​

Responding Agencies

Use of both Mechanical FDR and FDR

AK; CA; CO; ID; MA; ME; MN; NE; NM; RI; SD; TX; VT; WV; WY

Use of Mechanical FDR only

MI; MT; NH; WI

Use of FDR only

AL; AR; CT; DE; FL; GA; IN; LA; MO; MS; NC; ND; NJ; OH; OR; PA; PR; SC; TN; UT; VA

Does not use either Mechanical FDR or FDR

AZ; DC; HI; KS; KY; MD; NY

​

Responding Agencies

< 5 years

AR; CT; TN

5 – 10 years

DE; FL; MO; OH; OR; PR; VT; WV

10 – 20 years

AL; CO; GA; IN; MS; NE; NJ; NM; PA; RI; SD; UT; VA; WY

> 20 years

AK; CA; ID; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MT; NC; ND; NH; SC; TX; WI

​

Responding Agencies

< 50

AK; AL; AR; CA; CO; FL; GA; IN; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; MT; ND; NH; NM; OR; PA; PR; RI; SD; TN; UT; VT; WV; WY

50 – 100

ID; NC; OH

>100

LA; NE; SC; VA

Unsure

CT; DE; NJ; TX; WI

​

Responding Agencies

< 2,500

AK; CO; DE; IN; LA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; MT; NC; NE; NH; NM; OR; PA; SC; SD; TN; VA; WI; WV; WY

2,500 – 5,000

AK; AR; CA; CO; DE; GA; IN; LA; ME; MI; MN; MS; MT; NC; NH; NM; OR; PA; SC; SD; VA; VT; WI; WY

5,000 – 10,000

AK; CO; DE; IN; LA; ME; MI; MN; MS; NC; NH; NM; SC; VA; WI; WY

10,000 – 20,000

AK; CO; IN; ME; NH; NM; PR; VA; WY

20,000 – 30,000

CO; NH; NM; PR; VA; WY

>30,000

NH; NM; VA; WY

Unsure

AL; CT; FL; ID; MA; ND; NJ; OH; RI; TX; UT

​

Responding Agencies

Existing ride quality of the pavement

AK; AL; AR; CA; GA; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; NC; ND; NM; PA; SD; VT

Existing primary distress(es) present in the pavement

AK; AL; AR; CA; CO; DE; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NH; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; SD; TX; UT; VA; VT; WI; WV; WY

Existing pavement structure (layers and their thicknesses)

AK; AL; AR; CA; CO; DE; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NH; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SD; TN; TX; UT; VA; VT; WI; WV; WY

Existing pavement soil subgrade type

AL; AR; CA; DE; GA; IN; LA; MA; ME; MI; MO; MS; MT; NC; NE; NH; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SD; TX; UT; VT; WI; WY

Initial/construction cost

AK; AL; CA; GA; ID; IN; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MT; NC; ND; NE; NM; OH; OR; PA; SC; TX; VA; WV

Life cycle cost or cost/benefit

AL; CA; CO; DE; ID; MA; MN; MO; NC; ND; OH; OR; RI; SD; VA; WV

Other

CT; FL; MA; ND; NH; NM; OH; SD; WI

Agency

Other

CT

While we hope to use it more and would use it primarily based on a poor functional condition – cracking that indicated the pavement is worn out but there are not major structural issues.

FL

Need for rapid construction; minimize lane closures.

MA

Sustainability.

ND

When mill and overlays are no longer viable options to pavement life. Also, to potentially fix existing base issues.

NH

Drainage

NM

Uniformity and thickness of asphalt and base course (where present)

OH

MOT

SD

Shoulder width.

