1. .1 Lawn"; “Hm 13$ {.655 ...n a... h... a; “WWW h.nw..nuhvua.m.: .. - n.5,.n . mamas. s. . .9. .3»... . 1...”: 34:7; 6... s I ncmb E O E O E m LIB R A BY L W WWW“ Michigan State 3 University This is to certify that the thesis entitled FIELD INVESTIGATION OF TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN JOINTED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (JCP'S) presented by Michael Anthony Frabizzio has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Masters Civil Engineering degree in Major professor 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove chi To AVOID FINES return on MAY BE RECALLED with earlier 5 checkout from your record. or before date due. due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE FIELD INVESTIGATION OF TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN J OINTED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (JCP’s) By Michael Anthony F rabizzio A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering 1998 ABSTRACT FIELD INVESTIGATION OF TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN J OINTED CONCRETE PAVEMENTS (J CP’s) By Michael Anthony Frabizzio Environmental and/or traffic related stresses can lead to the development of transverse cracking in jointed concrete pavements (J CP’s). Deterioration of transverse cracks over time can result in loss of serviceability and loss of structural capacity in such pavements. An understanding of the factors affecting transverse cracking in J CP’s and the ability to assess when and how to repair pavements with this distress are therefore two issues of importance to transportation agencies. Addressing these issues, the primary objectives of this research were to study the effects of various factors on transverse cracking in J CP’s and to demonstrate methods for evaluating these cracked pavements. Field data collected from in-service J CP’s located throughout southern Michigan was used to accomplish these objectives. Joint spacing, concrete coarse aggregate type, and shoulder type were found to have significant effects on transverse crack development and/or performance. Three analysis procedures that are based on the use of falling weight deflectometer (FWD) data - backcalculation of pavement support and stiffness parameters, determination of crack performance parameters, and assessment of void potential near cracks — were demonstrated using data from this study. These procedures allow for evaluation of cracked J CP’s. Results from these FWD analyses were used to develop threshold limits necessary for performing evaluations with these procedures. To my parents, for their selflessness, support, and love, and in recognition of their knowledge and wisdom, for which no degree could ever quantify, and to my brother, who is my best friend, and is always there for me. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would first like to thank Dr. Neeraj Buch for his support and guidance throughout my graduate career at Michigan State University. I would also like to thank the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and the Pavement Research Center of Excellence (PRCE) at Michigan State University ‘ for sponsoring this research work and providing financial support. In addition, I would like to thank MDOT for performing coring and falling weight deflectometer testing as well as providing the necessary traffic control for carrying out the collection of field data. Thanks must also be given to the various MDOT personnel who assisted me in compiling the inventory data for this research study. I would also like to give thanks to Dr. Mark Snyder for his work on the Volumetric Surface Texture (V ST) testing performed in this study and for the technical support he provided regarding the analysis of the VST test results. A final thanks is given to the many students, most notably Jacob Hiller, who helped me with field data collection. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ..................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ............................................................................. 1 Objectives of Research ...................................................................... 1 Scope of Research .............................................................................. 2 Contents of Thesis .............................................................................. 3 II LITERATURE REVIEW I — OVERVIEW OF TRANSVERSE CRACKDI G IN J CP’s ................................................................................... 5 Formation of Transverse Cracks in J CP’s ......................................... 5 Jointed Concrete Pavements .................................................. 5 Causes of Transverse Cracks in J CP’s ................................... 6 Factors Affecting the Occurrence of Transverse Cracks in J CP’s ...................................................................................... 16 Load Transfer across Transverse Cracks in J CP’s ............................. 2O Importance of Load Transfer across Transverse Cracks in J CP’s ...................................................................................... 2O Shear Transfer Mechanisms ................................................... 21 Quantification of Load Transfer ............................................ 26 Factors Affecting the Efficiency and Endurance of Load Transfer across Transverse Cracks in J CP’s .......................... 30 III LITERATURE REVIEW 11 - REHABILITATION/RESURF ACIN G METHODS FOR JCP’s WITH TRAN SVERSE CRACKING ..................... 44 Overview ............................................................................................ 44 Rehabilitation/Resurfacing Methods ................................................. 45 “Do Nothing” Alternative ...................................................... 45 F ull-Depth Repair .................................................................. 