State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of...

92
State of Florida Department of Transportation Flexible Pavement Smoothness Acceptance Report Ride Number Edition FDOT Office State Materials Office Research Report Number FL/DOT/SMO/12-551 Authors Charles Holzschuher Stacy Scott Joshua C. Whitaker Kyle Kroodsma Date of Publication May 2012

Transcript of State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of...

Page 1: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

State of Florida Department of Transportation

Flexible Pavement Smoothness Acceptance Report Ride Number Edition

FDOT Office State Materials Office

Research Report Number

FL/DOT/SMO/12-551

Authors Charles Holzschuher

Stacy Scott Joshua C. Whitaker

Kyle Kroodsma

Date of Publication May 2012

Page 2: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

Page 3: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

This report is a result of the dedicated effort and contribution by the following individuals:

Gregory BecknerWilliam BryantCharles HolzschuherKyle KroodsmaMelissa LiraAlexander MrazGlenn SalvoJohn Schiffermuller

Joshua C. Whitaker

To access the electronic copy of this and other reports, please follow the steps below:Logon to the State Materials Office's website, located at the following URL:

Under

1)

2)

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsofficeMost Requested , select Research Reports

** Title 23, U.S.C., Section 409, provides that this information provided to you is not subjectto discovery nor is it admissible into evidence.

Stacy Scott

i

Page 4: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

ii

Page 5: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Table of Contents

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................Introduction .....................................................................................................................................Observations ...................................................................................................................................Statewide Ride Statistics .................................................................................................................District 1 Ride Statistics ..................................................................................................................

A1Appendix - A: International Roughness Index Report Summary ......................................................

v

vii

1

3

7

9

21

29

37

45

53

61

69

District 2 Ride Statistics ..................................................................................................................District 3 Ride Statistics ..................................................................................................................District 4 Ride Statistics ..................................................................................................................District 5 Ride Statistics ..................................................................................................................District 6 Ride Statistics ..................................................................................................................District 7 Ride Statistics ..................................................................................................................

B1Appendix - B: Customer Service Form ............................................................................................

iii

Page 6: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

iv

Page 7: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

List of Figures

Statewide Ride Distribution .....................................................................................................Statewide Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ....................................................

PageNo.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

District 1 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ......................................................District 1 Ride Distribution .......................................................................................................

9

10

21

22

29

30

37

38

45

46

53

54

61

62

69

70

District 2 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ......................................................District 2 Ride Distribution .......................................................................................................

District 3 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ......................................................District 3 Ride Distribution .......................................................................................................

District 4 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ......................................................District 4 Ride Distribution .......................................................................................................

District 5 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ......................................................District 5 Ride Distribution .......................................................................................................

District 6 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ......................................................District 6 Ride Distribution .......................................................................................................

District 7 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System ......................................................District 7 Ride Distribution .......................................................................................................

v

Page 8: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

vi

Page 9: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

List of Tables

Statewide Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ..................PageNo.

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

29

Statewide Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and MaterialTransfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Statewide Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time .....Lane Miles Tested Per District by Friction Course and System ...............................................

Statewide Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and Material

District 1 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ...................District 1 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Material

District 1 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time .......

District 1 Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and Material

District 2 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ...................District 2 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Material

District 2 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time .......

District 2 Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and Material

District 3 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ...................District 3 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Material

District 3 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time .......

District 3 Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and Material

District 4 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ...................District 4 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Material

District 4 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time .......

District 4 Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and Material

District 5 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ...................District 5 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Material

District 5 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time

11

13

14

15

17

23

25

26

28

31

32

33

35

39

40

41

43

47

48

49

51

55

57

58

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

5 Statewide Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ............... 16

10 District 1 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ................ 27

30 District 5 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ................ 59

15 District 2 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ................ 34

20 District 3 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ................ 42

25 District 4 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ................ 50

vii

Page 10: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PageNo.

36

37

38

39

41

District 6 Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and MaterialTransfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

District 7 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ...................District 7 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Material

District 7 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time .......

District 7 Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and Material

67

71

72

73

75

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

34 District 6 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Paving Time ....... 65

31

32

33

District 5 Statistical Summary by Contractor, Friction Course, Aggregate, and Material

District 6 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Year, and Aggregate ...................District 6 Statistical Summary by Friction Course, System, Aggregate, and Material

60

63

64

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

Transfer Device Status ........................................................................................................

35 District 6 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ................ 66

40 District 7 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year ................ 74

List of Tables, continued

viii

Page 11: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Executive Summary

The traveling public wants smooth, safe, and long lasting pavements. Initial pavement smoothnesshas been shown to improve the overall pavement performance. The Florida Department ofTransportation (FDOT) has developed smoothness specifications for the acceptance of asphaltpavements on high-speed facilities that incorporate smoothness results obtained with high-speedinertial laser profilers.

This report is a synthesis of statewide project smoothness data collected from January 2005through December 2011, including more than 9,000 miles and 93,000 lots. It provides the end userwith basic statistics on the Ride quality of projects tested for Ride Acceptance (RA). The dataanalyzed herein consists of all lots greater than or equal to 0.01 mile and less than or equal to 0.1mile in length.

This report expresses ride quality using Ride Number (RN). Currently. FDOT's smoothnessspecifications use RN to indicate the level of smoothness present on newly placed asphaltpavements. RN, howevere, is freatly influenced by differences in texture, especially dense-gradedversus open-graded pavements.

** Title 23, U.S.C., Section 409, provides that this information provided to you is not subjectto discovery nor is it admissible into evidence.

1

Page 12: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

2

Page 13: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Introduction

According to National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project 1-31, conductedbetween February 1994 and December 1996 and published as NCHRP Web Document 1,"Smoothness Specifications for Pavements," the importance of pavement smoothness to thetraveling public is undisputed. Smooth-riding pavements provide comfort, allow more efficientmovement of vehicles over the roadway, raise optimum travel speeds, maintain traffic flow, reducesafety hazards to users and their vehicles, and may increase fuel efficiency, leading to lowertraveling costs to roadway users. Pavement smoothness also imparts a positive reflection on theconstruction and maintanance proficiency of the owner agency, be it a state agency, city, county, ortoll authority. In addition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials(AASHTO) pavement design models suggest that initially smooth pavements last longer thaninitially rough pavements, though this has been never confirmed through long-term fieldinvestigation (AASHTO design equations are based on only 2 years of performance data).

Ride quality has been used by FDOT for evaluating new construction, overlay projects, special ridequality evaluations used for informational purposes, and for monitoring long-term pavementperformance at the network level. To measure pavement ride quality, automated or manualmethods can be used to measure roadway profiles from which a roughness value is calculated.Most states, including Florida, use high-speed inertial profilers to measure smoothness. Thecommonly used measures of roughness (or smoothness) are the International Roughness Index(IRI) and Ride Number (RN). Since 1998, FDOT has been using the RN for project levelacceptance and evaluation in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)E1489.

FDOT RIDE QUALITY

The FDOT has worked very closely with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and theconstruction industry to improve pavement smoothness on Florida's state highways. To this end, asmoothness task team was created with representatives from FDOT, FHWA, and the pavingindustry to develop and implement non-contact profiler based smoothness specifications.Sub-article 330-12.4.6 of the FDOT Standard Specifications sets the requirements for AcceptanceTesting for Pavement Smoothness by Laser Profiler.

3

Page 14: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

RIDE QUALITY EVALUATION PROCESS

The Pavement Condition Unit of the State Materials (SMO) is responsible for conductingsmoothness evaluation using an high-speed inertial laser profiler. Florida Test Method Fm 5-549,"Laser Profiler Roughness Evaluation," provides the method by which a pavement section isevaluated for smoothness using the longitudinal profiles recorded from each wheel path using asinertial profiler test vehicle.

The test vehicle is driven along the wheel paths of the pavement section to be evaluated and usesa system of three laser sensors and two accelerometers mounted in the front bumper of a full-sizevan. One laser is mounted in front of each tire to measure the longitudinal profile in the left andright wheel paths of the traveled surface. These 32 kHz lasers measure the vertical distancebetween the sensor and the pavement surface at a rate of 30 readings per inch as the vehicletravels at 60 mph. An accelerometer is mounted atop each of these two lasers to isolate thevehicle's vertical motion and thus provide a "zero" reference plane. The third laser, mountedequidistant from the two wheel path lasers, provides a height reading from which to calculate rutdepth. The vehicle's data acquisition system uses the accelerometer data to provide a correction tothe laser data, eliminating the effects of vehicle movement, and uses a Distance MeasuringInstrument (DMI) connected to the vehicle transmission or axle to record the longitudinal distancetraveled to summarize the corrected laser data into approximately 1 inch intervals. The exactinterval is a function of each individual vehicle's DMI calibration settings. These summary valuesare then post-processed into exactly 6 inch intervals to generate a longitudinal profile for eachwheel path as well as a combined value for both wheel paths, and an average rut depth.

The laser profilers currently in use by FDOT are manufactured by International CyberneticsCorporation (ICC) of Largo, Florida. All of these profilers are owned by FDOT with the exception ofone unit that is provided through a contract with Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA).Currently, this profiler is the primary unit used by the SMO for the collection of project levelsmoothness data.

District project personnel may submit all requests for pavement evaluation using online requestforms available at the SMO's website:

Intranet:Internet:

http://materials.dot.state.fl.us/smo/pavement/pavementhome.htm

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/statematerialsoffice/pavement/index.shtm

4

Page 15: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

WHAT IS RIDE NUMBER?

The Pavement Serviceability Index (PSI) has been used by engineers since the AASHTO road testin the 1950's as an estimate of the opinion of the traveling public on the roughness (or lack ofsmoothness) of roads. The Ride Number (RN) is a profile index similar to the PSI, and was a resultof NCHRP projects 1-23, conducted between January 1982 and November 1984 and published asNCHRP report 275, "Pavement Roughness and Rideability," and 1-23(2), conductd betweenJanuary 1986 and December 1987 and published as NCHRP Report 308, "Pavement Roughnessand Rideability - Field Evaluation." It is an index that rates rideability of a road using a 0 to 5 scale,where an RN of 5.0 is considered to be a perfect ride quality road, and an RN of zero is animpassable road. The RN was chosen because it corresponds to users' perception of pavementroughness. The definition of this method is given in Section 4.3.2 of ASTM E1489. The ProfileIndex (PI), equation (2), statistic is derived from the longitudinal profile and then processed througha non-linear mathematical transformation, equation (1), to yield RN value(s) for each 0.1 mile orany other desired reporting interval.

The RN is defined by the following equation:

PIeRN 1605

2

22RL PIPI

PI

Where:

PI = Profile Index in the Right wheel path (ft/ft)R

PI = Profile Index in the Left wheel path (ft/ft)L

............................................................... (1)

(2)...............................................................

5

Page 16: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

6

Page 17: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

In addition to these factors, there are many other variables that the data can be subdivided by. Ifany additional information is needed, please contact the following people.

Stacy ScottKyle KroodsmaCharles Holzschuher

[email protected]@[email protected]

(352) 955-6328(352) 955-6332(352) 955-6341

Material Transfer Device (MTD) Usage - Data shows that pavements placed using thisequipment can be smoother. Overall, full MTD usage on the entire project shows nosignificant improvement over no MTD usage, both having an average RN of 4.2. MTDusage on the Interstate system yielded some benefit; 4.2 RN with full-project MTD usageversus 4.0 for Interstate projects where the MTD was not used at all.

Aggregate Type - Based on summary data from Florida projects, smooth pavements can beconstructed regardless of the aggregate type used. However, on average, pavements usingGranite aggregate in friction courses are smoother. Granite pavements have an averageRN of 4.2, compared to an RN of 4.0 for Limestone pavements.

Binder Type - No significant difference was found when comparing the smoothness ofpavements using polymer-modified binders in the friction course to pavements using othertypes of binders.

Data by Year - No significant improvement was found when comparing the average RNover time.

Paving Time - No significant difference was found when comparing the smoothness ofpavements placed at Night to those placed during the Day.

System - No significant difference was found when comparing the smoothness of Primaryand Interstate systems.

Observations

Many roadway characteristics and construction practices are being monitored and included in theFDOT's smoothness database. Some of these have proven to be significant contributors to the ridequality of the pavements tested, and some factors have not been so valuable. Below is a summarylist of key variables being monitored with a brief explanation of their effect on pavementsmoothness.

Surface Type - It is well documented that pavements with dense-graded friction courses areconsistently smoother, in terms of RN, than those with open-graded friction courses.Dense-graded friction courses have an average RN of 4.3, compared to 4.1 foropen-graded friction courses.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) - Analysis on Interstate pavements has shown that150,000 AADT or greater exhibit lower average RNs. Interstate pavements with AADT lessthan 150,000 have an average RN of 4.1, compared to an RN of 3.9 for Interstatepavements with AADT equal to or greater than 150,000.

7

Page 18: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

8

Page 19: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 1: Statewide Ride Distribution, All Lots

Statewide

9098.18 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

93264 9098.18 1.2 4.1 4.7 0.20 737 65.97All Lots 0.73%

9

Page 20: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 2: Statewide Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 2925.88 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.52.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Toll ‐ 22.47 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.52.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 3433.70 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 934.94 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 1781.20 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

29880 2925.88 1.2 4.1 4.6 0.18 309 27.61FC5 Primary 0.94%243 22.47 3.3 4.1 4.3 0.12 1 0.02FC5 Toll 0.07%

35474 3433.70 2.1 4.1 4.4 0.17 364 32.94FC5 Interstate 0.96%9519 934.94 2.1 4.4 4.7 0.13 9 0.57FC9.5 Primary 0.06%

18148 1781.20 2.9 4.3 4.6 0.15 54 4.85FC12.5 Primary 0.27%

10

Page 21: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

1:

Sta

tew

ide

Sta

tis

tic

al

Su

mm

ary

by

Fri

cti

on

Co

urs

e,

Sys

tem

, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te

0.5

2%

20

05

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

11

841

17.

11

3.3

4.1

4.3

0.1

37

0.6

11

.32

%2

00

5F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

92

98

7.5

13

.33

.94

.30

.15

15

1.1

60

.68

%2

00

6F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

477

14

4.7

32

.24

.04

.30

.16

12

0.9

91

.89

%2

00

6F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

17

501

71.

24

1.2

4.0

4.3

0.1

74

03

.24

0.1

6%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

37

443

69.

77

2.4

4.1

4.4

0.1

17

0.5

92

.81

%2

00

7F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

30

493

00.

31

2.4

3.9

4.3

0.1

89

08

.43

0.1

2%

20

08

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

32

063

14.