WI

Ability to obtain structural adequacy within the allowable rise in road profile

​

Responding Agencies

Base failure

AK; AR; CA; DE; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NH; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; TX; VA; VT; WV; WY

Fatigue cracking

AK; AL; CA; CO; FL; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NH; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; TX; UT; VA; VT; WI; WV; WY

Longitudinal and transverse cracking

AK; AL; CA; CO; GA; ID; MA; ME; MI; MN; MT; ND; NH; NM; PR; SD; TX; UT; WV

Potholes

AL; AR; CA; MA; ME; MN; MT; NC; ND; NM; PA; PR; RI; SC; TX; WV

Rutting

AL; AR; CA; GA; MA; MN; MT; NC; ND; NM; OH; PA; PR; SC; TX; WV

Other

​

Responding Agencies

Yes – always

AK; AR; CA; CO; CT; DE; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; MI; MN; MS; MT; ND; NE; NH; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PR; RI; SD; TN; UT; VA; WI; WY

Yes – sometimes

ME; MO; NC; PA; SC; TX; VT; WV

No

AL

Unsure

​

Responding Agencies

Evaluation of strength/stiffness of layers of existing pavement structure (such as, Falling Weight Deflectometer or Dynamic Cone Penetrometer testing)

AK; AR; CA; CO; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; ME; MN; MO; MS; MT; NC; NE; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; SD; TX; UT; VT; WI; WY

Evaluation of the thickness of layers of existing pavement (such as Ground Penetrating Radar testing or coring)

AK; CA; CO; CT; DE; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NH; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PR; RI; SC; SD; TN; TX; UT; VA; VT; WI; WY

Sampling of material (for verification of layers)

AR; CA; CO; CT; DE; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MS; MT; NC; NE; NH; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; TX; VA; VT; WV; WY

Other

CT; MA; MS; MT; NC; NM; PR

Agency

Other

CT

Sampling of materials and gradations of unbound materials

MA

Gradation

MS

Recently, we have used TSD data to evaluate stiffness

MT

As-built survey of previous projects, current traffic loading, sampling of materials for determination of cement treatment possibilities.

NC

ADT

NM

Lab testing including gradation, PI, strength testing also performed on soils

PR

AASHTO T 283, modified

​

Responding Agencies

Calcium chloride

CT; MA; PA; RI; VT

Cement

AK; AL; AR; CA; CO; DE; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; MS; NC; ND; NE; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; SC; TN; TX; UT; VA; VT; WV; WY

Fly ash

MN; NE; WV

Emulsified asphalt

AK; CO; DE; FL; ID; IN; MA; ME; MN; MS; NM; OH; OR; PA; RI; TX; UT; VT; WV; WY

Foamed asphalt

AK; CA; DE; ID; MA; ME; MN; NM; OR; PR; TX; UT; WV

Lime (or lime kiln dust)

AR; GA; LA; MN; PA; TX; VA; WV; WY

Quarry by-products

MA; MN

Other

PA; SD

Agency

Other

PA

Cement slurry

SD

Liquid Stabilizing Agent

​

Responding Agencies

Does not use a design methodology – uses a fixed pavement cross-section for FDR pavements

AL; AR; MN; TN

Empirical design

CT; DE; FL; GA; LA; MA; ME; MI; MS; MT; NC; NH; NM; NV; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; SD; VT; WA; WI; WV

Mechanistic-empirical design

AK; CA; CO; ID; IN; MO; NE; NJ; UT; VA; WY

Other

ND; TX

Agency

Other

ND

AASHTO Darwin 1993 pavement design methodology

TX

TxDOT uses a pavement design software developed by the Agency, FPS-21. http://onlinemanuals.txdot.goc/TxDOTOnlineManuals/TxDOTManuals/pdm/fps21_mod_inputs_backcal_method.htm

​

Responding Agencies

Values for FDR are fixed across the state

FL; GA; LA; MI; MS; NH; NM; NV; OH; RI; SC; WA; WI; WV

Values for FDR are determined project by project

DE; MT; NC; OR; PR

Values for FDR are fixed based on the stabilizing agent used

ME; PA; VT

Other

CT; MA; SD

Agency

Other

CT

Based on material type and catalog of typical values based on material type

MA

Research project from early 1990s

SD

Fixed across the state for Mechanical FDR.

