Long Term Performance of Existing AC and PCC Pavements in Ohio
A thesis presented to the faculty of the Russ College of Engineering and Technology of Ohio University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science
Carlos Alberto Vega Posada August 2008
2 This thesis titled Long Term Performance of Existing AC and PCC Pavements in Ohio
by CARLOS ALBERTO VEGA POSADA
has been approved for the Department of Civil Engineering and the Russ College of Engineering and Technology by
Shad M. Sargand Russ Professor of Civil Engineering
Dennis Irwin Dean, Russ College of Engineering and Technology
3 ABSTRACT VEGA POSADA, CARLOS ALBERTO, M.S., August 2008, Civil Engineering Long Term Performance of Existing AC and PCC Pavements in Ohio (203 pp.) Director of Thesis: Shad M. Sargand The main objectives of this study are to investigate the actual pavement performance and the expected remaining service life of nineteen (19) asphalt concrete sections and seventeen (17) portland cement concrete sections in the State of Ohio. The thirty six (36) sections were divided into a total of twenty seven (27) projects and they were classified depending on their performance as average or excellent. The design pavement parameters, material properties, traffic loads, and traffic volumes were also considered in this study. The falling weight deflectometer test was conducted to determine the actual pavement performance whereas the mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide software was used to determine the expected remaining service life of the sections. The results obtained from the FWD and the MEPDG are shown in this study and they are consistent with the original pavement classification given to the sections. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ Shad M. Sargand Russ Professor of Civil Engineering
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to give special thanks to my advisor Dr. Sargand for his guidance and support during these two years. I also would like to thanks my committee members: Dr. McAvoy, Dr. Steinberg, and Dr. Melkonian.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 4 List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... 9 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 20 1.1 Research Problem ........................................................................................... 20 1.2 Objectives and Scope ...................................................................................... 21 Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 22 2.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavements .......................................................................... 24 2.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements ............................................................ 28 2.3 Falling Weight Deflectometer......................................................................... 30 Chapter 3: Section Description ......................................................................................... 33 3.1 Asphalt Concrete Sections .............................................................................. 34 3.2 Portland Cement Concrete Sections................................................................ 37 3.3 Traffic Parameters ........................................................................................... 39 3.3.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections .............................................. 40 3.3.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections ................................ 41 3.4 Material Classification .................................................................................... 42 3.4.1 Previous works ................................................................................. 44 Chapter 4: Field Experimental Methods ........................................................................... 47 4.1 Nondestructive Tests....................................................................................... 47
6 4.2.1 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) ............................................. 48 4.2.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) ................................................ 51 Chapter 5: Pavement Destress Mechanisms ..................................................................... 53 5.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement ............................................................................ 53 5.1.1 Fatigue Cracking (Alligator) ............................................................ 53 5.1.2 Block Cracking ................................................................................ 54 5.1.3 Edge Cracking .................................................................................. 54 5.1.4 Longitudinal Cracking ..................................................................... 54 5.1.5 Transverse Cracking ........................................................................ 55 5.1.6 Joint Reflection ................................................................................ 55 5.1.7 Bleeding ........................................................................................... 56 5.1.8 Patching............................................................................................ 56 5.1.9 Potholes ............................................................................................ 56 5.1.10 Rutting............................................................................................ 57 5.1.11 Water Bleeding and Pumping ........................................................ 57 5.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement ............................................................. 57 5.2.1 Faulting ............................................................................................ 57 5.2.2 Corner Break .................................................................................... 58 5.2.3 Durability Cracking ......................................................................... 58 5.2.4 Joint Load Transfer System Deterioration ....................................... 59 5.2.5 Longitudinal Cracking ..................................................................... 59 5.2.6 Vertical Cracking ............................................................................. 59 5.2.7 Blowup ............................................................................................. 60
7 Chapter 6: Analysis of Data from Falling Weight Deflectometer Test ............................ 61 Chapter 7: Predicted Remaining Service Life .................................................................. 74 Chapter 8: Analysis of the Results .................................................................................... 81 8.1 Project 1 (Project ID#9330-98) ....................................................................... 84 8.2 Project 2 (Project ID#9327-98) ....................................................................... 85 8.3 Project 3 (Project ID#233-98) ......................................................................... 85 8.4 Project 4 (Project ID#298-96) ......................................................................... 85 8.5 Project 5 (Project ID#259-98) ......................................................................... 86 8.6 Project 6 (Project ID#645-94) ......................................................................... 86 8.7 Project 7 (Project ID#347-85) ......................................................................... 86 8.8 Project 8 (Project ID#17-85) ........................................................................... 87 8.9 Project 9 (Project ID#6010-99) ....................................................................... 87 8.10 Project 10 (Project ID#141-99)..................................................................... 87 8.11 Project 11 (Project ID#665-97)..................................................................... 88 8.12 Project 12 (Project ID#443-94)..................................................................... 88 8.13 Project 13 (Project ID#552-95)..................................................................... 88 8.14 Project 14 (Project ID#298-96)..................................................................... 88 8.15 Project 15 (Project ID#700-86)..................................................................... 89 8.16 Project 16 (Project ID#625-76)..................................................................... 89 8.17 Project 17 (Project ID#438-94)..................................................................... 90 8.18 Project 18 (Project ID#352-46)..................................................................... 90 8.19 Project 19 (Project ID#997-90)..................................................................... 91 8.20 Project 20 (Project ID#8008-90)................................................................... 91
8 8.21 Project 21 (Project ID#8008-90)................................................................... 92 8.22 Project 22 (Project ID#845-94)..................................................................... 92 8.23 Project 23 (Project ID#343-88)..................................................................... 92 8.24 Project 24 (Project ID#678-91)..................................................................... 93 8.25 Project 25 (Project ID#844-92)..................................................................... 93 8.26 Project 26 (Project ID#996-93)..................................................................... 94 8.27 Project 27 (Project ID#907-90)..................................................................... 94 Chapter 9: Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................ 105 References ....................................................................................................................... 108 Appendix A: Material Especifications ............................................................................ 113 Appendix B: Asphalt Concrete - Figures ........................................................................ 120 Appendix C: Portlan Cement Concrete - Figures ........................................................... 149 Appendix D: Asphalt Concrete - MEPDG...................................................................... 189 Appendix E: Portland Cement Concrete - MEPDG ....................................................... 197
9 LIST OF TABLES Page
Table 1: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections ................................................................. 35 Table 2: Pavement Sections Layer Specifications – AC Sections .................................... 36 Table 3: Portland Cement Concrete Sections ................................................................... 38 Table 4: Pavement Sections Layer Specifications – PCC Sections .................................. 39 Table 5: Traffic Parameters of AC Pavement Sections .................................................... 40 Table 6: Traffic Parameters of PCC Pavement Sections .................................................. 41 Table 7: Resilient Modulus of Item 446 T1 and 446 T2................................................... 45 Table 8: Maximum Values for Deflections and Spreadability (FWD) ............................. 64 Table 9: Maximum Values for Joint or Crack Deflections and Load Transfer ................ 64 Table 10: Modulus of Elasticity of the Pavement Layers ................................................. 69 Table 11: Maximum Distress Allowable .......................................................................... 76 Table 12: Modulus of Elasticity – AC Sections................................................................ 81 Table 13: Modulus of Elasticity – PCC Sections.............................................................. 83 Table 14: AC and PCC Sections Structural Condition – Normalized Deflection ............ 95 Table 15: Spreadability ..................................................................................................... 96 Table 16: Maximum Joint Deflection ............................................................................... 97 Table 17: Joint Load Transfer ........................................................................................... 98 Table 18: Joint Support Ratio ........................................................................................... 99 Table 19: Expected Remaining Service Life (AC Sections) .......................................... 100 Table 20: Expected Remaining Service Life (PCC Sections) ........................................ 101
10 Table 21: Pavement Quality Index – AC Sections ......................................................... 103 Table 22: Pavement Quality Index – PCC Sections ....................................................... 104 Table A. 1: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 ........................................ 113 Table A. 2: Mixture Properties for Light, Medium, and Heavy Traffic Volumes ......... 113 Table A. 3: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 (surface) ......................... 114 Table A. 4: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T1 (Intermediate)........... 115 Table A. 5: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T2 (Surface)................... 116 Table A. 6: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T2 (Intermediate)........... 117 Table A. 7: Aggregate Gradation – Item 301 ................................................................. 118 Table A. 8: Aggregate Gradation – Item 302 ................................................................. 118 Table A. 9: Aggregate Gradation – Item 304 ................................................................. 119 Table A. 10: Aggregate Gradation – Item 310 ............................................................... 119
11 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1. Ohio districts ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 2. Linear trendline for AC pavement sections ...................................................... 34 Figure 3. Linear trendline for PCC pavement sections .................................................... 37 Figure 4. Dynatest Model 8000 FWD (Dynatest International, 2008). ............................ 50 Figure 5. Thickness estimation from the DCP data. ......................................................... 51 Figure 6. Normalized deflection – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) .................................. 66 Figure 7. Df1/Df7 – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ........................................................ 66 Figure 8. Spreadability – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ................................................ 67 Figure 9. Subgrade modulus – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ....................................... 67 Figure 10. Midslab deflection – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) ................................... 70 Figure 11. Midslab spreadability – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) .............................. 70 Figure 12. Maximum joint deflections – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) ..................... 71 Figure 13. Joint load transfer – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) .................................... 71 Figure 14. Joint support ratio – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)..................................... 72 Figure 15. Subgrade modulus – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) .................................... 72 Figure 16. Longitudinal cracking – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ................................ 77 Figure 17. Transversal cracking – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) .................................. 77 Figure 18. International roughness index – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) .................... 78 Figure 19. Predicted faulting – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) ..................................... 78 Figure 20. Percentage of slab cracked – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) ....................... 79 Figure 21. International roughness index – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) .................. 79
12 Figure 22. (a) Pavement condition rating and (b) Pavement serviceability rating ......... 102 Figure B. 1. Normalized deflection – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98) ......................... 120 Figure B. 2. Df1/Df7 – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98) ................................................ 121 Figure B. 3. Spreadability – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98) ........................................ 121 Figure B. 4. Subgrade modulus – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98) ............................... 122 Figure B. 5. Normalized deflection – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98) ......................... 123 Figure B. 6. Df1/Df7 – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98) ................................................ 123 Figure B. 7. Spreadability – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98) ....................................... 124 Figure B. 8. Subgrade modulus – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98) ............................... 124 Figure B. 9. Normalized deflection – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ........................... 125 Figure B. 10. Df1/Df7 – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ................................................ 125 Figure B. 11. Spreadability – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ........................................ 126 Figure B. 12. Subgrade modulus – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) .............................. 126 Figure B. 13. Normalized deflection – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96) ......................... 127 Figure B. 14. Df1/Df7 – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96) ................................................ 127 Figure B. 15. Spreadability – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96) ........................................ 128 Figure B. 16. Subgrade modulus – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96) .............................. 128 Figure B. 17. Normalized deflection – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98) ......................... 129 Figure B. 18. Df1/Df7 – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98) ................................................ 129 Figure B. 19. Spreadability – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98) ........................................ 130 Figure B. 20. Subgrade modulus – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98) .............................. 130 Figure B. 21. Normalized deflection - Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94) .......................... 131 Figure B. 22. Df1/Df7 – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94) ............................................... 131
13 Figure B. 23. Spreadability – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94) ....................................... 132 Figure B. 24. Subgrade modulus – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94) ............................... 132 Figure B. 25. Normalized deflection - Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85) .......................... 133 Figure B. 26. Df1/Df7 – Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85) ............................................... 133 Figure B. 27. Spreadability – Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85) ....................................... 134 Figure B. 28. Subgrade modulus – Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85) ............................... 134 Figure B. 29. Normalized deflection - Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85) ............................ 135 Figure B. 30. Df1/Df7 – Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85) ................................................. 135 Figure B. 31. Spreadability – Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85) ......................................... 136 Figure B. 32. Subgrade modulus – Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85) ................................. 136 Figure B. 33. Normalized deflection - Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99) ........................ 137 Figure B. 34. Df1/Df7 – Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99) ............................................. 137 Figure B. 35. Spreadability – Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99) ..................................... 138 Figure B. 36. Subgrade modulus – Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99) ............................. 138 Figure B. 37. Normalized deflection - Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99) ........................ 139 Figure B. 38. Df1/Df7 – Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99) ............................................. 139 Figure B. 39. Spreadability – Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99) ..................................... 140 Figure B. 40. Subgrade modulus – Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99) ............................. 140 Figure B. 41. Normalized deflection - Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97) ........................ 141 Figure B. 42. Df1/Df7 – Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97) ............................................. 141 Figure B. 43. Spreadability Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97) ........................................ 142 Figure B. 44. Subgrade modulus – Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97) ............................. 142 Figure B. 45. Normalized deflection Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94) .......................... 143
14 Figure B. 46. Df1/Df7 Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94) ................................................. 143 Figure B. 47. Spreadability – Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94) ..................................... 144 Figure B. 48. Subgrade modulus – Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94) ............................ 144 Figure B. 49. Normalized deflection – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95) ....................... 145 Figure B. 50. Df1/Df7 – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95) .............................................. 145 Figure B. 51. Spreadability – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95) ..................................... 146 Figure B. 52. Subgrade modulus – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95) ............................ 146 Figure B. 53. Normalized deflection – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96) ....................... 147 Figure B. 54. Df1/Df7 – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96) .............................................. 147 Figure B. 55. Spreadability – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96) ..................................... 148 Figure B. 56. Subgrade modulus – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96) ............................ 148 Figure C 1. Midslab deflection – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86) ............................... 149 Figure C. 2. Midslab spreadability – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86) ......................... 150 Figure C. 3. Maximum joint deflections – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)................. 151 Figure C. 4. Joint load transfer – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86) ............................... 151 Figure C. 5. Joint support ratio – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86) ................................ 152 Figure C. 6. Subgrade modulus – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86) ............................... 152 Figure C. 7. Midslab deflection – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) .............................. 153 Figure C. 8. Midslab spreadability – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) ......................... 153 Figure C. 9. Maximum joint deflections – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)................. 154 Figure C. 10. Joint load transfer – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) ............................. 154 Figure C. 11. Joint support ratio – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) .............................. 155 Figure C. 12. Subgrade modulus – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) ............................. 155
15 Figure C. 13. Midslab deflection – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94) ............................ 156 Figure C. 14. Midslab spreadability – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94) ....................... 156 Figure C. 15. Maximum joint deflections – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94) .............. 157 Figure C. 16. Joint load transfer – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94) ............................. 157 Figure C. 17. Joint support ratio – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94) .............................. 158 Figure C. 18. Subgrade modulus – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94) ............................. 158 Figure C. 19. Midslab deflection – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46) ............................ 159 Figure C. 20. Midslab spreadability – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46) ....................... 159 Figure C. 21. Maximum joint deflections – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46) .............. 160 Figure C. 22. Joint load trasfer – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46) ............................... 160 Figure C. 23. Joint support ratio – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46) .............................. 161 Figure C. 24. Subgrade modulus – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46) ............................. 161 Figure C. 25. Midslab deflection – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90) ............................ 162 Figure C. 26. Midslab spreadability – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90) ....................... 162 Figure C. 27. Maximum joint deflections – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90) .............. 163 Figure C. 28. Joint load transfer – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90) ............................. 163 Figure C. 29. Joint support ratio – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90) .............................. 164 Figure C. 30. Subgrade modulus – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90) ............................. 164 Figure C. 31. Midslab deflection – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90) .......................... 165 Figure C. 32. Midslab spreadability – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90) ..................... 165 Figure C. 33. Maximum joint deflections – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)............. 166 Figure C. 34. Joint load transfer – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90) ........................... 166 Figure C. 35. Joint support ratio – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90) ............................ 167
16 Figure C. 36. Subgrade modulus – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90) ........................... 167 Figure C. 37. Midslab deflection – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90) .......................... 168 Figure C. 38. Midslab spreadability – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90) ..................... 168 Figure C. 39. Maximum joint deflections – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)............. 169 Figure C. 40. Joint load transfer – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90) ........................... 169 Figure C. 41. Joint support ratio – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90) ............................ 170 Figure C. 42. Subgrade modulus – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90) ........................... 170 Figure C. 43. Midslab deflection – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94) ............................ 171 Figure C. 44. Midslab spreadability – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94) ....................... 171 Figure C. 45. Maximum joint deflections – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94) .............. 172 Figure C. 46. Joint load transfer – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94) ............................. 172 Figure C. 47. Joint support ratio – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94) .............................. 173 Figure C. 48. Subgrade modulus – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94) ............................. 173 Figure C. 49. Midslab deflection – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88) ............................ 174 Figure C. 50. Midslab spreadability – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88) ....................... 174 Figure C. 51. Maximum joint deflections – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88) .............. 175 Figure C. 52. Joint load transfer – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88) ............................. 175 Figure C. 53. Joint support ratio – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88) .............................. 176 Figure C. 54. Subgrade modulus – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88) ............................. 176 Figure C. 55. Midslab deflection – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91) ............................ 177 Figure C. 56. Midslab spreadability – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91) ....................... 177 Figure C. 57. Maximum joint deflections – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91) .............. 178 Figure C. 58. Joint load transfer – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91) ............................. 178
17 Figure C. 59. Joint support ratio – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91) .............................. 179 Figure C. 60. Subgrade modulus – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91) ............................. 179 Figure C. 61. Midslab deflection – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92) ............................ 180 Figure C. 62. Midslab spreadability – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92) ....................... 180 Figure C. 63. Maximum joint deflections – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92) .............. 181 Figure C. 64. Joint load transfer – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92) ............................. 181 Figure C. 65. Joint support ratio – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92) .............................. 182 Figure C. 66. Subgrade modulus – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92) ............................. 182 Figure C. 67. Midslab deflection – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93) ............................ 183 Figure C. 68. Midslab spreadability – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93) ....................... 183 Figure C. 69. Maximum joint deflections – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)................ 184 Figure C. 70. Joint load transfer – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93) ............................. 184 Figure C. 71. Joint support ratio – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93) .............................. 185 Figure C. 72. Subgrade modulus – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93) ............................. 185 Figure C. 73. Midslab deflection – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90) ............................ 186 Figure C. 74. Midslab spreadability – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90) ....................... 186 Figure C. 75. Maximum joint deflections – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90) .............. 187 Figure C. 76. Joint load transfer – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90) ............................. 187 Figure C. 77. Joint support ratio – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90) .............................. 188 Figure C. 78. Subgrade modulus – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90) ............................. 188 Figure D. 1. Pavement deformation – Project. 1 (D) (Project ID# 9330-98) ................. 189 Figure D. 2. International roughness index – Project 1 (U) (Project ID# 9330-98) ....... 189 Figure D. 3. Permanent deformation – Project. 2 (Project ID# 9327-98) ...................... 190
18 Figure D. 4. International roughness index – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) ............... 190 Figure D. 5. Transversal cracking – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96) ............................. 191 Figure D. 6. Permanent deformation – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98) ......................... 191 Figure D. 7. International roughness index – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94) ............... 192 Figure D. 8. International roughness index - Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85) ................ 192 Figure D. 9. Transverse cracking - Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85) ................................. 193 Figure D. 10. Permanent deformation - Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99) ...................... 193 Figure D. 11. International roughness index - Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99) ............ 194 Figure D. 12. Transversal cracking - Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97) .......................... 194 Figure D. 13. Transversal cracking - Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94) .......................... 195 Figure D. 14. Transversal cracking - Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95) .......................... 195 Figure D. 15. International roughness index - Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96) ............ 196 Figure E. 1. Predicted faulting – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86) ................................. 197 Figure E. 2. International roughness index – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) .............. 197 Figure E. 3. Predicted faulting – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94) ................................. 198 Figure E. 4. Predicted faulting – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46) ................................. 198 Figure E. 5. Predicted faulting – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90) ................................. 199 Figure E. 6. International roughness index – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90) ............ 199 Figure E. 7. Predicted faulting – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90) ............................... 200 Figure E. 8. Predicted faulting – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94) ................................. 200 Figure E. 9. Predicted faulting – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88) ................................. 201 Figure E. 10. International roughness index – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91) ............ 201 Figure E. 11. International roughness index – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92) ............ 202
19 Figure E. 12. Predicted faulting – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93) ............................... 202 Figure E. 13. International roughness index – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90) ............ 203
20 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Problem Highway pavements are designed to withstand the measured and projected traffic loads while providing a high quality level of service during their expected design life. However, actual traffic loads imposed upon the pavement may exceed the projected design loads. These increased loads result in pavements that are subjected to higher stresses and strains, accelerating the deterioration process thereby causing a premature failure of the pavements. Pavements are design based upon various criteria such as collected traffic volumes, axles along the road segment, assumed material properties, and mechanistic-empirical design equations. Due to the quality of the data and assumptions, a pavement performance may exceed, meet or fall short of expectations. To date one of the most ambitious projects conducted to understand a pavements performance under various conditions is the Long Term Pavement Performance program (LTPP). This project is being carried out by the U.S. Department of Transportation and Canada and is supervised by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2008). The project was launched in 1987 to examine pavement perform over a 20-year period. In order to meet this goal, the FHWA has been monitoring and conducting extensive field and laboratory experiments on more than 2,400 pavements that are in service in the United States and Canada (FHWA, 2008). The data collected from the LTPP program will aid the U.S. Department of Transportation and Canada’s provinces to develop new guidance for the analysis, design, and construction procedures of pavements; this data will be also used to modify, calibrate, and validate mechanistic-empirical equations. By using the gathered
21 information it will be possible to improve roadways through better performance and more cost-effective pavements. A forensic study to determine the current and future performance along several roads located in the State of Ohio was conducted. The current performance for the selected pavements was classified into two groups; pavements with excellent performance and pavements with average performance. Pavements with excellent performance are those which are exceeding design expectations or exhibiting little distress even after the service life period. On the other hand, average pavements are those which have required minimal maintenance or exhibited moderate distress prior to the end of the pavements service life. 1.2 Objectives and Scope The main objective of this research was to determine the actual pavement performance and the expected remaining service life of several asphalt concrete and portland cement concrete sections located in the State of Ohio. These objectives were achieved by comparing design parameters, construction practices, and material properties. In addition, pavement thickness, traffic loads, and traffic volumes were also evaluated for the selected pavements. The results of this research will aid the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) in establishing improved pavement design practices in order to extend the service life of pavements throughout the state. The falling weight deflectometer (FWD) test was used to determine the current differences in the performance of these pavements whereas the mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG) software was used to determine the expected remaining service life.