84

3.3

4.1

4.4

0.1

25

0.3

81

.50

%2

00

8F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

14

331

39.

66

2.8

4.0

4.3

0.1

52

62

.09

0.0

9%

20

09

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

36

153

52.

37

3.3

4.1

4.4

0.1

34

0.3

24

.29

%2

00

9F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

18

131

78.

34

3.1

3.9

4.4

0.2

17

87

.65

0.0

4%

20

10

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

26

562

57.

75

3.2

4.2

4.5

0.1

41

0.1

00

.15

%2

01

0F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

15

031

47.

16

3.2

4.1

4.5

0.1

43

0.2

20

.05

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

975

19

3.5

53

.54

.24

.60

.11

10

.10

1.2

0%

20

11

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

432

14

0.7

72

.74

.14

.40

.17

19

1.6

90

.00

%2

00

6F

C5

To

llG

ran

ite2

07

19

.47

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

00

.53

%2

00

6F

C5

To

llL

ime

sto

ne

36

3.0

03

.33

.94

.10

.11

10

.02

0.1

2%

20

05

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

87

08

2.9

43

.54

.04

.40

.15

10

.10

1.6

2%

20

05

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e2

205

21

2.4

12

.84

.04

.40

.19

37

3.4

50

.59

%2

00

6F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite2

669

26

1.4

42

.84

.04

.40

.16

16

1.5

46

.29

%2

00

6F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

14

201

38.

50

3.1

3.8

4.2

0.1

69

08

.71

0.3

6%

20

07

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

41

904

10.

21

3.1

4.1

4.4

0.1

61

61

.47

5.5

9%

20

07

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

721

16

4.7

83

.23

.94

.20

.18

10

09

.21

0.0

8%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

36

403

55.

96

3.2

4.1

4.4

0.1

43

0.2

91

.45

%2

00

8F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

35

003

33.

75

2.9

4.0

4.4

0.1

65

74

.84

0.1

9%

20

09

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

35

603

43.

91

3.2

4.1

4.3

0.1

27

0.6

50

.57

%2

00

9F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

22

312

15.

02

2.1

4.0

4.3

0.1

41

41

.24

0.1

2%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

36

883

59.

56

3.2

4.2

4.4

0.1

36

0.4

30

.35

%2

01

0F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

20

381

95.

02

2.2

4.0

4.3

0.1

49

0.6

80

.01

%2

01

1F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite1

499

14

5.5

03

.24

.24

.40

.13

10

.02

0.1

4%

20

11

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e2

243

21

4.7

13

.34

.14

.40

.14

70

.31

0.0

8%

20

05

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite6

25

60

.77

3.2

4.3

4.6

0.1

42

0.0

50

.22

%2

00

6F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e9

19

89

.86

2.1

4.4

4.6

0.1

53

0.2

00

.00

%2

00

7F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

98

09

6.4

53

.84

.34

.60

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

08

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

319

13

0.1

53

.94

.44

.60

.10

00

.00

0.1

1%

20

08

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

91

88

9.0

63

.44

.34

.60

.11

10

.10

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

560

15

4.1

43

.64

.34

.60

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

46

44

5.6

33

.84

.34

.50

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite7

51

74

.22

3.6

4.4

4.6

0.1

20

0.0

0

11

Page 22: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

1:

Sta

tew

ide

Sta

tis

tic

al

Su

mm

ary

by

Fri

cti

on

Co

urs

e,

Sys

tem

, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te,

co

nti

nu

ed

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

50

24

9.2

73

.94

.44

.70

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

11

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite9

64

94

.96

3.6

4.4

4.7

0.1

30

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e6

96

.16

3.7

4.3

4.5

0.1

50

0.0

02

.03

%2

00

5F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite6

06

59

.51

3.0

4.1

4.5

0.1

91

41

.21

0.0

0%

20

05

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

86

47

.94

3.9

4.4

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.25

%2

00

6F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

653

16

2.4

03

.04

.34

.60

.14

40

.40

0.8

0%

20

06

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

041

10

1.9

63

.04

.24

.50

.17

90

.81

0.0

6%

20

07

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

18

411

80.

66

3.3

4.2

4.5

0.1

41

0.1

00

.00

%2

00

7F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

24

72

4.0

33

.64

.34

.50

.14

00

.00

0.0

6%

20

08

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

25

352

49.

74

3.1

4.3

4.6

0.1

32

0.1

41

.96

%2

00

8F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

49

04

7.6

23

.24

.24

.50

.20

10

0.9

30

.15

%2

00

9F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

955

19

1.6

02

.94

.34

.60

.14

30

.30

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

36

13

.53

3.7

4.2

4.4

0.1

30

0.0

00

.12

%2

01

0F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite3

843

37

7.0

03

.14

.34

.60

.14

60

.46

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

24

.10

3.6

4.0

4.5

0.2

30

0.0

00

.16

%2

01

1F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

516

24

6.9

33

.24

.34

.60

.14

40

.40

0.3

6%

20

11

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e2

80

27

.65

3.5

4.4

4.5

0.1

31

0.1

0A

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.

12

Page 23: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

2:

Sta

tew

ide

Sta

tis

tic

al

Su

mm

ary

by

Fri

cti

on

Co

urs

e,

Sys

tem

, A

gg

reg

ate

, a

nd

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vice

Sta

tus

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

0.0

6%

FC

55

428

53

2.6

53

.34

.24

.60

.14

30

.30

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.11

%F

C5

20

271

94.

71

3.2

4.2

4.5

0.1

43

0.2

2G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

No

t Use

d2

.26

%F

C5

29

982

95.

27

3.1

4.0

4.4

0.1

96

96

.66

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.7

8%

FC

59

49

92

.17

3.2

4.1

4.5

0.2

08

0.7

2L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.1

2%

FC

54

735

45

8.7

03

.24

.24

.40

.12

70

.57

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

teF

ully

Use

d0

.02

%F

C5

12

031

16.

04

3.2

4.1

4.4

0.1

41

0.0

2G

ran

iteIn

ters

tate

No

t Use

d0

.03

%F

C5

22

442

18.

63

3.3

4.1

4.4

0.1

23

0.0

8L

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

teF

ully

Use

d0

.70

%F

C5

16

241

54.

54

2.2

4.0

4.3

0.1

41

31

.08

Lim

est

on

eIn

ters

tate

No

t Use

d0

.00

%F

C9.

52

208

21

8.3

53

.64

.44

.60

.13

00

.00

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%F

C9.

55

49

54

.03

3.9

4.4

4.7

0.1

10

0.0

0G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

No

t Use

d0

.00

%F

C9.

54

04

39

.78

3.9

4.5

4.7

0.1

00

0.0

0L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%F

C9.

58

07

.68

3.8

4.4

4.6

0.1

50

0.0

0L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.0

6%

FC

12

.53

536

34

6.9

33

.24

.34

.60

.13

20

.20

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.23

%F

C1

2.5

34

613

39.

20

3.1

4.3

4.6

0.1

49

0.7

7G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

No

t Use

d0

.00

%F

C1

2.5

23

62

3.3

13

.74

.34

.50

.16

00

.00

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

0%

FC

12

.53

23

.16

3.6

3.8

4.1

0.1

20

0.0

0L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

21

789

21

33

.62

3.1

4.2

4.7

0.1

88

47

.81

0.3

7%

All

All

Gra

nite

& L

ime

sto

ne

Fu

lly U

sed

99

259

61.

53

2.2

4.2

4.7

0.1

93

42

.80

0.2

9%

All

All

Gra

nite

& L

ime

sto

ne

Not

Use

d

13

Page 24: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

3:

Sta

tew

ide

Sta

tis

tic

al

Su

mm

ary

by

Fri

cti

on

Co

urs

e,

Sys

tem

, A

gg

reg

ate

, a

nd

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

0.0

8%

FC

59

68

39

50

.72

3.3

4.2

4.6

0.1

38

0.8

0G

ran

iteD

ay

Pri

mar

y0

.22

%F

C5

32

99

31

8.8

93

.24

.14

.40

.14

90

.70

Gra

nite

Nig

ht

Pri

mar

y2

.50

%F

C5

58

17

57

3.1

61

.84

.04

.40

.19

15

11

4.3

0L

ime

sto

ne

Da

yP

rim

ary

2.2

1%

FC

52

39

02

32

.20

2.8

3.9

4.5

0.1

85

85

.12

Lim

est

on

eN

igh

tP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

FC

52

07

19

.47

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

0G

ran

iteN

igh

tT

oll

0.5

3%

FC

53

63

.00

3.3

3.9

4.1

0.1

11

0.0

2L

ime

sto

ne

Nig

ht

To

ll0

.04

%F

C5

25

56

25

1.3

73

.54

.24

.40

.10

10

.10

Gra

nite

Da

yIn

ters

tate

0.1

2%

FC

51

06

77

10

34

.56

2.9

4.1

4.4

0.1

41

71

.26

Gra

nite

Nig

ht

Inte

rsta

te0

.39

%F

C5

34

36

33

2.2

82

.24

.04

.30

.11

15

1.2

8L

ime

sto

ne

Da

yIn

ters

tate

3.1

0%

FC

57

76

77

40

.09

2.1

3.9

4.4

0.1

92

50

22

.92

Lim

est

on

eN

igh

tIn

ters

tate

0.0

0%

FC

9.5

35

11

34

6.4

03

.64

.44

.70

.13

00

.00

Gra

nite

Da

yP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

FC

9.5

10

33

10

1.6

73

.64

.44

.60

.14

00

.00

Gra

nite

Nig

ht

Pri

mar

y0

.08

%F

C9.

52

47

32

41

.81

2.1

4.4

4.7

0.1

33

0.2

0L

ime

sto

ne

Da

yP

rim

ary

0.3

4%

FC

9.5

30

72

9.2

43

.44

.34

.60

.17

10

.10

Lim

est

on

eN

igh

tP

rim

ary

0.0

9%

FC

12

.51

10

27

10

85

.12

3.0

4.3

4.6

0.1

41

11

.00

Gra

nite

Da

yP

rim

ary

0.4

1%

FC

12

.51

03

91

00

.19

2.9

4.2

4.6

0.1

95

0.4

1G

ran

iteN

igh

tP

rim

ary

0.5

6%

FC

12

.51

45

61

43

.40

3.0

4.2

4.5

0.1

78

0.8

0L

ime

sto

ne

Da

yP

rim

ary

0.8

9%

FC

12

.51

39

12

.86

3.5

4.2

4.5

0.1

92

0.1

1L

ime

sto

ne

Nig

ht

Pri

mar

y

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

39

95

93

924

.26

1.8

4.2

4.7

0.2

01

97

18

.49

0.4

7%

Da

yA

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

e2

68

94

25

92.1

62

.14

.14

.60

.20

34

33

0.6

51

.18

%N

igh

tA

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

e

14

Page 25: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

FrictionCourse

Table 4: Lane Miles Tested Per District by Friction Course and System

District1

District2

District3

District4

District5

District6

District7

Total Lane Miles Tested

System

FC5 54.71655.08 508.88 283.05 855.02 779.35 297.62InterstateFC5 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.47 0.00TollFC5 89.39550.10 631.49 293.41 387.54 715.43 258.53Primary

FC9.5 6.16188.19 80.65 327.47 107.22 167.11 58.13PrimaryFC12.5 11.37472.05 767.76 156.21 32.46 233.04 108.31Primary

1,865.41Total 1,988.78 1,060.14 1,382.24 1,917.40 161.63 722.58

15

Page 26: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 5: Statewide Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

75.62%2005 15 204.62 154.73 0.86%1.77FC5 Primary68.76%2006 20 315.97 217.26 1.34%4.23FC5 Primary73.74%2007 35 670.09 494.11 1.35%9.02FC5 Primary81.44%2008 31 454.50 370.17 0.54%2.47FC5 Primary76.70%2009 38 541.48 415.29 1.48%8.01FC5 Primary93.21%2010 24 404.91 377.41 0.08%0.32FC5 Primary93.26%2011 29 334.32 311.79 0.53%1.79FC5 Primary85.48%2006 2 22.47 19.21 0.07%0.02FC5 Toll70.32%2005 9 295.36 207.69 1.20%3.55FC5 Interstate52.49%2006 12 399.94 209.95 2.56%10.25FC5 Interstate65.50%2007 18 574.98 376.61 1.86%10.68FC5 Interstate77.93%2008 24 689.71 537.52 0.74%5.13FC5 Interstate84.18%2009 22 558.93 470.51 0.34%1.89FC5 Interstate87.14%2010 17 554.57 483.24 0.20%1.11FC5 Interstate88.12%2011 11 360.21 317.43 0.09%0.32FC5 Interstate98.26%2005 8 91.81 90.21 0.29%0.27FC9.5 Primary99.09%2006 10 103.10 102.15 0.19%0.20FC9.5 Primary99.19%2007 6 96.45 95.67 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary99.69%2008 13 219.21 218.52 0.05%0.10FC9.5 Primary99.09%2009 13 199.77 197.96 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary99.55%2010 8 123.49 122.93 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary99.42%2011 8 101.12 100.53 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary91.95%2005 9 107.45 98.80 1.12%1.21FC12.5 Primary96.11%2006 35 282.43 271.45 0.43%1.21FC12.5 Primary94.79%2007 22 215.79 204.56 0.05%0.10FC12.5 Primary97.55%2008 27 306.72 299.22 0.35%1.07FC12.5 Primary97.96%2009 23 213.12 208.78 0.14%0.30FC12.5 Primary98.19%2010 32 381.10 374.20 0.12%0.46FC12.5 Primary97.79%2011 27 274.58 268.52 0.18%0.50FC12.5 Primary

78.86%2005 41 699.23 551.43 0.97%6.79AllAll72.96%2006 78 1123.91 820.02 1.42%15.92AllAll75.19%2007 80 1557.31 1170.94 1.27%19.81AllAll85.35%2008 94 1670.14 1425.43 0.53%8.77AllAll85.41%2009 94 1513.30 1292.54 0.67%10.19AllAll92.74%2010 81 1464.07 1357.78 0.13%1.89AllAll93.28%2011 73 1070.23 998.27 0.24%2.61AllAll

16

Page 27: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

6:

Sta

tew

ide

Sta

tis

tic

al

Su

mm

ary

by

Co

ntr

ac

tor,

Fri

cti

on

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

an

d M

ate

ria

l T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce

Sta

tus

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

15

30

15

0.9

43

.74

.24

.40

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

Fu

lly U

sed

62

55

9.6

73

.24

.14

.40

.14

10

.10

0.1

7%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d4

73

45

.14

3.6

4.0

4.2

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d1

24

12

.27

4.1

4.4

4.6

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5A

.P.A

.C.