Agency

Mechanical FDR Layer Coefficient Value(s)

AASHTO 1993 layer coefficient of 0.20

MA

0.20-0.3

ME

0.12

MT

0.12

ND

0.1

NE

.15

NH

0.14

NM

0.15

PA

.11

SD

0.1

WA

0.2

WI

0.10 – 0.25

WV

0.15

Agency

Mechanical FDR Modulus Value(s)

80 – 120 ksi (Spring - Winter)

CA

45 ksi

ID

40 - 70 ksi

IN

30,000 psi

MI

100,000 - 150,000 psi

MN

30,000 psi

RI

40,000 psi

TX

150 - 225 ksi

WY

20,000 - 40,000 psi

Agency

FDR Layer Coefficient Value(s)

FL

0.20

GA

0.25

MA

0.14

ME

Cement: 0.26; Foamed asphalt: 0.26; Emulsified asphalt: 0.22

MS

0.25

MT

0.12

NC

0.22

ND

0.18

NE

.25

NM

0.35

NV

0.18

OH

0.2

PA

.14 to .35

SC

0.26

SD

We have only placed an Asphalt Surface Treatment on top of our most recent stabilized bases, so a surfacing design was not necessary.

VA

Layer Coefficient = 0.25 (Empirical)

WA

0.20

WV

0.15

Agency

FDR Modulus Value(s)

AK

100 - 400 ksi (Spring - Winter)

CA

435 ksi foamed and 1,450 ksi cement

ID

70 - 110 ksi

IN

60,000 - 80,000 psi

MN

80,000 psi

MO

∼50,000 psi

NJ

80,000 psi

OR

300 - 500 psi (cement-stabilized specimens)

PR

137,143 psi

RI

40,000 psi

TX

150 - 225 ksi

UT

85,000 psi designed as unbound layer with a new flexural design. Considering designing as a simi rigid with about 500 ksi

VA

80,000 psi (Mechanistic-Empirical)

WY

50,000 psi - 75,000 psi

​

Responding Agencies

Marshall

AK; PR; VT; WV

Superpave

AR; CT; DE; LA; MA; MI; MS; NH; WY

Hveem

Wirtgen

AK; MN; OR

Agency does not perform the mix design, the contractor does

AL; CA; CO; GA; IN; LA; MA; MO; MT; NC; ND; NM; OH; OR; RI; SC; SD; TN; UT; VA; WA

Other

FL; ID; ME; MS; NE; NJ; NV; PA; SD; TX; WI

Agency

Other

Contractors perform the mix design and have the option of Marshall or Superpave gyratory compaction.

ID

We do not perform mix designs on the reclaimed material.

ME

AASHTO

MS

Depending on the ratio of RAP and soil, we may use a Superpave gyratory or Proctor molds to fabricate test specimens.

NE

Unconfined compression testing at varying levels of additive and moisture.

NJ

Under Pavement Support Program, Rowan University is conducting research for NJDOT

NV

Fixed cement content

PA

ASTM 1633 Method A

SD

I assume this is just for the asphalt mix design. We do not require mix design on stabilized base.

TX

TxDOT developed mix design procedures Tex-122-E and Tex-134-E. https://www.txdot.gov/business/resources/materials/material-test-procedures.html?CFC__target=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.tx.us%2Fapps-cg%2Ftest_procedures%2Ftms_series.htm%3Fseries%3D100-E

WI

For the mechanical FDR which was identified as the only method used there is no mix design. Gradation and compaction requirements control the operation.

​

Responding Agencies

Yes, and a link can be provided

AK; CA; FL; GA; ME; MN; NC; ND; NV; OH; PA; SC; TN; TX; VT; WY

Yes, and a file can be uploaded

AL; IN; NM; PR; VA; WV

No

AR; CO; CT; DE; ID; MA; MI; MO; MS; MT; NE; NH; NJ; OR; RI; SD; UT; WA; WI

Unsure

LA

​

Responding Agencies

Link provided

AK: See Section 318-2.01-2 of the FASBC spec: “The Engineer will determine the JMD using procedures contained in the Wirtgen Manual Foamed Bitumen Mix Design Procedure, using the Wirtgen WLB 10 to generate foamed asphalt . . .”

MN: Wirtgen

ND: The NDDOT does have guidance, but it is currently being pulled from our spec book and going into the form of a special provision for both our FDR and FDR w/ Cement Treatment jobs. These SPs are currently being working on.

Can share at a later date.

OH: Specification is a draft that we have been evaluating. It is currently not available.