22 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW Pavements are normally classified into two groups: rigid pavements and flexible pavements. Rigid pavements are composed of a stiff portland cement concrete (PCC) layer resting on a subgrade (base and subbase layers are optional). Because of its stiffness and structure, the traffic loads applied to the PCC layer is transmitted under a wider area of subgrade therefore inducing moderate stress and strain to the soil (Fwa, 2006). Contrary to rigid pavements, flexible pavements are designed to allow layer deformations under traffic loads. Normally, the main structural body of flexible pavements consists of three layers resting on the soil structure; each layer is designed with different criteria depending on its mechanic properties and the stresses acting on it (Fwa, 2006). The entire pavement system is designed to efficiently support the stresses and strains generated by the traffic and environmental loads during its design period. The selection of the proper pavement layer thickness is a major concern for highway engineers because of the crucial role that it plays in pavement performance. The thickness is selected depending on several factors such as physical and mechanical properties of the materials, climate conditions, expected traffic loads, expected design life and construction practices. Wheels traveling on the pavement generate a load pulse that induces stresses and strains on the surface which are transmitted to the entire pavement system (Fwa, 2006). The traffic load is transmitted directly from the vehicles to the pavement surface through a small contact area (the tires). For flexible pavements, the maximum stresses due to the induced load occur on the top of the asphalt layer and then decrease as the pavement
23 depth increases because the load is distributed in a larger area thereby decreasing the mechanical and physical demands of the base and subbase layers (Fwa, 2006). In recent decades, scientists have begun to focus upon pavement performance in order to improve its service life or performance. Several researchers have focused on depicting the behavior of pavements in order to explain deviation in their actual behavior as compared to its predicted behavior. However, the forensic investigation of pavements is a complex subject that requires a thorough investigation of each variable which influences pavement performance. There are several variables that influence pavement performance such as pavement type (i.e., asphalt concrete, portland cement concrete, or composite), base and subgrade material properties, traffic loads, climate conditions, asphalt content, viscosity, permeability, aggregate type, gradation, thermal and moisture gradients, etc. Some road sections in the State of Ohio have been partially instrumented with different types of devices such as environment sensors, linear variable differential transformers (LVDT), strain gauges, rosettes, etc. in an effort to collect reliable and consistent data that can lead to a better understanding of pavement performance (Sargand, 1994; Sargand, Green, & Khoury, 1997; Sargand, 1999; Sargand and Edwards, 2004; Sargand & Staff, 2007; Figueroa, 1994; Figueroa, 1997). The collected data has been used in combination with nondestructive and laboratory tests to assess the pavement performance under existing traffic and climate conditions. Most recently, in 2007, route DEL-23 (US-23 in Delaware, Ohio) was instrumented in developing a comprehensive and reliable pavement performance database. The data collected from the instrumented roads will assist the Ohio Department
24 of Transportation (ODOT) by examining pavement performance of alternative designs which, if proven effective, can be implemented in future projects. The data can also be used to validate empirical-mechanistic equations found in the technical literature which have been used for decades in the design of pavements. Pavements might be exposed to several critical traffic loads and environmental conditions during its design life which impact the pavement quality and performance in a negative manner. These unpredictable conditions force the pavement to develop several types of distress mechanisms in order to release the overstresses. 2.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavements Researchers have been conducting forensic investigations for several years to determine the origin of distress mechanisms in pavements. These investigations are expensive due to the traffic control requirements, sophisticated equipment needs, staff mobilization, and field and laboratory experiments (Chen & Scullion, 2007). From the variety of distress mechanisms developed on the flexible pavement surface, rutting distress mechanisms have drawn researcher’s attention for several decades. Rutting can be produced by the failure of any of the pavement layers (e.g. subgrade, subbase layer, base layer, or asphalt layer) and the extent of rutting highly dependent on the season. For example, the asphalt layer is more vulnerable to rutting in hot summer weather because the asphalt mix becomes weaker with the hot temperatures, allowing the asphalt layer to deform permanently or accumulate surface deformation under normal traffic loads (Masada, Sargand, Abdalla, & Figueroa, 2004). On the other hand, the base is more vulnerable during wet spring weather than in other seasons (White, Haddock, Hand, & Fang, 2002; Masada et al., 2004).
25 Haddock, Hand, Fang, and White (2005) and White et al. (2002) discussed the existing relationship between the surface profiles and the rutting developed on the pavement surface. The authors concluded that the shape and the pavement deformations can be used to explain pavement deficiencies by analyzing the pavement surface profiles. The authors found that there is a strong correlation between the surface profiles and the rutting distress mechanism developed on the pavement. Haddock et al. (2005) and White et al. (2002) proposed a method to identify the failed layers. This method uses the pavement’s transverse profile to determine the total rutting and the contribution of each layer, so remedial actions can be taken in order to prevent the continuation of the failure therefore diminishing the costs associated with a late pavement intervention. Chatti et al. (2005) mainly studied the influence of the asphalt layer thickness, base thickness, and base type in the asphalt concrete pavement performance; the environmental effect and influence of the heavy traffic were also investigated. The authors concluded that pavements resting on an asphalt treated base (ATB) performed better than pavements resting on other type of bases. From the factors affecting the pavement the base type plays the most critical role on the pavement performance. Chen, Bilyeu, Scullion, Lin, and Zhou (2003) conducted a forensic study to investigate the causes of deep rutting on US-281 in south Texas. The project was located on Hidalgo County (Texas) and was part of the 20 years LTPP program. This project consisted of 20 different pavement sections subjected to the same traffic loads and environmental conditions. Some sections had a regular performance since the road was opened failing prematurely and developing earlier deep rutting; the cause of the rutting was attributed to a change in the aggregate material used in construction without
26 verification in the original design parameters and the excess of asphalt in the top layer (Chen et al., 2003). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) provide highway designers with practical and useful tools to analyze and design pavements. However, most of those mechanical-empirical equations were derived assuming that a static load is transmitted to the pavement surface by a circular contact pressure area (Mateos & Snyder, 2002). Mateos and Snyder (2002) used four flexible pavement sections from an instrumented Minnesota road research project to perform a dynamic load test to validate the multilayer linear elastic model by changing the axle type, load level, vehicle speed, and the asphalt temperature. From the experiment performed, the authors found that the pavement strains increase as the vehicle speed decreases and the elastic modulus is independent of the axle type. In order to develop useful equations to analyze the asphalt concrete pavement performance several assumptions must be made. One of the assumptions is that pavement performs linearly under loads; however, it has been determined from field and laboratory experiments that pavement layers do not performance linearly and elastically (Y. Lu, L. Lu, and Wright, 2002) and this is especially true for the asphalt concrete layer because of its viscous composition. This viscous behavior can be noticed on the surface pavement with rutting distresses; the accumulation of pavement deformation is an indication of the visco-elastoplastic property of asphalt pavements. A visco-elastoplastic method to determine the pavement performance considering the temperature, duration and magnitude of the load, and pavement thickness was presented by Y. Lu et al. (2002). In this method, the pavement strains were divided into
27 three groups depending whether or not the deformation was recoverable when the pavement surface transitions from a loaded state to unloaded state. The total strain acting on the pavement is given by (Y. Lu et al., 2002):
ε t = ε e + ε ve + ε vp where ε e = elastic strain, ε ve = viscoelastic strain, and ε vp = viscoplastic strain.
ε e,i = 0.598 × 10 −7 × σ i × Ti 2.757
ε ve,i = 4.643 × 10 −6 × σ i0.728 × t i0.630+ 0.00730T
i
[
]
ε vp ,i = 1.692 × 10−7 × σ i0.997 × i 0.458 − 0.0038T − (i − 1)0.458 − 0.0038T × ti0.474 − 0.0049T i
i
i
where Ti , and t i are defined as the temperature and the loading time at the cycle ith respectively. Y. Lu et al. (2002) conducted a numerical example assuming a three layer pavement to replicate the development of rutting on the pavement. From this example, the authors concluded that rutting was highly influenced by the temperature and the thickness of the layer. Several researchers have developed theoretical methods to determine the viscoelastic pavement properties under different environmental and vehicle load conditions (Collop, Cebon, & Hardy, 1995; Elseifi, Al-Qadi, & Yoo, 2006). Elseifi et al. (2006) compared pavement performance using an elastic and viscoelastic model. In the first model it was assumed that the pavement parameters behave linearly whereas in the second model the laboratory parameters obtained assuming a viscoelastic behavior were taken. The authors found that the viscoelastic finite element model predicts with an acceptable accuracy the permanent deformation on the surface as well as the effect of the environmental conditions and vehicle speed. On the other hand, the permanent and
28 accumulate deformation could not be determined using the elastic finite element model as this model did not accurately predict the stresses acting on the pavement or the influence of the vehicle speed (Elseifi et al., 2006). 2.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements Portland cement concrete pavements can be classified into three categories (WSDOT, n.d., a) known as joint plain concrete pavement (JPCP), joint reinforced concrete pavement (JRCP), and continuously reinforced concrete pavement (CRCP). The most common type of pavement in the State of Ohio is the JPCP and normally consists of slabs spacing between 12 and 20 ft long having transversal joints reinforced with dowel bars to improve the performance of the joints. JRCP is not as common as the JPCP and the only difference is that JRCP consists of transversal joints spacing up to 50 ft. CRCP does not require transversal joints because is reinforced entirely over its length with longitudinal and transversal steel bars to prevent cracks due to the traffic load and environmental conditions. JRCP and CRCP are not longer constructed due to their poor long-term performance (WSDOT, n.d., a). There are several parameters involved in the PCC pavement performance with load transfer being the most crucial. Conversely, load transfer is the ability of the loaded slab to transmit the load trough the joint to the adjacent slab therefore decreasing the acting stresses and improving the pavement behavior. Two of the most common mechanisms used to increase the joint efficiency are the dowel bars and the aggregate interlock. Dowel bars have proved to effectively improve the joint performance. The main advantage of the dowel bars is that they allow the slab movement in the horizontal
29 direction and restrict the movement in the vertical direction while transferring the load. The dowel bars have a diameter between 1.25 and 1.5 in and a length of 18 in and are normally spaced 12 in apart from the others. The dowel bars also limit the most common distress mechanisms in PCC pavement such as faulting, pumping, and corner break (WSDOT, n.d., a). The total load transfer is due to the contribution of both the aggregate interlock and the dowel bars. However, the contribution due to the aggregate interlock can also be considered negligible in cracks wider than 0.9 mm (WSDOT, n.d., a). Gharaibneh, N. G., Darter, M. I., and Heckel, L. B. (1999) studied the most significant design and construction parameters affecting the long-term pavement performance of 2791.6 km (two directions) of CRCP in the State of Illinois. Although some of the sections were exposed to extreme weather and traffic conditions, they had shown an excellent performance during their design life. The study was conducted by analyzing data from field surveys collected since 1977 and the database included a variety of information for each one of the pavements such as section location, slab thickness, steel reinforcement content, base type and thickness, average annual temperature and precipitation. From this study it was found that among the parameters affecting the CRCP, the reinforcement content and the slab thickness were the most critical influence on the pavement performance. The performance of transversal cracking in joint concrete pavements (JPCP) on forty-nine (49) sections located in the State of Michigan was studied by Frabizzio, M. A., Buch, N. J. (1999). The aim of this project was to determine the key parameters influencing the transversal cracking in JCPs. The following conclusions were drawn by Frabizzio et al. (1999): a) the average number of cracks per slab increases as the joint
30 spacing increases; b) the concrete coarse aggregate type has a significant influence in the number of transversal cracks developed in the slabs; c) the temperature is directly related to the joint performance, high temperatures increase the load transfer thereby decreasing the crack wide; and d) the load transfer value can be used as an indicator of the crack condition, load transfer values higher than 70% indicated a good crack condition. Chen, D. H., Scullion, T., Bilyeu, J., and Won, M. (2005) studied the causes leading to surface longitudinal cracking and punchouts on IH-30 (Interstate Highway) in the State of Texas. Several field and laboratory tests were conducted to determine the causes of these distress mechanisms. The authors concluded that longitudinal cracks were developed at early stage due to the change in temperature and a 30-50% increase of the truck traffic during the last years exceeding the original intended truck traffic. 2.3 Falling Weight Deflectometer Empirical equations are equations which use previous experiences and data collected from field and laboratory experiments to derive a mathematical relationship between the pavement properties and pavement performance. Empirical equations do not have any scientific basis thereby the use of these equations is limited to a certain range of environmental, material, and loading scenarios. On the other hand, mechanistic-empirical methods use a mechanistic approach to relate the pavement performance to its physical conditions thereby providing the engineers with a more powerful tool to analyze and design pavements. Although mechanistic-empirical methods require more input data to analyze pavements (Thompson, 1996), the methods consider an extensive variety of parameters affecting the pavement performance thereby being more realistic and accurate. Mechanistic-empirical
31 methods are more effective than empirical methods therefore slowly forcing the research community to a transition from the use of empirical equations to the use of mechanisticempirical equations (Thompson, 1996). The intent of the U.S. Department of Transportation was to develop rational mechanistic equations for the analysis of pavement (Hesham & Shiraz, 1998). For this reason, several research projects have been carried out during the last few decade as part of the LTPP program implemented by the ASSHTO, providing researchers with valuable laboratory and in-service pavement performance data which will aid in the transition from empirical equations to mechanistic-empirical equations and later from mechanisticempirical equations to mechanistic equations. The falling weight deflectometer test has been widely used to determine the pavement condition and properties. One of the most important pavement parameters to describe the pavement performance is the modulus of elasticity which can be backcalculated from the collected FWD data. Several equations have been proposed in order to correlate the data obtained from the FWD test and the modulus of elasticity. Kim, Hibbs, and Lee (1995) proposed a temperature correlation to correct the surface maximum deflection obtained from the FWD test.
[
]
D68 = DT × 10α (68−T ) ; where D68 (in.) is the adjusted deflection to a temperature of 20ºC; DT (in.) is the deflection measured temperature T (ºF); T (ºF) is the mid-depth temperature at the time the FWD test was performance; the α = 3.67 × 10 −4 × t 1.4635 for wheel paths and
α = 3.65 × 10 −4 × t 1.4241 for center lane; and t (in.) is the asphalt layer thickness layer.
32 Another correlation equation used to determine the pavement modulus of elasticity considering the effect of the temperature on the data collected from the FWD test was given by Chen, Bilyeu, Lin, and Murphy (2000) as:
[
ETw = ETc / (1.8Tw + 32)
2.4462
× (1.8Tc + 32 )
−2.4462
];
where ETw (MPa) is the adjusted modulus of elasticity at Tw ; ETc (MPa) is the measured modulus of elasticity at Tc ; Tw (ºC) is the temperature to which the modulus of elasticity is adjusted; and Tc (ºC) is the mid-depth temperature at the time the FWD test was performance. Chen et al. (2000) presented a universal correlation equation to consider the influence of the temperature on the deflection obtained from the FWD test. The maximum deflection due to the FWD test can be obtained by ⎛ 1.0823 −0.0098t ⎞ 1 = WTc1 × ⎜⎜ × Tw0.8316 × Tc0.8419 ⎟⎟ ; WTw ⎝ 0.8631 ⎠ 1 is the adjusted deflection in the middle of the plate at Tw (mm ) ; WTc1 is the where WTw
measure deflection in the middle of the plate at Tc (mm ) ; t is the pavement thickness (mm); and Tw and Tc were defined above.
33 CHAPTER 3: SECTION DESCRIPTION
The Ohio Department of Transportation is a federal organization which is in charge of the planning, designing, monitoring and maintenance of the roadways located in the State of Ohio. In order to facilitate these responsibilities, ODOT had divided the State into 12 districts as shown in Figure 1 .
Figure 1. Ohio districts
Each district is responsible for these tasks as well as reporting to the central sections of ODOT regarding the progress in each district. The falling weight deflectometer test was conducted on the sections listed in Table 1 to determine the current pavement structural condition. Because the existing and future pavement condition is directly related to the physical and mechanical properties of the layers as
34 well as the traffic loads, it is of vital importance to determine the pavement layer parameters in order to evaluate why some pavements outperform others. 3.1 Asphalt Concrete Sections
In order to determine why some pavement sections performs better than others and using the ODOT database, Bill Edwards (research engineer at Ohio University) conducted a linear and polynomial regression to determine the best correlation between the pavement age and the pavement condition rating (Figure 2). Similar coefficient of determination were obtained for both trendlines, therefore the linear trendline was selected to classify the pavement performance.
Figure 2. Linear trendline for AC pavement sections
35 A pavement performance classification was assigned following the above linear trendline (Table 1). For example, the PCR limit for projects constructed in the year 1998 is PCR = 95.8 − 1.32(10 ) = 82.6 . It means sections constructed in this year (1998) with PCR higher than 82.6 are consider sections with excellent performance whereas section below this value are consider sections with average performance. A total of nineteen (19) asphalt concrete sections grouped in 14 sections were selected and listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections AC Sections - AC 100 No
Co-Rte
1
BUT 129
2
BUT 129
3
CHP 68
4 5
FAY 35 GRE 35
6
HAM 126
7 8 9 10 11 12
HAM 747 LAW 7 LIC 16 LUC 2 LUC 25
13 14
PIK 32 ROS 35
SLM Limits 17.96-24.00 17.83-24.00 24.00-24.73 1.27-1.74 1.27-1.82 1.82-2.16 17.57-24.05 20.95-26.21 6.83-7.09 7.09-11.35 0.04-0.94 1.4-2.28 19.72-20.38 21.39-27.25 10.01-11.28 13.43-16.08 16.08-20.47 0-4.38
Direction D U DU D U U DU DU DU DU U DU DU U DU D D U DU
Length (miles) 6.04 6.17 0.73 0.47 0.55 0.34 6.48 5.26 0.26 4.26 0.9 0.88 0.66 5.86 1.27 2.65
Project ID
District
9330(98)
8
9327(98)
8
233(98)
7
298(96) 259(98)
6 8
645(94)
8
347(85) 17(85) 6010(99) 141(99) 665(97) 443(94)
8 9 5 2 2
4.39
552(95)
4.38
298(96)
9 9
Condition Average Excellent Average Excellent Excellent Average Average Excellent Average Excellent Average Excellent Average Average Excellent Excellent Average Excellent Excellent
Table 1 shows how the sections were classified. Co-Rte refers to the county and roadway where the sections were located, SLM limit refers to the section studied, direction refers to upstation or downstation direction, and project ID refers to the project
36 number and year when the roadway was constructed. The pavement sections layer specifications are listed in Table 2.
Table 2: Pavement Sections Layer Specifications – AC Sections Pavement Sections Layer Specifications – AC Sections Project No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Construction Build-Up Pavement Layer Thick. (in.) and Material Specification 1.25 AC 1.25 AC 1.5 AC 3 AC 1.5 AC 1.25 AC 1 AC 1.25 AC 1.25 AC 1.25 AC 0.25 AC 1.25 AC 1.25 AC 3 AC
1.75 AC 1.75 AC 1.75 AC 10 ATB 4 ATB 1.75 AC 1 AC 1.5 AC 1.75 AC 1.75 AC 1.75 AC 1.75 AC 1.75 AC 10 ATB
8 ATB 8 ATB 6 ATB 4 CTFDB 8 DGAB 10 ATB 9 ATB 9 ATB 9 ATB 10 254 7 ATB 9 ATB 9 ATB 4 CTFDB
4 ATFDB 4 ATFDB 6 DGAB 6 DGAB
6 DGAB 6 DGAB
7.5 Lime Soil
6 DGAB
6 310
6 DGAB 6 DGAB 8 DGAB 4 NSDB 4 ATFDB 6 DGAB
6? 310
6 310 6 DGAB 6 DGAB 8 Lime Soil
37 3.2 Portland Cement Concrete Sections
The same criterion used to classify the pavement performance in AC pavement sections was applied to these PCC sections. The best fit linear trendline for PCC pavement sections is given by PCR = 96.7 − 0.98( Age ) and it is shown in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Linear trendline for PCC pavement sections
A total of seventeen (17) portland cement concrete sections grouped into 13 projects were selected. These sections and their layer specifications are listed in Table 3 and Table 4 respectively.