Fu

lly U

sed

41

3.8

34

.24

.54

.60

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

A.P

.A.C

.N

ot U

sed

32

63

1.5

64

.04

.44

.50

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

.P.A

.C.

Fu

lly U

sed

93

09

0.4

63

.14

.34

.60

.12

30

.21

0.2

3%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d3

11

73

01

.47

3.3

4.2

4.4

0.1

23

0.2

50

.08

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Aja

x P

avi

ng

Ind

ust

ryF

ully

Use

d5

10

48

.60

3.2

4.2

4.4

0.1

41

0.0

20

.04

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Aja

x P

avi

ng

Ind

ust

ryN

ot U

sed

62

66

1.5

63

.54

.14

.30

.11

20

.12

0.1

9%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Aja

x P

avi

ng

Ind

ust

ryF

ully

Use

d1

01

9.9

03

.94

.54

.70

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

Aja

x P

avi

ng

Ind

ust

ryN

ot U

sed

48

54

7.5

73

.74

.44

.60

.15

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

jax

Pa

vin

g In

du

stry

Fu

lly U

sed

73

7.2

34

.24

.54

.60

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

jax

Pa

vin

g In

du

stry

No

t Use

d2

02

81

99

.60

3.3

4.2

4.5

0.1

62

0.2

00

.10

%G

ran

iteF

C5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

Fu

lly U

sed

33

03

1.7

33

.84

.14

.30

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

nd

erso

n C

olu

mb

iaN

ot U

sed

39

53

8.6

43

.64

.44

.60

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

Fu

lly U

sed

13

52

13

2.9

83

.64

.34

.50

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

nd

erso

n C

olu

mb

iaF

ully

Use

d5

93

58

.84

3.8

4.3

4.6

0.1

40

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

No

t Use

d6

70

64

.46

2.2

4.0

4.3

0.1

34

0.2

50

.39

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5A

sph

alt

Gro

up

, In

c.N

ot U

sed

48

24

5.7

13

.84

.24

.40

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

tlan

tic C

oa

stF

ully

Use

d4

24

.09

4.1

4.3

4.4

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Atla

ntic

Co

ast

Fu

lly U

sed

13

21

3.1

03

.84

.14

.30

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Be

tte

r R

oa

ds

Inc.

Fu

lly U

sed

35

03

3.6

53

.64

.04

.30

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Be

tte

r R

oa

ds

Inc.

No

t Use

d1

21

.17

3.8

4.2

4.3

0.1

80

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

9.5

Be

tte

r R

oa

ds

Inc.

No

t Use

d1

61

.57

4.0

4.3

4.5

0.1

60

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

12

.5B

ett

er

Ro

ad

s In

c.F

ully

Use

d8

11

80

.29

3.7

4.2

4.6

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

C. W

. R

ob

ert

s C

on

tra

ctin

gF

ully

Use

d6

76

.39

3.7

4.1

4.3

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5C

. W.

Ro

be

rts

Co

ntr

act

ing

Fu

lly U

sed

84

78

4.0

83

.94

.44

.60

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

C. W

. R

ob

ert

s C

on

tra

ctin

gF

ully

Use

d7

58

74

.59

3.8

4.3

4.6

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

C. W

. R

ob

ert

s C

on

tra

ctin

gF

ully

Use

d7

47

.28

4.2

4.4

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

12

.5C

. W.

Ro

be

rts

Co

ntr

act

ing

Fu

lly U

sed

19

82

19

6.1

93

.14

.04

.40

.22

60

5.9

33

.02

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5C

om

mu

nity

Asp

hal

t C

orp

.F

ully

Use

d2

39

21

.43

2.8

4.0

4.3

0.1

86

0.4

42

.05

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5C

om

mu

nity

Asp

hal

t C

orp

.N

ot U

sed

13

61

3.5

33

.74

.24

.40

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C1

2.5

Co

mm

un

ity A

sph

alt

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

10

41

0.0

74

.04

.34

.40

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsF

ully

Use

d5

09

49

.81

3.9

4.2

4.4

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

D.A

.B.

Co

nst

ruct

ors

No

t Use

d2

87

28

.57

3.9

4.2

4.4

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsN

ot U

sed

28

22

7.7

24

.04

.34

.50

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsN

ot U

sed

10

86

10

5.6

43

.74

.14

.40

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Dic

kers

on

Asp

ha

ltF

ully

Use

d

17

Page 28: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

6:

Sta

tew

ide

Sta

tis

tic

al

Su

mm

ary

by

Co

ntr

ac

tor,

Fri

cti

on

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

an

d M

ate

ria

l T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce

Sta

tus

, co

nti

nu

ed

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

14

61

4.2

03

.94

.44

.50

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C9

.5D

icke

rso

n A

sph

alt

Fu

lly U

sed

10

0.9

44

.04

.34

.50

.16

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C1

2.5

Dic

kers

on

Asp

ha

ltF

ully

Use

d2

74

25

.71

3.6

4.1

4.3

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Duv

al A

sph

alt

Fu

lly U

sed

82

8.0

23

.94

.34

.40

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5D

uva

l Asp

ha

ltF

ully

Use

d5

04

.77

3.1

4.0

4.2

0.1

91

0.1

02

.10

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Duv

al A

sph

alt

No

t Use

d2

60

25

.61

4.1

4.3

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

GA

C C

ont

ract

ors

Fu

lly U

sed

13

31

3.0

43

.53

.84

.20

.15

30

.30

2.3

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ge

ne

ral A

spha

lt C

om

pa

ny

Fu

lly U

sed

53

5.0

33

.43

.74

.10

.17

50

.50

9.9

3%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ge

ne

ral A

spha

lt C

om

pa

ny

No

t Use

d5

54

54

.16

3.7

4.2

4.5

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Ha

lifa

x P

avi

ng

In

c.N

ot U

sed

32

3.1

63

.63

.84

.10

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C1

2.5

Ha

rdri

ves

of

De

lra

yN

ot U

sed

40

3.8

13

.94

.24

.30

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5H

ub

ba

rd C

onst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

70

6.1

03

.74

.14

.30

.16

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5H

ub

ba

rd C

onst

ruct

ion

No

t Use

d2

38

23

.09

3.5

4.1

4.3

0.1

42

0.2

00

.87

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5H

ub

ba

rd C

onst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

11

41

0.2

73

.33

.94

.10

.13

30

.08

0.7

4%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

J. W

. C

he

ath

am

, L

LC

.F

ully

Use

d1

61

.43

4.2

4.4

4.4

0.0

60

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

9.5

J. W

. C

he

ath

am

, L

LC

.N

ot U

sed

12

81

2.8

04

.14

.44

.50

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

Jon

es

Co

nstr

uct

ion

No

t Use

d1

86

18

.16

3.2

4.0

4.3

0.1

84

0.3

11

.73

%G

ran

iteF

C5

La

ne C

on

stru

ctio

n C

orp

.F

ully

Use

d9

69

.59

3.5

3.9

4.2

0.1

51

0.1

01

.04

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

16

61

6.4

44

.14

.34

.40

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

La

ne C

on

stru

ctio

n C

orp

.N

ot U

sed

13

81

3.5

83

.24

.24

.50

.19

20

.20

1.4

7%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

70

6.6

53

.64

.14

.40

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

No

t Use

d1

64

15

.70

3.8

4.2

4.3

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Mid

dle

sex

Co

rp.

No

t Use

d1

13

11

.07

4.0

4.4

4.5

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5M

idd

lese

x C

orp

.N

ot U

sed

11

51

1.0

43

.84

.24

.40

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5M

idd

lese

x C

orp

.N

ot U

sed

15

51

5.4

83

.64

.04

.30

.15

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5O

rla

nd

o P

avin

g C

om

pa

ny

Fu

lly U

sed

15

01

4.3

83

.54

.04

.30

.13

10

.10

0.7

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5P

& S

Pav

ing

No

t Use

d2

53

24

.75

4.1

4.4

4.5

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

P &

S P

avin

gF

ully

Use

d3

88

37

.65

3.4

4.3

4.5

0.1

21

0.0

90

.25

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

P &

S P

avin

gN

ot U

sed

45

24

4.8

63

.64

.44

.60

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

Pa

nh

an

dle

Gra

din

g &

Pa

vin

gF

ully

Use

d7

26

70

.15

3.8

4.2

4.5

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Pe

avy

an

d S

on

sF

ully

Use

d3

90

38

.50

4.0

4.4

4.6

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5P

ea

vy a

nd

So

ns

Fu

lly U

sed

10

09

.81

4.0

4.2

4.4

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Pe

avy

an

d S

on

sF

ully

Use

d8

48

.36

3.9

4.2

4.3

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Rai

ne

y A

sph

alt

No

t Use

d3

24

31

.83

3.5

4.2

4.4

0.0

91

0.1

00

.31

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

17

81

6.9

33

.54

.14

.30

.18

10

.02

0.1

1%

Gra

nite

FC

5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

75

07

3.3

73

.44

.14

.30

.12

10

.02

0.0

2%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

17

71

7.3

03

.44

.04

.40

.22

40

.40

2.3

1%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

No

t Use

d2

58

25

.57

4.1

4.5

4.7

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

9.5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

18

Page 29: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

6:

Sta

tew

ide

Sta

tis

tic

al

Su

mm

ary

by

Co

ntr

ac

tor,

Fri

cti

on

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

an

d M

ate

ria

l T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce

Sta

tus

, co

nti

nu

ed

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

52

5.0

84

.04

.44

.60

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C9

.5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

70

6.8

74

.04

.24

.50

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

76

7.0

23

.23

.94

.50

.25

10

.10

1.4

2%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

S.

T.

Woo

ten

Cor

p.N

ot U

sed

56

5.3

13

.74

.14

.30

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5S

on

ny R

iley

No

t Use

d2

82

.63

3.3

4.1

4.4

0.2

82

0.1

66

.16

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Ste

ven

Co

un

ts In

c.N

ot U

sed

59

75

8.9

03

.44

.34

.50

.12

20

.20

0.3

4%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5S

up

eri

or

Asp

ha

lt In

c.N

ot U

sed

12

61

2.5

24

.04

.24

.30

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5T

am

pa

Pa

vem

ent

Co

nst

ruct

ors

Fu

lly U

sed

18

1.6

63

.63

.84

.00

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

We

ekl

ey A

spha

lt P

avi

ng

Fu

lly U

sed

24

82

4.1

23

.43

.94

.20

.15

10

.10

0.4

1%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

We

ekl

ey A

spha

lt P

avi

ng

No

t Use

d2

65

26

.43

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Wh

iteh

urst

No

t Use

dA

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.M

ate

ria

l Tra

nsf

er

De

vice

Sta

tuse

s o

f "P

art

ially

Use

d" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n" h

ave

be

en

exc

lud

ed f

rom

th

is r

ep

ort

.

19

Page 30: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

20

Page 31: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 3: District 1 Ride Distribution, All Lots

District 1

1865.41 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

19179 1865.41 2.1 4.1 4.7 0.19 66 5.35All Lots 0.29%

21

Page 32: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 4: District 1 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 550.10 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 655.08 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 188.19 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 472.05 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

5628 550.10 2.4 4.0 4.5 0.16 35 2.68FC5 Primary 0.49%6796 655.08 3.3 4.1 4.4 0.14 4 0.35FC5 Interstate 0.05%1928 188.19 2.1 4.4 4.7 0.13 3 0.12FC9.5 Primary 0.06%4827 472.05 3.0 4.3 4.6 0.17 24 2.20FC12.5 Primary 0.47%

22

Page 33: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

7:

Dis

tric

t 1

Sta

tis

tica

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m,

Ye

ar,

an

d A

gg

reg

ate

0.5

6%

20

05

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

10

39

.25

3.3

3.9

4.2

0.1

33

0.2

20

.57

%2

00

6F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

84

38

1.9

52

.84

.04

.30

.13

10

0.4

61

4.2

9%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

14

1.4

03

.43

.84

.00

.19

20

.20

0.7

0%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

325

13

0.6

52

.44

.04

.30

.17

10

0.9

10

.00

%2

00

8F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

36

13

.23

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.0

80

0.0

02

.00

%2

00

8F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

29

32

8.2

23

.43

.94

.20

.15

60

.57

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

96

19

4.3

83

.64

.14

.30

.12

00

.00

0.4

7%

20

09

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

34

42

.51

3.5

4.0

4.3

0.1

42

0.2

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite7

87

.63

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

40

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

36

03

5.3

53

.64

.04

.50

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

11

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

11

71

1.3

34

.04

.24

.40

.07

00

.00

0.1

8%

20

11

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e6

57

64

.20

3.2

4.1

4.3

0.1

32

0.1

20

.00

%2

00

5F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

59

55

8.4

33

.74

.04

.20

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

06

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

91

8.0

43

.94

.14

.20

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

06

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e5

65

.27

3.6

3.9

4.1

0.1

10

0.0

00

.14

%2

00

7F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

72

87

1.7

23

.44

.04

.20

.11

10

.10

0.0

0%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

49

4.1

23

.94

.14

.20

.06

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

056

99

.13

3.6

4.0

4.3

0.0

90

0.0

00

.17

%2

00

9F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite1

556

15

0.2

83

.34

.14

.30

.13

30

.25

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e4

18

40

.57

3.8

4.0

4.2

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite2

052

19

9.5

43

.74

.24

.40

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

11

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

95

17

.97

3.6

4.0

4.2

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

5F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

53

5.0

13

.84

.24

.40

.11

00

.00

0.1

5%

20

06

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

69

76

8.2

12

.14

.44

.60

.13

20

.10

0.0

0%

20

08

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

76

17

.53

4.1

4.3

4.5

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e7

80

75

.57

3.6

4.3

4.6

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

9F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

21

.17

3.8

4.2

4.3

0.1

80

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

10

19

.90

3.9

4.5

4.7

0.1

40

0.0

06

.05

%2

00

5F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

98

19

.49

3.0

4.0

4.3

0.2

41

21

.18

0.0

0%

20

05

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

86

47

.94

3.9

4.4

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

6F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

53

24

.88

3.8

4.2

4.5

0.1

30

0.0

00

.86

%2

00

6F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

96

19

4.3

13

.04

.24

.50

.17

90

.81

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

94

9.2

53

.74

.04

.30

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

33

12

.71

3.6

4.3

4.5

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

38

23

7.0

83

.74

.34

.50

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

37

93

6.3

13

.74

.34

.60

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

36

13

.53

3.7

4.2

4.4

0.1

30

0.0

00

.17

%2

01

0F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

284

12

6.0

03

.14

.34

.60

.15

30

.21

23

Page 34: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

7:

Dis

tric

t 1

Sta

tis

tica

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m,

Ye

ar,

an

d A

gg

reg

ate

, c

on

tin

ue

d

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

00

.94

4.0

4.3

4.5

0.1

60

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite3

75

36

.39

3.6

4.4

4.6

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

90

8.8

54

.04

.44

.50

.11

00

.00

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

24

Page 35: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

8:

Dis

tric

t 1

Sta

tis

tica

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

an

d M

ate

ria

l T

ran

sfe

r D

evic

e S

tatu

s

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

0.0

0%

11

561

13.

