Evaluation of Rubblization Projects in Ohio

This study was initiated to systematically analyze the performance characteristics of Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) completed rubblization and roll (R/R) projects and to develop guidelines regarding improved specifications. The study was conducted in three parts, namely, (i) performance evaluation of Ohio’s R/R projects, (ii) overview of national perspective, and (iii) field demonstration of pavement breakers. The performance data obtained in terms of Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) were processed to objectively analyze the effectiveness of rubblization on the functional condition of the constructed pavements. The Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) data were collected and analyzed to compare the structural conditions of the R/R pavements. Data were collected from other state DOTs to register the performance of their R/R pavements and to learn of their experience with R/R projects. Finally, a 1-day field demonstration of rubblization was conducted to demonstrate the capabilities of pavement breakers operating in Ohio to rubblize under identical conditions. This task was of particular value to verify the compliance of pavement breakers with ODOT specification 320. The study led to the following primary conclusions: (1) R/R is an effective concrete and composite pavement rehabilitation technique. Results show an overall improvement in pavement performance. (2) The performance period of surface layer of R/R pavements is estimated to be 11.7 years. (3) The application of preventive maintenance (PM) treatment, depending on the type used in Ohio, extends the performance period of the constructed pavement, thereby implying consecutive application of PM treatments will result in R/R pavements achieving or exceeding a design life of 20 years. (4) Rubblization contributes to significant changes in structural condition; the process transforms the rigid concrete layer into a flexible base. (5) Lately, there are several variants of the Multi-Head Breaker (MHB). ODOT should change the equipment specification to allow other variants of MHBs. (6) There are no adequate data available to relate fragment size to performance. However, based on the data from the demonstration study, it is inferred that ODOT should change the fragment specification to allow up to 12” fragments. (7) ODOT’s quality control/quality assurance procedure requires digging a test pit at the beginning of the project to investigate the size and shape of fragments. This procedure is not consistently applied in all projects. ODOT would benefit by adopting a more stringent QC/QA procedure. (8) It is important to revise ODOT’s policy regarding the criteria for the selection of candidate projects for rubblization and validate the threshold value established.


  • English

Media Info

  • Media Type: Web
  • Edition: Final Report
  • Features: Figures; Maps; Photos; References; Tables;
  • Pagination: 79p

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 01344042
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Report/Paper Numbers: FHWA/OH-2010/10
  • Contract Numbers: 134345
  • Created Date: Jul 13 2011 1:42PM