38 Table 3: Portland Cement Concrete Sections Portland Cement Concrete Sections PCC Sections - AC 110 No
Co-Rte
SLM Limits
Direction
Length (miles)
Project ID
District
Condition
15
ATH 50
11.46-11.8
U
0.34
700(86)
10
Average
16
ATH 682
625(76)
10
0.16-0.64
DU
0.48
3.22-3.66
D
0.44
2.05-3.82
U
1.77
17
CUY 82
18
GAL 7
5.71-10.21
U
19
HAM 126
11.35-13.31
20
JEF 7
21
JEF 22
22
LOG 33
Average Excellent
438(94)
12
4.50
352(46)
10
Excellent
DU
1.96
997(90)
8
Excellent
18.9-19.21
D
0.31
8008(90)
11
Average
8008(90)
11
Average
845(94)
7
15.02-16.32
U
1.30
21.79-25.63
D
3.84
21.51-25.63
U
4.12
Excellent
Average Excellent
23
MOT 35
14.37-15.07
DU
0.70
343(88)
7
Excellent
24
MOT 202
2-3.25
U
1.25
678(91)
7
Excellent
1.52
844(92)
25
11.8-13.32 SUM 76
26 27
13.32-15.32 TUS 39
2.84-7.12
D U D U U
Excellent 4
2.00
996(93)
4.28
907(90)
Average Excellent Average
11
Average
39 Table 4: Pavement Sections Layer Specifications – PCC Sections Pavement Sections Layer Specifications – PCC Sections Project. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Construction Build-Up Pavement Layer Thick. (in.) and Material Specification 9 6 JRC 310 9 6 JRC 310 11 6 JRC DGAB 11 6 JRC DGAB 10 6 JRC ATB 9 6 JRC 310 9 6 JRC 310 12 4 4 PCC NSDB DGAB 9 6 PCC 310 9 10 PCC 310 11 4 JRC ATB 11 4 4 JRC ATB DGAB 9 6 PCC 310
3.3 Traffic Parameters
The annual average daily truck traffic (AADTT) and the growth rate for both AC and PCC pavement sections were calculated using a linear regression between the traffic counts available and the year when the survey was conducted (ODOT, n.d., b). The AADTT and the growth rate are listed below in their respectively sections.
40 3.3.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
The traffic parameters of the AC pavement sections are listed in Table 5.
Table 5: Traffic Parameters of AC Pavement Sections Traffic Parameters of AC Pavement Sections AC Sections - AC 100 No
Co-Rte
1
BUT 129
2
BUT 129
3
CHP 68
SLM Limits
Direction
17.96-24.00
D
17.83-24.00
U
24.00-24.73
DU
1.27-1.74
D
1.27-1.82
U
1.82-2.16
U
Project ID 9330(98) 9327(98)
233(98)
INITIAL AADTT
Growth Rate
1419
5.8%
802
4.1%
1492
5.8%
1110
3.5%
1000
2.4%
1000
2.4%
4
FAY 35
17.57-24.05
U
298(96)
1598
5.5%
5
GRE 35
20.95-26.21
U
259(98)
1482
9.0%
6.83-7.09
DU
1320
3.2%
7.09-11.35
DU
1550
1.5%
6
HAM 126
645(94)
7
HAM 747
0.04-0.94
U
347(85)
318
3.7%
8
LAW 7
1.4-2.28
DU
17(85)
556
1.6%
9
LIC 16
19.72-20.38
DU
6010(99)
2671
9.0%
10
LUC 2
21.39-27.25
U
141(99)
2316
4.5%
11
LUC 25
10.01-11.28
DU
665(97)
796
1.0%
13.43-16.08
D
443(94)
1240
2.0%
898
3.5%
898
3.5%
1266
8.3%
12 13 14
PIK 32
ROS 35
16.08-20.47 0-4.38
D U DU
552(95) 298(96)
41 3.3.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Sections
The traffic parameters of the PCC pavement sections necessary to run the MEPDG software are listed in Table 6.
Table 6: Traffic Parameters of PCC Pavement Sections Traffic Parameters of PCC Pavement Sections PCC Sections - AC 110 No
Co-Rte
SLM Limits
Direction
Project Number
INITIAL AADTT
15
ATH 50
11.46-11.8
U
700(86)
785
Growth Rate 3.6%
16
ATH 682
0.16-0.64
DU
625(76)
309
-1.0% (*)
17
CUY 82
3.22-3.66
D
1666
0.5%
2.05-3.82
U
1666
0.5%
18
GAL 7
5.71-10.21
U
352(46)
99
1.9%
19
HAM 126
11.35-13.31
DU
997(90)
1474
1.4%
20
JEF 7
18.9-19.21
D
8008(90)
2471
-0.9% (*)
21
JEF 22
15.02-16.32
U
8008(90)
1194
7.5%
21.79-25.63
D
3440
1.6%
21.51-25.63
U
3440
1.6%
22
LOG 33
438(94)
845(94)
23
MOT 35
14.37-15.07
DU
343(88)
1790
2.6%
24
MOT 202
2-3.25
U
678(91)
624
-2.3% (%)
11041
2.0%
11041
2.0%
10893
2.3%
10893
2.5%
769
4.0%
25
11.8-13.32 SUM 76
26 27
13.32-15.32 TUS 39
2.84-7.12
D U D U U
844(92)
996(93) 907(90)
(*) In order to run the software a growth rate of 1% was assumed
42 3.4 Material Classification
A brief explanation of each material used in the construction of these routes is explained below (ODOT, 2008). Item 441, “Contractor Mix Design and Quality Control - General”, covers all the asphalt pavements types. Item 441 describes the asphalt layer composition; this asphalt layer consists of aggregate material mixed with asphalt binder. The asphalt pavement layer properties and material specifications for item 441 are shown in appendix A. Item 446 has the same material specifications than item 441 does, but requires a different procedure for quality control. By the time of the construction of these routes, the density of the compacted mixture made following item 446 was required to be between 91.0 to 94.9% the maximum specific gravity. Item 448 has the same material specifications than item 441 but the procedure for quality control is more rigorous meaning a construction procedure more adjusted to the design. Item 301, “Bituminous Aggregate Base”, describes the base pavement layer composition; this base layer consists of aggregate source material mixed with asphalt binder. This item is required to meet item 401 except for some modifications such as the aggregate graduation, and the spreading and finishing. By the time of the construction of these routes, the binder content percentage was required to be between 4.0-8.0%. In order to be compacted, the maximum depth of the bituminous aggregate base layer was required to be less than 6 in. Item 302, “Bituminous Aggregate Base”, describes the base pavement layer composition; this base layer consists of aggregate source material mixed with asphalt
43 binder. This item is required to meet the item 441 except for some modifications such as the aggregate graduation, and the spreading and finishing. The modified base aggregate graduation is shown in appendix A. By the time of the construction of these routes, the air voids percent and the binder content was required to be between 3.0 and 8.0%. In order to be compacted, the depth of the bituminous aggregate base layer was required to be between 4 in. (100 mm) and 8 in. (200 mm) and the temperature of the mixture when deposited on the paver was required to be at least 250ºF (120ºC). Item 304, “Aggregate Base”, describes the composition of several types of aggregate base layers built using one or more types of aggregates. By the time of the construction of these routes, the aggregate gradation was required to meet the characteristics shown in appendix A. The base layer thickness after compacted was required not to exceed 150 mm (6 inch). Item 306, “Cement Treated Free Drainage Base”, consists of a mix of course aggregate, cement, and water; the water/cement ratio must be approximately 0.36. The minimum cement content is limited to 148 kg and 130 kg when using gradation 57 and 67 respectively. Item 307, “Non-Stabilized Drainage Base”, is classified into three categories, type ‘NJ’ for New Jersey, type ‘IA’ for Iowa, and type ‘CE’. The aggregate gradation for item 307 is shown in appendix A. By the time of the construction of these routes, the base layer thickness after compacted was required not to exceed 100 mm (4 inch), 100 mm (4 inch), and 150 mm (6 inch) for type ‘NJ’, ‘IA’, and ‘CE’ respectively. Item 310 is divided into two types; type I subbase is required to meet the passing requirement shown in appendix A, whereas type II needed only meet grading A. The
44 maximum liquid limit and plastic index of the aggregate passing sieve No. 40 was requested to be less than 30 and 6 respectively. Item 451, “Reinforced Portland Cement Concrete Pavement”, covered all the aspects such as description, materials, equipment, placing concrete, curing, joints, sealing joints, etc. of reinforced concrete pavements. Item 452, called “Plain Portland Cement Concrete Pavement”, met the same requirement than item 451 except with some modification such as: a) reinforcing steel mats are not required, b) dowels in transverse contraction joints, and c) spacing of contraction. 3.4.1 Previous Works
Several researchers (Masada & Sargand, 2002; Abdulshafi et al., 1994) have been working during decades on the classification and determination of the physical and mechanical properties of the asphalt and portland concrete pavement materials. Some of these studies have been carried out in the State of Ohio and are closely related to the materials used in the sections studied in this project. The resilient modulus of item 446-Type 1 and Type 2 can be expressed in terms of indirect tensile strength (ITS) as M R (ksi ) = 3.286 * ( ITS ) + 86.13 for surface layerType 1 and M R (ksi) = 3.020 * ( ITS ) + 149.59 for intermediate layer-Type 2 (Masada & Sargand, 2002). Masada and Sargand (2002) reported the resilient modulus of elasticity for item 446-Type 1 and 446-Type 2 and they are listed in Table 7.
45 Table 7: Resilient Modulus of Item 446 T1 and 446 T2
Resilient Modulus of Item 446 T1 and 446 T2 Item 446-Type 1
446-Type 2
Test temp. 5ºC (41ºF) 25ºC (77ºF) 40ºC (104ºF) 5ºC (41ºF) 25ºC (77ºF) 40ºC (104ºF)
MR (million psi) 0.80 0.43 0.21 0.83 0.50 0.21
After analyzing data collected from different research projects during several years, Masada et al. (2004) proposed an empirical equation to determine the resilient modulus of elasticity of the asphalt concrete. This equation depends on the temperature and it was expressed as M R (million − psi ) = 0.0001T 2 − 0.0375T + 2.8405 whete T is the temperature (ºF). Masada et al. (2004) also proposed empirical equations to determine the dynamic modulus of the asphalt concrete subjected to different frequencies and they were given by E * = −0.0005T 2 − 0.0328T + 3.0059 at 16 Hz E * = 0.0001T 2 − 0.0420T + 2.9224 at 04 Hz E * = 0.0001T 2 − 0.0391T + 2.5006 at 01 Hz
where T is given in Fahrenheit and E * is given in million psi Masada and Sargand (2002) reported the variation with the temperature of the Poisson’s ration for item 446-Type 1 and 446-Type 2. The authors concluded that the Poisson’s ratio is the same for both types and are equal to 0.14 at 5ºC (41ºF), 0.35 at
46 25ºC(77ºF), and 40ºC(104ºF). The Poisson’s ratio can also be obtained using the following empirical expression (Masada & Sargand, 2002).
μ = −0.00004T 2 + 0.012T − 0.2837 Sargand and Edwards (2002) determined the modulus of elasticity of item 301(ATB) through a backcalculated procedure and using the FWD data collected during summer and fall seasons. The average of the resilient modulus was calculated as 0.44 (million psi) and 0.75 (million psi) for a base and subbase layer respectively; the Poisson’s ratio can be assumed as 0.35 at 25ºC (77ºF) (Masada et al., 2004). Sargand and Edwards (2002) proposed values for the modulus of elasticity for items 304 (DGAB), 302 (PATB), and 306 (PCTB). The modulus of elasticity for item 302 can be taken equal to 0.25 million psi (subbase); the modulus of elasticity for item 304 can be taken equal to 26 ksi for a base layer and 31.0 ksi for a subbase; and for item 306 can be taken as 1.26 million psi (subbase). Abdulshafi et al. (1994) proposed values for the modulus of elasticity for item 310; the modulus of elasticity can be taken equal to 0.43 and 0.60 (million psi) at normal room temperature (25ºC) for JAC-35 and LIC-70 sites. Masada et al. (2004) proposed two empirical equations relating the modulus of elasticity (item 310) with the temperature and the indirect tensile strength (ITS). These empirical equations were expressed as M R ( Mpa) = 0.00005T 2 (° F ) − 0.0116T (° F ) + 1.2627 and M R (ksi ) ) = 2.9364 * ITS ( psi ) + 183.06 respectively. A correlation between the
temperature and the Poisson’s ratio for item 301 was also presented by Masada et al. (2004) as μ = 0.00004(T 2 (° F ) + T (° F )) + 0.0345 .
47 CHAPTER 4: FIELD EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
Field experimental tests are useful tools which have been used for decades to investigate the pavement performance during or after its design service life and to validate mathematical/empirical models. Field tests can be classified into two groups: nondestructive and destructive tests; however, for the purpose of this research project only nondestructive tests are being considered. 4.1 Nondestructive Tests
The United States Department of Transportation have invested considerable amount of resources in different research projects to understand the pavement performance. The purpose of these projects was to study in detail the pavement parameters affecting each one of the pavement phases (i.e. analysis, design, construction, evaluation, performance, and maintenance). Understanding the pavement performance is quite complex and requires from the engineers with not only experience in similar projects but also strong background in forensic investigations. Pavement is always expected to have a good performance during its design life; however, performance can be lower than expected because of the range of variables affecting each stage. Therefore, determining the pavement structural condition is crucial because it allows engineers to take remedial actions thereby diminishing the costs associated with a late diagnosis and maintenance (Benchmark, Inc., 2005). Pavement tends to fail earlier than expected when it is subjected to traffic loads higher than those which it was design for and its deterioration can be accelerated when poor construction procedures or inappropriate selection of materials.
48 Nondestructive tests are acceptable procedures used to determine pavement properties and to assess the pavement condition by permanently monitoring a route, thereby identifying potential problems in the pavement layers and allowing the prevention or prolongation of distress mechanisms (Stolle & Friedrich, 1992). Nondestructive tests are quicker, cheaper, and more accurate than other methods used for pavement evaluations (Chen et al. 2003). They are preferred instead of destructive tests because of the convenience of identifying failed layers without altering the pavement surface, thereby avoiding costs associated with the reconstruction of the intervention (Chen et al. 2003). 4.2.1 Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD)
The falling weight deflectometer is a nondestructive test that has been used extensively by the United States Department of Transportation to determine the physical and mechanical properties of pavements. The basic principle of the FWD test is to induce small surface deflections on the pavement through the application of controlled impulse loads; this method is preferred among other methods because is simpler, more reliable, and cheaper (Claessen, Valkering, and Ditmarsch, 1976). The FWD device was designed to apply a dynamic load to the pavement which accurately simulates the effect of a wheel load. The FWD applies the load to the surface by dropping a large weight that is transmitted through a circular loading plate; this weight generates temporally pavement deformations which are recording for sensors located radially up to 2.5 meters from the point of application of the load. The magnitude of the impulse load transmitted by the FWD device to the pavement can vary from 30 kN and 250 kN by varying the weight and the drop height (Salimath, 2002).
49 The FWD test can be conducted on asphalt concrete, portland concrete and composite pavements to determine the structural condition of the pavement layers. Claessen et al. (1976) described in extensive detail the physical and mechanical parameters related to the pavement performance and their influence on its behavior under the FWD test. The authors carried out step by step examples to calculate the resilient modulus of the pavement from the data obtained from the FWD. Claessen et al. (1976) also proposed an evaluation method based on the elastic theory that can be used to determine the elastic properties of the pavement from the surface and shape deflection of the pavement. Sargand, Das, and Jayasuriya (1995) developed an analytical mathematical procedure to analyze the two pavement-foundation system response to dynamic loads. Using the proposed method and assuming a triangular load, the elastic properties of the pavement can be determined using a back calculating procedure with the data obtained from the FWD. Repeated falling weight deflectometer tests were conducted by Chen, Bilyeu, Lin, and Murphy (2000) to investigate the influence of the temperature on asphalt concrete pavements with thickness between 178 mm and 203 mm. From the experiment it was found that the temperature plays more critical roles on intact pavements than on cracked pavements. As a result of this research, the authors proposed temperature correlation equations for the resilient modulus of the pavement and deflection. The authors also concluded that the temperature correlation factors are impacted for the pavement thickness and the pavement condition.
50 The FWD test can be used to identify problematic or failed sections on the pavements thereby giving rational data to the engineers to plan, organize, and conduct the necessary maintenance strategies or remedial actions. The FWD is also used to determine the load transfer between concrete slabs and to detect voids under the slabs (Vandenbossche, 2007). The FWD device model used in this research project to determine the pavement mechanical properties was the Dynatest Model 8000 FWD. This model has been used extensively and successfully since the 1800s; the Dynatest FWD device has an approximate weight of 864 kg, making it of easy transportation by using ordinary vehicles. The mass is dropped from different heights while seven geophones located to any distance record deflections up to 2 mm (Dynatest International, 2008). For illustration the Dynatest Model 8000 FWD is shown in Figure 4 .
Figure 4. Dynatest Model 8000 FWD (Dynatest International, 2008).
51 4.2.2 Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP)
The dynamic cone penetrometer test will be conducted, in the future, for these pavement sections. The dynamic cone penetrometer is a cost-effective alternative that has been used to determine in-situ physical and mechanical properties of the base and subbase pavement layers without need of collecting soil samples. The DCP test is run by raising and dropping a weight of 8 kg from a height of 575 mm and then recording the soil penetration depths per each blow. The DCP allows to determine the stiffness and strength of the subgrade layers as well as to identify the problematic layers. The DCP test also allows to determine the thickness of each layer by comparing the depth penetration with the number of blows as show in Figure 5.
NUMBER OF BLOWS
1
2
PENETRATION DEPTH
3
Figure 5. Thickness estimation from the DCP data.
52 The DCP test is conducted on the base and subbase layers after following either the drilling of the asphalt pavement or the removal of the asphalt layer. Livneh et al. (1995) studied the effect of the confinement of granular layer, cohesive layer, and asphalt layer on the layers beneath them. Using a statistical analysis Livneh et al. (1995) found that there is a slightly influence of the vertical confinement on the strength values obtained from the dynamic cone penetrometer test and this depends on the chosen procedure. Several researchers have investigated the efficiency of the DCP device in determining the soil parameters such as the compression strength and resilient modulus. Several equations based on the DCP data obtained from the field and laboratory tests have been developed and proposed in the technical literature to provide the engineers with a quick and accurate tool to determine the subgrade condition, thereby reducing the time and cost associated with other tests. Salgado and Yoon (2003) selected seven roads located at the State of Indiana to performance both the DCP and nuclear tests. Both tests were performed at the same road location and reading of the density and moisture content at different depths were recorded using nuclear gauges. The authors proposed a useful relationship for a clayed sand between the dry unit weight and the plastic index obtained from the DCP test. However, they did not find a clear trend between the plastic index and poorly graded sands. From the results was concluded that the penetration index increases as the moisture content increases and decreases as the dry density increases (Salgado & Yoon, 2003).
53 CHAPTER 5: PAVEMENT DESTRESS MECHANISMS
A complete procedure and guidelines to identify and to classify the severity levels of the distress was presented by Miller (2003). This manual introduces a general standardized terminology and a unified criterion to define these distress mechanisms. The procedure will ensure that data collected can be analyzed and compared with other LTPP data. A brief summary of the most common types of distress and a short definition of each one of them are given below. 5.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavement
For easy reference, the most common distress mechanisms developed on AC pavements are described below (Miller, 2003). 5.1.1 Fatigue Cracking (Alligator)
Fatigue cracking is also known as alligator cracking because of the interconnected cracks pattern on the top of the hot mix asphalt surface; the alligator skin is caused by either inadequate structural design, poor quality of the materials, or repetitive heavy traffic loads that push the pavement to higher stresses than for which it was designed (WSDOT, n.d., b). In thin asphalt pavement layer, the highest stresses are located at the bottom of asphalt layer generating fatigue failure that propagates from the bottom to the top in longitudinal cracks patterns. On the other hand, in thick asphalt pavement layers the cracks can start on the top of the pavement and then to propagate to the bottom (WSDOT, n.d., b). The Distress Investigation Manual (Miller, 2003) classified the severity levels into three categories: low, moderate, and high. The fatigue cracking is measured in square meters of affected area.