​

Responding Agencies

Yes, and a link can be provided

CA; CO; CT; FL; GA; MA; ME; MI; MT; NC; ND; NV; OH; PA; SC; TN; TX; VT; WI; WY

Yes, and a file can be uploaded

AK; AL; ID; IN; LA; MS; NE; NH; NM; RI; SD; UT; VA; WV

No

AR; DE; MN; MO; NJ; OR; PR; WA

Unsure

​

Responding Agencies

Method specification

CT; ID; IN; LA; MA; MI; MS; ND; NE; NH; NV; PA; RI; SC; TN; TX; VA; VT; WI; WV; WY

End result specification

AK; AL; CO; GA; MT; OH; UT

Quality assurance specification (incentive based)

Performance-based specification and post-construction performance (i.e., warranties, maintenance agreements)

CA; NC

Other

FL; ME; NM; SD

Agency

Other

FL

Combination of Method and End-Result

ME

QA (no pay adjustments)

NM

Probably a hybrid method, end result, and QA due to reduction if density is not achieved

SD

I donʼt know. Specification is below.

Link or description provided

CT: Please email for a copy

MA: reclaimed stabilization is a special provision

ND: The NDDOT does have guidance, but it is currently being pulled from our spec book and going into the form of a special provision for both our FDR and FDR w/ Cement Treatment jobs. These SPs are currently being working on. Can share at a later date.

OH: Specification is a draft under development and is not available.

​

Responding Agencies

Agency determined

AK; AL; AR; CA; CO; CT; DE; FL; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; MS; NC; ND; NE; NJ; OH; OR; PA; RI; SC; SD; TX; UT; VA; VT; WY

Contractor determined based on agency requirements

NM; PR; TN

Contractor determined independently

WV

Unknown

Other

GA

Agency

Other

GA

It is in the contract. Soil-Classification

​

Responding Agencies

Traffic level

Availability of material

Historic use or past performance

AK; AR; ID; LA; MO; NE; RI; SC; SD; TX; VA; WY

Life cycle cost analysis

NC

Mix design results

CA; CO; MN; MS; OR; PA; PR; TN

Other

AL; CT; DE; FL; IN; MA; ME; ND; NJ; NM; OH; UT; VT

Agency

Other

AL

ALDOT Section 302 only allows cement

CT

Always calcium chloride

DE

Field review, traffic, and existing material considerations.

FL

Utilized knowledge from other agencies and FDR contractors

IN

Pre-design investigation is used to determine type of stabilizing agent

MA

Traffic level, scope of project, and site conditions

(continued on next page)

ME

Existing site conditions including unbound base gradation and asphalt layer thickness.

ND

Recently have only used cement as a stabilizing agent.

NJ

Under Pavement Support Program, Rowan University is conducting Research.

NM

N/A, determined by Contractor

OH

Stabilizer is determined based on a detailed preliminary site investigation and sampling.

UT

We initially used FDR with emulsion. Based on some research decided to start using all cement instead but turned out the emulsion ones performed well and we will be tying a foamed asphalt FDR in a couple years. Criteria for determining which to use has not been developed.

VT

Subbase soil types

​

Responding Agencies

Agency determined

AK; AR; ID; LA; ME; MN; MS; NC; NE; NJ; OR; RI; SC; TX

Contractor determined based on agency requirements

AL; CO; CT; DE; FL; GA; IN; MA; MO; ND; NM; OH; PA; PR; TN; UT; VT; WY

Contractor determined independently

CA; WV

Unknown

Other

SD; VA

Agency

Other

SD

Contractor uses Manufacturerʼs Recommendation. We are not allowed to pick a certain product of liquid stabilizer to use so our plans are based on an estimate, but the Contractor is asked to follow that particular manufacturerʼs recommended rate.

VA

Stabilizing agent dosage rate is determined by performing mix design by the consultant hired by the contractor based on agency requirement.

