Laserfiche WebLink
Table 10. Correlating TSR and observed stripping for field sections visited <br />Average extracted <br />Average TSR Average TSR <br />Amount of Stripping Observed Count <br />asphalt content (%) <br />(7% voids) (11% voids) <br />Low 4 0.74 0.64 4.63 <br />Low to Moderate 1 0.77 0.70 4.60 <br />Moderate 6 0.80 0.71 5.00 <br />Moderate to High 3 0.75 0.68 4.97 <br />High 3 0.79 0.71 5.33 <br /> <br />3.3 SURVEY RESULTS <br />As noted in Section 2.4, 129 municipal engineers responded to the survey on local experience with chip <br />seal treatments. Responses are summarized in Table 11, and full responses are provided in Appendix K. <br />Of the engineers surveyed, 64 percent regularly used chip seals, 17 percent sometimes used chip <br />seals, and 19 percent never used chip seals. Of the respondents who use chip seals, 35 percent <br />reported that they do not observe stripping in pavements treated with chip seals. 39 percent reported <br />observing some stripping in chip-sealed pavements, yet did not consider it a major issue. The remaining <br />26 percent reported stripping as a major issue for their chip-sealed pavements. <br />Finally, only four percent of respondents reported significant stripping in roads that were not treated <br />with chip seals (unsealed). Twenty-one percent of respondents reported stripping in unsealed roads as a <br />minor issue, and 75 percent did not observe stripping in unsealed roads and did not consider it a <br />significant issue. <br />Table 11 Questionnaire for survey of Minnesota local engineer chip sealing practices <br />29 <br /> <br />