54 5.1.2 Block Cracking
Block cracking is defined as longitudinal and vertical cracks dividing the pavement surface into rectangular patterns. In order to be considering as a block cracking the minimum length should be 15 meters. The block cracking is measured in square meters of affected area (Miller, 2003). The severity levels are defined as: o Low severity: crack widths less than 6 mm and seal material in a good condition. o Moderate severity: crack widths between 6 mm and 19 mm. o High severity: crack widths higher than 19 mm. 5.1.3 Edge Cracking
This type of distress applies only to pavements without a paved shoulder. The cracks start on the unpaved pavement and then intersect with the pavement edge strip extending up to 0.6 meters from the pavement edge. The severity levels are defined as (Miller, 2003): o Low severity: cracks without breakup. o Moderate severity: loss of material up to 10% of the total length affected. o High severity: loss of material higher than 10% of the total length affected and
considerable breakup. 5.1.4 Longitudinal Cracking
Longitudinal cracks can be located on both the wheel path and the non-wheel path; the localization of the longitudinal cracks is important for the forensic analysis because it help to identify the exact cause of the distress affecting the pavement. Longitudinal cracks are related to fatigue cracking and it can be caused either by poor
55 joint construction, a reflection of cracks from underneath layers, or fatigue. The severity levels are defined as (Miller, 2003): o Severity: crack widths less than 6 mm and seal material in a good condition. o Moderate severity: crack widths between 6 mm and 19 mm. o High severity: crack widths higher than 19 mm.
Longitudinal cracking is measured in meters of affected area in both the wheel path and the non-wheel path. 5.1.5 Transverse Cracking
Transverse cracking are cracks that extend perpendicular to the centerline; they are normally related to thermal cracking (shrinkage of the top layer). The severity levels are defined as (Miller, 2003): o Low severity: crack widths less than 6 mm and seal material in good condition. o Moderate severity: crack widths between 6 mm and 19 mm. o High severity: crack widths higher than 19 mm.
Transverse cracking is measured in meters of affected area. 5.1.6 Joint Reflection
Joint refection occurs on asphalt pavement that is overlaying concrete pavement. The reflected cracks are located directly over the concrete pavement joint (Miller, 2003). The severity levels are defined as: o Low severity: crack widths less than 6 mm and seal material in a good
condition. o Moderate severity: crack widths between 6 mm and 19 mm. o High severity: crack widths higher than 19 mm.
56 5.1.7 Bleeding
Bleeding is a shiny-reflecting longitudinal strip on the asphalt layer surface. Bleeding can be caused either by an excess of bituminous binder or by low air void content on the hot mix asphalt and it is usually located on the wheel paths. In hot weather, the bituminous binder starts filling the aggregates voids, thereby expanding the pavement surface (Miller, 2003). For this reason, bleeding can be considered as an accumulative problem over time. Bleeding is recorded in square meter of affected area. 5.1.8 Patching
Patching is one of the most common types of distress mechanisms. Patching is an area of the pavement higher the 0.1 square meters that have been replaced with a new material (Miller, 2003). The severity levels are defined as (Miller, 2003): o Low severity: rutting less than 6 mm; pumping is not noticeable. o Moderate severity: rutting between 6 and 12 mm; pumping is not noticeable. o High severity: rutting higher than 12 mm; rutting may be noticeable.
Patching is measured by the number of patches and the square meters of area affected. 5.1.9 Potholes
Potholes are small holes of various sizes created on the pavement surface as a result of fatigue cracking. The severity levels are defined as o Low severity: depth less than 25 mm o Moderate severity: depth between 25 mm and 50 mm o High severity: depth higher than 50 mm
Potholes are measured by the number of potholes and the square meters of area affected.
57 5.1.10 Rutting
Rutting is a permanent deformation of the wheelpath on the pavement surface; the cause of the rutting can be also associated with the failure of one of the pavement layer (base layer, subbase layer, or asphalt layer); an improper mix design; or the lack of compaction of the pavement layers (WSDOT, n.d., b). No severity levels are applicable to rutting. Rutting is measured by recording longitudinally every 15.25 meters the maximum rut depth (Miller, 2003). 5.1.11 Water Bleeding and Pumping
Water bleeding and pumping occurs when the water seep through the cracks or a porous asphalt pavement, pumping up and exposing fine material coming from the underneath layers and standing on the surface (WSDOT, n.d., b). The possible causes are porous asphalt layer, inadequate drainage, and high water Table. No severity levels are applicable to water bleeding and pumping. Water bleeding and pumping is measured by recording the number of occurrences and the total length in meters (Miller, 2003). 5.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavement
For easy reference, the most common distress mechanisms developed on PCC pavements are describe below (Miller, 2003). 5.2.1 Faulting
Faulting is caused by the erosion of the soil underneath PCC joints or cracks. It is defined as the difference in elevation between PCC slabs or cracks. No severity levels are applicable to faulting. A detail explanation of how to measure and record the faulting is given by Miller (2003).
58 5.2.2 Corner Break
The corner break is caused by the concentration of high stresses around the corner (WSDOT, n.d., c). The corner piece is normally broken in an isosceles triangular shape having sides with length ranging between 0.3 m and half the wide of the slab (Miller, 2003). The severity levels are defined as: o Low severity: spalling of the crack is less than 10% the length of the crack; no
faulting; the broken corner piece is intact. o Moderate severity: spalling (low severity) of the crack is more than 10% the
length of the crack; faulting is less than 13 mm; the broken corner piece is intact. o High severity: spalling (moderate to high severity) of the crack is more than
10% the length of the crack; faulting is higher than 13 mm; the corner piece is broken into two or more pieces. A corner break is measured by recording the number of corner breaks at each severity. 5.2.3 Durability Cracking
The durability cracking stress mechanism is defined as a “Closely spaced crescent-shaped hairline cracking pattern” (Miller, 2003, p. 49). The severity levels are defined as: o Low severity: cracks are small and little portion of material has been lost. o Moderate severity: cracks are well defined and some material has been lost. o High severity: cracks are well developed and there is a significant material
that has been lost.
59 5.2.4 Joint Load Transfer System Deterioration
Several distress mechanisms such as faulting, corner break, and transverse crack can be developed as a consequence of the deterioration of the joint. The join deterioration is due to lack of friction in the aggregate interlock and the deterioration of the dowel bars. 5.2.5 Longitudinal Cracking
Longitudinal cracking are cracks that extend parallel to the centerline. The severity levels are defined as (Miller, 2003): o Low severity: crack widths less than 3 mm. o Moderate severity: crack widths between 3 mm and 13 mm; or spalling less
than 75 mm; or faulting less than 13 mm. o High severity: crack widths higher than 13 mm; or spalling higher than 75
mm; or faulting higher than 13 mm. 5.2.6 Vertical Cracking
Transverse cracking are cracks that extend perpendicular to the centerline. The severity levels are defined as (Miller, 2003). o Low severity: crack widths less than 3 mm. o Moderate severity: crack widths between 3 mm and 6 mm; or spalling less
than 75 mm; or faulting less than 6 mm. o High severity: crack widths higher than 6 mm; or spalling higher than 75 mm;
or faulting higher than 63 mm.
60 5.2.7 Blowup
Blowup is “a localized upward slab movement and shattering at a joint or crack” (WSDOT, n.d., c). Generally, it occurs during hot weather and it is due to the insufficient room provided at joint or crack restricting the slab to expand due to the effect of temperature. A blowup is measured by recording the number of blowups developed in the pavement section.
61 CHAPTER 6: ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM FALLING WEIGHT DEFLECTOMETER TEST
The modulus of elasticity of the subgrade was back-calculated using the area value approximation presented by Pierce (1999). The equations proposed by the author related the deflection basin recorded from the falling weight deflectometer test with the subgrade stiffness. The normalized area value can be obtained as (Pierce, 1999) Area =
150(Do + 2 D300 + 2 D600 + D900 ) D0
where D0 , D300 , D600 , and D900 are the deflections at the center of the load, at 300 mm, 600 mm, and 900 mm from the load respectively. It can be possible to draw general conclusions from the area value and the deflection basin about the pavement structure and subgrade properties. A low area value and a low maximum deflection indicate that the pavement structure is weak while the subgrade is strong; a low area value and a high maximum deflection indicate that the pavement structure and the subgrade are weak; a high area value and a low maximum deflection indicate that the pavement structure and the subgrade are strong; a high area value and a high maximum deflection indicate that the pavement structure is strong while the subgrade is weak (Pierce, 1999). The author also proposed an average area value of 680 to 730 mm2/mm for asphalt concrete pavements with AC layer thickness less than 4 inches and asphalt treated base layer. The values of the deflections recorded for sensors six and seven can be used to estimate the stiffness of the subgrade. Pierce (1999) proposed the following equations to calculate the modulus of elasticity of the subgrade.
62 Using the defection recorded for the sensor six (610 mm from the load plate) M R ( psi ) = 9000 x
0.2892 24 x(d 24 / 1000)
Using the deflection recorded for the sensor seven (915 mm from the load plate)
M R ( psi ) = −466 + 9000 x
0.00762 (d 36 / 1000)
d 24 and d 36 must be given in micron inches (in.)
For this project the modulus of elasticity of the subgrade was obtained by taking an average of the value obtained from sensors six and seven. The recorded deflections from the FWD tests are normalized to the load applied to have a manner of comparison between deflections obtained using different loads. The normalized deflections for each geophone were given by Sargand (2002) Df Norm (mils / kip) =
Df i (mils ) Load (kip)
where Df i is the reading of geophone i (i = 1,2,....7 ) and the load was normalized to 9000 lb.
Another parameter involved in the pavement performance is the spreadability (SPR). Spreadability parameter assists in estimating the bending stiffness of pavements and it is calculated using the following equation (Sargand, 2002) 7
Spreadability (%) =
100 x∑ Df i i =1
7 xDf1
where Df1 is the reading of the geophone 1 (geophone located at the center of the load plate.
63 The load transfer parameter is an indicator of the joint performance in PCC sections. This performance depends on several factors such as applied load, aggregate interlock, and temperature acting on the pavement. The load transfer is calculated using the following equations (Sargand, 2002) Approaching joint position LTA (%) = (Df3 / Df1 )x100 Leaving joint position LTL (%) = (Df 2 / Df1 )x100 where Df1 , Df 2 , and Df 3 are the reading of geophone 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Sargand (2002) classified the joint pavement condition as good, fair, and poor for load transfer values between 80-100%, 50-80%, and 66 55-65 44-54 80 72-79 64-71 1.03 1.50
65 The normalized deflection ( Df1 and Df 7 ), Df1
Df 7
, the spreadability, and the
subgrade modulus of elasticity for the asphalt concrete pavement sections was determined from the FWD data and they are shown in appendix B. For easy reference, a typical set of plots for project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) are shown in Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9. The normalized midslab deflection ( Df1 and Df 7 ), the spreadability, the normalized maximum joint deflection, joint load transfer, the joint support ratio, and the subgrade modulus of elasticity for the portland cement concrete sections are shown in appendix C. A typical set of plots for project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) are shown in Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. MODCOMP, version 5, was used to determine the modulus of elasticity of the pavement layers. This program has been used for many researchers during several years and has proved to provide reliable results. MODCOMP uses a backcalculated procedure to approximate the layers’ stiffness; the maximum number of sensors and layers allow in this version are 12 and 12 respectively. The program provides two mechanisms to verify whether the results are reliable or not and they are the “sensitivity” and the root mean square error (RMSE). The results can be considered reliable if the RMSE is less than 2% and the layer is sensitive to the assigned sensor and assigned deflections.
66 1.10 Upstation Df1 Upstation Df7 Downstation Df1 Downstation Df7
1.00
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
SLM
Figure 6. Normalized deflection – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
14 Upstation Downstation
12
10 Df1/Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.90
8
6
4 1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
SLM
Figure 7. Df1/Df7 – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
2.1
2.2
67 60 Upstation Downstation
58
Spreadability (%)
55
53
50
48
45
43
40 1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
SLM
Figure 8. Spreadability – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
80 Upstation Downstation
70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
52.8
50 47.1 44.5
40
30
20 1.27
1.37
1.47
1.57
1.67
1.77
1.87
1.97
SLM
Figure 9. Subgrade modulus – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
2.07
68 The deflections recorded by the sensors are an indicator of the pavement structural condition. Small deflections indicate a layer with better mechanical and physical properties than a layer with high deflections. From Figure 6, the structural condition of the asphalt concrete layer can be classified as fair in the upstation direction and good in the downstation direction whereas the subgrade structural condition can be classified as excellent in both directions. In general, the pavement ability to distribute the applied load can be classified as fair (Figure 8) indicating a deficiency in the stiffness of the base or subbase layers. Df1
Df 7
relationship relates the structural condition of the asphalt concrete layer
and subgrade layer. Smaller values of Df1
Df 7
indicates a weaker subgrade and a stiffer
surface layer, whereas higher values indicates a stiffer subgrade and a weaker surface layer. From Figure 7 is observed that the subgrade is stiffer than the rest of the section located between SLM 1.5 -1.74. Spreadability is an indicator of the pavement bending stiffness, therefore high values of spreadability indicate lower stresses and strains acting on the subgrade (Majidzadeh & Figueroa, 1988). From Figure 8 can be concluded that the average stiffness of these pavement sections can be classified as fair ( average SPR ≈ 48%). The weakest section is found between SLM 1.6 - 2.0. The average modulus of elasticity of the subgrade was determined as 44.5 ksi, 52.8 ksi, and 47.1 ksi for SLM 1.27- 1.74 downstation, SLM 1.27-1.82 upstation, and SLM 1.82-2.16 upstation respectively. The results drawn from Figure 7 are consistent with the ones observed in Figure 9.
69 The average of the stiffness of the pavement layers was backcalculated using MODCOMP version 5 and they are listed in Table 10. MODCOMP suggested that there is a stiff layer in the lower subgrade located at 160 in. It was concluded, from the analyzed data and the MEDPG program that the stiff layer does not have a significant influence in the pavement performance.
Table 10: Modulus of Elasticity of the Pavement Layers Modulus of Elasticity of the Pavement Layers Project 3 - SLM 1.27-1.74 (D) Layer Thickness (in.) Modulus (psi) Layer Thickness (in.) Modulus (psi)
AC ATB DGAB SUBGRADE 3.25 6 6 150 164,500 939,000 24,100 44,000 (48,000)* Project 3 - SLM 1.82-2.16 (U) AC ATB DGAB SUBGRADE 3.25 6 6 N/A 120,000 957,000 19,400 38,600 (34,400)*
STIFF LAYER N/A 500,000
(*) modulus of elasticity of the subgrade obtained from the equations proposed by Pierce (1999)
70 0.70 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.60
Df7 (downstation)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
SLM
Figure 10. Midslab deflection – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
85 Upstation Downstation
80
SPR (%)
75
70
65
60 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
SLM
Figure 11. Midslab spreadability – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
0.55
71 1.2 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
SLM
Figure 12. Maximum joint deflections – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
110 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
90
80
70 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
SLM
Figure 13. Joint load transfer – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
0.55
72 1.2 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
SLM
Figure 14. Joint support ratio – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
60 Upstation Downstation
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
50
40
30
30.0 28.0
20
10 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
SLM
Figure 15. Subgrade modulus – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
0.55
73 Figures 10 and 11 show a decrease in the pavement stiffness between the SLM 0.28-0.41 in the upstation direction and it can be attributed to both the concrete layer and subgrade. However, from Figure15 can be concluded that the PCC slab has more influence in this stiffness deficiency than the subgrade layer. Although the spreadability can be considered as good in the upstation direction, there is a lack in the pavement ability to distribute the load between the SLM 0.28-0.41. The average of the load transfer for this pavement section can be classified as excellent in both directions except for a small portion located between SLM 0.23-0.26 U. Figure14 validates these conclusions, the joint support ratio can be classified as good except for the same portion of pavement describe above. Figure15 shows an increase on the subgrade stiffness between SLM 0.28-0.41 in the upstation direction and this also validates the above conclusion (the stiffness deficiency is attributed to the slab). The pavement performance in both directions is very similar in both directions therefore the conclusions drawn for the upstation direction apply to the downstation direction (Figures 10 to 15). The average of the modulus of elasticity in the upstation and downstation directions is 31 ksi and 36 ksi respectively. The modulus of elasticity of the pavement layers was backcalculated using MODCOMP version 5 and they are equal to 3,790,000 for the slab, 61,200 for the subgrade, and 36,900 for the subgrade.
74 CHAPTER 7: PREDICTED REMAINING SERVICE LIFE
The expected remaining service life for the sections was carried out using the mechanistic-empirical pavement design guide (MEPDG). This design guide combined models based in mechanistic equations as well as a significant databases collected during several decades. The major advantage of the MEPDG software is that the influence of the environmental condition and material properties are taking into account in the design (ARA, Inc. ERES Consultant Division, 2004a). The results obtained from the FWD test were used to determine the expected remaining service life of the sections. The variation of the modulus of elasticity of the pavement layers was considered constant during the service life of the pavement section. The input data necessary to model the asphalt concrete pavement performance is listed below (ARA, Inc. ERES Consultant Division, 2004b) 1. General information o Design life o Pavement, base and subbase construction date o Traffic open month o Type of design
2. Site/project identification o Location o Project ID and section ID o Date o Traffic direction
3. Analysis parameters
75 o Initial IRI o Performance criteria
4. Traffic parameters o Design life and opening date o Initial two-way AADTT o Number of lanes in the design direction o Percentage of trucks in the design direction o Percentage of trucks in design lane o Operational speed o Traffic volume adjustment o Axle load distribution factor o General traffic input o Traffic growth, number/axle truck, axle configuration, and wheelbase
5. Climate 6. Pavement Structure The input data necessary to model the portland cement concrete pavement performance are the same than those for asphalt concrete pavements (ARA, Inc. ERES Consultant Division, 2004b). The MEPDG software predicts a variety of types of distress mechanisms such as longitudinal cracking, alligator cracking, transverse cracking, total rutting, and the terminal international roughness index for AC pavements. In addition, the faulting and the percentage of slab cracked can also be predicted for PCC pavements.
76 The maximum values for the distress mechanisms assumed in these pavement sections are listed in Table 11.
Table 11: Maximum Distress Allowable Maximum Distress Allowable Performance Criteria Terminal IRI (in/mi)
Limit 172
Reliability 90
AC Surface Down Cracking (Long. Cracking) (ft/mile): AC Bottom Up Cracking (Alligator Cracking) (%):
2000 25
90 90
AC Thermal Fracture (Transverse Cracking) (ft/mi):
1000
90
Chemically Stabilized Layer (Fatigue Fracture) Permanent Deformation (AC Only) (in):
25 0.25
90 90
Permanent Deformation (Total Pavement) (in):
0.75
90
The performance of 19 asphalt concrete pavement sections divided into fourteen projects and 21 portland cement concrete pavement sections divided into 13 projects were predicted using the MEPDG software. The results of the most relevant distress mechanisms acting on the pavement sections are presented in appendix D and E for AC and PCC pavements respectively. A typical set of plots showing the reliability and predicted permanent deformation, trasnversal cracking, and international roughness index for Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98) are presented in Figures 16, 17, 18. The reliability and predicted faulting, percentage of slab cracked, and international rougness index for Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76) are presented in Figures 19, 20, 21.
77
Permanent Deformation: Rutting 0.80
0.70
0.60
Rutting Depth (in)
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25 Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75
SubTotalAC SubTotalBase SubTotalSG Total Rutting TotalRutReliability Total Rutting Design Limit
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 16. Longitudinal cracking – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time 1400 Thermal Crack Length 1200
Crack Length at Reliability Design Limit
Total Length (ft/mi)
1000
800
600
400
200
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 17. Transversal cracking – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
300
78 IRI 200 180 IRI IRI at Reliability Design Limit
160 140
IRI (in/mi)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Pavement Age (month)
Figure 18. International roughness index – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
Predicted Faulting 0.14 Faulting Faulting at specified reliability
0.12
Faulting Limit
Faulting, in
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
Pavement age, years
Figure 19. Predicted faulting – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
48
79 Predicted Cracking 40 Percent slabs cracked 35
Cracked at specified reliability Limit percent slabs cracked
Percent slabs cracked, %
30
25
20
15
10
5
0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
Pavement age, years
Figure 20. Percentage of slab cracked – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
Predicted IRI 200 180 IRI
160
IRI at specified reliability IRI Limit
140
IRI, in/mile
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
Pavement age, years
Figure 21. International roughness index – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
80 As predicted by MEPDG software, Project 3 is expected to reach the maximum international roughness index at 35.0 years (reliability). Project 3 is not expected to develop alligator cracking, longitudinal cracking, transverse cracking and rutting distress mechanisms during its design life. This pavement section was opened in 1998 and has been under service for 10 years. The first distress mechanism to be expected to occur on the pavement is the IRI therefore the expected remaining service life for this section is 16.7 years (maximum allowable IRI is reached). Figure 19 shows that the maximum faulting in Project 16 is expected to be reached after 50 years (reliability and predicted) and the maximum reliability IRI distress mechanism is expected to be reached at 43.0 years. From Figure 20, the maximum percentage of slabs cracked allows during its design life is not expected to be reached during the design service life. This pavement section was opened in 1976 and has been under service for 32 years. Based on the MEPDG results, the expected remaining service life for this section is 11.0 years (maximum allowable IRI is reached). From Table 15, the pavement condition assigned to this section was “average” and the explanation of why this condition has not turned out worse is because of the small annual average daily truck traffic (AADTT ≈ 190 – year 2006) and the decline of this in about 61% since 1995 (ODOT, n.d., b).