45 Load Transfer Restoration (Dowel Bar Retrofitting) ............. 48 Slab Stabilization ................................................................... 50 Construction of Rigid Edge Support ...................................... 54 Crack Sealing ......................................................................... 56 Diamond Grinding ................................................................. 58 Unbonded Concrete Overlay .................................................. 6O Bonded Concrete Overlay ...................................................... 63 CHAPTER Page Asphalt Overlay ..................................................................... 67 IV DATA COLLECTION .................................................................................. 70 Description of Test Sites .................................................................... 70 Inventory Data ................................................................................... 71 Field Data ........................................................................................... 74 Overview ................................................................................ 74 Cycle 1 — April 1997 .............................................................. 75 Cycle 2 — July 1997 ................................................................ 79 Cycle 3 — October 1997 ......................................................... 80 Cycle 4 — June 1998 ............................................................... 83 Compilation of Field Data ..................................................... 85 V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION I — FWD ANALYSIS PROCEDURES ..... 87 Overview ............................................................................................ 87 Backcalculation of Support and Stiffness Parameters ....................... 89 Overview ................................................................................ 89 Backcalculation Procedure ..................................................... 90 Discussion of Backcalculation Results .................................. 100 Characterization of Crack Performance ............................................. 101 Overview ................................................................................ 10] Determination of Crack Performance Parameters ................. 103 Development of Performance Parameter Thresholds ............ 130 Temperature Effects on Performance Parameters .................. 135 Assessment of Void Potential near Transverse Cracks ...................... 140 Overview ................................................................................ 140 Voids Analysis Procedure ...................................................... 141 Examination of Threshold Limits for Void Potential ............ 146 VI RESULTS AND DISCUSSION II — FACTORS AFFECTING TRANSVERSE CRACKING IN JCP’s ........................................................ 150 Overview ............................................................................................ 150 Effect of Joint Spacing on Transverse Cracking ................................ 150 Effect of Concrete Coarse Aggregate Type on Transverse Cracking ............................................................................................. 152 Effect of Shoulder Type on Transverse Cracking .............................. 155 Volumetric Surface Texture (V ST) Testing ...................................... 160 VII CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS ..................................................................................... 167 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................. 167 Future Research Needs ...................................................................... 175 APPENDIX A: INVENTORY DATA ..................................................................... 178 vi Page APPENDIX B: MEASURED AND DERIVED FIELD DATA .............................. 201 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 294 vii LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Regression Coefficients for 6,. ...................................................................... 94 2 Effect of Shoulder Type on Number of Transverse Cracks per Slab ............ 158 3 Volumetric Surface Texture Test Results ...................................................... 163 Al Test Site Location and Age Data, Carbonate Pavements .............................. 179 A2 Test Site Location and Age Data, Natural Gravel Pavements ....................... 181 A3 Test Site Location and Age Data, Recycled Pavements ................................ 182 AA Test Site Location and Age Data, Slag Pavements ........................................ 183 A5 Geometric Layout of Test Sites, Carbonate Pavements ................................. 184 A6 Geometric Layout of Test Sites, Natural Gravel Pavements ......................... 185 A.7 Geometric Layout of Test Sites, Recycled Pavements .................................. 186 A8 Geometric Layout of Test Sites, Slag Pavements .......................................... 187 A9 Pavement Cross-Section Data, Carbonate Pavements ................................... 188 A.10 Pavement Cross-Section Data, Natural Gravel Pavements ............................ 190 All Pavement Cross-Section Data, Recycled Pavements ..................................... 191 A. 12 Pavement Cross-Section Data, Slag Pavements ............................................ 192 A. 13 Material and Construction Properties, Carbonate Pavements ........................ 193 AM Material and Construction Properties, Natural Gravel Pavements ................ 194 A. 1 5 Material and Construction Properties, Recycled Pavements ......................... 195 A. 16 Material and Construction Properties, Slag Pavements ................................. 196 viii TABLE Page A.l7 Traffic Data, Carbonate Pavements ............................................................... 