33

3.6

4.1

4.4

0.1

20

0.0

0F

C5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.24

%9

21

90

.64

3.5

4.1

4.3

0.1

33

0.2

2F

C5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.2

8%

37

43

5.9

23

.24

.04

.50

.17

10

.10

FC

5L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.0

9%

28

672

77.

18

3.3

4.2

4.4

0.1

13

0.2

5F

C5

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

teF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%2

70

26

.43

3.7

4.0

4.2

0.1

00

0.0

0F

C5

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

teN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

61

35

8.5

43

.64

.04

.20

.10

00

.00

FC

5L

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

teN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

10

19

.90

3.9

4.5

4.7

0.1

40

0.0

0F

C9.

5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d0

.00

%1

21

.17

3.8

4.2

4.3

0.1

80

0.0

0F

C9.

5L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

74

17

2.4

53

.74

.34

.60

.15

00

.00

FC

12

.5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.1

9%

11

291

09.

94

3.1

4.3

4.6

0.1

33

0.2

1F

C1

2.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

23

62

3.3

13

.74

.34

.50

.16

00

.00

FC

12

.5L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

59

215

76.

92

3.3

4.2

4.6

0.1

56

0.4

70

.08

%A

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

eF

ully

Use

d2

499

24

1.8

93

.14

.14

.70

.20

40

.31

0.1

3%

All

All

Gra

nite

& L

ime

sto

ne

Not

Use

d

25

Page 36: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

9:

Dis

tric

t 1

Sta

tis

tica

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

an

d P

avi

ng

Tim

e

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

0.4

1%

50

04

8.7

83

.44

.14

.30

.12

20

.20

FC

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%1

18

11

.57

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

20

0.0

0F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.36

%1

54

71

51

.97

2.4

4.0

4.3

0.1

58

0.5

5F

C5

Da

yL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y1

.35

%1

05

01

02

.20

3.0

3.9

4.5

0.1

61

51

.38

FC

5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y0

.07

%3

74

83

61

.98

3.3

4.2

4.4

0.1

23

0.2

5F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

te0

.05

%1

96

41

90

.10

3.4

4.0

4.2

0.0

91

0.1

0F

C5

Da

yL

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

te0

.00

%3

49

32

.83

3.6

4.0

4.2

0.1

10

0.0

0F

C5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eIn

ters

tate

0.0

0%

10

19

.90

3.9

4.5

4.7

0.1

40

0.0

0F

C9.

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.07

%1

39

71

36

.02

2.1

4.3

4.6

0.1

32

0.1

0F

C9.

5D

ay

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

0.1

1%

18

20

17

8.2

23

.44

.34

.60

.16

20

.20

FC

12

.5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.04

%2

74

26

.65

3.1

4.4

4.6

0.1

61

0.0

1F

C1

2.5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.68

%1

20

21

18

.24

3.0

4.2

4.5

0.1

68

0.8

0F

C1

2.5

Da

yL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y0

.17

%9

18

.40

3.5

4.3

4.5

0.1

71

0.0

1F

C1

2.5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

85

31

83

3.2

12

.14

.24

.70

.20

23

1.9

50

.23

%D

ay

All

All

Gra

nite

& L

ime

sto

ne

56

30

54

3.6

33

.04

.14

.60

.17

20

1.6

50

.30

%N

igh

tA

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

e

26

Page 37: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 10: District 1 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

43.09%2005 5 39.25 16.91 0.56%0.22FC5 Primary61.17%2006 7 81.95 50.13 0.57%0.46FC5 Primary62.39%2007 10 132.05 82.38 0.84%1.11FC5 Primary59.51%2008 5 41.45 24.67 1.36%0.57FC5 Primary81.47%2009 12 136.89 111.52 0.15%0.20FC5 Primary81.13%2010 4 42.98 34.87 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary90.07%2011 7 75.53 68.03 0.15%0.12FC5 Primary89.73%2005 1 58.43 52.42 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate71.95%2006 2 13.31 9.58 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate62.66%2007 2 71.72 44.94 0.14%0.10FC5 Interstate73.64%2008 3 103.25 76.03 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate84.77%2009 8 190.85 161.79 0.13%0.25FC5 Interstate99.60%2010 2 199.54 198.75 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate61.64%2011 2 17.97 11.08 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate99.07%2005 2 15.82 15.68 0.11%0.02FC9.5 Primary99.56%2006 5 68.21 67.91 0.15%0.10FC9.5 Primary99.69%2008 4 93.09 92.81 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary84.23%2009 1 1.17 0.98 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary98.99%2011 1 9.90 9.80 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary93.42%2005 5 67.43 62.99 1.75%1.18FC12.5 Primary93.89%2006 14 119.19 111.90 0.68%0.81FC12.5 Primary83.13%2007 4 21.96 18.26 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary97.95%2008 5 37.08 36.32 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary97.41%2009 8 54.22 52.81 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary98.59%2010 9 126.94 125.16 0.17%0.21FC12.5 Primary99.30%2011 6 45.23 44.92 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary

81.80%13 180.92 148.00 0.78%1.422005AllAll84.74%28 282.66 239.52 0.49%1.382006AllAll64.49%16 225.74 145.58 0.54%1.212007AllAll83.61%17 274.88 229.83 0.21%0.572008AllAll85.38%29 383.12 327.10 0.12%0.452009AllAll97.11%15 369.46 358.77 0.06%0.212010AllAll90.04%15 148.63 133.83 0.08%0.122011AllAll

27

Page 38: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

11

: D

istr

ict

1 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y C

on

tra

cto

r, F

rict

ion

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

63

46

2.2

33

.74

.24

.30

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

Fu

lly U

sed

27

02

6.4

33

.74

.04

.20

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d4

73

45

.14

3.6

4.0

4.2

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d1

76

16

.92

4.0

4.3

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

A.P

.A.C

.F

ully

Use

d3

30

31

.53

3.1

4.2

4.4

0.1

01

0.0

10

.03

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

A.P

.A.C

.N

ot U

sed

31

17

30

1.4

73

.34

.24

.40

.12

30

.25

0.0

8%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

jax

Pa

vin

g In

du

stry

Fu

lly U

sed

62

66

1.5

63

.54

.14

.30

.11

20

.12

0.1

9%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Aja

x P

avi

ng

Ind

ust

ryF

ully

Use

d1

01

9.9

03

.94

.54

.70

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

Aja

x P

avi

ng

Ind

ust

ryN

ot U

sed

48

54

7.5

73

.74

.44

.60

.15

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

jax

Pa

vin

g In

du

stry

Fu

lly U

sed

73

7.2

34

.24

.54

.60

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

jax

Pa

vin

g In

du

stry

No

t Use

d1

32

13

.10

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5B

ett

er

Ro

ad

s In

c.F

ully

Use

d3

50

33

.65

3.6

4.0

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5B

ett

er

Ro

ad

s In

c.N

ot U

sed

12

1.1

73

.84

.24

.30

.18

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C9

.5B

ett

er

Ro

ad

s In

c.N

ot U

sed

16

1.5

74

.04

.34

.50

.16

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C1

2.5

Be

tte

r R

oa

ds

Inc.

Fu

lly U

sed

67

6.3

93

.74

.14

.30

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

C. W

. R

ob

ert

s C

on

tra

ctin

gF

ully

Use

d7

47

.28

4.2

4.4

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

12

.5C

. W.

Ro

be

rts

Co

ntr

act

ing

Fu

lly U

sed

13

61

3.5

33

.74

.24

.40

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C1

2.5

Co

mm

un

ity A

sph

alt

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

10

0.9

44

.04

.34

.50

.16

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C1

2.5

Dic

kers

on

Asp

ha

ltF

ully

Use

d9

69

.59

3.5

3.9

4.2

0.1

51

0.1

01

.04

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

80

7.9

73

.84

.14

.50

.15

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

14

1.2

33

.64

.14

.40

.19

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

No

t Use

d1

15

11

.04

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Mid

dle

sex

Co

rp.

No

t Use

d1

55

15

.48

3.6

4.0

4.3

0.1

50

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Orl

an

do

Pav

ing

Co

mp

an

yF

ully

Use

d1

17

11

.33

4.0

4.2

4.4

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

76

7.0

23

.23

.94

.50

.25

10

.10

1.4

2%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

S.

T.

Woo

ten

Cor

p.N

ot U

sed

59

75

8.9

03

.44

.34

.50

.12

20

.20

0.3

4%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5S

up

eri

or

Asp

ha

lt In

c.N

ot U

sed

88

8.6

63

.64

.04

.20

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

We

ekl

ey A

spha

lt P

avi

ng

No

t Use

dA

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.M

ate

ria

l Tra

nsf

er

De

vice

Sta

tuse

s o

f "P

art

ially

Use

d" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n" h

ave

be

en

exc

lud

ed f

rom

th

is r

ep

ort

.

28

Page 39: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 5: District 2 Ride Distribution, All Lots

District 2

1988.78 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

20279 1988.78 1.8 4.2 4.6 0.17 50 4.28All Lots 0.22%

29

Page 40: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 6: District 2 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 631.49 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 508.88 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 80.65 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 767.76 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

6428 631.49 1.8 4.1 4.5 0.16 33 2.86FC5 Primary 0.45%5232 508.88 3.2 4.1 4.4 0.16 6 0.51FC5 Interstate 0.10%827 80.65 3.2 4.4 4.6 0.13 1 0.01FC9.5 Primary 0.01%7792 767.76 2.9 4.3 4.6 0.14 10 0.90FC12.5 Primary 0.12%

30

Page 41: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

12

: D

istr

ict

2 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te

0.2

1%

20

05

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

53

65

2.9

53

.34

.14

.30

.13

20

.11

3.3

3%

20

05

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e7

26

.13

3.3

4.0

4.2

0.1

84

0.2

00

.45

%2

00

6F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite4

45

44

.07

3.4

4.1

4.3

0.1

62

0.2

07

.29

%2

00

6F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

27

62

7.2

61

.83

.94

.20

.30

21

1.9

90

.06

%2

00

7F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

563

15

4.5

63

.54

.14

.30

.10

10

.10

0.0

9%

20

08

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

57

75

5.9

43

.54

.04

.20

.11

10

.05

0.2

4%

20

09

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

84

78

3.4

83

.34

.14

.40

.14

20

.20

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

14

561

42.

33

3.6

4.3

4.5

0.1

30

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite6

56

64

.79

3.7

4.2

4.4

0.1

00

0.0

00

.21

%2

00

5F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite4

92

47

.04

3.5

4.0

4.4

0.1

71

0.1

00

.00

%2

00

6F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite4

20

41

.53

3.9

4.2

4.4

0.0

80

0.0

00

.11

%2

00

7F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite2

033

19

8.0

83

.24

.14

.40

.16

30

.22

0.1

9%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

10

391

01.

55

3.2

4.2

4.4

0.1

52

0.1

90

.00

%2

00

9F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite2

96

29

.00

3.7

4.2

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite3

89

36

.79

4.0

4.2

4.4

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite5

63

54

.89

3.6

4.1

4.4

0.1

30

0.0

00

.03

%2

00

5F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

39

73

8.8

53

.24

.34

.60

.14

10

.01

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

24

22

.04

4.0

4.3

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

16

51

5.9

24

.24

.54

.60

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite4

13

.83

4.2

4.5

4.6

0.1

00

0.0

00

.07

%2

00

5F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

96

19

.48

3.5

4.2

4.5

0.1

31

0.0

10

.30

%2

00

6F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

356

13

3.3

33

.04

.34

.60

.14

40

.40

0.0

9%

20

07

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

11

151

09.

76

3.3

4.2

4.5

0.1

21

0.1

00

.06

%2

00

8F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

687

16

6.4

33

.14

.34

.60

.13

10

.10

0.2

0%

20

09

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

99

29

8.1

02

.94

.34

.60

.16

20

.20

0.0

8%

20

10

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

11

991

17.

76

3.1

4.3

4.5

0.1

31

0.0

90

.00

%2

01

1F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

135

11

1.8

13

.64

.34

.50

.14

00

.00

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

31

Page 42: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

13

: D

istr

ict

2 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, Sys

tem

, Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

0.0

9%

21

772

14.

21

3.3

4.2

4.5

0.1

52

0.2

0F

C5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%2

16

20

.91

3.9

4.2

4.4

0.1

00

0.0

0F

C5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

60

55

7.9

14

.04

.24

.40

.08

00

.00

FC

5G

ran

iteIn

ters

tate

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

0%

41

3.8

34

.24

.54

.60

.10

00

.00

FC

9.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

10

631

04.

64

3.6

4.3

4.5

0.1

20

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.08

%1

240

12

2.4

73

.14

.34

.60

.15

10

.10

FC

12

.5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

38

453

76.

76

3.3

4.2

4.5

0.1

42

0.2

00

.05

%A

llA

llG

ran

iteF

ully

Use

d1

497

14

7.2

13

.14

.34

.60

.15

10

.10

0.0

7%

All

All

Gra

nite

Not

Use

d

32

Page 43: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

14

: D

istr

ict

2 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, A

gg

reg

ate

, an

d P

avin

g T

ime

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

0.1

0%

41

42

40

7.6

93

.34

.14

.50

.15

40

.40

FC

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.28

%2

05

18

.82

3.5

4.0

4.2

0.1

31

0.0

5F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y7

.29

%2

76

27

.26

1.8

3.9

4.2

0.3

02

11

.99

FC

5D

ay

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

42

04

1.5

33

.94

.24

.40

.08

00

.00

FC

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

te0

.12

%9

98

93

.93

3.5

4.2

4.4

0.1

22

0.1

2F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

te0

.00

%2

24

22

.04

4.0

4.3

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

0F

C9.