81 CHAPTER 8: ANALYSIS OF THE RESULTS
The deflections collected from the FWD test was used to back-calculated the modulus of elasticity of each pavement layers and they are listed in Table 12.
Table 12: Modulus of Elasticity – AC Sections Modulus of Elasticity – AC Sections Project.1 (Project ID#9330-98) Layer
AC
ATB
ATFDB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
8
4
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
424,000
4,065,000
36,200
87,900
86,700 (85,750)
Project.2 (Project ID#9327-98) Layer
AC
ATB
ATFDB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
8
4
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
530,000
1,560,000
89,200
97,400
46,200 (46,000)
Project.3 (Project ID#233-98) - (D) Layer
AC
ATB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3.25
6
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
164,500
939,000
24,100
44,000 (48,000)
Project.3 (Project ID#233-98) - (DU) Layer
AC
ATB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3.25
6
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
120,000
957,000
19,400
38,600 (34,400)
Project.4 (Project ID#298-96) (*) Layer
AC
ATB
CTFDB
DGAB
Lime Soil
Thickness (in.)
3
10
4
6
7.5
Modulus (psi)
280,000
680,000
96,900
38,200
11,700
Project.5 (Project ID#259-98) Layer
AC
ATB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
1.5
4
8
N/A
Modulus (psi)
366,000
1,500,000
92,700
30,800 (29,400)
Project.6 (Project ID#645-94) - Average Condition Layer
AC
ATB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
10
12
N/A
Modulus (psi)
455,000
248,000
32,600
21,500 (23,500)
82 Table 13, Continued
Project.6 (Project ID#645-94) - Excellent Condition Layer
AC
ATB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
10
12
N/A
Modulus (psi)
381,000
663,000
33,000
44,800 (44,600)
Project.7 (Project ID#347-85) Layer
AC
ATB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
2
9
N/A
Modulus (psi)
399,000
1,090,000
27,900 (28,400)
Project.8 (Project ID#17-85) Layer
AC
ATB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
2.75
9
N/A
484,000
2,590,000
35,600 (35,870)
Modulus (psi)
Project.9 (Project ID#6010-99) Layer
AC
ATB
DGAB and 310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
9
12
N/A
Modulus (psi)
680,000
1,680,000
54,800
70,200 (63,000)
Project.10 (Project ID#141-99) Layer
AC
254
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
10
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
415,000
948,000
27,900
26,300 (24,300)
Project.11 (Project ID#665-97) Layer
AC
ATB
DGAB and 310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
2
7
14
N/A
Modulus (psi)
171,000
1,110,000
125,000
62,000 (60,000)
Project.12 (Project ID#443-94) Layer
AC
ATB
NSDB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
9
4
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
505,000
1,763,000
28,700
35,400
56,100 (48,900)
Project.13 (Project ID#552-95) Layer
AC
ATB
ATFDB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
3
9
4
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
342,000
2,280,000
30,300
600,000
36,200 (36,100)
Project.14 (Project ID#298-96) (**) Layer Thickness (in.)
AC
ATB
CTFDB
DGAB
Lime Soil
3
10
4
6
8
Modulus (psi) 155,000 483,000 486,000 10,600 125,000 (*) Subgrade Modulus 48,300 (38,700) and (**) subgrade Modulus 50,900 (49,000)
83 The result obtained for the portland cement concrete pavement sections are listed in Table 13.
Table 14: Modulus of Elasticity – PCC Sections Modulus of Elasticity – PCC Sections Project.15 (Project ID#700-86) Layer
JRC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
2,930,000
137,000
21,400 (22,500)
Project.16 (Project ID#625-76) Layer
JRC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
3,790,000
61,200
36,900 (36,000)
Project.17 (Project ID#438-94) Layer
JRC
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
11
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
3,800,000
183,000
39,750 (39,000)
Project.18 (Project ID#352-46) Layer
JRC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
2,750,000
81,700
24,900 (25,100)
Project.19 (Project ID#997-90) Layer
JRC
ATB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
10
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
4,510,000
746,000
46,900 (50,000)
Project.20 (Project ID#8008-90) Layer
JRC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
3,390,000
159,000
42,800 (41,800)
Project.21 (Project ID#8008-90) Layer
JRC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
3,830,000
93,000
40,400 (39,400)
Project.22 (Project ID#845-94) * Layer
PCC
NSDB
DGAB
Thickness (in.)
12
4
4
Modulus (psi)
3,530,000
467,000
150,000
84 Table 13, continued
Project.23 (Project ID#343-88) Layer
PCC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
3,820,000
368,000
60,000 (59,000)
Project.24 (Project ID#678-91) Layer
PCC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
10
N/A
Modulus (psi)
3,560,000
79,300
23,700 (24,800)
Project.25 (Project ID#844-92) Layer
JRC
ATB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
11
4
N/A
Modulus (psi)
5,580,000
1,420,000
35,000 (42,000)
Project.26 (Project ID#996-93) Layer
JRC
ATB
DGAB
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
11
4
4?
N/A
Modulus (psi)
2,210,000
177,000
414,000
69,900 (68,000)
Project.27 (Project ID#907-90) Layer
JRC
310
SUBGRADE
Thickness (in.)
9
6
N/A
Modulus (psi)
4,150,000
124,000
24,200 (24,100)
(*) Subgrade Modulus 37,000 (39,500)
8.1 Project 1 (Project ID#9330-98)
The deflections are small and consistent over the length. In general, the pavement structural condition is excellent (Figure B. 1 and B. 2). The pavement stiffness for this section can be classified as good in both directions and it is highly influenced by the subgrade modulus of elasticity. Where the subgrade modulus of elasticity increases the spreadability decreases as can be seen in Figures B. 3 and B. 4. The expected remaining service life in the upstation and downstation directions is 14.5 and 13.0 years respectively.
85 8.2 Project 2 (Project ID#9327-98)
The deflections are small in both directions indicating an excellent condition in terms of stiffness as can be observed in Figure B. 5. The pavement structural condition is better in the downstation direction than upstation (Figure B. 5 and Figure B. 8). The subgrade is sharply stiffer in the downstation direction than upstation (Figure B. 8). The expected remaining service life in both directions is 13.3 years. 8.3 Project 3 (Project ID#233-98)
The AC layer structural condition can be classified as good in the section between SLM 1.27-1.82, whereas the section between SLM 1.82-2.16 can be considered as fair (Figure B. 9 and B. 10). These sections have a fair ability to transmit the load to the subgrade layer as shown in Figure B. 11. From Figure 12 can be observed that at least two different types of soil are presented over the section length. The expected remaining service life in both directions is 16.7 years. 8.4 Project 4 (Project ID#298-96)
In general, the structural condition of this section can be classified as fair in the upstation direction and between good and fair in the downstation direction, except for two short sections located between SLM 17.9-18.1 and SLM 23.55-24.00 (Figure B. 13) classified as poor. The problematic layer between these two sections seems to be the subgrade layer which is sharply weaker in these intervals as shown in Figures B. 13 and B. 16. The pavement stiffness (Figure B. 15) can be classified as fair in both directions. It seems that at least two types of soils are presented underneath the pavement over the section length. The expected remaining service life is 10.5 years.
86 8.5 Project 5 (Project ID#259-98)
From Figure B. 17 can be noticed that the normalized deflection is highly irregular over the section indicating a widely range on the pavement integrity. The structural condition of the AC pavement layer can be classified as poor ( Df1 > 0.94 ) and it can be validated from the results drawn from Figure B. 19 where the spreadability is classified as fair (SPR ≈ 80.4%). This pavement deficiency might be due to the thickness of the AC layer ( t = 1.5in. ) and the irregular soil underneath this section (Figure B. 20). The expected remaining service life is 1.6 years. 8.6 Project 6 (Project ID#645-94)
The AC layer structural condition can be classified as good and fair except in the section between SLM 6.83-7.15 which is considered as poor (Figure B. 21). The lack of the pavement stiffness is due to the weaker base and subgrade (Table 12 and Figure B. 24). From Figures B. 22 and B. 23 can be observed that there is a combination of two types of soils, in both directions, after SLM 9.65. The expected remaining service life is 11.0 years. 8.7 Project 7 (Project ID#347-85)
The AC layer structural condition for this section is classified as poor because of the high deflections, average Df 1 ≈ 1.16 , recorded in the asphalt concrete layer (Figure B. 25). The spreadability can be considered as fair whereas the subgrade soil condition as excellent therefore the problematic layer is the AC layer. The expected remaining service life is 1.5 years.
87 8.8 Project 8 (Project ID#17-85)
In general, the asphalt concrete and subgrade pavement layers condition can be classified as excellent except in the section after SLM 2.0 where the AC layer is classified as good (Figures B. 29 and B. 30). The spreadability is inconsistent over the section and it can be classified as good in the upstation direction and varies between fair and good in some section located in the downstation direction (Figure B. 31). The subgrade layer is stiffer in the downstation direction than upstation (Figure B. 32). The expected remaining service life is 6.3 years. 8.9 Project 9 (Project ID#6010-99)
The structural pavement condition can be considered as good (Figure B. 33). The spreadability can be classified as good in the section located between SLM 19.92-20.20 and fair in the rest of the section (Figure B. 35). The soil located between the previously mentioned interval is considerable weaker than the rest of the section, indicating that there is another type of soil in this part of the section. The expected remaining service life is 10.8 years. 8.10 Project 10 (Project ID#141-99)
In general, the AC structural condition is classified as good (average Df 1 ≈ 0.68 ) whereas the subgrade condition is classified as excellent (average Df 7 ≈ 0.20 ) (Figure B. 37). The pavement ability to transmit the loads is classified as excellent and good. The average of the modulus of elasticity of the soil is 24.3 ksi. The expected remaining service life is 13.5 years.
88 8.11 Project 11 (Project ID#665-97)
The AC layer structural condition can be classified as good in both directions in the section located between SLM 10.01-10.40 and excellent between SLM 10.40-11.28 in the upstation direction and as good condition downstation. On the other hand, the subgrade layer condition can be classified as excellent over the section (Figure B. 41). The spreadability can be considered as fair (Figure B. 43) and this fluctuation is due to the variation in the subgrade layer properties (Figures B. 42 and B. 44). The expected remaining life is 9.0 years. 8.12 Project 12 (Project ID#443-94)
This section can be considered in an excellent structural condition. The recorded deflections for the asphalt concrete and subgrade layers are less than 0.52 and 0.21 mils/kips respectively (Figure B. 45). The spreadability can be classified as fair (Figure B. 47) indicating a lack of stiffness in the base or subbase layers. The modulus of elasticity of the subgrade is 48.9 ksi (Figure B. 48). The expected remaining life is 11.0 years. 8.13 Project 13 (Project ID#552-95)
In general, the pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent except in the section located between SLM 17.85-18.30 which is classified as good (Figure B. 49). The sharply lack of stiffness in this section might be due to the weaker subgrade at those points (Figures B. 50 and B. 52). The expected remaining life is 12.5 years. 8.14 Project 14 (Project ID#298-96)
The AC layer structural condition is not consistent and varies from good to poor over the section length whereas the subgrade condition can be classified as excellent
89 (Figure B. 53). From Figure B. 56 can be concluded that there are at least two different types of soils underneath the section. The asphalt concrete layer has a better performance in the places where the soil is stiffer (Figure B. 53 and B. 56). The expected remaining service life is 13.0 years. 8.15 Project 15 (Project ID#700-86)
The PCC layer structural condition can be classified as fair and good (average Df1 ≈ 0.57) whereas the subgrade layer is classified as excellent (Figure C. 1). The
pavement stiffness can be classified as good except in the sections between SLM 11.5111.53 and SLM 11.60-11.63 classified as fair (Figure C. 2). The sections classified as fair coincided with the sections where the subgrade layer is stiffer (Figure C. 6). The maximum joint deflections at the approaching position can be classified between fair and excellent (Figure C. 3). In general, the maximum joint deflections at the leaving position can be classified as fair and good. The load transfer between slabs and the pavement condition under the slabs can be classified as excellent indicating an excellent joint performance (Figures C. 4 and C. 5). The expected remaining service life is 4.0 years. 8.16 Project 16 (Project ID#625-76)
The PCC layer structural condition can be classified as good and excellent in both directions whereas the subgrade layer condition is classified as excellent (Figure C. 7). The pavement stiffness can be classified as fair and good being better in the upstation direction than downstation (Figure C. 8). The normalized joint deflections in the downstation direction can be classified as excellent and between good and excellent upstation (Figure C. 9). The load transfer between the slabs and the pavement condition
90 underneath the slab can be classified as excellent and good respectively (Figures C. 10 and C. 11). The expected remaining service life is 11.0 years. 8.17 Project 17 (Project ID#438-94)
The pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent in both directions. However, the pavement condition between SLM 3.27-3.79 is sharply better in the upstation direction than downstation (Figure C. 13). The spreadability can be considered as excellent upstation and as good downstation and it decreases as the soil stiffness increases (Figures C. 14 and C. 18). The normalized joint deflections at approaching and leaving positions and the joint support ratio can be classified as excellent (Figures C.15 and C. 17) indicating an excellent condition under the slab near the joint. The joint load transfer is classified as good and excellent in both directions except in the joint located at SLM 3.43 and SLM 3.77 which are classified as fair (Figure C. 16). This deficiency on the load transfer might be due to the lack of the aggregate interlock or/and a problem associated to the dowel bars. The expected remaining service life is 5.4 years. 8.18 Project 18 (Project ID#352-46)
The PCC layer structural condition is very inconsistent over the length and its condition varies between good and poor. Half of the PCC structure condition can be considered as good whereas the other half can be considered between fair and poor. On the other hand, the subgrade condition can be classified as excellent and good (Figure C. 19). The spreadability can be considered as good and fair (Figure C. 20). The maximum joint deflections and the load transfer can be classified as good and poor (Figures C. 21 and C. 22). From Figures C. 21 and C. 22 can be concluded that the joint condition is
91 poor and might be due to the lack of load transfer between the slabs. The structural condition underneath the slab is inconsistent but it can be classified as good (Figure C. 23). In conclusion, the pavement structure condition for this section is poor and it might be because this section has been in service for 62 years. The expected remaining service life is -8.0 years. 8.19 Project 19 (Project ID#997-90)
The pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent in both directions (Figure C. 25). The spreadability can be classified as good except in the section located between SLM 11.90-12.30 which is classified as fair and coincided with section where the soil is stiffer (Figures C. 26 and C. 30). In general, approximately 90% of the joints have an excellent load transfer mechanism at approaching and leaving positions in both directions (Figures C 28). The maximum joint deflections in the upstation direction can be classified as excellent at approaching and leaving positions, whereas the condition in the downstation direction varies from excellent to poor, being worse between SLM 11.60-12.20 (Figure C. 27). The expected remaining service life is 16.0 years. 8.20 Project 20 (Project ID#8008-90)
The PCC layer structural condition can be classified as excellent except in two short sections located between SLM 19.11-19.13 and SLM 19.18-11.20 which are classified as good (Figure C. 31). In average, spreadability for this section can be classified as fair (Figure C. 32). The load transfer can be classified as excellent and good whereas the maximum joint deflections condition can be classified as excellent (Figures C. 33 and C. 34). The expected remaining service life is 1.5 years.
92 8.21 Project 21 (Project ID#8008-90)
The pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent except in the PCC layer located between SLM 16.08-16.15 which is classified as fair (Figure C. 37). The pavement stiffness can be classified as fair in the section between SLM 15.20-15.90 and SLM 11.08-16.15 and as good in the rest of the section (Figure C. 38). The maximum joint deflections can be considered as excellent in both approaching and leaving positions; however, there is an increase in the deflection between SLM 15.90-16.15 in the leaving position (Figure C. 39). In general, the pavement ability to transmit the applied load between slabs can be considered as excellent in the approaching direction and as good in the leaving direction (Figure C. 40). The condition underneath the slabs can be considered as good (Figure C. 41). The expected remaining service life is 3.0 years. 8.22 Project 22 (Project ID#845-94)
The pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent in both directions (Figures C. 43 and C. 44). The load transfer and the maximum joint deflections can be classified as excellent in the upstation direction (Figures C. 45 and C. 46). Contrary to this, the pavement structural condition in the downstation direction can be considered as fair and good and it might be because of the lack of load transfer between the slabs (Figure C. 46). The pavement condition underneath the slab is better in the upstation direction than downstation (Figure C. 47). The expected remaining service life is 20.0 years. 8.23 Project 23 (Project ID#343-88)
The pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent in both directions (Figure C. 49). The spreadability is inconsistent over the section and it can be classified
93 as fair and good, being better in the downstation direction than upstation (Figure C. 50). Load transfer can be considered as good and excellent in both directions at approaching and leaving positions. The joint ability to transmit the load between slabs is better in the section located between SLM 13.38-14.67 than the section located between SLM 14.6715.06 (Figure C. 52). The maximum joint deflections can be classified as excellent except the joint located in the upstation direction at SLM 14.65 which significantly defers from the other joints (Figure C. 51). The pavement condition under the slabs can be considered as good (Figure C. 53). The expected remaining service life is 4.0 years. 8.24 Project 24 (Project ID#678-91)
The PCC layer structural condition can be classified as good while the subgrade condition can be classified as excellent (Figure C. 55). The load transfer, maximum joint deflections, and joint support ratio can be classified as excellent indicating an excellent joints performance (Figures C. 57, C. 58, and C. 59). In general, the spreadability can be classified as good except the section located between SLM 2.03-2.18 where the subgrade soil is stiffer than the rest of the section (Figures C. 56 and C. 60). The expected remaining service life is 22.0 years. 8.25 Project 25 (Project ID#844-92)
The pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent in both directions (Figure C. 61) except in the section located between SLM 12.21-12.54 (upstation) which varies significantly compared with the rest of the section; this variation is due to the lack of soil stiffness in this interval as shown in Figure C. 66. The pavement seems to be in a better condition in the downstation direction than upstation (Figures C. 61 and C. 63). The load transfer can be classified as good and excellent in both directions (Figure C.
94 64). The maximum joint deflections and the joints support ratio can be classified as excellent (Figures C. 63 and C. 65). The expected remaining service life is 12.0 years. 8.26 Project 26 (Project ID#996-93)
The pavement structural condition can be classified as excellent in both directions, being better downstation than upstation (Figure C. 67). The pavement ability to transmit the load between slabs and the pavement condition under the slabs can be considered as good indicating a good joints performance (Figures C. 69, C. 70, and C. 71). The expected remaining service life is 15.3 years. 8.27 Project 27 (Project ID#907-90)
The PCC layer structural varies from fair to good whereas the subgrade layer condition varies from good to excellent (Figure C. 73). The load transfer can be classified as excellent in both directions except in several short sections which can be classified as good (Figure C. 76). The maximum joints deflection is inconsistent varying from poor to excellent (Figure C. 75) and the pavement condition underneath the slabs can be considered as good (Figure C. 77). In general, the pavement stiffness can be considered as good (SPR ≈ 79%) and the expected remaining service life is 10.0 years. A summary of the classification of the actual structural pavement condition, in terms of the normalized deflection and spreadability, for both AC and PCC pavements is listed in Table 14 and 15 respectively. In addition, the classification of the maximum joint deflection, the joint load transfer, and the joint support ratio is listed in Table 16, 17, and 18 respectively.