​

Responding Agencies

Fixed dosage based on stabilizing agent type

CT: 0.10 to 0.25 gallons per square yard

ID: ITD Specifies Portland cement by percent of estimated reclaimed density. Typically, 1.0 to 2.5 percent. Decided by materials engineer of record

RI: Standard Specification lists the type and dosage of the stabilizing agent

SD: Manufacturerʼs Recommendation

UT: For cement based on achieving specified 7-day unconfined compressive strength in test sections AR

Dosage determined by performing a mix design

NC; MA; WY; OR; NM; NJ; PR; MS; OH; VA; FL; ME; DE; VT; MO; CO; AL; PA; NE; AK; IN; ND; MN; GA; TN; SC

Other

LA; TX

Agency

Other

LA

Lab testing to meet design strength

TX

Some Districts use a fixed dosage, and some determine a dosage based on a mix design.

​

Responding Agencies

No QA process

Agency inspection and testing only

CO; DE; MI; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NH; NV; RI; UT; WI

Contractor QC only

IN

Contractor QC and agency inspection/testing

AK; AL; AR; CA; CT; FL; GA; ID; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; SC; SD; TN; VA; VT; WA; WV; WY

Other

TX

Agency

Other

TX

Agency inspection and testing for all, however emulsion and foamed asphalt include Contractor process control testing.

​

Responding Agencies

Moisture content

AR; CA; CO; CT; FL; GA; ID; LA; MA; ME; MO; MT; NC; ND; NE; NJ; NM; NV; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; SD; TN; VT; WA; WV; WY

Compaction (in-situ density)

AK; AR; CA; CO; CT; DE; FL; GA; ID; LA; MA; ME; MI; MO; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NH; NJ; NM; NV; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; SD; TN; UT; VA; VT; WV; WY

Gradation of pulverized material

AL; CA; CO; CT; DE; FL; GA; ID; LA; MA; MI; MN; MO; MS; NC; ND; NE; NH; NJ; NM; NV; OH; OR; RI; SD; TN; VA; WA; WI; WY

Mechanical characterization

AK; AL; CA; FL; NC; NJ; WV; WY

Stabilizing agent amount

CA; CT; DE; FL; GA; ID; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; MS; NC; NE; NJ; NV; OH; OR; RI; SC; TN; VA; WA; WY

Depth

AK; AL; AR; CA; CO; CT; DE; FL; GA; ID; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; MS; MT; NC; ND; NE; NJ; NM; NV; OH; OR; PR; RI; SC; SD; TN; VA; WV; WY

Cross-slope

AL; CA; CO; DE; FL; LA; MA; ME; MN; MT; ND; NE; NH; NV; OH; PA; SD; TN; WY

Surface properties (smoothness) of FDR layer (post-compaction, pre-overlay)

AK; CA; CO; DE; FL; GA; LA; MI; MN; MS; ND; NE; NJ; NV; OH; PA; SD; TN; WY

Unknown

Other

CO; FL; NC; PA; SD

Agency

Other

CO

Verification of desired properties if emulsion or cement stabilization is used.

FL

Marshall stability and retained stability

NC

Unconfined Compression Test (psi)

PA

Strength

SD

I am not exactly sure of all parameters required. The gradation is not a full gradation, but it does need to pass the 1.5″ sieve and at least 95% passing the 1″ sieve. The answers above are for Mechanical FDR.

​

Responding Agencies

Moisture content

AL; AR; CA; CT; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; SC; SD; TN; VT; WA; WV; WY

Compaction

AK; AL; AR; CA; CT; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; SC; SD; TN; VA; VT; WA; WV; WY

Gradation of pulverized material

CA; CT; FL; GA; IN; LA; MA; MN; MO; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PR; SC; SD; TN; VA; VT; WV; WY

Mechanical characterization

AK; CA; FL; NJ; NM; OR; PR; WV; WY

Stabilizing agent amount

AK; AL; AR; CA; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; SC; TN; VA; VT; WV; WY

Depth

AR; CA; CT; FL; GA; ID; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; NJ; NM; OH; OR; PA; PR; SC; SD; TN; VA; WA; WV; WY

Cross-slope

CA; FL; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; OH; OR; PA; SD; TN; WY

Surface properties (smoothness) of FDR layer (post-compaction, pre-overlay)

AK; AL; CA; FL; GA; LA; NM; OH; OR; PA; SD; TN; WA; WV; WY

Unknown

MI

Other

AK; FL; IN; PA; SD

Agency

Other

AK

See details in 318 Specs. (uploaded)

FL

Marshall stability and retained stability

IN

Proofrolling

PA

Strength

SD

Again, not exactly sure on all of the requirements. Answers above are for Mechanical FDR.