197 A. 18 Traffic Data, Natural Gravel Pavements ........................................................ I98 A.19 Traffic Data, Recycled Pavements ................................................................. 199 A20 Traffic Data, Slag Pavements ........................................................................ 200 8.1 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 1, Carbonate Pavements ..................... 202 3.2 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 1, Natural Gravel Pavements ............. 204 B3 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 1, Recycled Pavements ...................... 206 BA Measured Crack and Joint Field Data I, Slag Pavements .............................. 209 8.5 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Carbonate Pavements ................... 21 l 8.6 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Natural Gravel Pavements ............ 213 B7 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Recycled Pavements ..................... 214 B.8 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Slag Pavements ............................. 216 B9 Visual Distress Data, Carbonate Pavements .................................................. 218 8.10 Visual Distress Data, Natural Gravel Pavements .......................................... 219 8.1] Visual Distress Data, Recycled Pavements ................................................... 220 B. 12 Visual Distress Data, Slag Pavements .............. _ ............................................. 221 B.13 Backcalculated Parameters I, Carbonate Pavements ..................................... 222 8.14 Backcalculated Parameters 1, Natural Gravel Pavements .............................. 223 3.15 Backcalculated Parameters I, Recycled Pavements ....................................... 224 B.16 Backcalculated Parameters I, Slag Pavements ............................................... 225 B. 17 Backcalculated Parameters II, Carbonate Pavements .................................... 226 ix TABLE Page B. l 8 Backcalculated Parameters II, Natural Gravel Pavements ............................ 227 8.19 Backcalculated Parameters II, Recycled Pavements ..................................... 228 8.20 Backcalculated Parameters II, Slag Pavements ............................................. 229 3.21 LTEa Data, Carbonate Pavements .................................................................. 230 3.22 LTE5 Data, Natural Gravel Pavements .......................................................... 232 B.23 LTE5 Data, Recycled Pavements ................................................................... 234 8.24 LTE5 Data, Slag Pavements ........................................................................... 237 3.25 TLE Data, Carbonate Pavements ................................................................... 239 3.26 TLE Data, Natural Gravel Pavements ........................................................... 241 B27 TLE Data, Recycled Pavements .................................................................... 243 3.28 TLE Data, Slag Pavements ...... V ........................... 246 829 PT Data, Carbonate Pavements ...................................................................... 248 830 PT Data, Natural Gravel Pavements ............................................................... 250 B3] PT Data, Recycled Pavements ........................................................................ 252 832 PT Data, Slag Pavements ................................................................................ 255 8.33 AGG Data, Carbonate Pavements .................................................................. 257 8.34 AGG Data, Natural Gravel Pavements .......................................................... 259 3.35 AGG Data, Recycled Pavements ................................................................... 261 B.36 AGG Data, Slag Pavements ........................................................................... 264 8.37 Ambient Test Temperatures, Carbonate Pavements ...................................... 266 B.38 Ambient Test Temperatures, Natural Gravel Pavements .............................. 268 3.39 Ambient Test Temperatures, Recycled Pavements ....................................... 270 TABLE Page 8.40 Ambient Test Temperatures, Slag Pavements ............................................... 273 B4] Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Carbonate Pavements ....................... 275 3.42 Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Natural Gravel Pavements ............... 277 B.43 Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Recycled Pavements ........................ 279 3.44 Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Slag Pavements ................................ 282 3.45 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Carbonate Pavements ............................... 284 3.46 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Natural Gravel Pavements ........................ 285 3.47 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Recycled Pavements ................................. 286 B.48 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Slag Pavements ........................................ 288 8.49 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Carbonate Pavements ................................. 289 8.50 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Natural Gravel Pavements ......................... 290 8.51 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Recycled Pavements .................................. 291 8.52 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Slag Pavements .......................................... 292 xi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 Depiction of Downward Slab Curling ........................................................... 7 2 Depiction of Upward Slab Curling ................................................................ 