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%2

06

19

.75

4.2

4.5

4.6

0.0

80

0.0

0F

C9.

5N

igh

tG

ran

iteP

rim

ary

0.0

9%

65

93

65

0.4

13

.04

.34

.60

.13

60

.60

FC

12

.5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y1

.36

%1

57

14

.70

2.9

4.1

4.4

0.2

02

0.2

0F

C1

2.5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

11

65

51

148

.92

1.8

4.2

4.6

0.1

73

12

.99

0.2

6%

Da

yA

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

e1

56

61

47

.20

2.9

4.2

4.6

0.1

85

0.3

70

.25

%N

igh

tA

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

e

33

Page 44: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 15: District 2 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

86.96%2005 4 59.08 51.38 0.54%0.32FC5 Primary72.69%2006 3 71.32 51.85 3.07%2.19FC5 Primary94.12%2007 5 154.56 145.46 0.06%0.10FC5 Primary77.33%2008 3 55.94 43.26 0.09%0.05FC5 Primary84.37%2009 3 83.48 70.43 0.24%0.20FC5 Primary97.77%2010 4 142.33 139.16 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary98.55%2011 6 64.79 63.85 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary72.17%2005 3 47.04 33.95 0.21%0.10FC5 Interstate99.52%2006 1 41.53 41.33 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate73.59%2007 6 198.08 145.76 0.11%0.22FC5 Interstate90.09%2008 4 101.55 91.49 0.19%0.19FC5 Interstate96.42%2009 3 29.00 27.96 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate

100.00%2010 3 36.79 36.79 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate90.96%2011 1 54.89 49.93 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate98.17%2005 2 38.85 38.14 0.03%0.01FC9.5 Primary

100.00%2007 2 22.04 22.04 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary100.00%2008 1 15.92 15.92 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary100.00%2010 1 3.83 3.83 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary95.82%2005 1 19.48 18.66 0.07%0.01FC12.5 Primary98.20%2006 15 133.33 130.93 0.30%0.40FC12.5 Primary97.04%2007 12 120.86 117.29 0.08%0.10FC12.5 Primary99.26%2008 13 166.43 165.20 0.06%0.10FC12.5 Primary97.32%2009 9 98.10 95.47 0.20%0.20FC12.5 Primary98.97%2010 10 117.76 116.55 0.08%0.09FC12.5 Primary97.10%2011 9 111.81 108.57 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary

86.43%10 164.46 142.13 0.27%0.442005AllAll91.03%19 246.18 224.10 1.05%2.592006AllAll86.89%25 495.54 430.55 0.08%0.422007AllAll92.94%20 339.84 315.87 0.10%0.342008AllAll92.06%15 210.58 193.85 0.19%0.402009AllAll98.54%18 300.70 296.32 0.03%0.092010AllAll96.05%16 231.49 222.34 0.00%0.002011AllAll

34

Page 45: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

16

: D

istr

ict

2 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y C

on

tra

cto

r, F

rict

ion

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

59

45

8.6

84

.04

.24

.40

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

Fu

lly U

sed

60

5.7

34

.14

.34

.40

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d4

13

.83

4.2

4.5

4.6

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d9

08

.79

4.1

4.4

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

A.P

.A.C

.F

ully

Use

d3

80

37

.71

4.0

4.3

4.6

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

A.P

.A.C

.N

ot U

sed

14

32

14

2.0

23

.34

.24

.50

.18

20

.20

0.1

4%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

nd

erso

n C

olu

mb

iaF

ully

Use

d6

05

.80

3.9

4.2

4.3

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

No

t Use

d7

49

73

.93

3.6

4.3

4.5

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

Fu

lly U

sed

59

35

8.8

43

.84

.34

.60

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

nd

erso

n C

olu

mb

iaN

ot U

sed

48

24

5.7

13

.84

.24

.40

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

tlan

tic C

oa

stF

ully

Use

d4

24

.09

4.1

4.3

4.4

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Atla

ntic

Co

ast

Fu

lly U

sed

96

9.3

83

.94

.14

.30

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsN

ot U

sed

27

42

5.7

13

.64

.14

.30

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5D

uva

l Asp

ha

ltF

ully

Use

d8

28

.02

3.9

4.3

4.4

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Duv

al A

sph

alt

Fu

lly U

sed

50

4.7

73

.14

.04

.20

.19

10

.10

2.1

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5D

uva

l Asp

ha

ltN

ot U

sed

20

1.4

73

.74

.14

.30

.17

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5P

& S

Pav

ing

No

t Use

d1

00

9.8

14

.04

.24

.40

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5P

ea

vy a

nd

So

ns

Fu

lly U

sed

19

71

9.6

73

.84

.24

.40

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5W

hite

hur

stN

ot U

sed

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

35

Page 46: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

36

Page 47: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 7: District 3 Ride Distribution, All Lots

District 3

1060.14 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

10793 1060.14 2.4 4.3 4.6 0.15 5 0.39All Lots 0.04%

37

Page 48: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 8: District 3 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 293.41 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 283.05 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 327.47 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 156.21 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

2980 293.41 2.4 4.2 4.6 0.12 4 0.29FC5 Primary 0.10%2904 283.05 3.5 4.2 4.4 0.10 1 0.10FC5 Interstate 0.04%3315 327.47 3.6 4.4 4.6 0.11 0 0.00FC9.5 Primary 0.00%1594 156.21 3.6 4.3 4.6 0.13 0 0.00FC12.5 Primary 0.00%

38

Page 49: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

17

: D

istr

ict

3 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te

0.2

5%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

11

701

15.

87

2.4

4.2

4.4

0.1

14

0.2

90

.00

%2

00

8F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

66

26

.30

3.7

4.1

4.3

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

9F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite7

35

71

.86

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite6

08

59

.40

3.9

4.3

4.5

0.1

30

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

01

19

.98

3.7

4.4

4.6

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

6F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite3

41

32

.78

3.6

4.1

4.3

0.0

90

0.0

00

.28

%2

00

7F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite3

71

36

.22

3.5

4.2

4.3

0.0

81

0.1

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite1

115

10

8.5

93

.64

.24

.40

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

77

57

5.4

33

.94

.24

.30

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

30

23

0.0

34

.14

.34

.40

.06

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite4

96

48

.70

3.9

4.4

4.6

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

49

84

9.0

84

.14

.54

.60

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite7

48

74

.25

4.0

4.4

4.6

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

71

07

0.3

93

.64

.44

.60

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

11

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite8

63

85

.06

3.6

4.4

4.6

0.1

30

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

5F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite7

87

.68

3.9

4.2

4.4

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

7F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

97

19

.24

3.7

4.2

4.5

0.1

60

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

24

22

.20

3.9

4.3

4.5

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

9F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

84

18

.16

4.0

4.3

4.6

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite6

71

65

.73

3.6

4.3

4.6

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

40

23

.22

3.9

4.4

4.6

0.1

10

0.0

0A

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.

39

Page 50: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

18

: D

istr

ict

3 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, Sys

tem

, Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

0.0

0%

15

441

51.

24

3.7

4.3

4.6

0.1

10

0.0

0F

C5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%1

077

10

5.4

63

.94

.24

.40

.10

00

.00

FC

5G

ran

iteIn

ters

tate

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

0%

21

452

12.

19

3.6

4.4

4.6

0.1

20

0.0

0F

C9.

5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

0%

12

81

2.8

04

.14

.44

.50

.07

00

.00

FC

9.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

10

951

07.

10

3.6

4.3

4.6

0.1

20

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

58

615

75.

99

3.6

4.3

4.6

0.1

40

0.0

00

.00

%A

llA

llG

ran

iteF

ully

Use

d1

28

12

.80

4.1

4.4

4.5

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%A

llA

llG

ran

iteN

ot U

sed

40

Page 51: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

19

: D

istr

ict

3 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, A

gg

reg

ate

, an

d P

avin

g T

ime

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

0.0

0%

22

94

22

5.6

73

.74

.24

.60

.11

00

.00

FC

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%1

26

12

.43

3.7

4.1

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

0F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.05

%2

13

62

09

.84

3.5

4.2

4.4

0.1

11

0.1

0F

C5

Da

yG

ran

iteIn

ters

tate

0.0

0%

42

94

1.2

43

.94

.24

.40

.09

00

.00

FC

5N

igh

tG

ran

iteIn

ters

tate

0.0

0%

24

73

24

4.0

23

.64

.44

.60

.11

00

.00

FC

9.5

Da

yG

ran

iteP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

80

7.9

94

.14

.54

.60

.08

00

.00

FC

9.5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%1

23

21

20

.49

3.6

4.3

4.6

0.1

30

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Da

yG

ran

iteP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

92

8.9

74

.14

.44

.50

.08

00

.00

FC

12

.5N

igh

tG

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

81

35

80

0.0

23

.54

.34

.60

.15

10

.10

0.0

1%

Da

yA

llA

llG

ran

ite7

27

70

.63

3.7

4.2

4.6

0.1

50

0.0

00

.00

%N

igh

tA

llA

llG

ran

ite

41

Page 52: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 20: District 3 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

97.75%2007 4 115.87 113.26 0.25%0.29FC5 Primary97.34%2008 2 26.30 25.60 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary99.56%2009 5 71.86 71.54 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary99.49%2010 3 59.40 59.10 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary99.38%2011 2 19.98 19.86 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary97.67%2006 1 32.78 32.01 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate99.17%2007 1 36.22 35.92 0.28%0.10FC5 Interstate97.08%2008 5 108.59 105.43 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate98.72%2009 3 75.43 74.46 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate

100.00%2010 1 30.03 30.03 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate99.92%2007 3 48.70 48.65 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary

100.00%2008 5 49.08 49.08 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary100.00%2009 3 74.25 74.25 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary99.29%2010 4 70.39 69.89 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary99.65%2011 6 85.06 84.76 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary98.70%2005 2 7.68 7.58 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary94.56%2007 2 19.24 18.19 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary99.55%2008 2 22.20 22.10 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary

100.00%2009 2 18.16 18.16 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary99.14%2010 5 65.73 65.17 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary99.14%2011 2 23.22 23.02 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary

98.70%2 7.68 7.58 0.00%0.002005AllAll97.67%1 32.78 32.01 0.00%0.002006AllAll98.18%10 220.03 216.03 0.18%0.392007AllAll98.08%14 206.16 202.20 0.00%0.002008AllAll99.46%12 239.69 238.40 0.00%0.002009AllAll99.40%13 225.55 224.18 0.00%0.002010AllAll99.51%9 128.27 127.64 0.00%0.002011AllAll

42

Page 53: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

21

: D

istr

ict

3 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y C

on

tra

cto

r, F

rict

ion

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

30

23

0.0

34

.14

.34

.40

.06

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

Fu

lly U

sed

12

41

2.2

74

.14

.44

.60

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

A.P

.A.C

.F

ully

Use

d6

05

.85

4.1

4.4

4.5

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

A.P

.A.C

.F

ully

Use

d5

22

50

.62

4.0

4.2

4.4

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

Fu

lly U

sed

33

23

2.4

83

.64

.44

.60

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

Fu

lly U

sed

60

35

9.0

53

.64

.34

.50

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5A

nd

erso

n C

olu

mb

iaF

ully

Use

d8

11

80

.29

3.7

4.2

4.6

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

C. W

. R

ob

ert

s C

on

tra

ctin

gF

ully

Use

d8

47

84

.08

3.9

4.4

4.6

0.1

30

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5C

. W.

Ro

be

rts

Co

ntr

act

ing

Fu

lly U

sed

43

24

2.2

13

.94

.44

.60

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5C

. W.

Ro

be

rts

Co

ntr

act

ing

Fu

lly U

sed

26

02

5.6

14

.14

.34

.50

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5G

AC

Co

ntra

cto

rsF

ully

Use

d1

28

12

.80

4.1

4.4

4.5

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5Jo

ne

s C

ons

tru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

45

24

4.8

63

.64

.44

.60

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

Pa

nh

an

dle

Gra

din

g &

Pa

vin

gF

ully

Use

d7

26

70

.15

3.8

4.2

4.5

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Pe

avy

an

d S

on

sF

ully

Use

d3

90

38

.50

4.0

4.4

4.6

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5P

ea

vy a

nd

So

ns

Fu

lly U

sed

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

43

Page 54: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

44

Page 55: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 9: District 4 Ride Distribution, All Lots

District 4

1382.24 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

14340 1382.24 2.1 4.0 4.7 0.22 444 40.62All Lots 2.94%

45

Page 56: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 10: District 4 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 387.54 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 855.02 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 107.22 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 32.46 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

3946 387.54 2.7 4.0 4.4 0.20 143 13.14FC5 Primary 3.39%8976 855.02 2.1 3.9 4.4 0.19 300 27.38FC5 Interstate 3.20%1092 107.22 3.4 4.4 4.7 0.12 1 0.10FC9.5 Primary 0.09%326 32.46 3.6 4.3 4.5 0.20 0 0.00FC12.5 Primary 0.00%

46

Page 57: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

22

: D

istr

ict

4 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te

4.4

7%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

252

12

3.3

63

.03

.94

.20

.17

60

5.5

20

.65

%2

00

8F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

48

54

6.6

42

.84

.04

.30

.13

70

.30

6.0

0%

20

09

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e9

98

98

.92

3.1

3.9

4.4

0.2

16

05

.93

0.0

2%

20

10

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e8

57

83

.92

3.4

4.1

4.4

0.1

11

0.0

23

.95

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

35

43

4.7

02

.74

.04

.20

.20

15

1.3

74

.63

%2

00

5F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

80

67

4.3

72

.83

.84

.20

.15

37

3.4

56

.54

%2

00

6F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

13

641

33.

23

3.1

3.8

4.2

0.1

79

08

.71

9.7

9%

20

07

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e9

93

93

.05

3.2

3.8

4.2

0.1

79

99

.11

2.4

7%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

886

18

0.1

82

.94

.04

.40

.19

52

4.4

50

.87

%2

00

9F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

13

511

29.