​

Responding Agencies

A set amount of time

AK; AR; CA; CO; CT; DE; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; MO; MS; NC; ND; NE; NJ; NM; NV; OH; OR; PR; SC; TX; UT; VT

Raveling resistance

Shear resistance

Modulus/stiffness criteria

PA

Moisture content criteria

CA; IN; MA; MN; MS; PR; TN; TX; WA; WY

Other

AL; CO; FL; GA; ID; ME; MI; MO; MT; NH; NJ; RI; SD; VA; WA; WI; WV

Agency

Other

AL

Completed sections of the full depth reclaimed roadbed may be opened when necessary to lightweight local traffic, provided the surface has hardened sufficiently to prevent marring or distorting of the surface, and provided the curing is not impaired. Construction equipment shall not operate on the full depth reclamation sections except as necessary to discharge into the spreader during paving operations. If the full depth reclaimed roadbed is impaired by premature opening to traffic, the entire affected section shall be reconstructed at the Contractorʼs expense.

CO

No additives, traffic is released at the end of day. Cement or emulsion will require factors/properties to be met (i.e., set time, compressive strength, cure, etc.)

FL

Do not allow traffic on the reclaimed base until it is assured the reclaimed base surface will not distort, shove, or ravel under the anticipated vehicular loading.

GA

As soon as cement-stabilized base course has been compacted to 98 percent of the maximum dry density and the finished surface has been checked with a surveyorʼ level to ensure the ordinates measured do not exceed 1/2 inch.

ID

Typically require the FDR layer receive at least one lift of asphalt mix before opening to traffic.

ME

Sometimes take a core to verify sufficient curing.

MI

When the surface is smooth and compacted enough to hold traffic.

MO

Proof Roll

MT

Once the material meets the grade and compaction requirements.

NH

After Compaction, for max 14 days

NJ

FDR stabilized base has cured for minimum of 10 days.

RI

Compacted layer density.

SD

On the Mechanical FDR it would be after the prime cures which is a minimum of 72 hours.

VA

VDOT FDR Special Provision does not (have a) requirement for FDR layer. See section VII.4 of VDOT FDR Special Provision for surfacing requirement.

WA

We use moisture content for placement of the surface layer. Once the fog seal is sufficiently cured, the FDR layer can be opened to traffic.

WI

Contractors must maintain surface acceptable for traffic.

WV

Nothing in spec.

​

Responding Agencies

Non-destructive field testing

AK; IN; LA; ME; MN; NC; NM; NV; OH; OR; PR; RI; SC; TN; TX; VA

Visual evaluation of distresses over time

AL; CO; DE; FL; GA; IN; LA; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; NC; ND; NE; NH; NJ; NM; NV; OH; OR; PR; RI; SC; SD; TN; TX; VA; VT; WA; WV; WY

Evaluation of ride quality

DE; FL; IN; LA; MA; ME; MN; NC; ND; NH; NM; NV; OH; OR; PA; RI; VA; WA; VT

Testing of field cores

AR; DE; IN; MN; NC; NM; NV; OH; PR; VA; WY

No performance evaluation conducted

CA; CT; ID; MT; UT; WI

Other

AK; FL; MS; NC; SC

Agency

Other

AK

Evaluation as part of the pavement network condition collection for PMS

FL

Rutting and cracking by the laser crack measuring system

MS

Regular pavement management evaluation

NC

Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)

SC

This has been done on a couple of projects over the years but is not routinely done on every FDR project completed in the state.

​

Responding Agencies

Yes

DE: crack sealing

GA: Apply cure coat depending on project ADT:

• < 400 ADT: Prime and sand
• ≥ 400 ADT: Apply single stone size of 89 as surface treatment layer

ID: Occasionally, we will micro-crack the Portland cement FDR material. LA: Chip seal interlayer

NC: Tack surface of FDR to control moisture.

ND: Chip seals, micro surfacing

SD: Routing and sealing cracks. Chip seals. Nothing different on an FDR as compared to a mill and AV overlay.

