Home
 
           
 

 

 

 

UPM HIGH PERFORMANCE ASPHALT COLD MIX

What does SHRP-H-106 have to say about UPM?
Study results from the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP)

SHRP [Strategic Highway Research Program] recently completed the most expansive pothole patching study in the history of the pavement maintenance industry [H-106]. What did it have to say about UPM?

1. UPM was selected as the control material for the entire nationwide study.

Why? First and foremost because UPM is a quality, cost effective cold-mix asphalt patching material, recognized by SHRP as one of the best products available. All other products were compared to UPM's superior performance. And, secondly, SHRP said UPM was "widely used." There are nearly 150 stockpiles of UPM across the U.S. and Canada.

2. UPM was taken from local stockpiles.

Because we have more stockpiles available than any other material, SHRP was able to test UPM made from local raw materials. This is the true test of a product. Unlike the other materials tested, UPM didn't come from mixes specially formulated and shipped in drums or bags specifically for the study. With UPM, you get a great cold patch, wherever the material is from. We have over 30 years experience making high-performance mixes from tough local aggregates that most manufacturers can't handle.

3. UPM had the highest average performance.

Even though our competitors were able to ship their best mixes in clean, dry packages from a single source for the study, we still outperformed them. UPM always delivers the most consistent, high-performance - not one-time good mixes just to get your business. We want to keep your business for the long run!

4. In the severest conditions, UPM had the highest individual performances by far.

Out of the eight test locations, the two most severe were Vandalia, Illinois, and Prescott, Ontario. In Vandalia, we scored a 100% performance twice UPM's closest competitor could only manage a 20% performance. In Ontario, we scored an 80% performance. Again, UPM's closest competitor only 60%. If you think this is a marketing hype, just review the study*.

 

 

COST-EFFECTIVENESS EXAMPLES

Example Number
Input
1
2
3
4
5
Material Type
Local
UPM
Local
Spray injection
Local
Repair Procedure
Throw-and-roll
Throw-and-roll
Semi-permanent
Spray injection
Throw-and-roll
Material Cost($/ton)
20
85
20
0
20
Wages for Repair Crew($/day)
300
300
600
0
300
Wages for Traffic Control($/day)
250
250
250
250
250
Equipment Cost for Repair Crew ($/day)
50
50
100
900
50
Equipment Cost for Traffic Control ($/day)
30
30
30
30
30
Productivity(tons/day)
4.0
4.0
1.5
4.0
4.0
Initial Need(tons)
200
200
75
200
200
User Delay Costs$/day
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
10,000
Estimated Repair Life(months)
3
21
12
21
3
Estimated 5 year Cost($, without user delay)
710,000
138,570
252,000
168,570
710,000
Estimated 5 year Cost($, with user delay)
1,710,000
281,430
502,000
311,430
10,710,000
Cost-effectiveness ($/ft of initial need-without user delay)
44.38
8.66
42.08
10.54
44.38
Cost-effectiveness ($/ft of initial need-without user delay)
106.88
17.59
83.75
19.46
669.38

Note: This chart is a duplication of Table 21, Summary of inputs for cost-effectiveness examples, found on page 76 of SHRP-353, INNOVATIVE MATERIALS DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING VOLUME 2: POTHOLE REPAIR (1991).

* For copies of this study contact SHRP at (202) 334-3774. SHRP-H-106 was published as the booklet SHRP-H-353.

For further information, please contact:

Denver Industrial Sales & Service Company

850 South Lipan Street
Denver, CO 80223
Ph. (303) 935-2485 · Fax (303) 935-6787
Toll Free (877) 935-2485

 

    
   
Home | About Us | Products | Services | Contact Us | Links