05

2.1

4.0

4.2

0.1

51

21

.12

0.1

5%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

616

15

5.9

92

.24

.04

.30

.13

30

.24

0.3

4%

20

11

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e9

60

89

.15

3.3

4.0

4.3

0.1

47

0.3

10

.74

%2

00

8F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

38

13

.49

3.4

4.3

4.5

0.1

31

0.1

00

.00

%2

00

9F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

52

44

.46

3.9

4.3

4.5

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e5

02

49

.27

3.9

4.4

4.7

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

7F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

11

41

1.3

23

.84

.24

.50

.16

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e3

23

.16

3.6

3.8

4.1

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

18

01

7.9

84

.14

.44

.50

.09

00

.00

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

47

Page 58: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

23

: D

istr

ict

4 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, Sys

tem

, Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

3.5

7%

16

881

66.

84

3.1

4.0

4.4

0.2

16

15

.95

FC

5L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%1

67

16

.00

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.1

10

0.0

0F

C5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d0

.09

%9

08

87

.31

3.3

4.1

4.2

0.1

13

0.0

8F

C5

Lim

est

on

eIn

ters

tate

Fu

lly U

sed

0.7

7%

85

68

2.3

82

.24

.04

.30

.16

70

.64

FC

5L

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

teN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

40

43

9.7

83

.94

.54

.70

.10

00

.00

FC

9.5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

0%

68

6.5

14

.04

.44

.60

.10

00

.00

FC

9.5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d0

.00

%3

23

.16

3.6

3.8

4.1

0.1

20

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

30

002

93.

92

3.1

4.1

4.7

0.2

46

46

.02

2.0

5%

All

All

Lim

est

on

eF

ully

Use

d1

123

10

8.0

52

.24

.04

.60

.19

70

.64

0.5

9%

All

All

Lim

est

on

eN

ot U

sed

48

Page 59: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

24

: D

istr

ict

4 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, A

gg

reg

ate

, an

d P

avin

g T

ime

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

4.0

1%

26

78

26

3.8

12

.74

.04

.40

.21

11

01

0.5

7F

C5

Da

yL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y0

.42

%7

40

71

.48

2.8

4.0

4.4

0.1

57

0.3

0F

C5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

0.8

3%

14

72

14

2.1

82

.24

.04

.30

.14

14

1.1

8F

C5

Da

yL

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

te3

.57

%6

47

26

16

.48

2.1

3.9

4.4

0.1

92

37

21

.98

FC

5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

te0

.09

%1

07

61

05

.79

3.4

4.4

4.7

0.1

31

0.1

0F

C9.

5D

ay

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

16

1.4

34

.24

.44

.40

.06

00

.00

FC

9.5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

21

22

1.1

43

.64

.34

.50

.21

00

.00

FC

12

.5D

ay

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

54

38

53

2.9

22

.24

.14

.70

.25

12

51

1.8

52

.22

%D

ay

All

All

Lim

est

on

e7

22

86

89

.39

2.1

3.9

4.4

0.1

92

44

22

.29

3.2

3%

Nig

ht

All

All

Lim

est

on

e

49

Page 60: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 25: District 4 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

43.27%2007 7 123.36 53.38 4.47%5.52FC5 Primary75.06%2008 3 46.64 35.00 0.65%0.30FC5 Primary36.21%2009 3 98.92 35.82 6.00%5.93FC5 Primary92.70%2010 4 83.92 77.79 0.02%0.02FC5 Primary68.48%2011 1 34.70 23.77 3.95%1.37FC5 Primary20.42%2005 3 74.37 15.18 4.63%3.45FC5 Interstate20.60%2006 4 133.23 27.44 6.54%8.71FC5 Interstate17.42%2007 4 93.05 16.21 9.79%9.11FC5 Interstate60.41%2008 5 180.18 108.84 2.47%4.45FC5 Interstate74.34%2009 3 129.05 95.95 0.87%1.12FC5 Interstate76.05%2010 3 155.99 118.62 0.15%0.24FC5 Interstate77.39%2011 4 89.15 68.99 0.34%0.31FC5 Interstate98.52%2008 1 13.49 13.29 0.74%0.10FC9.5 Primary99.19%2009 3 44.46 44.10 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary99.88%2010 3 49.27 49.21 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary90.28%2007 1 11.32 10.22 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary24.70%2010 1 3.16 0.78 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary

100.00%2011 1 17.98 17.98 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary

20.42%3 74.37 15.18 4.63%3.452005AllAll20.60%4 133.23 27.44 6.54%8.712006AllAll35.05%12 227.73 79.81 6.42%14.632007AllAll65.39%9 240.31 157.14 2.02%4.852008AllAll64.55%9 272.44 175.87 2.59%7.052009AllAll84.29%11 292.34 246.40 0.09%0.252010AllAll78.08%6 141.83 110.74 1.18%1.682011AllAll

50

Page 61: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

26

: D

istr

ict

4 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y C

on

tra

cto

r, F

rict

ion

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

64

66

2.2

12

.24

.04

.30

.13

20

.14

0.2

2%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Asp

ha

lt G

rou

p,

Inc.

No

t Use

d8

94

88

.61

3.1

3.8

4.2

0.1

96

05

.93

6.6

9%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Co

mm

un

ity A

sph

alt

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

84

7.8

13

.84

.14

.30

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Co

mm

un

ity A

sph

alt

Co

rp.

No

t Use

d1

08

61

05

.64

3.7

4.1

4.4

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5D

icke

rso

n A

sph

alt

Fu

lly U

sed

14

61

4.2

03

.94

.44

.50

.08

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C9

.5D

icke

rso

n A

sph

alt

Fu

lly U

sed

32

3.1

63

.63

.84

.10

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C1

2.5

Ha

rdri

ves

of

De

lra

yN

ot U

sed

11

41

0.2

73

.33

.94

.10

.13

30

.08

0.7

4%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

J. W

. C

he

ath

am

, L

LC

.F

ully

Use

d1

61

.43

4.2

4.4

4.4

0.0

60

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

9.5

J. W

. C

he

ath

am

, L

LC

.N

ot U

sed

50

24

9.6

33

.44

.14

.30

.11

10

.02

0.0

3%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

13

31

2.9

03

.44

.04

.40

.24

40

.40

3.1

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

No

t Use

d2

58

25

.57

4.1

4.5

4.7

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

9.5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Fu

lly U

sed

52

5.0

84

.04

.44

.60

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C9

.5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

16

01

5.4

63

.43

.84

.10

.12

10

.10

0.6

5%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

We

ekl

ey A

spha

lt P

avi

ng

No

t Use

dA

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.M

ate

ria

l Tra

nsf

er

De

vice

Sta

tuse

s o

f "P

art

ially

Use

d" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n" h

ave

be

en

exc

lud

ed f

rom

th

is r

ep

ort

.

51

Page 62: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

52

Page 63: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 11: District 5 Ride Distribution, All Lots

District 5

1917.40 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

19568 1917.40 1.2 4.1 4.6 0.18 86 7.71All Lots 0.40%

53

Page 64: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 12: District 5 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 715.43 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.52.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Toll ‐ 22.47 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.52.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 779.35 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 167.11 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 233.04 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

7326 715.43 1.2 4.1 4.5 0.15 41 3.73FC5 Primary 0.52%243 22.47 3.3 4.1 4.3 0.12 1 0.02FC5 Toll 0.07%7918 779.35 2.8 4.1 4.4 0.16 33 3.12FC5 Interstate 0.40%1696 167.11 3.2 4.3 4.6 0.16 4 0.34FC9.5 Primary 0.20%2385 233.04 3.2 4.3 4.6 0.15 7 0.51FC12.5 Primary 0.22%

54

Page 65: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

27

: D

istr

ict

5 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te

0.7

8%

20

05

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

64

86

4.1

63

.34

.14

.30

.12

50

.50

1.7

3%

20

05

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

47

42

.13

3.3

4.0

4.3

0.1

48

0.7

30

.38

%2

00

6F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite7

18

70

.31

3.3

4.0

4.3

0.1

43

0.2

71

.28

%2

00

6F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

63

16

2.0

41

.24

.04

.30

.14

90

.79

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

78

57

7.2

23

.74

.14

.30

.10

00

.00

3.8

9%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e2

34

23

.13

3.4

3.9

4.2

0.1

69

0.9

00

.11

%2

00

8F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

139

11

2.1

53

.44

.14

.30

.12

20

.13

0.0

0%

20

08

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

97

49

.20

3.6

4.0

4.2

0.0

90

0.0

00

.13

%2

00

9F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite9

81

94

.59

3.5

4.1

4.3

0.1

22

0.1

20

.87

%2

00

9F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

23

82

3.0

93

.54

.14

.30

.14

20

.20

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

36

23

4.1

23

.74

.24

.50

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e4

44

.40

3.7

4.1

4.3

0.1

10

0.0

00

.17

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite6

02

58

.92

3.5

4.2

4.4

0.1

11

0.1

00

.00

%2

00

6F

C5

To

llG

ran

ite2

07

19

.47

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

00

.53

%2

00

6F

C5

To

llL

ime

sto

ne

36

3.0

03

.33

.94

.10

.11

10

.02

0.0

0%

20

05

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e8

04

79

.62

3.6

4.2

4.4

0.0

90

0.0

01

.20

%2

00

6F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite1

306

12

8.4

92

.83

.94

.30

.14

16

1.5

40

.69

%2

00

7F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite1

691

16

7.2

13

.14

.04

.30

.16

12

1.1

60

.07

%2

00

8F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite1

417

13

9.7

43

.54

.14

.40

.16

10

.10

0.0

0%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e2

48

24

.36

3.6

4.1

4.3

0.1

20

0.0

00

.51

%2

00

9F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite4

12

39

.44

3.5

4.1

4.3

0.1

22

0.2

00

.00

%2

00

9F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

24

82

4.4

03

.74

.14

.30

.10

00

.00

4.3

2%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

30

2.7

63

.44

.04

.20

.18

20

.12

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e2

48

23

.74

3.7

4.0

4.2

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite4

26

42

.02

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

10

881

07.

59

3.6

4.1

4.4

0.1

10

0.0

00

.66

%2

00

5F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

60

5.6

33

.24

.34

.50

.18

10

.04

1.0

2%

20

06

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

99

9.7

83

.44

.44

.60

.15

10

.10

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite2

60

25

.71

3.8

4.2

4.5

0.1

30

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

48

04

7.6

33

.94

.54

.60

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite4

58

44

.91

3.6

4.3

4.5

0.1

50

0.0

00

.09

%2

00

5F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

34

12

.87

3.4

4.0

4.4

0.1

11

0.0

10

.00

%2

00

6F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

80

7.6

53

.64

.24

.50

.18

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

43

54

2.4

13

.64

.24

.50

.14

00

.00

0.0

8%

20

08

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

48

04

7.2

53

.24

.34

.60

.11

10

.04

0.4

1%

20

09

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

23

62

3.0

73

.44

.34

.50

.12

10

.09

0.3

3%

20

10

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

50

34

9.2

23

.34

.34

.50

.14

20

.16

0.6

4%

20

11

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

31

63

1.1

33

.34

.34

.60

.15

20

.20

55

Page 66: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

27

: D

istr

ict

5 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te,

co

nti

nu

ed

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

56

Page 67: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

28

: D

istr

ict

5 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, Sys

tem

, Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

0.2

4%

42

54

1.3

53

.54

.24

.40

.12

10

.10

FC

5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

9%

13

651

31.

78

3.5

4.1

4.5

0.1

42

0.1

2F

C5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.8

7%

23

82

3.0

93

.54

.14

.30

.14

20

.20

FC

5L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%4

44

.40

3.7

4.1

4.3

0.1

10

0.0

0F

C5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d0

.00

%2

70

25

.93

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

0F

C5

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

teN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

13

361

31.

32

3.6

4.1

4.4

0.1

30

0.0

0F

C5

Lim

est

on

eIn

ters

tate

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

0%

63

6.1

63

.84

.34

.50

.16

00

.00

FC

9.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.00

%1

13

11

.07

4.0

4.4

4.5

0.1

10

0.0

0F

C9.

5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d0

.00

%3

19

31

.35

3.9

4.4

4.5

0.1

00

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d0

.77

%6

10

59

.54

3.3

4.3

4.6

0.1

55

0.4

6F

C1

2.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

23

812

33.

27

3.5

4.2

4.5

0.1

53

0.3

00

.13

%A

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

eF

ully

Use

d2

402

23

2.7

23

.34

.24

.60

.16

70

.58

0.2

5%

All

All

Gra

nite

& L

ime

sto

ne

Not

Use

d

57

Page 68: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

29

: D

istr

ict

5 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, A

gg

reg

ate

, an

d P

avin

g T

ime

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

0.0

8%

24

06

23

5.8

13

.54

.14

.50

.12

20

.20

FC

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.22

%1

66

21

60

.73

3.4

4.1

4.4

0.1

45

0.3

5F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.86

%1

18

21

16

.77

3.3

4.0

4.3

0.1

21

01

.00

FC

5D

ay

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

0.0

0%

44

4.4

03

.74

.14

.30

.11

00

.00

FC

5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%2

07

19

.47

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

0F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

To

ll0

.53

%3

63

.00

3.3

3.9

4.1

0.1

11

0.0

2F

C5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eT

oll

0.1

2%

29

50

28

9.3

12

.94

.14

.40

.15

50

.36

FC

5N

igh

tG

ran

iteIn

ters

tate

0.0

0%

24

82

4.4

03

.74

.14

.30

.10

00

.00

FC

5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

te0

.00

%7

13

70

.45

3.8

4.4

4.6

0.1

60

0.0

0F

C9.

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%3

93

38

.94

3.6

4.3

4.6

0.1

50

0.0

0F

C9.