VA: In some projects VDOT is using two-lift asphalt system. Currently VDOT is [performing] a research project to reduce potential for reflective cracking in Cement stabilized FDR.

WY: Cold in place recycling

No

AK; AL; CA; CO; CT; FL; IN; MA; ME; MI; MN; MO; MS; MT; NE; NH; NV; OH; OR; PA; PR; RI; SC; TN; UT; VT; WA; WI; WV

Unsure

AR; NM; TX

​

Responding Agencies

Life cycle analysis

CA; MS; NC; SD

Life cycle cost analysis

CA; CO; ID; IN; MA; NC; OH; OR; SC

No quantification of the sustainability of FDR projects

AK; AL; CT; DE; FL; GA; LA; ME; MN; MT; NH; NV; PR; RI; UT; VT; WA; WV; WY

Unknown

AR; MI; MO; NE; PA; TN; TX; WI

Other

MS; ND; NM; VA

Agency

Other

MS

We are currently participating in FHWAʼs Climate Challenge to perform LCA for FDR mixtures.

ND

As we do not quantify the sustainability currently, we recognize this is a great recycling of materials technique.

NM

These considerations are in planning stages of development

VA

For projects meeting VDOT Pavement Type Selection, Life Cycle Cost analysis will be conducted.

​

Responding Agencies

Lack of agency experience

AR; CA; CT; FL; HI; IN; KY; ME; MO; MS; NJ; OH; OR; PA; PR; UT; VT; WA; WV

Lack of contractor expertise

AR; FL; HI; KY; ME; NC; OR; PR; TN; VT; WV

Lack of mix design methods and engineering-based design procedures

AR; HI; ID; ME; NJ; UT; VT; WA; WV

Lack of tests and criteria to determine dosage of stabilizing agents and/or performance

AR; HI; ME; OH; TN; UT; VT; WA; WV

Poor performance of previously constructed FDR rehabilitated pavements

DE; FL; ID; NE; NH; OH; PR; VT

Lack of funding for planning/pre-construction

CA; CO; LA; MO; MS; NC; OR; VT; WA; WV; WY

No significant challenges

AK; AL; AZ; GA; KS; MA; MI; MN; MT; NV; RI; SC; TX; VA; WI

Other

CO; DC; ID; MD; ND; NH; NM; NY; SD

Agency

Other

CO

Lack of funding in general to conduct a substantial project, FDR typically requires multiple lifts of pavement to be placed on it at substantial cost.

DC

City streets are short blocks, in many cases may not accommodate the train of equipment needed for the operation.

ID

Insufficient contractor QC and agency inspection specific to depth of mixing, moisture content and uniformity across the mat width.

MD

We have done it once, but it was just more than 5 years ago. We have only done it once because that was the only time criteria was met.

ND

We find this as more of an issue during design to try to achieve a 50/50 blend of existing bituminous pavement and aggregate base. During construction we try to make sure we get the teeth of the reclaimer into the base layer to cool them off.

NH

This was initial hurdle that has been overcome.

NM

NMDOT has good experience with FDR projects, we are trying to improve project selection, materials, and specifications

NY

Limited number of reconstruction candidates

SD

Lack of subgrade strength. Roadway/shoulder width requirements.

​

Responding Agencies

Yes

AK: Foamed, mechanical types; number unknown at this time.

AL: ALDOT plans to continue utilizing FDR with cement on future projects when determined to be the best possible option for the given project. However, there is no set number of projects planned.

CA: 2 FDR-C

CO: Unknown on number or type.

CT: We would like to ramp up use but so far have not found an avenue to fund and deliver. Most projects end up being municipal projects that the state funds. They are required to use our spec.

FL: On a limited basis – probably one per three years

GA

ID: Continue our existing program.

IN: 1 to 3 FDR projects pre year (75% cement FDR, 25% Emulsion FDR)

LA

MA: as needed . . .

ME: Unsure of numbers, but increased focus on rehabilitation to address backlog of deficient pavements.

MI: As of right now, there will be 5 projects representing roughly 47 miles of FDR.

MN

MS: We have two projects in progress or about to be let. Both are two lane routes.

MT: No quantifiable plan but FDR with or without cement stabilization is a tool we use relatively regularly. Project selection is highly dependent on funding and location.

