construction Year
Year
Benefits Of Cold Recycling
 Reuse of the material in the existing pavement
generally better quality materials than are
currently available.
 Derive maximum benefit of existing pavement
structure as a stabilized base course material
 Simultaneous addition of “make-up (granular)”
material and/or stabilizing agent(s)
 Speed of construction - one or two pass
operation vs. a multi-pass operation
 Accommodation of traffic - roadway is never
closed to traffic
 Economics ($) 30 to 50% saving
 Conclusions
 Cold Recycling utilizing Foamed Bitumen is a viable
technology for use on many different types of
roadways;
 The structural capacity of Foamed Bitumen treated
materials approaches 85% of hot laid asphalt mixes
Granular Base Equivalency of between 1.6 and 1.8;
 The full depth pulverization completely eliminates any
possibility of reflective cracking;
 There is no requirement for lengthy curing periods
prior to overlay of Foamed bitumen treated
materials;
 Pre-engineering work by the owner is critical;
 Imported granular material is definitely an option to
cover any material gradation problem.
Questions ?