5N

igh

tG

ran

iteP

rim

ary

1.0

2%

99

9.7

83

.44

.44

.60

.15

10

.10

FC

9.5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

0.1

6%

12

96

12

7.7

73

.24

.34

.60

.12

30

.20

FC

12

.5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%4

02

38

.85

3.6

4.2

4.5

0.1

50

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%4

24

.02

3.6

4.2

4.5

0.2

00

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Da

yL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%3

83

.63

3.8

4.3

4.5

0.1

40

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

56

39

55

4.8

13

.24

.24

.60

.19

15

1.4

00

.25

%D

ay

All

All

Gra

nite

& L

ime

sto

ne

60

79

59

2.5

22

.94

.24

.60

.15

12

0.8

20

.14

%N

igh

tA

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

e

58

Page 69: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 30: District 5 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

81.33%2005 6 106.29 86.44 1.16%1.23FC5 Primary68.28%2006 8 132.34 90.37 0.80%1.06FC5 Primary79.22%2007 5 100.34 79.49 0.90%0.90FC5 Primary88.51%2008 8 161.35 142.81 0.08%0.13FC5 Primary92.32%2009 9 117.67 108.63 0.27%0.32FC5 Primary95.69%2010 5 38.52 36.86 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary98.83%2011 6 58.92 58.23 0.17%0.10FC5 Primary85.48%2006 2 22.47 19.21 0.07%0.02FC5 Toll98.12%2005 1 79.62 78.12 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate42.81%2006 2 128.49 55.00 1.20%1.54FC5 Interstate75.96%2007 4 167.21 127.01 0.69%1.16FC5 Interstate87.02%2008 4 164.10 142.81 0.06%0.10FC5 Interstate92.37%2009 3 63.84 58.97 0.31%0.20FC5 Interstate68.80%2010 2 26.49 18.23 0.45%0.12FC5 Interstate95.12%2011 3 149.60 142.31 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate97.57%2005 3 25.85 25.22 0.92%0.24FC9.5 Primary99.57%2006 3 23.02 22.92 0.43%0.10FC9.5 Primary97.13%2007 1 25.71 24.97 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary99.58%2008 2 47.63 47.43 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary97.19%2009 4 44.91 43.64 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary74.37%2005 1 12.87 9.57 0.09%0.01FC12.5 Primary95.49%2006 4 17.73 16.93 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary95.72%2007 3 42.41 40.59 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary99.66%2008 4 56.62 56.42 0.07%0.04FC12.5 Primary99.15%2009 2 23.07 22.87 0.41%0.09FC12.5 Primary98.90%2010 5 49.22 48.68 0.33%0.16FC12.5 Primary96.86%2011 4 31.13 30.15 0.64%0.20FC12.5 Primary

88.75%11 224.62 199.36 0.66%1.482005AllAll63.08%18 324.05 204.42 0.84%2.722006AllAll81.05%12 335.67 272.07 0.61%2.062007AllAll90.64%18 429.69 389.47 0.06%0.272008AllAll93.84%17 249.49 234.12 0.25%0.612009AllAll90.84%12 114.23 103.76 0.25%0.282010AllAll96.26%13 239.66 230.69 0.13%0.302011AllAll

59

Page 70: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

31

: D

istr

ict

5 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y C

on

tra

cto

r, F

rict

ion

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

52

5.1

73

.94

.14

.30

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d5

65

.25

3.3

4.3

4.6

0.2

22

0.2

03

.81

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

A.P

.A.C

.N

ot U

sed

74

6.9

73

.74

.14

.30

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

nd

erso

n C

olu

mb

iaF

ully

Use

d2

70

25

.93

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

00

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

An

der

son

Co

lum

bia

No

t Use

d6

36

.16

3.8

4.3

4.5

0.1

60

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5A

nd

erso

n C

olu

mb

iaF

ully

Use

d6

66

.60

3.9

4.3

4.5

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

C. W

. R

ob

ert

s C

on

tra

ctin

gF

ully

Use

d1

08

81

07

.59

3.6

4.1

4.4

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5C

om

mu

nity

Asp

hal

t C

orp

.F

ully

Use

d1

04

10

.07

4.0

4.3

4.4

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

D.A

.B.

Co

nst

ruct

ors

Fu

lly U

sed

57

5.6

73

.94

.14

.20

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsN

ot U

sed

20

1.8

64

.14

.44

.50

.10

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsN

ot U

sed

55

45

4.1

63

.74

.24

.50

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5H

alif

ax

Pa

vin

g I

nc.

No

t Use

d4

03

.81

3.9

4.2

4.3

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Hu

bb

ard

Con

stru

ctio

nF

ully

Use

d7

06

.10

3.7

4.1

4.3

0.1

60

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Hu

bb

ard

Con

stru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

23

82

3.0

93

.54

.14

.30

.14

20

.20

0.8

7%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Hu

bb

ard

Con

stru

ctio

nF

ully

Use

d1

64

15

.70

3.8

4.2

4.3

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Mid

dle

sex

Co

rp.

No

t Use

d1

13

11

.07

4.0

4.4

4.5

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C9

.5M

idd

lese

x C

orp

.N

ot U

sed

15

01

4.3

83

.54

.04

.30

.13

10

.10

0.7

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5P

& S

Pav

ing

No

t Use

d2

53

24

.75

4.1

4.4

4.5

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

P &

S P

avin

gF

ully

Use

d3

68

36

.18

3.4

4.3

4.5

0.1

11

0.0

90

.26

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

P &

S P

avin

gN

ot U

sed

84

8.3

63

.94

.24

.30

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5R

ain

ey

Asp

ha

ltN

ot U

sed

20

72

0.5

03

.54

.24

.40

.10

10

.10

0.4

9%

Gra

nite

FC

5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nF

ully

Use

d1

78

16

.93

3.5

4.1

4.3

0.1

81

0.0

20

.11

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Ra

ng

er

Co

nst

ruct

ion

No

t Use

d2

48

23

.74

3.7

4.0

4.2

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nF

ully

Use

d4

44

.40

3.7

4.1

4.3

0.1

10

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

70

6.8

74

.04

.24

.50

.09

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5R

an

ge

r C

on

stru

ctio

nN

ot U

sed

56

5.3

13

.74

.14

.30

.14

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

5S

on

ny R

iley

No

t Use

d2

82

.63

3.3

4.1

4.4

0.2

82

0.1

66

.16

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

Ste

ven

Co

un

ts In

c.N

ot U

sed

68

6.7

63

.84

.24

.40

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5W

hite

hur

stN

ot U

sed

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

60

Page 71: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 13: District 6 Ride Distribution, All Lots

District 6

161.63 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

1677 161.63 2.8 3.9 4.5 0.20 62 5.70All Lots 3.52%

61

Page 72: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 14: District 6 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 89.39 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 54.71 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 6.16 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 11.37 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

915 89.39 3.1 3.9 4.3 0.20 42 4.04FC5 Primary 4.52%575 54.71 2.8 3.9 4.2 0.14 9 0.62FC5 Interstate 1.14%69 6.16 3.7 4.3 4.5 0.15 0 0.00FC9.5 Primary 0.00%

118 11.37 3.2 3.9 4.3 0.22 11 1.03FC12.5 Primary 9.07%

62

Page 73: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

32

: D

istr

ict

6 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te

4.7

5%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e2

38

23

.18

3.3

3.8

4.0

0.1

21

11

.10

7.8

4%

20

08

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

58

15

.61

3.1

3.8

4.1

0.1

71

31

.22

9.5

4%

20

09

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

43

13

.82

3.4

3.7

4.1

0.1

51

41

.32

0.8

5%

20

10

FC

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e2

42

23

.49

3.2

4.0

4.2

0.1

52

0.2

01

.50

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

13

41

3.2

93

.44

.14

.30

.17

20

.20

0.3

4%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e2

06

20

.10

3.5

3.9

4.1

0.1

11

0.0

70

.54

%2

00

9F

C5

Inte

rsta

teL

ime

sto

ne

21

42

1.0

03

.43

.94

.20

.11

20

.11

3.2

3%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

55

13

.62

2.8

4.0

4.2

0.1

96

0.4

40

.00

%2

01

1F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e6

96

.16

3.7

4.3

4.5

0.1

50

0.0

08

.83

%2

00

8F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

10

81

0.5

43

.23

.94

.30

.22

10

0.9

31

2.0

6%

20

11

FC

12

.5P

rim

ary

Lim

est

on

e1

00

.83

3.5

3.9

4.1

0.1

91

0.1

0A

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.

63

Page 74: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

33

: D

istr

ict

6 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, Sys

tem

, Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

2.0

4%

15

11

4.7

03

.53

.84

.20

.15

30

.30

FC

5L

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

yF

ully

Use

d8

.50

%7

77

.28

3.4

3.8

4.1

0.1

87

0.6

2F

C5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d3

.23

%1

55

13

.62

2.8

4.0

4.2

0.1

96

0.4

4F

C5

Lim

est

on

eIn

ters

tate

Not

Use

d

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

15

11

4.7

03

.53

.84

.20

.15

30

.30

2.0

4%

All

All

Lim

est

on

eF

ully

Use

d2

32

20

.90

2.8

3.9

4.2

0.2

11

31

.06

5.0

7%

All

All

Lim

est

on

eN

ot U

sed

64

Page 75: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

34

: D

istr

ict

6 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, A

gg

reg

ate

, an

d P

avin

g T

ime

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

1.5

0%

13

41

3.3

63

.14

.14

.30

.21

20

.20

FC

5D

ay

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

6.3

6%

55

65

4.1

23

.23

.84

.20

.15

36

3.4

4F

C5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

1.1

4%

57

55

4.7

12

.83

.94

.20

.14

90

.62

FC

5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Inte

rsta

te0

.00

%6

96

.16

3.7

4.3

4.5

0.1

50

0.0

0F

C9.

5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y1

2.0

6%

10

0.8

33

.53

.94

.10

.19

10

.10

FC

12

.5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

13

41

3.3

63

.14

.14

.30

.21

20

.20

1.5

0%

Da

yA

llA

llL

ime

sto

ne

12

10

11

5.8

22

.83

.94

.50

.19

46

4.1

73

.60

%N

igh

tA

llA

llL

ime

sto

ne

65

Page 76: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 35: District 6 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

4.72%2007 3 23.18 1.09 4.75%1.10FC5 Primary19.90%2008 4 15.61 3.11 7.84%1.22FC5 Primary7.96%2009 4 13.82 1.10 9.54%1.32FC5 Primary

67.46%2010 3 23.49 15.85 0.85%0.20FC5 Primary85.92%2011 2 13.29 11.42 1.50%0.20FC5 Primary43.76%2008 1 20.10 8.79 0.34%0.07FC5 Interstate35.38%2009 1 21.00 7.43 0.54%0.11FC5 Interstate73.40%2010 1 13.62 9.99 3.23%0.44FC5 Interstate96.98%2011 1 6.16 5.97 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary52.50%2008 2 10.54 5.53 8.83%0.93FC12.5 Primary36.19%2011 1 0.83 0.30 12.06%0.10FC12.5 Primary

4.72%3 23.18 1.09 4.75%1.102007AllAll37.70%7 46.24 17.43 4.81%2.222008AllAll24.50%5 34.82 8.53 4.12%1.432009AllAll69.64%4 37.11 25.84 1.72%0.642010AllAll87.24%4 20.28 17.69 1.48%0.302011AllAll

66

Page 77: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

36

: D

istr

ict

6 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y C

on

tra

cto

r, F

rict

ion

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

24

2.2

53

.43

.94

.10

.15

20

.12

5.3

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Asp

ha

lt G

rou

p,

Inc.

No

t Use

d1

55

13

.62

2.8

4.0

4.2

0.1

96

0.4

43

.23

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5C

om

mu

nity

Asp

hal

t C

orp

.N

ot U

sed

13

31

3.0

43

.53

.84

.20

.15

30

.30

2.3

0%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ge

ne

ral A

spha

lt C

om

pa

ny

Fu

lly U

sed

53

5.0

33

.43

.74

.10

.17

50

.50

9.9

3%

Lim

est

on

eF

C5

Ge

ne

ral A

spha

lt C

om

pa

ny

No

t Use

d1

81

.66

3.6

3.8

4.0

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5W

ee

kley

Asp

halt

Pa

vin

gF

ully

Use

dA

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.M

ate

ria

l Tra

nsf

er

De

vice

Sta

tuse

s o

f "P

art

ially

Use

d" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n" h

ave

be

en

exc

lud

ed f

rom

th

is r

ep

ort

.

67

Page 78: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

68

Page 79: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution of All Lots

Figure 15: District 7 Ride Distribution, All Lots

District 7

722.58 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

3.8

3.9

4.0

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

5.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesLots Miles DevType

RN ≤3.5% Miles

7428 722.58 2.2 4.1 4.6 0.16 24 1.92All Lots 0.27%

69

Page 80: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

Figure 16: District 7 Ride Distribution by Friction Course and System

FC5 ‐ Primary ‐ 258.53 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC5 ‐ Interstate ‐ 297.62 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC9.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 58.13 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

FC12.5 ‐ Primary ‐ 108.31 total miles

Ride Number (RN)

% M

iles

<2.5

2.52.62.72.82.93.03.13.23.33.43.53.63.73.83.94.04.14.24.34.44.54.64.74.84.95.0

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

Friction Total TotalMin Mean Max

St.Lots MilesCourse Lots Miles Dev

RN ≤ 3.5System % Miles

2657 258.53 2.2 4.1 4.4 0.14 11 0.86FC5 Primary 0.33%3073 297.62 3.2 4.1 4.4 0.14 11 0.85FC5 Interstate 0.29%592 58.13 3.8 4.3 4.5 0.11 0 0.00FC9.5 Primary 0.00%1106 108.31 3.2 4.3 4.6 0.13 2 0.20FC12.5 Primary 0.18%

70

Page 81: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ye

ar

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Sys

tem

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

37

: D

istr

ict

7 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, Y

ea

r, a

nd

Ag

gre

ga

te

1.7

3%

20

06

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

31

43

0.3

62

.24

.04

.20

.19

70

.52

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

21

22

0.7

33

.64

.14

.30

.10

00

.00

0.1

9%

20

08

FC

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

10

881

07.

23

3.3

4.1

4.4

0.1

32

0.2

00

.00

%2

00

9F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite9

18

.06

3.8

4.1

4.3

0.1

10

0.0

00

.70

%2

01

0F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

52

14

.28

3.2

4.2

4.4

0.1

41

0.1

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite3

99

38

.53

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

1F

C5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

28

72

8.5

73

.94

.24

.40

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

05

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

37

83

5.9

03

.64

.04

.30

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

06

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

51

15

0.6

13

.64

.14

.30

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

07

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

95

8.6

93

.64

.04

.20

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

20

1.9

53

.73

.94

.00

.07

00

.00

3.1

9%

20

08

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

04

9.9

93

.43

.94

.10

.12

40

.32

0.4

0%

20

09

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

52

14

9.7

73

.24

.14

.30

.12

20

.20

0.3

5%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Gra

nite

91

59

0.4

43

.24

.14

.40

.15

40

.31

0.0

0%

20

10

FC

5In

ters

tate

Lim

est

on

e1

91

.68

3.6

3.8

4.1

0.1

40

0.0

00

.04

%2

01

1F

C5

Inte

rsta

teG

ran

ite5

10

48

.60

3.2

4.2

4.4

0.1

41

0.0

20

.00

%2

00

5F

C9.