9 3 Finite Slab with Circular Edge Load Condition ............................................ II 4 Depiction of 0% Deflection Load Transfer Efficiency .................................. 28 5 Depiction of 100% Deflection Load Transfer Efficiency .............................. 28 6 Influence of Load Location on LTE5 for Inclined Cracks ............................. 42 7 Relationship between LTE5 and TLE ............................................................ 105 8 Relationship between LTE5 and AGG/k! ...................................................... 108 9 Determination of TLE Using “Standard” Procedure ..................................... 115 10 Determination of AGG/kt Using “Standard” Procedure ............................... 119 11 LTE5 versus PT Plot, l = 900 mm .................................................................. 122 12 LTE5 versus PT Plot, 2 = 1100 mm ................................................................ 122 13 LTEs versus PT Plot, 6 = 1300 mm ................................................................ 123 14 LTE5 versus AGG Plot, k = 40 kPa/mm and Z = 900 mm ............................. 124 15 LTEs versus AGG Plot, R = 70 kPa/mm and Z = 900 mm ............................. 124 16 LTE5 versus AGG Plot, k = 40 kPa/mm and I = 1 100 mm ........................... 125 17 LTE5 versus AGG Plot, k = 70 kPa/mm and 2 = 1100 mm ........................... 125 18 LTEa versus AGG Plot, R = 40 kPa/mm and Z = 1300 mm ........................... 126 19 LTE5 versus AGG Plot, k = 70 kPa/mm and I = 1300 mm ........................... 126 xii FIGURE Page 20 Comparison of Cycle 4 Fault and LTE5 Crack Data ...................................... 132 21 Comparison of Cycle 4 Fault and PT Crack Data .......................................... 134 22 Comparison of Cycle 4 Fault and AGG Crack Data ...................................... 134 23 Effect of Pavement Surface Temperature on LTE5, Site 7 ............................ 138 24 Effect of Pavement Surface Temperature on LTEs, Site 5 ............................ 138 25 Determination of x-intercepts for Voids Analysis, Site 13, Cycle 4 Data ..... 143 26 Determination of Void Potential Using Established Threshold Limits, Site 13, Cycle 4 Data ........................................................... ' .......................... 145 27 Comparison of Cycles 3 and 4 x-intercepts with Cycle 4 Fault Data ............ 148 28 Effect of Joint Spacing on Number of Transverse Cracks per Slab .............. 151 29 Effect of Coarse Aggregate Type on Number of Transverse Cracks per Slab ................................................................................................................ 153 xiii - CHAPTER I - Introduction PROBLEM STATEMENT Transverse cracks in jointed concrete pavements (J CP’s) are discontinuities in the pavement oriented perpendicular to the direction of traffic. These cracks are typically the result of environmental and/or traffic related stresses. Deterioration of such cracks over time can lead to loss of serviceability and loss of structural capacity of the pavement. It is therefore of interest to identify and understand the factors that influence transverse cracking. An additional issue of importance to transportation agencies is the need to assess when and how to repair pavements with this distress. OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH One objective of the research in this study was to use field data to identify the significant factors that affect the occurrence and performance of transverse cracks in J CP’s. There have been several other studies performed to determine factors affecting transverse cracking, but they have often been laboratory-based and have often neglected the significance of concrete coarse aggregate type. Thus, a comprehensive field investigation was performed with one objective being to study the effects of various factors, including aggregate type, on transverse cracking. Based upon these results, design recommendations could be given to transportation agencies (particularly the sponsoring agency for this study - the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)) to improve the performance of these pavements with regard to transverse cracking. Another aim of this investigation was to demonstrate how field data can be used to determine values for selected crack performance parameters. These parameters provide a means for characterizing the integrity of cracks. An agency could compare parametric values with threshold values to evaluate the condition of cracks. Such evaluations could be used to help in deciding when and how to rehabilitate pavements with transverse cracks. It was also the intent of this study to establish thresholds for the performance parameters based on data from this research. An additional objective of this study was to obtain and analyze field data to demonstrate the use of a voids analysis procedure for evaluating cracked J CP’s. This procedure is an evaluation technique that allows for an assessment of the likelihood of loss of support near cracks and joints. By identifying the presence of voids at cracks and joints, this procedure allows appropriate rehabilitation actions to be taken to restore support to a cracked J CP. In addition to describing the methodology for performing this analysis, it was also an aim of this research to use the results from the voids analyses performed herein to check the validity of existing threshold values for determining void potential. SCOPE OF RESEARCH To accomplish the research objectives, forty-nine (49) test sites from in-service highway pavements demonstrating transverse cracking were chosen. Inventory data for these test sites was collected and compiled using MDOT construction records. Field performance data was collected for the sites approximately each season over a fourteen month period. The research objectives were accomplished by utilizing both the inventory and field data. Various