95 Table 15: AC and PCC Sections Structural Condition – Normalized Deflection AC and PCC Sections Structural Condition – Normalized Deflection Normalized deflection Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Direction
Length (miles)
Excellent
D U DU D U U U U DU DU U DU DU U DU D D U DU U DU D U U DU D U
6.04 6.17 0.73 0.47 0.55 0.34 6.48 5.26 0.26 4.26 0.90 0.88 0.66 5.86 1.27 2.65 4.39 4.39 4.38 0.34 0.48 0.44 1.77 4.50 1.96 0.31 1.30
100% 100% 100% 100% 5.6% 5.6% 5.9% 26.0% 1.0% 32.4% 35.4% 73.3% 90.9% 100.0% 96.8% 8.7% 87.0% 79.2% 100.0% 98.2% 87.7% 13.7% 3.7% 9.1% 57.1% 27.8% 94.7% 100.0% 2.7% 100.0% 100.0% 81.8% 84.6%
55.6% 27.8% 5.9% 54.5% 7.2% 40.0% 66.2% 64.6% 11.1% 26.7% 9.1% 3.2% 54.4% 13.0% 16.7% 1.8% 12.3% 47.9% 37.0% 54.5% 35.7% 61.1% 5.3% 55.0% 18.2% 7.7%
38.9% 66.7% 64.7% 14.6% 47.4% 20.0% 20.0% 1.4% 11.1% 35.9% 4.2% 37.0% 48.1% 27.3% 7.1% 11.1% 35.6% 7.7%
23.5% 4.9% 44.3% 80.0% 40.0% 77.8% 1.0% 1.4% 11.1% 9.1%
D
3.84 4.12 0.70 1.25 1.52 1.52 2.00 2.00 4.28
85.7% 92.9% 100.0% 100.0% 10.0% 100.0% 90.9% 100.0% 100.0% 9.9%
14.3% 7.1%
-
-
U DU U D U D U U
AC structural layer condition (%) Good Fair
-
90.0% 9.1% 74.3%
-
15.8%
Poor
6.8% -
-
-
-
96 Table 16: Spreadability Spreadability Spreadability Project 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Direction
Length (miles)
Excellent
D U DU D U U U U DU DU U DU DU U DU D D U DU U DU D U U DU D U
6.04 6.17 0.73 0.47 0.55 0.34 6.48 5.26 0.26 4.26 0.90 0.88 0.66 5.86 1.27 2.65 4.39 4.39 4.38 0.34 0.48 0.44 1.77 4.50 1.96 0.31 1.30
0.9% 28.0% 6.7% 3.2% 3.2% 43.7% 38.6% 16.4% 26.3% 93.8% 6.7% 20.0% -
57.7% 66.4% 96.2% 72.0% 45.5% 19.6% 58.1% 60.0% 47.7% 60.0% 11.1% 53.3% 100.0% 64.5% 45.2% 53.4% 13.0% 20.8% 2.6% 56.1% 78.1% 9.6% 11.1% 72.7% 21.4% 61.1% 63.2% 6.3% 46.3% 75.0% 60.0% 36.4% 23.1%
38.5% 28.0% 3.8% 100.0% 77.8% 100.0% 53.7% 80.4% 41.9% 40.0% 49.2% 40.0% 77.8% 40.0% 32.3% 51.6% 2.9% 82.6% 79.2% 89.7% 5.3% 5.5% 80.8% 70.4% 27.3% 71.4% 33.3% 10.5% 40.3% 25.0% 20.0% 63.6% 76.9%
D
3.84 4.12 0.70 1.25 1.52 1.52 2.00 2.00 4.28
14.3% 22.2%
78.6% 77.8% 69.2% 55.6% 90.0% 64.3% 81.8% 68.8% 64.7% 79.0%
7.1% 30.8% 44.4% 10.0% 7.1% 31.3% 11.8% 14.0%
U DU U D U D U U
-
28.6% 18.2% 23.5% 7.0%
Condition (%) Good Fair
Poor
3.8% 4.7% -
22.2% 0.8% -
3.1% 11.1% 4.3% 7.7% 9.6% 18.5% 7.1% 5.6% 6.7% -
-
97
Table 17: Maximum Joint Deflection Maximum Joint Deflection
Project 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Maximum joint deflection Condition - Approaching (%) Excellent Good Fair Poor 27.3% 45.5% 27.3% 100.0% 44.4% 50.0% - 5.6% 94.7% 5.3% 81.3% 18.8% 7.2% 25.3% 67.5% 18.8% 90.0% 31.3% 10.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0% 92.3% 7.7% -
U DU D U U DU D U
Length (miles) 0.34 0.48 0.44 1.77 4.50 1.96 0.31 1.30
D
3.84
50.0%
25.0%
25.0%
-
71.4%
U
4.12 0.70 1.25 1.52 1.52 2.00 2.00 4.28
100.0% 100.0% 88.9% 80.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 32.4%
-
-
-
-
Direction
DU U D U D U U
-
11.1% 20.0% 37.8%
-
13.6%
-
-
16.2%
Excellent 100.0% 72.2% 94.7% 100.0% 2.3% 25.0% 85.0% 100.0% 53.8%
100.0% 88.9% 90.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 40.5%
Condition - Leaving (%) Good Fair 63.6% 36.4% 22.2% 5.6% 5.3% 23.0% 6.8% 31.3% 15.0% 31.3% 46.2% 28.6% 100.0% 11.1% 10.0% 27.0%
Poor -
67.9% 12.5% -
-
-
-
-
13.5%
-
-
19.0%
98
Table 18: Joint Load Transfer Joint Load Transfer Joint load transfer Project
Direction
15 16
U DU D U U DU D U D U DU U D U D U U
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Length (miles) 0.34
0.48 0.44 1.77 4.50 1.96 0.31 1.30 3.84 4.12 0.70 1.25 1.52 1.52 2.00 2.00 4.28
Condition - Approaching (%) Excellent Good Fair 81.8% 18.2%
85.7% 83.3% 63.2% 62.5% 4.7% 93.8% 100.0% 27.3% 100.0% 28.6% 100.0% 61.5% 66.7% 100.0% 14.3% 54.5% 50.0% 5.9% 83.3%
14.3% 16.7% 31.6% 25.0% 2.4% 6.3% 35.7% 30.8% 33.3% 78.6% 45.5% 50.0% 94.1% 16.7%
-
-
12.5% 19.0% - 72.7% 35.7% - 7.1% -
Poor
5.3% 73.8% 7.7% -
Excellent 90.9%
85.7% 94.4% 78.9% 68.8% 9.5% 81.3% 75.0% 9.1% 30.8% 28.6% 100.0% 53.8% 55.6% 100.0% 21.4% 44.4% 37.5% 23.5% 61.1%
Condition - Leaving (%) Good Fair 9.1%
14.3% 5.6% 15.8% 18.8% 2.4% 12.5% 25.0% 81.8% 69.2% 50.0% 30.8% 44.4% 64.3% 44.4% 62.5% 70.6% 38.9%
-
Poor
-
12.5% 16.7% 6.3% 9.1% 21.4% 15.4% 14.3% 11.1% 5.9% -
- 5.3% 71.4% - - -
99 Table 19: Joint Support Ratio Joint Support Ratio Joint support ratio Project
Direction
15 16
U DU D U U DU D U
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
D U DU U D U D U U
Length (miles) 0.34
0.48 0.44 1.77 4.50 1.96 0.31 1.30 3.84 4.12 0.70 1.25 1.52 1.52 2.00 2.00 4.28
Condition - Approaching (%) Excellent Good Fair 63.6% 36.4%
85.7% 61.1% 84.2% 62.5% 56.0% 62.5% 70.0% 15.4% 64.3% 100.0% 76.9% 100.0% 100.0% 78.6% 72.7% 92.9% 70.6% 81.1%
14.3% 38.9% 15.8% 37.5% 44.0% 37.5% 30.0% 63.6% 53.8% 35.7% 23.1% 100.0% 21.4% 27.3% 7.1% 29.4% 13.5%
-
-
Poor
-
-
-
-
- 27.3% 30.8% - 5.4%
- 9.1% - -
100 The expected remaining service life for the asphalt concrete pavement sections were obtained using MEPDG program and they are listed in Table 19.
Table 20: Expected Remaining Service Life (AC Sections) Expected Remaining Service Life (AC Sections) Project No. Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted
1D 1U 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Long. Cracking -
Trans. Cracking 18.3 22.5 22.0 20.0 25.6 25.4 -
Alligator 19.2 -
Rutting (total) 28.5 24.6 28.0 11.6 19.8 -
IRI 23.0 24.5 23.3 35.0 26.7 22.5 19.5 25.0 24.5 22.9 20.6 22.5 22.0 25.0 23.6 25.0 -
Exp. Serv. Life (years)
Rem. Serv. Life (years)
23.0
13.0
24.5
14.5
23.3
13.3
26.7
16.7
22.5
10.5
11.6
1.6
25.0
11.0
24.5
1.5
18.3
6.3
19.8
10.8
22.5
13.5
20.0
9.0
25.0
11.0
23.6
10.6
25.0
13.0
101 The expected remaining service life for the Portland cement concrete pavement sections were obtained using MEPDG program and they are listed in Table 20.
Table 21: Expected Remaining Service Life (PCC Sections) Expected Remaining Service Life (PCC Sections) Project No. Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted Reliability Predicted
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Faulting 26.0 28.0 19.0 29.0 40.0 42.0 19.5 21.0 34.0 50.0 18.0 27.0 50.0 29.0 57.0 37.0 27.0 38.0
% Slab Cracked 53.0 52.0 -
IRI 28.0 48.0 43.0 26.0 41.0 52.0 34.0 51.0 27.0 26.0 35.0 27.0 40.0 39.0 57.0 29.0 50.0 33.0 54.0 28.0 42.0
Expected Life (years)
Rem. Serv. Life (years)
26.0
4.0
43.0
11.0
19.0
5.4
52.0
-8.0
34.0
16.0
19.5
1.5
21.0
3.0
34.0
20.0
18.0
4.0
39.0
22.0
29.0
12.0
33.3
15.3
28.0
10.0
102 The pavement condition rating has been widely used to determine the actual pavement performance. The PCR method describes the pavement distress mechanisms in n
terms of their severity and frequency and is calculated as: PCR = 100 − ∑ Deducti where n is the number of observable distresses and deduct = (weight for distress)(weight for severity)(weight for extend). The pavement condition rating is measured on a scale from 0 to 100. A value of “0” indicates a pavement with a very poor condition meanwhile “100” indicates a pavement with a very good condition. The PCR scale is shown in Figure 22.
(a) (b) Figure 22. (a) Pavement condition rating and (b) Pavement serviceability rating
In addition, the MEPDG was used to determine the current pavement serviceability rating (PSR) for each section and they were calculated as follow PSR=5.697-0.264(IRI)0.5
(IRI in in./miles)-AC sections
PSR=6.634-0.353(IRI)0.5
(IRI in in./miles)-PCC sections
The PSR scale is shown in Figure 22.
103 A comparison of the pavement condition classification for the asphalt concrete sections was conducted by using the actual PCRs values (from the field) and the PSRs values (from the program) and they are listed in Table 21.
Table 22: Comparison between PCR and PSR – AC Sections Comparison between PCR and PSR – AC Sections Project No.
PCR (2007)
PCR (Classif.)
IRI MEPDG
PSR (2007) MEPDG
PSR (Classif)
1
90
Good
112.2
3.0
Fair-Good
2
95
Very good
111.9
3.0
Fair-Good
3
83 D - 86 U
Good
95.3
3.1
Good
4
90
Good
102.3
3.0
Good
5
89
Good
106.7
3.0
Good
6
83 U - 71 D
Good(U)-Fair(D)
113.9
2.9
Fair-Good
7
66
Fair
130.3
2.5
Fair
8
99*
Very good
127.5
2.5
Fair
9
88
Good
98.8
3.1
Good
10
90
Good
96.2
3.1
Good
11
87
Good
110.0
2.9
Fair-Good
12
94*
Very Good
108.4
2.9
Fair-Good
13
88 D - 91 U
Good-Very good
107.5
3.0
Good
14
91
Very Good
92.2
3.2
Good
(*) These sections most likely were overlaid recently.
104 A comparison of the pavement condition classification for the portland cement concrete sections was conducted by using the actual PCRs values (from the field) and the PSRs values (from the program) and they are listed in Table 22.
Table 23: Comparison between PCR and PSR – PCC Sections Comparison between PCR and PSR – PCC Sections Project No.
PCR (2007)
PCR (Classif.)
IRI (in./miles) MEPDG
PSR (2007) MEPDG
PSR (Classif)
15
64
Fair to poor
119.2
3.0
Fair-Good
16
63
Fair to poor
105.5
2.9
Fair
17
91 84(2.5-3.22)U
Very good Good
123.0
2.7
Fair
18
65
Poor
173
2.0
Poor-Fair
19
88U 93D
Good Very good
92.05
3.2
Good
20
75
Good
134.5
2.5
Fair
21
82
Good
97.35
3.2
Good
22
85D 94U
Good Very good
84.15
3.4
Good
23
79D-75U
Good
125.6
2.7
Fair
24
77
Good
94.65
3.2
Good
25
87
Good
107.05
3.0
Fair-Good
26
87
Good
98.85
3.1
Good
27
83
Good
95.05
3.2
Good
105 CHAPTER 9: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The long term performance and expected remaining life of several asphalt concrete and portland concrete pavement section located in the state of Ohio were studied. The pavement performance is highly influenced by factor such as climate conditions, material properties, section thickness, construction practices, traffic loads, etc. A total of twenty seven (27) sections divided into fourteen (14) AC projects and thirteen (13) PCC projects were studied. The total length of the AC and PCC pavement sections was 68.4 and 35.5 miles respectively. The subgrade modulus of elasticity of some sections is higher than expected and this is because the FWD tests were conducted during summer and fall seasons when the temperature was around 90 degrees Fahrenheit or higher. High temperatures affect the subgrade modulus of elasticity leading to lower values in the deflection recorded by the sensors therefore improving the subgrade response (Hossain, 1996). The structural pavement condition of the pavement sections was divided into four categories: Excellent, Good, Fair, and Poor. The distress mechanisms most likely will be developed in sections where the structural pavement condition was classified as poor or fair. This classification is useful to determine places where cores can be extracted; therefore aiding to determine why some sections behaves better than others with similar material properties and similar traffic load. A summary of the structural condition of the asphalt concrete sections are given as: 51.6% (35.3 miles), 26.9% (18.4 miles), 15.2% (10.4 miles), and 6.4% (4.3 miles) of the AC layer were classified as excellent, good, fair, and poor respectively, meanwhile, 7.8% (5.3 miles), 44.3% (30.3 miles), 44.4% (30.3 miles), and 3.5% (2.4 miles) of the
106 pavement ability to distribute the applied load from the surface to the subgrade were classified as excellent, good, fair, and poor respectively. In general terms, the distresses reflected on the pavement surface most likely are due to a deficiency in the stiffness of the base or subbase layers rather than a stiffness deficiency in the AC or subgrade layers. Among the AC sections, the projects showing a stiffness deficiency in the AC layer are projects 3U, 5, 6DU, 7 and 14U. A summary of the structural condition of the portland cement concrete sections are given by: 67.6% (24.0 miles), 24.2% (8.6 miles), 7.2% (2.5 miles), and 1.0% (0.4 miles) of the PCC layer were classified as excellent, good, fair, and poor respectively, meanwhile, 15.8% (5.6 miles), 63.9% (22.7 miles), 19.3% (6.8 miles), and 1.0% (0.4 miles) of the pavement stiffness were classified as excellent, good, fair, and poor respectively. Pavement sections with a lack of stiffness in the layers do not mean sections exhibiting a fair or poor performance. The pavement performance is highly influenced for its structural condition and the traffic loads acting on it. Some projects classified as average performance (from the PCR trendline) have an excellent or good structural condition and vice versa. The stiffness of the base layer has a significant influence in the pavement response. The pavement performance, in both AC and PCC pavement sections, improves when the base layer is stiffer; however, higher values of base stiffness can affect negatively the PCC pavement performance. The pavement performance, in the PCC sections, increases considerably with the increase of the surface layer thickness (Projects No 19, 20, and 21).
107 The structural pavement condition of the PCC sections was classified as good except for Project 18. In general, the joint load transfer in both directions and the condition of the soil under the edge of the slabs can be considered as good in these sections. From the current PCR (2007) and the MEPDG software the actual pavement structural condition of Project 18 was classified as poor. The section ability to resist and transmit the applied traffic load through the slabs was classified as poor. The expected remaining service life of this project was -8.0 years, indicating that this section already exceeded its service life. In general, this section is a bad condition and maintenance should be scheduled to prevent the progressive deterioration of this section. There were not available records of samples tested and the construction procedures utilized at the construction time of these sections, therefore several assumptions were made to run the mechanistic-empirical design guide program (MEDGP). The Ohio Department of Transportation does not store pavement records for more than 7 years, therefore making more difficult to predict the expected remaining service life of pavement constructed 7 years ago or more.
108 REFERENCES
Abdulshafi, O., Mukhtar, H., and Kedzierski, B. (1994). Reliability of AASHTO design equation for predicting pavement performance of flexible and rigid pavements in Ohio (Project. 14447(0), FHWA/OH-95/006). Columbus, OH: CTL Engineering, Inc. ARA, Inc. ERES Consultant Division (2004a). Appendix D. Final report. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Illinois, IL: ARA, Inc. ERES Consultant Division ARA, Inc. ERES Consultant Division (2004b). Design of new and reconstructed flexible pavements. Final report. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Illinois, IL: ARA, Inc. ERES Consultant Division Benchmark, Inc. (2005). Pavement maintenance. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2008, from http://www.benchmark-inc.com/articles/Perspective%20Articles/issue54b.html Chatti, K., Buch, N., Haider, S., W., Pulipaka, A., S., Lyles, R., W., Gilliland, D., & Desaraju, P. (2005). LTPP data analysis: Influence of design and construction features on the response and performance of new flexible and rigid pavements (NCHRP Project. 20-50). Columbus, OH: National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Claessen, A. I. M, Valkering, C. P., & Ditmarsch, R. (1976). Pavement evaluation with thef weight deflectometer. Proceedings, Technical Sessions, The Association of Asphalt Paving Technologists. Chen, D. H., & Scullion, T. (2007). Nondestructive testing technologies to assist in selecting the optimal pavement rehabilitation strategy. Journal of testing and evaluation, 32(2), 211-219. Chen, D. H., Scullion, T., Bilyeu, J., Won, M. (2005). Detailed forensic investigation and rehabilitation recommendation on Interstate Highway-30. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 19(2), 155-164. Chen, D. H., Lin, D. F., Liau, P. H., & Bilyeu, J. (2005). A correlation between dynamic cone penetrometer values and pavement layer moduli. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 28(1), 42-49. Chen, D. H., Bilyeu, J., Scullion, T., Lin, D. F., & Zhou, F. (2003). Forensic investigation of premature failures of Texas specific pavement study – 1 sections. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 17(2), 67-74.
109 Chen, D. H., Bilyeu, J., Lin, H. H., & Murphy, M. (2000). Temperature correction on falling weight deflectometer measurements. Transportation Research Record 1716, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 30-39. Collop, A. C., Cebon, D., & Hardy, M. S. A. (1995). Viscoelastic approach to rutting in flexible pavements. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 121(1), 82-93. Dynatest International (2008). Dynatest FWD/HWD Test Systems. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2008, from http://www.dynatest.com/hardware/fwd_hwd.htm Edwards, W. F., Green, R. L., Gilfert, J. (1989). Implementation of a dynamic deflection system for rigid and flexible pavements in Ohio (FHWA/OH-89/020). Athens, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Elseifi, M. A., Al-Qadi, I. L., and Yoo, P. J. (2006). Viscoelastic modeling and field validation of flexible pavements. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 132(2), 172-178. Federal Highway Administration (2008). LTTP: Long Term Pavement Performance program. Retrieved Jan. 24, 2008, from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/ltpp/ Figueroa, J. L. (1994). Characterization of ohio subgrade types (Final report No. FHWA/OH-94/006). Cleveland, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration, Department of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University. Figueroa, J. L. (1997). Monitoring and analysis of data obtained from moisturetemperature recording stations (State Job No 14589/14694). Cleveland, OH: Department of Civil Engineering, Case Western Reserve University. Fwa, T. F. (2006). The handbook of highway engineering. New York, NY: CRC Press/Lewis Publishers. Frabizzio, M. A. & Buch, N. J. (1999). Performance of transverse cracking in jointed concrete pavements. Journal of Performance of constructed facilities, 13(4), 172-80. Gharaibeh, N. G., Darter, M. I., & Heckel, L. B. (1999). Field performance of continuously reinforced concrete pavement in Illinois. Transportation Research Record 1684, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 44-50. Haddock, J. E., Hand, A. J. T., Fang, H., & White, T. D. (2005). Determining layer contributions to rutting by surface profile analysis. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 131(2), 131-139.
110 Hesham, A. A., & Shiraz, D. T. (1998). Evaluation of mechanistic-empirical performance prediction models for flexible pavements. Transportation Research Record 1629, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 169-180. Hossain, M., Long, B., & Gisi, J (1996). NDT-Evaluation of seasonal variation of subgrade response in asphalt pavements. Ames, IA: Semisequicentennial Transportation Conference Proceedings. Iowa State University. Kamran, M., & Figueroa, L. (1988). Evaluation of effectiveness of joint repair techniques and pavement rehabilitation using the Dynaflect. Westerville, OH: Resource International, Inc. Engineering Consultants. Kim, Y. R., Hibbs, B. O., & Lee, Y. C. (1995). Temperature correlation of deflections and backcalculated asphalt concrete moduli. Transportation Research Record 1473, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 55-62. Livneh, M., Ishai, I., & Livneh, N. A. (1995). Effect of vertical confinement on dynamic cone penetrometer strength values in pavement and subgrade evaluations. Transportation Research Record 1473, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1-8. Lu, Y., Lu, L., & Wright, P., J. (2002). Visco-elastoplastic method for pavement performance evaluation. Proceeding of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Transport 153(4), 227-234. Masada, T., Sargand, S. M., Abdalla, B., & Figueroa, J. L. (2004). Material properties for implementation of mechanistic-empirical (M-E) pavement design procedures. Athens, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation & Federal Highway Administration, ORITE, Department of Civil Engineering. Masada, T., & Sargand, S., M. (2002). Laboratory characterization of materials and data management for Ohio-SHRP projects (Final report FHWA/OH-01/07). Athens, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Mateos, A., & Snyder, M. B. (2002). Validation of flexible pavement structural response models with data from Minnesota Road research project. Transportation Research Record 1806, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 19-29. Miller, J. S. & Bellinger, W. Y. (2003). Distress identification manual for the long-term pavement performance program (Research report No. FHWA-RD-03-031). McLean, VA: Office of Infrastructure Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration, US Department of Transportation Ohio Department of Transportation (2008). Construction and material specifications. Columbus, OH:Department of Transportation.