5P

rim

ary

Gra

nite

11

51

1.2

83

.84

.34

.50

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

06

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yL

ime

sto

ne

12

31

1.8

73

.84

.24

.50

.13

00

.00

0.0

0%

20

09

FC

9.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite3

54

34

.99

4.1

4.4

4.5

0.0

80

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

6F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite4

44

.19

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.1

60

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

8F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

44

13

.86

3.9

4.3

4.6

0.1

50

0.0

00

.00

%2

00

9F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

64

15

.97

4.0

4.3

4.5

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%2

01

0F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite1

86

18

.29

3.8

4.2

4.4

0.1

20

0.0

00

.45

%2

01

1F

C1

2.5

Pri

mar

yG

ran

ite4

50

44

.38

3.2

4.3

4.6

0.1

32

0.2

0A

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.

71

Page 82: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Fri

ctio

nC

ou

rse

Ag

gre

ga

te

Ta

ble

38

: D

istr

ict

7 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, Sys

tem

, Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Sys

tem

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evic

e S

tatu

s

0.0

0%

12

61

2.5

24

.04

.24

.30

.07

00

.00

FC

5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.2

4%

44

64

2.0

23

.24

.24

.40

.13

10

.10

FC

5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d0

.00

%2

87

28

.57

3.9

4.2

4.4

0.0

70

0.0

0F

C5

Lim

est

on

eP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d1

.73

%1

86

18

.16

3.2

4.0

4.3

0.1

84

0.3

1F

C5

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

teF

ully

Use

d0

.03

%6

63

63

.68

3.2

4.2

4.4

0.1

31

0.0

2F

C5

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

teN

ot U

sed

0.0

0%

16

61

6.4

44

.14

.34

.40

.07

00

.00

FC

9.5

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

yN

ot U

sed

0.6

4%

31

83

1.3

93

.24

.34

.60

.15

20

.20

FC

12

.5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Fu

lly U

sed

0.0

0%

48

24

7.2

53

.84

.34

.50

.10

00

.00

FC

12

.5G

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Not

Use

d

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

r D

evi

ce S

tatu

ses

of

"Pa

rtia

lly U

sed"

an

d "

Un

kno

wn"

ha

ve b

ee

n e

xclu

ded

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

63

06

2.0

73

.24

.24

.60

.20

60

.51

0.8

3%

All

All

Gra

nite

Fu

lly U

sed

20

441

97.

96

3.2

4.2

4.5

0.1

22

0.1

20

.06

%A

llA

llG

ran

iteN

ot U

sed

72

Page 83: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

ev

RN

≤ 3

.5%

Mile

sF

rict

ion

Co

urs

eA

gg

reg

ate

Ta

ble

39

: D

istr

ict

7 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y F

ric

tio

n C

ou

rse

, S

yste

m, A

gg

reg

ate

, an

d P

avin

g T

ime

Pa

vin

g T

ime

Sys

tem

0.0

0%

34

13

2.7

73

.84

.24

.40

.12

00

.00

FC

5D

ay

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.26

%1

18

81

15

.34

3.2

4.1

4.4

0.1

33

0.3

0F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.21

%2

55

22

48

.11

3.2

4.1

4.4

0.1

47

0.5

3F

C5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Inte

rsta

te2

.73

%1

23

11

.67

3.4

3.9

4.1

0.1

34

0.3

2F

C5

Nig

ht

Lim

est

on

eIn

ters

tate

0.0

0%

35

43

4.9

94

.14

.44

.50

.08

00

.00

FC

9.5

Nig

ht

Gra

nite

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%1

23

11

.87

3.8

4.2

4.5

0.1

30

0.0

0F

C9.

5N

igh

tL

ime

sto

ne

Pri

mar

y0

.00

%8

68

.24

3.8

4.2

4.5

0.1

40

0.0

0F

C1

2.5

Da

yG

ran

iteP

rim

ary

1.8

1%

11

41

1.0

23

.24

.24

.50

.19

20

.20

FC

12

.5N

igh

tG

ran

iteP

rim

ary

Ag

gre

ga

te T

ype

of

"Mix

ed

" h

as

be

en

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

re

po

rt.

Pa

vin

g T

ime

s o

f "B

oth

" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n"

ha

ve b

een

exc

lud

ed

fro

m t

his

repo

rt.

42

74

1.0

13

.84

.24

.50

.12

00

.00

0.0

0%

Da

yA

llA

llG

ran

ite &

Lim

est

on

e4

45

44

32

.98

3.2

4.1

4.5

0.1

61

61

.35

0.3

1%

Nig

ht

All

All

Gra

nite

& L

ime

sto

ne

73

Page 84: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Total TotalMilesProjects Miles % MilesYear

RN ≥ 4.0Miles % Miles

RN ≤ 3.5FrictionCourse System

Table 40: District 7 Pavement Smoothness Summary by Friction Course, System, and Year

82.10%2006 2 30.36 24.92 1.73%0.52FC5 Primary91.84%2007 1 20.73 19.04 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary89.27%2008 6 107.23 95.73 0.19%0.20FC5 Primary86.29%2009 2 18.83 16.25 0.21%0.04FC5 Primary96.55%2010 1 14.28 13.79 0.70%0.10FC5 Primary99.30%2011 5 67.10 66.63 0.00%0.00FC5 Primary78.03%2005 1 35.90 28.01 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate88.10%2006 2 50.61 44.59 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate77.80%2007 1 8.69 6.76 0.00%0.00FC5 Interstate34.64%2008 2 11.93 4.13 2.67%0.32FC5 Interstate88.33%2009 1 49.77 43.96 0.40%0.20FC5 Interstate76.89%2010 5 92.12 70.83 0.34%0.31FC5 Interstate92.84%2011 1 48.60 45.12 0.04%0.02FC5 Interstate99.02%2005 1 11.28 11.17 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary95.43%2006 2 11.87 11.32 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary

100.00%2009 2 34.99 34.99 0.00%0.00FC9.5 Primary95.90%2006 2 12.19 11.69 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary98.41%2008 1 13.86 13.64 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary99.44%2009 2 19.59 19.48 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary97.70%2010 2 18.29 17.87 0.00%0.00FC12.5 Primary98.20%2011 4 44.38 43.58 0.45%0.20FC12.5 Primary

83.05%2 47.18 39.19 0.00%0.002005AllAll88.10%8 105.02 92.53 0.50%0.522006AllAll87.69%2 29.42 25.80 0.00%0.002007AllAll85.33%9 133.02 113.50 0.39%0.522008AllAll93.10%7 123.17 114.67 0.19%0.242009AllAll82.19%8 124.69 102.49 0.33%0.412010AllAll97.04%10 160.08 155.33 0.14%0.222011AllAll

74

Page 85: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

To

tal

To

tal

Min

Me

an

Ma

xS

t.L

ots

Mile

sL

ots

Mile

sD

evR

N ≤

3.5

% M

iles

Ag

gre

ga

teF

rict

ion

Cou

rse

Ta

ble

41

: D

istr

ict

7 S

tati

sti

ca

l S

um

ma

ry b

y C

on

tra

cto

r, F

rict

ion

Co

urs

e,

Ag

gre

ga

te,

and

Ma

teri

al

Tra

ns

fer

De

vic

e S

tatu

s

Co

ntr

act

or

Ma

teri

al T

ran

sfe

rD

evi

ce S

tatu

s

24

32

2.3

53

.24

.24

.40

.13

10

.10

0.4

5%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

.P.A

.C.

No

t Use

d1

64

15

.97

4.0

4.3

4.5

0.0

90

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

A.P

.A.C

.N

ot U

sed

51

04

8.6

03

.24

.24

.40

.14

10

.02

0.0

4%

Gra

nite

FC

5A

jax

Pa

vin

g In

du

stry

No

t Use

d2

60

25

.78

3.8

4.3

4.6

0.1

20

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C1

2.5

C. W

. R

ob

ert

s C

on

tra

ctin

gF

ully

Use

d3

56

34

.76

3.9

4.3

4.4

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

D.A

.B.

Co

nst

ruct

ors

No

t Use

d2

87

28

.57

3.9

4.2

4.4

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%L

ime

sto

ne

FC

5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsN

ot U

sed

26

22

5.8

74

.04

.34

.50

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5D

.A.B

. C

on

stru

cto

rsN

ot U

sed

18

61

8.1

63

.24

.04

.30

.18

40

.31

1.7

3%

Gra

nite

FC

5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

16

61

6.4

44

.14

.34

.40

.07

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

9.5

La

ne C

on

stru

ctio

n C

orp

.N

ot U

sed

58

5.6

13

.24

.24

.50

.23

20

.20

3.5

6%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

Fu

lly U

sed

56

5.4

13

.84

.14

.30

.11

00

.00

0.0

0%

Gra

nite

FC

12

.5L

ane

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

rp.

No

t Use

d1

26

12

.52

4.0

4.2

4.3

0.0

70

0.0

00

.00

%G

ran

iteF

C5

Ta

mp

a P

ave

men

t C

on

stru

cto

rsF

ully

Use

dA

gg

reg

ate

Typ

e o

f "M

ixe

d"

ha

s b

ee

n e

xclu

de

d fr

om

th

is r

ep

ort

.M

ate

ria

l Tra

nsf

er

De

vice

Sta

tuse

s o

f "P

art

ially

Use

d" a

nd

"U

nkn

ow

n" h

ave

be

en

exc

lud

ed f

rom

th

is r

ep

ort

.

75

Page 86: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

76

Page 87: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Appendix

A

INTERNATIONAL ROUGHNESSINDEX REPORT SUMMARY

A1

Page 88: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

PAGE

LEFT

BLANK

A2

Page 89: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

WHAT IS THE INTERNATIONAL ROUGHNESS INDEX?

In "Guidelines for Conducting and Calibrating Road Roughness Measurements," published by theWorld Bank in 1986 as Technical Paper 46, International Roughness Index (IRI) is defined as amathematical transform (a property) of a true profile describing surface roughness that causesvehicle vibration.

The underlying IRI model is a series of differential equations that relate the motions of a simulatedquarter-car to a road profile. The IRI is computed as a linear accumulation of the simulatedsuspension motion, normalized by the length of the profile. IRI therefore has units of slope,typically "in/mi" or "m/km", and is computed from a single longitudinal wheel path profile. It has ademonstrated strong compatibility with the equipment used to develop pavement managementsystems. IRI is sensitive to wavelengths between 4 and 100 feet and is most sensitive towavelengths of 7 and 50 feet.

All data is analyzed according to ASTM E1926, "Standard Practice for Computing InternationalRoughness Index of Roads from Longitudinal Profile Measurements".

This summary expresses ride quality using International Roughness Index (IRI). This index waschosen to be used in future versions of FDOT's smoothness specifications because it is notinfluenced by differences in texture. Currently, FDOT's smoothness specifications use RideNumber (RN) to indicate the level of smoothness present on newly placed asphalt pavements. RN,however, is greatly influenced by differences in texture, especially dense graded versus opengraded pavements.

The full International Roughness Index edition of this report can be found at the following link andis titled "Flexible Pavement Smoothness Acceptance Report - International Roughness IndexEdition".

http://materials.dot.state.fl.us/smo/administration/resources/library/publications/researchreports/2011-2015.htm

A3

Page 90: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Many roadway characteristics and construction practices are being monitored and included in theFDOT's smoothness database. Some of these have proven to be significant contributors to the ridequality of the pavements tested, and some factors have not been so valuable. Below is a summarylist of key variables being monitored with a brief explanation of their effect on pavementsmoothness.

Aggregate Type - Based on summary data from Florida projects, smooth pavements can beconstructed regardless of the aggregate type used. However, on average, pavements usingGranite aggregate in friction courses are smoother. Granite pavements have an averageIRI of 48, compared to an IRI of 56 for Limestone pavements.

Binder Type - No significant difference was found when comparing the smoothness ofpavements using polymer-modified binders in the friction course to pavements using othertypes of binders.

Paving Time - No significant difference was found when comparing the smoothness ofpavements placed at Night to those placed during the Day.

System - No significant difference was found when comparing the smoothness of Primaryand Interstate systems.

International Roughness Index Report Observations

Surface Type - No significant difference was found when comparing the smoothness, interms of IRI, of pavements with open-graded friction courses and dense-graded frictioncourses.

In addition to these factors, there are many other variables that the data can be subdivided by. Ifany additional information is needed, please use the contact information located at the bottom ofpage 7.

Material Transfer Device (MTD) Usage - Data shows that pavements placed using thisequipment are typically smoother. When the MTD was used on the entire project, theaverage IRI is 46, versus 55 IRI when the MTD was not used at all. MTD usage on theInterstate system yielded even more benefit: 43 IRI with full-project MTD usage versus 55for Interstate projects where the MTD was not used at all.

Data by Year - Pavements placed in 2005 averaged 54 IRI, and have since shown a trendof improvement. Pavements placed in 2011 averaged 50 IRI.

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) - Analysis on Interstate pavements has shown that150,000 AADT or greater exhibit higher average IRIs. Interstate pavements with AADT lessthan 150,000 have an average IRI of 48, compared to an IRI of 66 for Interstate pavementswith AADT equal to or greater than 150,000.

A4

Page 91: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Appendix

B

CUSTOMER SERVICE FORM

B1

Page 92: State of Florida Department of Transportation ·  · 2012-05-14State of Florida Department of Transportation ... pavement design models suggest that initially smooth ... Since 1998,

Customer Service Form

In an effort to continuously improve our customer service, the Pavement Material Systems section of the State Materials Office requests your input by filling out and returning this survey form.

Your Name:

(Optional)Company/Office/Organization:

Address:

City:

Title:

Phone: E-Mail:

Please rate each of the following factors using the scale provided. A "1" corresponds to Very Poor , and a "5" corresponds to

Usefulness of Content

Organization of Information

Clarity of Graphical Information

Format of Tables

Overall Value of this Report

Please provide an answer to the following questions. Use additional sheet(s) if necessary.

What was the most useful/informative part of this report?

                                                                                                                                                                                        

Excellent .

What was the least useful/informative part of this report?

What changes would you recommend to improve this report?

Or E-Mail to:

Detach and mail to:FDOT State Materials Office

Attn: Stacy Scott5007 NE 39th Ave.

Gainesville, FL 32609

State: ZIP:                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                               

                                                                             

                                                                                                                                             

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                                                                                                                                                                           

[email protected]

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

B2