analyses were performed to satisfy the objectives of this research. Methods for determining crack performance parameters were demonstrated and threshold values were established for these parameters. The effect of temperature on the performance parameters was examined using field data from this study. A backcalculation procedure for determining pavement support and stiffness parameters, which are used to determine the crack performance parameters alluded to above, was also demonstrated. A voids analysis procedure was performed and appropriate thresholds were determined for evaluating void potential using this procedure. Several factors affecting transverse crack occurrence and performance were identified through analyses of the field data. Included among these analyses was a relatively new procedure, ‘ Volumetric Surface Texture (V ST) testing, which was used to investigate the effect of concrete aggregate type on crack performance potential. Results and discussion pertaining to all analyses are contained in Chapters V and VI of this thesis. CONTENTS OF THESIS This thesis contains background information on transverse cracking in J CP’s, a discussion of the analyses performed and the results obtained from the data collected in this study, and a summary of the conclusions and recommendations derived from this research. A more detailed breakdown of the contents of individual chapters follows. Chapter H includes: background regarding how transverse cracks are formed in J CP’s; a summary of the factors that have been found to influence the occurrence and performance of these cracks in past studies; an explanation of the load transfer mechanisms for transverse cracks; and, a description of the performance parameters associated with crack performance. Chapter HI provides a synopsis of some of the common methods used in rehabilitating/resurfacing J CP’s with transverse cracks. A description of the test sites used for the research in this thesis is given in Chapter IV. This chapter also includes descriptions of the inventory and field data collected for the test site pavements. The various FWD analysis procedures performed using field data in this study — namely, backcalculation of pavement support and stiffness parameters, determination of crack performance parameters, and assessment of void potential near cracks - as well as the results obtained from performing these procedures are discussed in Chapter V. A discussion of the analyses performed and results obtained in this study pertaining to the investigation of factors affecting transverse cracking in J CP’s is provided in Chapter VI. A summary of the conclusions and recommendations arising from the analyses performed in this study as well as a listing of future research needs related to the study of transverse cracking in J CP’s are contained in Chapter VII, which concludes this thesis. - CHAPTER II - Literature Review I - Overview of Transverse Cracking in JCP’s FORMATION OF TRANSVERSE CRACKS IN JCP’s Jointed Concrete Pavements Jointed concrete pavements utilize joints, or engineered cracks, to serve a variety of purposes. J CP’s can be further categorized as either jointed plain concrete pavements (JPCP’s) or jointed reinforced concrete pavements (JRCP’s) to distinguish between those J CP’s with temperature reinforcing steel and those without such reinforcement. The three basic types of joints utilized in these pavements are contraction, expansion, and construction joints. Contraction joints are the most common joint type encountered in J CP’s. These joints are used to control the location of cracking in the pavement, which results fiom tensile stresses induced by temperature, moisture, and friction [1]. Partial- depth saw cuts cause a weakened plane which cracks through the full slab depth upon subjection to the noted tensile stresses. Expansion joints, which involve full-depth saw cuts, are used in JCP’s to allow for thermal expansion of the pavement without buckling of the slab [1]. Where construction must be stopped temporarily, such as at the end of a day’s work, construction joints are formed in the pavement [2]. Load transfer devices, most commonly metal dowel bars, are usually placed across all three of these types of joints to maintain the structural integrity of the pavement. Joints are also usually sealed to prevent water and incompressibles fi'om entering the discontinuity. Despite the use of joints, transverse cracking occasionally develops at locations in a slab between the joints due to environmental and traffic induced stresses. Such midslab transverse cracks were the focus of this research investigation. Causes of Transverse Cracks in JCP’s Transverse cracks can be induced in J CP’s through a variety of mechanisms: fatigue cracking due to a combination of curling, warping, and traffic stresses; plastic and drying shrinkage stresses; friction between the slab and supporting layer (base or subgrade); and, settlement of the supporting layers (base and subgrade). A description of each of these mechanisms follows. Fatigue Cracking Repeated applications of tensile stresses, primarily due to curling, warping, and traffic loads, can lead to fatigue cracking in J CP’s. Huang explains the curling mechanism by considering a jointed concrete pavement to be a rigid plate supported by a liquid (or Winkler) foundation. The Winkler foundation models the subgrade as a set of independent springs, where deflection at any point is proportional to the force at that point and independent of all forces elsewhere. Downward curling occurs when the top of the slab is warmer than the bottom. In this case the top of the slab is longer than the bottom and the slab consequently curls downward. The springs on the edges are in compression and push the slab upward, while the interior springs are in tension and pull the slab downward. This is illustrated in Figure 1. This results in compression at the top of the slab and tension in the bottom of the slab. The