NC: 20+ Statewide

ND: I would expect one to two projects a year on our state highways.

NE

NH: 2 Interstate projects, total barrel miles=24

NJ

NM

NV: Approximately 3

OH: We plan to construct 3-5 FDR projects in the next year.

PR

RI: 3 calcium stabilized FDR

SC: SCDOT completes 30-50 FDR with cement projects a year.

SD: 3 projects. 24.3 total miles

TX: I do not know the number; project selection is at the District level. TxDOT has 25 Districts and projects for planned lettings and those that are ready for letting when funding is available.

UT: On FDR with foamed asphalt in 2025, one with cement in 2027 planned.

VA: Approximately 10 Cement Stabilized Projects are planned in 2024.

VT: Typically program 2 FDR-Emulsion per year. Trialing FDR-Cement soon

WA: One emulsion or foamed asphalt FDR is planned in the next year or two.

WY: WYDOT typically has at least 1 FDR project per year

No

AZ; DC; DE; KS; KY

Unsure

AR; HI; MD; MO; NY; OR; PA; TN; WI; WV

AK

Would have liked to see questions about unit cost as a function of FDR type ($/SY; $/SY/in, $/Lane-Mile, etc. . . .) for highway and aviation applications.

CT

CTDOT at one time did more FDR through our maintenance forces. With challenges on the staffing side of things this has not been an option. We overhauled our spec in 2021/2022 with the hopes of using it more but no major roll out yet. We continue to see use on the municipal side where we often fund projects.

DE

We simply found too much variability. Whether it was the existing pavement section/soil that would have required pavement design changes throughout a single location, tree cover leading to a lack of set up in asphalt FDR, or slab cracking in cement FDR locations. We tried many times to adjust and correct and never found a way to consistently get a good end result.

FL

FDOT has only constructed two projects to date using FDR, and we have one scheduled for later this year (2024).

IN

INDOTʼs pavement design website has some additional information about our pavement recycling program. https://www.in.gov/indot/engineering/pavement-design/

MA

We like reclamation. These are major projects that are not typically on major state highways, more on smaller low volume route in rural areas.

MD

We rarely have pavement conditions poor enough, and allow closures long enough, to warrant FDR.

MI

In Michigan, our name of FDR is ‘Crush and Shape’. This is what you will see in our specifications.

ND

We are finding that each FDR w/ cement treatment is a little different and cannot follow a one size fits all mentality. Some of the challenges: - Is the roadway being widened? - How much existing asphalt is on the road. Too much could require other techniques to help get closer to 50/50 blend. - Thin existing base layers. - Mill, add aggregate on top, one pass vs two with reclaimer? - Making sure to get reclaimer teeth into base layer so they do not burn out.

NM

NMDOT is currently performing an in-depth analysis as it pertains to FDR, including project selection, specification improvements, design guidance, and field laboratory testing.

PA

PennDOT has not done a lot of FDR on our state roads, however the municipalities use it as a tool on the local roads. Additionally, the Marcellus shale gas industry had upgraded nearly 400 miles of state-owned roadways to support their gas extraction efforts. Although PennDOT has not completed a large number of miles, we do have a number of state routes that have had FDR completed on them.

PR

The Authority has worked with few FDR projects.

SD

We adjust our milling depth and FDR depth based on the amount of asphalt and granular shown in our drill log to ensure that the blend of asphalt to virgin granular base is no more than 50%. This has greatly reduced the amount of transverse (thermal) cracking as compared to our Process in Place treatment which was basically the same process as a Mechanical FDR but used an asphalt content of 60-70%.

TX

I do not have that specific information. Historical project lettings and information is available at TxDOT website. https://www.txdot.gov/business/road-bridge-maintenance/contract-letting.html

VA

1) Conducting Just In Time training for the owner agency staffs, contractors, QC/QA Technicians, and construction staff is useful for agencies who have limited FDR experience.

2) For agencies in the implementation stage of FDR, having a lesson learned session after completion of FDR project would be beneficial to incorporate best practices and update/modify specifications.

WV

We have done a total of 5 projects in the last 10 or so years. We are still learning ourselves.