111 Ohio Department of Transportation (n.d., a). Ohio district map. Retrieved Feb. 14, 2008, from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/dist.asp Ohio Department of Transportation (n.d., b). Traffic monitoring. Retrieved Feb. 14, 2008, from http://www.dot.state.oh.us/techservsite/offceorg/traffmonit/default.htm Pierce, M. L. (1999). Development of a computer program for the determination of the area value and subgrade modulus using the Dynatest FWD. Washington State Department of Transportation. Reza, F., Boriboonsomsin, K., and Bazlamit, S. (2005). Development of a composite pavement performance index (Final report ST/SS/05-001), Ada, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation. Salimath, S. S. (2002). Evaluation of soil stiffness. Master’s thesis. Ohio University, Athens, OH. Salgado R. & Yoon S. (2003). Dynamic Cone Penetrometer test (DCPT) for subgrade assessment (Final report FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/30, SPR-2362). West Lafayette, IN: Civil Engineering Joint Transportation Program. Sargand, S. M. (1994). Development of an instrumentation plan for the Ohio SPS test pavement (DEL-23-17.48) (Report FHWA/OH-94/019). Athens, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Sargand, S. M. & Staff (2007). Evaluation of pavement performance on DEL 23 (Final report FHWA/OH-2007/05). Athens, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Sargand, S. M. & Edwards, W. (2004). Accelerated testing of Ohio SHRP sections 390101, 390102, 390105, and 390107 (Final Report FHWA/OH-2004/012). Athens, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Sargand, S. M. (1999). Coordination of load response instrumentation of SHRP pavements (Report FHWA/OH-99/009). Athens, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Sargand, S. M., Green, R., & Khoury, I. (1997). Instrumenting Ohio test pavement. Transportation Research Record 1596, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 23-30. Sargand, S. M., Das, Y. V., & Jayasuriya, M. L. (1995). A mathematical model for falling weight deflectometer. Structural Dynamics and Vibration, ASME, PD-Vol. 70.
112 Sargand, S. M. (2002). Determination of pavement layer stiffness on the OHIO SHRP test road using non-destructive testing techniques (Final report FHWA/OH-2002/031). Athen, OH: Ohio Department of Transportation and FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Stolle, D. F. E., & Friedrich, W. J. (1992). Simplified, rational approach to falling weight deflectometer data interpretation. Transportation Research Record 1355, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 82-89. Thompson, A. R. (1996). Mechanistic-empirical flexible pavement design: An overview. Transportation Research Record 1539, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1-5. Vandenbossche, J. M. (2007). Effects of slab temperature profiles on use of falling weight deflectometer data to monitor joint performance and detect voids. Transportation Research Record 2005, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 75-85. Washington State Department of Transportation (n.d., a). Rigid pavement types. Retrieved April 4, 2008, from http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/modules/02_pavement_types/02-6_body.htm Washington State Department of Transportation (n.d., b). Flexible pavement distress. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2008, from http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/modules/09_pavement_evaluation/097_body.htm Washington State Department of Transportation (n.d., c). Rigid pavement distress. Retrieved April 7, 2008, from http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/modules/09_pavement_evaluation/098_body.htm White, T. D., Haddock, J. E., Hand, A. J. T., & Fang, H. (2002) Contribution of pavement structural layers to rutting of hot mix asphalt pavements (NCHRP Report No. 468). Washington, D.C: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Council, National Academic Press.
113 APPENDIX A: MATERIAL ESPECIFICATIONS
Table A. 1: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 Composition and Material Properties – Item 441
Sieve 37.5 mm (1-1/2 inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) 19.0 mm (3/4 inch) 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) 4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.18 mm (No. 16) 600 μm (No. 30) 300 μm (No. 50) 150 μm (No. 100) Bitumen percentage F/A Ratio, max
Job Mix Formula (JMF) Total Percentage Passing Type 1 Type 2 100 95-100 85-100 100 65-85 90-100 50-72 35-60 30-55 25-48 17-40 16-36 12-30 12-30 5-20 5-18 2-12 2-10 5.0-10.0 4.0-9.0 0.5-1.1 0.5-1.1
Table A. 2: Mixture Properties for Light, Medium, and Heavy Traffic Volumes Mixture Properties for Light, Medium, and Heavy Traffic Volumes
Stability, min, N Stability, min, pounds Flow, 0.25 mm Design Air Voids VMA (type 1) (type 2)
Light traffic volumes Min. Max. 3336 750 8 18 3.0 5.0 16% 13%
Medium traffic volumes Min. Max. 5338 1200 8 18 3.0 5.0 16% 13%
Heavy traffic volumes Min. Max. 8006 1800 8 14 3.0 5.0 16% 13%
114 Table A. 3: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 (surface) Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T1 (Surface) Course Traffic 37.5 mm (1-1/2 inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) 19.0 mm (3/4 inch) 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) 4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.18 mm (No. 16) 600 μm (No. 30) 300 μm (No. 50) 150 μm (No. 100) 75 μm (No. 200) Asphalt Cement F/A Ratio, max F/T Value Blows Stability, min, N Stability, min, pounds Flow, 0.25 mm Design Air Voids VMA, min Special Designation
Note Heavy 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 7
100 95-100 70-85 38-50 20-37 14-30 10-22 6-15 4-10 2-6 5.2-10.0 1.2 2 75 8006 1800 8-14 4 13 1H
Type 1 Surface Medium
Light
100 90-100 45-57 30-45 17-35 12-25 5-18 2-10
100 90-100 45-57 30-45 17-35 12-25 5-18 2-10
5.0-10.0 1.2 2 50 5338 1200 8-16 3.5 16
5.0-10.0 1.2 2 35 3336 750 8-18 3.5 16
Notes: (1) Sieve, percent passing (2) Percent of total mix (3) Using effective asphalt content (4) Percentage points maximum (5)AASHTO T 245 (6) Percent, Supplement 1036 (7) Percent, Supplement 1037
115 Table A. 4: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T1 (Intermediate) Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T1 (Intermediate) Course Traffic 37.5 mm (1-1/2 inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) 19.0 mm (3/4 inch) 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) 4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.18 mm (No. 16) 600 μm (No. 30) 300 μm (No. 50) 150 μm (No. 100) 75 μm (No. 200) Asphalt Cement F/A Ratio, max F/T Value Blows Stability, min, N Stability, min, pounds Flow, 0.25 mm Design Air Voids VMA, min Special Designation
Note 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 7
Type 1 Intermediate Heavy Medium Light
100 90-100 50-72 30-55 17-40 12-30 5-20 2-12
100 90-100 50-72 30-55 17-40 12-30 5-20 2-12
100 90-100 50-72 30-55 17-40 12-30 5-20 2-12
5.0-10.0 1.2 2 75 8006 1800 8-14 4 16
5.0-10.0 1.2 2 50 5338 1200 8-16 3.5 16
5.0-10.0 1.2 2 35 3336 750 8-18 3.5 16
Notes: (1) Sieve, percent passing (2) Percent of total mix (3) Using effective asphalt content (4) Percentage points maximum (5)AASHTO T 245 (6) Percent, Supplement 1036 (7) Percent, Supplement 1037
116 Table A. 5: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T2 (Surface) Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T2 (Surface) Course Traffic 37.5 mm (1-1/2 inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) 19.0 mm (3/4 inch) 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) 4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.18 mm (No. 16) 600 μm (No. 30) 300 μm (No. 50) 150 μm (No. 100) 75 μm (No. 200) Asphalt Cement F/A Ratio, max F/T Value Blows Stability, min, N Stability, min, pounds Flow, 0.25 mm Design Air Voids VMA, min Special Designation
Heavy 100 95-100 85-100 65-85
Type 2 Surface Medium 100 95-100 85-100 65-85
Light 100 95-100 85-100 65-85
35-60 25-48 16-36 12-30 5-18 2-10
35-60 25-48 16-36 12-30 5-18 2-10
35-60 25-48 16-36 12-30 5-18 2-10
4.0-9.0 1.2 2 75 8006 1800 8-14 4 13
4.0-9.0 1.2
4.0-9.0 1.2
50 5338 1200 8-16 4 13
35 3336 750 8-18 4 13
Note 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 7
Notes: (1) Sieve, percent passing (2) Percent of total mix (3) Using effective asphalt content (4) Percentage points maximum (5)AASHTO T 245 (6) Percent, Supplement 1036 (7) Percent, Supplement 1037
117 Table A. 6: Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T2 (Intermediate) Composition and Material Properties – Item 441 T2 (Intermediate) Course Traffic 37.5 mm (1-1/2 inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) 19.0 mm (3/4 inch) 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) 4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.18 mm (No. 16) 600 μm (No. 30) 300 μm (No. 50) 150 μm (No. 100) 75 μm (No. 200) Asphalt Cement F/A Ratio, max F/T Value Blows Stability, min, N Stability, min, pounds Flow, 0.25 mm Design Air Voids VMA, min Special Designation
Heavy 100 95-100 85-100 65-85
Type 2 Intermediate Medium 100 95-100 85-100 65-85
Light 100 95-100 85-100 65-85
35-60 25-48 16-36 12-30 5-18 2-10
35-60 25-48 16-36 12-30 5-18 2-10
35-60 25-48 16-36 12-30 5-18 2-10
4.0-9.0 1.2 2 75 8006 1800 8-14 4 13
4.0-9.0 1.2
4.0-9.0 1.2
50 5338 1200 8-16 4 13
35 3336 750 8-18 4 13
Note 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 6 7
Notes: (1) Sieve, percent passing (2) Percent of total mix (3) Using effective asphalt content (4) Percentage points maximum (5)AASHTO T 245 (6) Percent, Supplement 1036 (7) Percent, Supplement 1037
118 Table A. 7: Aggregate Gradation – Item 301 Aggregate Gradation – Item 301 Sieve 50 mm (2 inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) 4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.18 mm (No. 16) 300 μm (No. 50) 75 μm (No. 200)
Total Percent Passing 100 75-100 50-85 25-60 15-45 10-35 3-18 1-7
Table A. 8: Aggregate Gradation – Item 302 Aggregate Gradation – Item 302 Sieve 50 mm (2 inch) 37.5 mm (1 1/2inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) * 19.0 mm (3/4 inch) * 12.5 mm (1/2 inch) * 9.5 mm (3/8 inch) * 4.75 mm (No. 4) 2.36 mm (No. 8) 1.18 mm (No. 16) 600 μm (No. 30) 300 μm (No. 50) 75 μm (No. 200)
Total Percent Passing 100 85-100 68-88 56-80 44-68 37-60 22-45 14-35 8-25 6-18 4-13 2-6
(*) A minimum of 7 percent material shall be retained on each of these sieves
119 Table A. 9: Aggregate Gradation – Item 304 Aggregate Gradation – Item 304 Sieve 50 mm (2 inch) 25.0 mm (1 inch) 19.0 mm (3/4 inch) 4.75 mm (No. 4) 600 μm (No. 40) 75 μm (No. 200)
Total Percent Passing 100 70-100 50-90 30-60 7-30 0-13
Table A. 10: Aggregate Gradation – Item 310 Aggregate Gradation – Item 310 Total Percentage Passing Sieve Grading A Grading B 63 mm (2 1/2 inch) 100 100 25 mm (1 inch) 70-100 70-100 4.75 mm (No. 4) 25-100 25-100 425 μm (No. 40) 5-50 10-50 75 μm (No. 200) 0-10 5-15
120 APPENDIX B: ASPHALT CONCRETE - FIGURES
0.50 Upstation Df1 Upstation Df7 Downstation Df1 Downstation Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
17.5
18.5
19.5
20.5
21.5
22.5
23.5
SLM
Figure B. 1. Normalized deflection – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98)
24.5
121 15 Upstation Downstation
12
Df1/Df7
9
6
3
0 17.5
18.5
19.5
20.5
21.5
22.5
23.5
24.5
SLM
Figure B. 2. Df1/Df7 – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98) 80 Upstation Downstation
70
Spreadability (%)
60
50
40
30
20 17.5
18.5
19.5
20.5
21.5
22.5
SLM
Figure B. 3. Spreadability – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98)
23.5
122
Upstation
290
Average Downstation Average
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
240
190
140
90
86.3
85.2
40 17.91
18.41
18.91
19.41
19.91
20.41
20.91
21.41
21.91
22.41
22.91
23.41
SLM
Figure B. 4. Subgrade modulus – Project 1 (Project ID# 9330-98)
23.91
123 0.60 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation) Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
24.0
24.1
24.2
24.3
24.4
24.5
24.6
24.7
SLM
Figure B. 5. Normalized deflection – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98)
6 Upstation Downstation
Df1/Df7
5
4
3
2 24.0
24.1
24.2
24.3
24.4
24.5
24.6
SLM
Figure B. 6. Df1/Df7 – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98)
24.7
124 70 Upstation Downstation
Spreadability (%)
65
60
55
50 24.0
24.1
24.2
24.3
24.4
24.5
24.6
24.7
SLM
Figure B. 7. Spreadability – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98)
80 Upstation Downstation
70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
50
48.0
42.2
40
30
20 24.00
24.10
24.20
24.30
24.40
24.50
24.60
SLM
Figure B. 8. Subgrade modulus – Project 2 (Project ID# 9327-98)
24.70
125 1.10 Upstation Df1 Upstation Df7 Downstation Df1 Downstation Df7
1.00
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
SLM
Figure B. 9. Normalized deflection – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
14 Upstation Downstation
12
Df1/Df7
10
8
6
4 1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
SLM
Figure B. 10. Df1/Df7 – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
2.2
126 60 Upstation Downstation
58
Spreadability (%)
55
53
50
48
45
43
40 1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
SLM
Figure B. 11. Spreadability – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
80 Upstation Downstation
70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
52.8
50 47.1 44.5
40
30
20 1.27
1.37
1.47
1.57
1.67
1.77
1.87
1.97
2.07
SLM
Figure B. 12. Subgrade modulus – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
127 1.40 Df1 Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
17.6
18.6
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6
SLM
Figure B. 13. Normalized deflection – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96)
14
12
Df1/Df7
10
8
6
4
2 17.6
18.6
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
SLM
Figure B. 14. Df1/Df7 – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96)
23.6
128 70
65
Spreadability (%)
60
55
50
45
40 17.6
18.6
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6
SLM
Figure B. 15. Spreadability – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96)
100
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
80
60
40
38.7
20
0 17.57
18.57
19.57
20.57
21.57
22.57
23.57
SLM
Figure B. 16. Subgrade modulus – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96)
129 1.80 Df1 Df7
1.60
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
SLM
Figure B. 17. Normalized deflection – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98)
20
18
16
Df1/Df7
14
12
10
8
6
4
2 21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
SLM
Figure B. 18. Df1/Df7 – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98)
26.0
130 65
Spreadability (%)
60
55
50
45
40 21.0
22.0
23.0
24.0
25.0
26.0
SLM
Figure B. 19. Spreadability – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98)
60
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
50
40
30
29.4
20
10 20.95
21.95
22.95
23.95
24.95
25.95
SLM
Figure B. 20. Subgrade modulus – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98)
131 1.4 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.2
Df7 (downstation)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
SLM
Figure B. 21. Normalized deflection - Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94)
27 Upstation Downstation
24
21
Df1/Df7
18
15
12
9
6
3
0 6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
SLM
Figure B. 22. Df1/Df7 – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94)
11.0
11.5
132 70 Upstation Downstation
65
Spreadability (%)
60
55
50
45
40 6.5
7.0
7.5
8.0
8.5
9.0
9.5
10.0
10.5
11.0
11.5
SLM
Figure B. 23. Spreadability – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94)
125 Upstation Downstation
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
100
75
50
46.4 42.8
25
26.0 21.3
0 6.83
7.08
7.33
7.58
7.83
8.08
8.33
8.58
8.83
9.08
9.33
9.58
9.83
10.08 10.33 10.58 10.83 11.08 11.33
SLM
Figure B. 24. Subgrade modulus – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94)
133 1.80 Df1 Df7
1.60
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
SLM
Figure B. 25. Normalized deflection - Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85)
22
Df1/Df7
18
14
10
6
2 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
SLM
Figure B. 26. Df1/Df7 – Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85)
0.8
0.9
134 65
60
Spreadability (%)
55
50
45
40
35 0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
SLM
Figure B. 27. Spreadability – Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85)
50
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
40
30 28.4
20
10 0.04
0.14
0.24
0.34
0.44
0.54
0.64
0.74
0.84
SLM
Figure B. 28. Subgrade modulus – Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85)
0.94
135 0.80 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
0.70
Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
SLM
Figure B. 29. Normalized deflection - Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85)
15 Upstation Downstation
12
Df1/Df7
9
6
3
0 1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
SLM
Figure B. 30. Df1/Df7 – Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85)
2.1
136 70 Upstation Downstation
65
Spreadability (%)
60
55
50
45
40 1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
SLM
Figure B. 31. Spreadability – Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85)
125 Upstation Downstation
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
100
75
50
47.5
35.6
25
0 1.40
1.50
1.60
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
SLM
Figure B. 32. Subgrade modulus – Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85)
2.10
137 0.60 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation) Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
19.7
19.8
19.9
20.0
20.1
20.2
20.3
SLM
Figure B. 33. Normalized deflection - Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99)
8 Upstation Downstation
7
Df1/Df7
6
5
4
3
2 19.7
19.8
19.9
20.0
20.1
20.2
SLM
Figure B. 34. Df1/Df7 – Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99)
20.3
138 70 Upstation Downstation
65
Spreadability (%)
60
55
50
45
40 19.7
19.8
19.9
20.0
20.1
20.2
20.3
SLM
Figure B. 35. Spreadability – Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99)
90 Upstation Downstation
80
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
70 63.0
60 57.7
50
40
30 19.72
19.82
19.92
20.02
20.12
20.22
20.32
SLM
Figure B. 36. Subgrade modulus – Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99)
139 1.00 Df1 Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
21.4
22.4
23.4
24.4
25.4
26.4
SLM
Figure B. 37. Normalized deflection - Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99)
8
7
Df1/Df7
6
5
4
3
2 21.4
22.4
23.4
24.4
25.4
26.4
SLM
Figure B. 38. Df1/Df7 – Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99)
140 75
70
Spreadability (%)
65
60
55
50
45 21.4
22.4
23.4
24.4
25.4
26.4
SLM
Figure B. 39. Spreadability – Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99)
80
70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
50
40
30 24.3
20
10 21.39
22.39
23.39
24.39
25.39
26.39
SLM
Figure B. 40. Subgrade modulus – Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99)
141 0.80 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
0.70
Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
11.1
11.2
SLM
Figure B. 41. Normalized deflection - Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97)
16 Upstation Downstation
14
Df1/Df7
12
10
8
6
4
2 10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
11.1
SLM
Figure B. 42. Df1/Df7 – Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97)
11.2
142 60 Upstation Downstation
Spreadability (%)
55
50
45
40
35 10.0
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.9
11.0
11.1
11.2
SLM
Figure B. 43. Spreadability Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97)
120 Upstation Downstation
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
100
80
61.4
60 59.4
40
20 10.01
10.11
10.21
10.31
10.41
10.51
10.61
10.71
10.81
10.91
11.01
11.11
11.21
SLM
Figure B. 44. Subgrade modulus – Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97)
143
0.50 Df1 Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
13.4
13.9
14.4
14.9
15.4
15.9
SLM
Figure B. 45. Normalized deflection Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94)
5.50
5.00
Df1/Df7
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
13.4
13.9
14.4
14.9
15.4
SLM
Figure B. 46. Df1/Df7 Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94)
15.9
144 70.0
Spreadability (%)
65.0
60.0
55.0
50.0
13.4
13.9
14.4
14.9
15.4
15.9
SLM
Figure B. 47. Spreadability – Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94)
80
70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
50 48.9
40
30
20 13.50
13.75
14.00
14.25
14.50
14.75
15.00
15.25
15.50
15.75
SLM
Figure B. 48. Subgrade modulus – Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94)
16.00
145
Upstation Df1 Upstation Df7
0.60
Downstation Df1 Downstation Df7
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
16.1
16.6
17.1
17.6
18.1
18.6
19.1
19.6
20.1
SLM
Figure B. 49. Normalized deflection – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95)
8.00 Upstation Downstation
7.00
6.00
Df1/Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.50
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
16.0
17.0
18.0
SLM
19.0
20.0
Figure B. 50. Df1/Df7 – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95)
146 75.0 Upstation Downstation
70.0
60.0
55.0
50.0
45.0
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
SLM
20.0
Figure B. 51. Spreadability – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95)
100 Upstation Downstation 90
80
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
Spreadability (%)
65.0
70
60
50 43.5
40 36.1
30
20 16.08
16.58
17.08
17.58
18.08
18.58
19.08
19.58
20.08
SLM
Figure B. 52. Subgrade modulus – Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95)
147 1.20 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation) Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
SLM
Figure B. 53. Normalized deflection – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96)
27 Upstation Downstation
24
21
Df1/Df7
18
15
12
9
6
3
0 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
SLM
Figure B. 54. Df1/Df7 – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96)
4.0
148 65 Upstation Downstation
60
Spreadability (%)
55
50
45
40
35 0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
SLM
Figure B. 55. Spreadability – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96)
160 Upstation Downstation 140
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
120
100
80
60 53.0 45.5
40
20 0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
SLM
Figure B. 56. Subgrade modulus – Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96)
149 APPENDIX C: PORTLAN CEMENT CONCRETE - FIGURES 1.00 Df1 Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 11.45
11.50
11.55
11.60
SLM
Figure C 1. Midslab deflection – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)
11.65
150
85
80
SPR (%)
75
70
65
60 11.45
11.50
11.55
11.60
SLM
Figure C. 2. Midslab spreadability – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)
11.65
151 1.2 Approach Leave
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 11.45
11.50
11.55
11.60
11.65
SLM
Figure C. 3. Maximum joint deflections – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)
110 Approach Leave
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
90
80
70 11.45
11.50
11.55
11.60
SLM
Figure C. 4. Joint load transfer – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)
11.65
152
1.2
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 11.45
11.50
11.55
11.60
SLM
Figure C. 5. Joint support ratio – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)
40
35
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
30
25 22.3
20
15
10 11.46
11.51
11.56