reverse situation, upward curling, occurs when the top of the slab is cooler than the bottom. Here, the springs on the edges l T Compression Tension Compression Figure l Depiction of Downward Slab Curling. (After Huang [3].) pull the slab downward, while the interior springs push the slab upward, as shown in Figure 2. This results in tension at the top of the slab and compression in the bottom portion. Curling occurs primarily due to daily temperature variations. [3] Complex equations for computing the stress in concrete pavements caused by curling were developed by Westergaard [4]. Huang provides simplified equations for computing the curling stress in a slab with finite dimensions [3]. Equations (1) and (2) from Huang are used to compute the curling stress in the x- and y-directions, respectively [3]: on = Mk, + vC ) (1) 2(1 - v2) ’ Eot ,At 6c! = ka + vC.) - (2) where: o'cx = curling stress in x- (longitudinal) direction for a finite slab, kPa do, = curling stress in y- (transverse) direction for a finite slab, kPa E = concrete modulus of elasticity, kPa or. = coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete, mm/mm/°C At = temperature differential between top and bottom of concrete slab, °C v = Poisson’s ratio for concrete C)( = correction factor for curling in a finite slab, x- (longitudinal) direction Cy = correction factor for curling in a finite slab, y- (transverse) direction. ~ 4‘ T Tension Compression Tension Figure 2 Depiction of Upward Slab Curling. (After Huang [3].) In these equations, Cx and Cy are correction factors which account for the finite dimensions of a slab [3]. These factors can be determined using a curve developed by Bradbury, which relates Cx and Cy to Lx/Z and Ly/f, respectively [5]. Lx and Ly are the respective length and width of the slab, as shown in Figure 3. The radius of relative stiffiress, f, is defined by equation (3) in [3]: 3 0.25 Eh 12(1 — v )k where: Z = radius of relative stiffness, m E = concrete modulus of elasticity, kPa h = concrete slab thickness, m V = Poisson’s ratio for concrete k = modulus of subgrade reaction, kPa/mm. Warping stresses can also be induced in J CP’s due to a moisture gradient. According to Huang, when the top of the slab has a lower moisture content than that at the bottom, the slab warps upward. This causes compressive stresses at the bottom of the slab and tensile stresses at the top of the slab. Warping is a seasonal phenomenon and therefore has relatively few stress cycles. It is difficult to determine the magnitude of warping stresses due to their dependence on many factors, such as relative humidity at the pavement surface, the free water in the concrete, and the moisture content of the support layers. [3] 10 l Outer Traffic Lane I b O Figure 3 L: Finite Slab with Circular Edge Load Condition. 11 Traffic loads are probably the most significant source of damage in causing fatigue cracking. When analyzing the stresses due to traffic loads, three different load conditions are usually considered: interior, edge, and corner. The edge load condition midway between the transverse joints is considered to be the critical load position with regard to fatigue cracking, as this is the location where maximum tensile stress typically occurs [3]. This is because the load is located far away from the joints, and thus does not benefit from the load transfer provided there by dowel bars [3]. It is also the critical load position because the load is placed at a free edge, producing the maximum bending stress. Figure 3 shows the placement of a circular edge load on a J CP. The arrow shows the direction of traffic. Westergaard developed equation (4) to compute the stress due to a circular loading at the critical edge load position [6]: (4) a _ 3(1+v)P ( E113 ] 184 41+l—v+l.l8(l+2v)a c_-1r(3-t-v)hz 3 2 E where: 6., = stress for circular edge load condition, kPa v = Poisson’s ratio for concrete P = applied load, kN h = concrete slab thickness, m E = concrete modulus of elasticity, kPa k = modulus of subgrade reaction, kPa/m a = radius of loaded area, m I? = radius of relative stiffness, m. 12 As noted previously, it is the repeated application of stresses that causes fatigue cracking in concrete. Damage due to cycles of curling, warping, and traffic stresses accumulates over time and eventually can cause fatigue cracking. The conventional practice used in fatigue analysis for pavements is to use Miner’s linear cumulative fatigue hypothesis [7]. In this hypothesis damage due to a given stress level is expressed in terms of a damage ratio, which is the ratio of the predicted to allowable number of load repetitions [7]. The damage ratios from all stress levels for each type of stress are summed. If this sum is equal or greater than I, fatigue cracking is assumed to occur [7]. According to Ioannides, Miner’s hypothesis provides only a rough approximation to reality and is used principally due to its ease of application [8]. Ioannides points to the dependence of fatigue strength on the sequence of loading, among other factors, in disputing the validity of Miner’s hypothesis, and suggests that more sophisticated methods of analysis, such as fracture mechanics, are needed to more accurately analyze fatigue in pavements [8]. In any event, Miner’s hypothesis is currently the most widely accepted method for analyzing fatigue in concrete pavements. To calculate the damage ratios due to the various stresses on a pavement, the allowable number of load applications for the particular stress level must be determined. This can be done by using an S-N curve, which is a curve relating the stress ratio (S) to the allowable number of load applications (N). The stress ratio is the ratio of the applied stress to the modulus of rupture of the concrete. N is measured in terms of ESAL’s (80 kN equivalent single axle loads). ESAL’s are described in more detail in [1]. For J CP’s the stresses due to curling and traffic can be computed using equations (1), (2), and (4) for each stress level. No readily 13 available equation for computing warping stresses exists. Stress ratios can be computed for the various stress levels of curling and traffic and the allowable number of load applications can then be computed for the respective stress levels. Damage ratios can then be determined for the various stress levels of curling and traffic by noting the respective number of stress applications. [3] When calculating the damage due to traffic, it must be remembered that the stress is being computed for the critical edge load condition. Therefore, the number of load repetitions due to traffic must be reduced since only a small portion of the total traffic will be applied at the edge location. It should also be considered that curling (and warping) stresses can be either additive or subtractive from the traffic stresses depending on the orientation of the curling and warping. The sum of the damage ratios must be kept under 1 to prevent fatigue cracking. Warping stresses should also be considered in the analysis. It should be noted that, in practice, curling and warping stresses are often neglected in pavement design for a variety of reasons, as discussed by Huang. [3] Plastic and Drying Shrinkage Plastic and drying shrinkage of concrete involve changes in volume of fresh and hardened concrete, respectively, and can lead to transverse cracking in JCP’s. According to Mindess and Young, plastic shrinkage is usually associated with surface cracking due to evaporation of water from the pavement surface and/or suction of water from the concrete by the base or subgrade. Such loss of water from the fresh concrete induces negative capillary pressures within the paste, causing it to contract. Contraction of the paste leads to rearrangement of the water particles within the concrete, and surface 14 cracking occurs. These negative capillary pressures and the associated surface cracking typically result when the rate of surface evaporation exceeds the rate of bleed water rise in the concrete. [9] Drying shrinkage involves volume changes in concrete due to loss of moisture in hardened concrete. These volume changes are resisted by friction between the slab and the support layer (base or subgrade), which results in tensile stresses in the concrete that cause transverse cracking. Joints are placed to control the location of this cracking. The mechanism of drying shrinkage is not well understood, but it is known that it involves a combination of reversible and irreversible shrinkage. Irreversible shrinkage is believed to result from changes in the bonding and arrangement of particles within the concrete rnicrostructure during hydration. Reversible shrinkage is attributed to changes in capillary stress, disjoining pressure, and surface free energy within the cement paste, as the relative humidity exposed to the concrete changes. [9] Interface Friction between Slab and Support Layer Variations in temperature and moisture conditions cause volume changes in a concrete slab. Increases in temperature and/or moisture lead to expansion and thus movement of the slab. Similarly, the slab will tend to contract if the temperature and/or moisture are decreased. As the slab attempts to expand or contract, frictional stresses between the slab and the support layer (base or subgrade) resist the movement. These frictional stresses induce tensile stresses in the concrete, which can lead to transverse cracking. Joints help to control the location of this cracking as well. JRCP’s utilize steel reinforcement to hold cracked concrete together under temperature variations. [3] 15 Settlement of Base and/or Subgrade ' Transverse cracking can also occur if the base and/or subgrade material settles or consolidates significantly beneath the concrete slab. This settlement or consolidation causes a loss of support under the slab and cracking can develop upon traffic loading. [10] Factors Affecting the Occurrence of Transverse Cracks in JCP’s Past studies have found that a variety of factors contribute to the formation of transverse cracks in JCP’s. A review of these findings, sectioned by the type of cracking induced, follows. Fatigue Cracking The literature reveals that many factors affect the formation of fatigue cracks in J CP’s. Those factors which influence curling, warping, and traffic stresses inherently affect fatigue cracking. Bradbury’s curve, described earlier, indicates that a larger joint spacing (Lx) corresponds to a higher value for Cx (up to Lx = 8.58; increasing Lx beyond this value causes a slight decrease in Cx and eventually a plateauing of Cx when Lx reaches a value of 12.06) [5]. It can be seen from equation (1) that a higher Cx value causes a higher curling stress. Increasing the joint spacing also causes a larger warping stress [10]. Equations (1) and (2) also indicate that an increase in the temperature differential between the top and the bottom of the slab increases the curling stress. Similarly, an increase in the moisture gradient throughout the slab can be expected to increase the warping stress. Thus, large variations in daily temperatures and seasonal l6 moisture contents increase the magnitude of curling and warping stresses. These larger curling and warping stresses increase the probability of fatigue cracking. Support conditions are among the many factors that affect stresses due to traffic loads in J CP’s. Darter et al. showed that increasing the k-value leads to a decrease in the amount of transverse cracking [10]. When no temperature gradient is present in a slab, it was found that increasing the subgrade or base stiffness will decrease the tensile stresses in the slab due to traffic loads [10]. However, when a temperature differential does exist, a stiffer subgrade or base can lead to increased combined curling and traffic load stresses [10]. Higher traffic stresses lead to a greater chance of fatigue cracking. Smith et al. found that use of a permeable base layer in combination