11.61
SLM
Figure C. 6. Subgrade modulus – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)
11.65
153 0.70 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.60
Df7 (downstation)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
SLM
Figure C. 7. Midslab deflection – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
85 Upstation Downstation
80
SPR (%)
75
70
65
60 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
SLM
Figure C. 8. Midslab spreadability – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
0.55
154 1.2 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
SLM
Figure C. 9. Maximum joint deflections – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
110 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
90
80
70 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
SLM
Figure C. 10. Joint load transfer – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
0.55
155 1.2 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
0.55
SLM
Figure C. 11. Joint support ratio – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
60 Upstation Downstation
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
50
40 36.0
30
31.0
20
10 0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
SLM
Figure C. 12. Subgrade modulus – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
0.55
156 0.50 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation) Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 2.05
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
3.65
SLM
Figure C. 13. Midslab deflection – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94)
85 Upstation Downstation
80
SPR (%)
75
70
65
60 2.05
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
3.65
SLM
Figure C. 14. Midslab spreadability – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94)
157 1.2 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 2.05
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
3.65
3.85
SLM
Figure C. 15. Maximum joint deflections – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94)
110 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50 2.05
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
3.65
SLM
Figure C. 16. Joint load transfer – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94)
3.85
158 1.2 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 2.05
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
3.65
SLM
Figure C. 17. Joint support ratio – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94)
80 Upstation Downstation 70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
50 45.0
40
38.7
30
20
10 2.05
2.25
2.45
2.65
2.85
3.05
3.25
3.45
3.65
SLM
Figure C. 18. Subgrade modulus – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94)
159 0.90 Df1 Df7 0.80
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 5.71
6.21
6.71
7.21
7.71
8.21
8.71
9.21
9.71
10.21
SLM
Figure C. 19. Midslab deflection – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46)
85
80
SPR (%)
75
70
65
60
55 5.71
6.21
6.71
7.21
7.71
8.21
8.71
9.21
9.71
SLM
Figure C. 20. Midslab spreadability – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46)
10.21
160
Approach
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.5
Leave
1.3
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5 5.71
6.21
6.71
7.21
7.71
8.21
8.71
9.21
9.71
10.21
SLM
Figure C. 21. Maximum joint deflections – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46)
Approach 100
Leave
Joint Load Transfer (%)
80
60
40
20
0 5.71
6.21
6.71
7.21
7.71
8.21
8.71
9.21
9.71
SLM
Figure C. 22. Joint load trasfer – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46)
10.21
161 1.3
1.2
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 5.71
6.21
6.71
7.21
7.71
8.21
8.71
9.21
9.71
10.21
SLM
Figure C. 23. Joint support ratio – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46)
60
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
50
40
30 25.1
20
10 5.71
6.21
6.71
7.21
7.71
8.21
8.71
9.21
9.71
SLM
Figure C. 24. Subgrade modulus – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46)
10.21
162 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
0.40
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
Df7 (downstation)
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 11.35
11.85
12.35
12.85
SLM
Figure C. 25. Midslab deflection – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90)
85 Upstation Downstation
80
SPR (%)
75
70
65
60 11.35
11.85
12.35
12.85
SLM
Figure C. 26. Midslab spreadability – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90)
163 1.6 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation)
1.4
Leave (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 11.35
11.85
12.35 SLM
12.85
Figure C. 27. Maximum joint deflections – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90)
110 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
105
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
65 11.35
11.85
12.35
12.85
SLM
Figure C. 28. Joint load transfer – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90)
164 1.3 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8 11.35
11.85
12.35
12.85
SLM
Figure C. 29. Joint support ratio – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90)
100 Upstation Downstation 90
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
80
70
60 53.1
50 46.2
40
30
20 11.35
11.60
11.85
12.10
12.35
12.60
12.85
13.10
SLM
Figure C. 30. Subgrade modulus – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90)
165 0.70 Df1 Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 18.95
19.00
19.05
19.10
19.15
19.20
SLM
Figure C. 31. Midslab deflection – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)
78
76
74
SPR (%)
72
70
68
66
64
62
60 18.95
19.00
19.05
19.10
19.15
19.20
SLM
Figure C. 32. Midslab spreadability – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)
166 0.6 Approach Leave
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 18.95
19.00
19.05
19.10
19.15
19.20
SLM
Figure C. 33. Maximum joint deflections – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)
100 Approach Leave
Joint Load Transfer (%)
90
80
70
60 18.95
19.00
19.05
19.10
19.15
SLM
Figure C. 34. Joint load transfer – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)
19.20
167 1.4
Joint Support Ratio
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9 18.95
19.00
19.05
19.10
19.15
19.20
SLM
Figure C. 35. Joint support ratio – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)
80
70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
50
40
41.8
30
20
10 18.95
19.00
19.05
19.10
19.15
19.20
SLM
Figure C. 36. Subgrade modulus – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)
168 0.80 Df1 Df7 0.70
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 15.02
15.22
15.42
15.62
15.82
16.02
16.22
SLM
Figure C. 37. Midslab deflection – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)
80
78
76
74
SPR (%)
72
70
68
66
64
62
60 15.02
15.22
15.42
15.62
15.82
16.02
16.22
SLM
Figure C. 38. Midslab spreadability – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)
169 0.9 Approach Leave
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 15.02
15.27
15.52
15.77
16.02
16.27
SLM
Figure C. 39. Maximum joint deflections – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)
110 Approach Leave 105
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
95
90
85
80
75
70 15.02
15.22
15.42
15.62
15.82
16.02
16.22
SLM
Figure C. 40. Joint load transfer – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)
170 1.4
1.3
Joint Support Ratio
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8 15.02
15.22
15.42
15.62
15.82
16.02
16.22
SLM
Figure C. 41. Joint support ratio – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)
70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
50
40
39.4
30
20 15.02
15.22
15.42
15.62
15.82
16.02
SLM
Figure C. 42. Subgrade modulus – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)
16.22
171 0.60 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation) Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
23.50
24.00
24.50
25.00
25.50
SLM
Figure C. 43. Midslab deflection – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94)
85 Upstation Downstation 83
80
SPR (%)
78
75
73
70
68
65 21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
23.50
24.00
24.50
25.00
25.50
SLM
Figure C. 44. Midslab spreadability – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94)
172 1.2 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
23.50 SLM
24.00
24.50
25.00
25.50
Figure C. 45. Maximum joint deflections – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94)
110 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50 21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
23.50
24.00
24.50
25.00
SLM
Figure C. 46. Joint load transfer – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94)
25.50
173 1.2 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
23.50
24.00
24.50
25.00
25.50
SLM
Figure C. 47. Joint support ratio – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94)
60 Upstation Downstation
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
50
41.2
40 38.1
30
20
10 21.50
22.00
22.50
23.00
23.50
24.00
24.50
25.00
SLM
Figure C. 48. Subgrade modulus – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94)
25.50
174 0.35 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.30
Df7 (downstation)
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 14.37
14.47
14.57
14.67
14.77
14.87
14.97
15.07
SLM
Figure C. 49. Midslab deflection – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88)
78 Upstation Downstation 76
SPR (%)
74
72
70
68
66
64 14.37
14.47
14.57
14.67
14.77
14.87
14.97
SLM
Figure C. 50. Midslab spreadability – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88)
15.07
175 0.8 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.7
Leave (downstation)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 14.37
14.47
14.57
14.67
14.77
14.87
14.97
15.07
SLM
Figure C. 51. Maximum joint deflections – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88)
100 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Joint Load Transfer (%)
90
80
70
60
50
40 14.37
14.47
14.57
14.67
14.77
14.87
14.97
SLM
Figure C. 52. Joint load transfer – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88)
15.07
176 1.2 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 14.37
14.47
14.57
14.67
14.77
14.87
14.97
15.07
SLM
Figure C. 53. Joint support ratio – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88)
80 Upstation Downstation
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
70
61.0
60 56.9
50
40
30 14.37
14.47
14.57
14.67
14.77
14.87
14.97
SLM
Figure C. 54. Subgrade modulus – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88)
15.07
177 0.60 Df1 Df7
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10 2.00
2.10
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.50
2.60
2.70
2.80
2.90
3.00
SLM
Figure C. 55. Midslab deflection – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91)
80
78
SPR (%)
76
74
72
70
68 2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
SLM
Figure C. 56. Midslab spreadability – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91)
3.00
178 0.8 Approach Leave
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
SLM
Figure C. 57. Maximum joint deflections – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91)
105 Approach Leave
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
95
90
85
80 2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
SLM
Figure C. 58. Joint load transfer – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91)
3.00
179 1.1
1.1
Joint Support Ratio
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8 2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
3.00
SLM
Figure C. 59. Joint support ratio – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91)
40
35
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
30
25
24.8
20
15
10 2.00
2.20
2.40
2.60
2.80
SLM
Figure C. 60. Subgrade modulus – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91)
3.00
180 0.60 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation) Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 11.80
12.05
12.30
12.55
12.80
13.05
13.30
SLM
Figure C. 61. Midslab deflection – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92)
95 Upstation Downstation 90
SPR (%)
85
80
75
70
65
60 11.80
12.05
12.30
12.55
12.80
13.05
SLM
Figure C. 62. Midslab spreadability – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92)
13.30
181 0.8 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation)
0.7
Leave (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0 11.80
12.05
12.30
12.55 SLM
12.80
13.05
13.30
Figure C. 63. Maximum joint deflections – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92)
110 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation)
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
90
80
70
60
50 11.80
12.05
12.30
12.55
12.80
13.05
SLM
Figure C. 64. Joint load transfer – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92)
13.30
182 1.2 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 11.80
12.05
12.30
12.55
12.80
13.05
13.30
SLM
Figure C. 65. Joint support ratio – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92)
80 Upstation Downstation 70
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
60
50 46.1
40 37.8
30
20
10 11.80
12.05
12.30
12.55
12.80
13.05
SLM
Figure C. 66. Subgrade modulus – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92)
13.30
183 0.40 Df1 (upstation) Df7 (upstation) Df1 (downstation)
0.35
Df7 (downstation)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 13.32
13.57
13.82
14.07
14.32
14.57
14.82
15.07
15.32
SLM
Figure C. 67. Midslab deflection – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)
85 Upstation Downstation
81
SPR (%)
77
73
69
65 13.32
13.57
13.82
14.07
14.32
14.57
14.82
15.07
SLM
Figure C. 68. Midslab spreadability – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)
15.32
184 0.4 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation)
0.4
Leave (downstation)
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.0 13.32
13.57
13.82
14.07
14.32 SLM
14.57
14.82
15.07
15.32
Figure C. 69. Maximum joint deflections – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)
110 Approach (upstation) Leave (upstation) Approach (downstation) Leave (downstation) 100
Joint Load Transfer (%)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.3
90
80
70
60 13.32
13.57
13.82
14.07
14.32
14.57
14.82
15.07
SLM
Figure C. 70. Joint load transfer – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)
15.32
185 1.2 Upstation Downstation
Joint Support Ratio
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 13.32
13.57
13.82
14.07
14.32
14.57
14.82
15.07
15.32
SLM
Figure C. 71. Joint support ratio – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)
115 Upstation Downstation
105
95
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
85
75
75.5
65 60.3
55
45
35
25 13.32
13.57
13.82
14.07
14.32
14.57
14.82
15.07
SLM
Figure C. 72. Subgrade modulus – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)
15.32
186 0.80 Df1 Df7 0.70
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 2.84
3.34
3.84
4.34
4.84
5.34
5.84
6.34
6.84
SLM
Figure C. 73. Midslab deflection – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90)
83
80
77
SPR (%)
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
0.60
74
71
68
65 2.84
3.34
3.84
4.34
4.84
5.34
5.84
6.34
6.84
SLM
Figure C. 74. Midslab spreadability – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90)
187 1.9 Approach Leave
Normalized Deflection (mils/kip)
1.6
1.3
1.0
0.7
0.4 2.84
3.34
3.84
4.34
4.84
5.34
5.84
6.34
6.84
SLM
Figure C. 75. Maximum joint deflections – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90)
110 Approach Leave
Joint Load Transfer (%)
100
90
80
70
60 2.84
3.34
3.84
4.34
4.84
5.34
5.84
6.34
6.84
SLM
Figure C. 76. Joint load transfer – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90)
188 1.4
1.3
Joint Support Ratio
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7 2.84
3.34
3.84
4.34
4.84
5.34
5.84
6.34
6.84
SLM
Figure C. 77. Joint support ratio – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90)
40
35
Subgrade Modulus (ksi)
30
25 24.1
20
15
10 2.84
3.34
3.84
4.34
4.84
5.34
5.84
6.34
6.84
SLM
Figure C. 78. Subgrade modulus – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90)
189 APPENDIX D: ASPHALT CONCRETE - MEPDG
Permanent Deformation: Rutting 0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
Rutting Depth (in)
SubTotalAC SubTotalBase
0.50
SubTotalSG Total Rutting TotalRutReliability
0.40
Total Rutting Design Limit
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0
42
84
126
168
210
252
294
336
378
420
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 1. Pavement deformation – Project. 1 (D) (Project ID# 9330-98)
IRI 200 180 160 140
IRI (in/mi)
120 100 80 60 40 IRI IRI at Reliability Design Limit
20 0 0
42
84
126
168
210
252
294
336
378
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 2. International roughness index – Project 1 (U) (Project ID# 9330-98)
420
190 Permanent Deformation: Rutting 0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60 SubTotalAC SubTotalBase SubTotalSG Total Rutting TotalRutReliability Total Rutting Design Limit
Rutting Depth (in)
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0
42
84
126
168
210
252
294
336
378
420
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 3. Permanent deformation – Project. 2 (Project ID# 9327-98)
IRI 200 180 IRI IRI at Reliability
160
Design Limit
140
IRI (in/mi)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 4. International roughness index – Project 3 (Project ID# 233-98)
300
191
Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time 1200
1000 Thermal Crack Length Crack Length at Reliability Design Limit Total Length (ft/mi)
800
600
400
200
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 5. Transversal cracking – Project 4 (Project ID# 298-96)
Permanent Deformation: Rutting 1.20 SubTotalAC
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25 Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75
SubTotalBase SubTotalSG
1.00
Total Rutting TotalRutReliability Total Rutting Design Limit
Rutting Depth (in)
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 6. Permanent deformation – Project 5 (Project ID# 259-98)
300
192 IRI 200 180 IRI IRI at Reliability Design Limit
160 140
IRI (in/mi)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 7. International roughness index – Project 6 (Project ID# 645-94)
IRI 200 180 IRI
160
IRI at Reliability Design Limit
140
IRI (in/mi)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 8. International roughness index - Project 7 (Project ID# 347-85)
300
193 Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time 1200
1000 Thermal Crack Length Crack Length at Reliability 800
Design Limit
Total Length (ft/mi)
600
400
200
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
270
300
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 9. Transverse cracking - Project 8 (Project ID# 17-85)
Permanent Deformation: Rutting 0.90 SubTotalAC SubTotalBase SubTotalSG Total Rutting TotalRutReliability Total Rutting Design Limit
0.80
0.70
AC Rutting Design Value = 0.25 Total Rutting Design Limit = 0.75
Rutting Depth (in)
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 10. Permanent deformation - Project 9 (Project ID# 6010-99)
194
IRI 200 180 IRI IRI at Reliability Design Limit
160 140
IRI (in/mi)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 11. International roughness index - Project 10 (Project ID# 141-99)
Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time 1200
1000 Thermal Crack Length Crack Length at Reliability Design Limit
Total Length (ft/mi)
800
600
400
200
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 12. Transversal cracking - Project 11 (Project ID# 665-97)
300
195 Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time 1200 Thermal Crack Length Crack Length at Reliability Design Limit 1000
Total Length (ft/mi)
800
600
400
200
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
300
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 13. Transversal cracking - Project 12 (Project ID# 443-94)
Thermal Cracking: Total Length Vs Time 1200
1000 Thermal Crack Length Crack Length at Reliability Design Limit
Total Length (ft/mi)
800
600
400
200
0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 14. Transversal cracking - Project 13 (Project ID# 552-95)
300
196
IRI 200 180 IRI
160
IRI at Reliability Design Limit
140
IRI (in/mi)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
30
60
90
120
150
180
210
240
270
Pavement Age (month)
Figure D. 15. International roughness index - Project 14 (Project ID# 298-96)
300
197 APPENDIX E: PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE – MEPDG Predicted Faulting 0.20 Faulting
0.18
Faulting at specified reliability Faulting Limit
0.16 0.14
Faulting, in
0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 1. Predicted faulting – Project 15 (Project ID# 700-86)
Predicted IRI 200 180 IRI
160
IRI at specified reliability IRI Limit
140
IRI, in/mile
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 2. International roughness index – Project 16 (Project ID# 625-76)
48
198
Predicted Faulting 0.20 Faulting 0.18
Faulting at specified reliability Faulting Limit
0.16 0.14
Faulting, in
0.12 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 3. Predicted faulting – Project 17 (Project ID# 438-94)
Predicted IRI 200
160
IRI IRI at specified reliability IRI Limit
IRI, in/mile
120
80
40
0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 4. Predicted faulting – Project 18 (Project ID# 352-46)
56
60
199
Predicted Faulting 0.14
0.12 Faulting Faulting at specified reliability Faulting Limit
Faulting, in
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 1. Predicted faulting – Project 19 (Project ID# 997-90)
Predicted IRI 200 IRI
180
IRI at specified reliability IRI Limit
160 140
IRI, in/mile
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 2. International roughness index – Project 20 (Project ID# 8008-90)
30
200 Predicted Faulting 0.14 Faulting Faulting at specified reliability
0.12
Faulting Limit
Faulting, in
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
56
60
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 3. Predicted faulting – Project 21 (Project ID# 8008-90)
Predicted Faulting 0.14 Faulting 0.12
Faulting at specified reliability Faulting Limit
Faulting, in
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 4. Predicted faulting – Project 22 (Project ID# 845-94)
201 Predicted Faulting 0.25 Faulting Faulting at specified reliability Faulting Limit
0.20
Faulting, in
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 5. Predicted faulting – Project 23 (Project ID# 343-88)
Predicted IRI 200 IRI 180
IRI at specified reliability IRI Limit
160 140
IRI, in/mile
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 6. International roughness index – Project 24 (Project ID# 678-91)
60
202 Predicted IRI
280
IRI IRI at specified reliability IRI Limit
240
IRI, in/mile
200
160
120
80
40
0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 7. International roughness index – Project 25 (Project ID# 844-92)
Predicted Faulting 0.18 Faulting 0.16
Faulting at specified reliability Faulting Limit
0.14
Faulting, in
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00 0
6
12
18
24
30
36
42
48
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 8. Predicted faulting – Project 26 (Project ID# 996-93)
54
60
203
Predicted IRI 240 IRI 220
IRI at specified reliability IRI Limit
200 180
IRI, in/mile
160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
Pavement age, years
Figure E. 9. International roughness index – Project 27 (Project ID# 907-90)
TAD Services
Digitally signed by TAD Services DN: cn=TAD Services, o=Ohio University, ou=Graduate Studies,
[email protected], c=US Date: 2008.08.12 09:44:23 -04'00'
48