with a separator layer and a longitudinal edge drain collector system leads to fewer transverse cracks than designs with a dense-graded base layer [1 1]. This last finding points to the need for providing good drainage to the pavement in addition to reducing stresses in order to avoid cracking. Increased slab thickness was found to decrease the amount of fatigue cracks by reducing tensile stresses due to traffic, according to a study by Smith et al. Less fatigue cracks were also shown to be associated with higher concrete strengths. This study also showed that widened slabs (4.0 to 4.3 m in width) with traffic stripes painted at 3.7 m lead to fewer transverse cracks. Widened slabs move traffic away from the edge location of the pavement, thus avoiding the critical edge load condition and reducing the potential for fatigue cracking. Poor load transfer at joints can also contribute to transverse cracking in JCP’s by increasing the tensile stresses in the slab due to traffic loads. Non-working joints can result from malfunctioning, misaligned, or corroded dowel bars. [11] 17 Other studies have shown that shoulder designs affect the occurrence of fatigue cracks. Compared to other shoulder types (e.g., asphalt shoulders), tied concrete shoulders lead to lower fatigue stresses and thus fewer fatigue cracks [10]. These shoulders effectively transform an edge loading at the mainline pavement - shoulder joint into an interior load. The slab and shoulder are tied together, effectively becoming one composite support system for the load. The bending stress and thus tensile stress in the concrete is reduced as the load is no longer concentrated at a free edge. The relationship between sympathy joints in concrete shoulders and transverse cracks in the mainline pavement was noted by Darter [12]. Sympathy joints, which are shoulder joints that have joint spacing shorter than that for the mainline pavement, were found to cause transverse cracking in the mainline pavement adjacent to the shoulder joints [12]. Such cracks are the result of differential responses within the slab and the shoulder to thermal expansion and contraction. Since the slab and shoulder are tied together and each responds differently to thermal variations due to the difference in joint locations, cracking results as tensile stresses are induced. Plastic and Drying Shrinkage Cracking Several factors are known to contribute to plastic and drying shrinkage cracking. Mindess and Young explain that high wind velocity, low relative humidity, high air temperature, and high concrete temperature are the conditions most likely to cause plastic shrinkage cracking. These conditions lead to a high rate of surface evaporation in the concrete. Drying shrinkage is a more complex phenomenon and is thus influenced by more factors. A high water-to-cement ratio leads to greater porosity in the cement paste l8 and thus more potential for drying shrinkage. Higher curing temperatures help to reduce the amount of drying shrinkage, especially irreversible shrinkage. Cement composition also affects drying shrinkage. It is believed that sulfoaluminates in the paste contribute to drying shrinkage. The use of admixtures can also affect the amount of drying shrinkage of the paste. “A combination of high aggregate content, moderate cement content, and low moisture content lessen the potential for drying shrinkage. Stiffer aggregates reduce the amount of drying shrinkage as well by providing restraint to volume changes in the paste. Thicker slabs decrease the amount of shrinkage as the path of diffusion for moisture loss is lengthened. Drying shrinkage also decreases with increasing relative humidity. The likelihood of cracking due to drying shrinkage is enhanced by higher amounts of friction between the slab and support layer. [9] Cracking Due to Slab - Support Layer Interface Friction As was discussed earlier, longitudinal slab movements (contraction and expansion) result from changes in temperature and moisture within the slab. Cracking can occur due to the friction developed between the slab and support layer during these movements. Greater amounts of temperature and moisture change lead to more movement of the slab and thus greater potential for cracking. Also, a higher amount of friction between slab and support layer will increase the likelihood of cracking. This type of cracking will further be more likely as the ratio of slab length (joint spacing) to slab thickness increases. [2] l9 Cracking Due to Base and/or Subgrade Settlement Instability of the support layers to the slab can lead to settlement or consolidation of these layers and eventual transverse cracking in the area where such an event occurs. In one report, Darter attributed transverse cracking to settlement caused by the use of a rounded stone base in combination with a sand subbase without a separation layer [12]. The combination of a stone base and sand subbase led to instability of the support structure to the slab under traffic loading. Poor drainage capabilities and improper compaction of dense-graded base layers may also lead to consolidation of support layers. LOAD TRANSFER ACROSS TRANSVERSE CRACKS IN JCP’s Importance of Load Transfer across Transverse Cracks in JCP’s Load transfer across transverse cracks is critical to the maintenance of adequately performing JCP’s. Both sides of a crack share in supporting the load, as part of the load is transferred from one side of the crack to the other, reducing the deflections and consequent damage to the pavement [l3]. Raja and Snyder explain how low severity cracks can become medium to high severity fatigue cracks through a loss of load transfer [14]. They explain that hairline transverse cracks often develop in the early life of J CP’s due to shrinkage stresses and frictional stresses induced by thermal movements of the slab [14]. Opening of the cracks over time leads to intrusion of water and incompressibles into the cracks and loss of load transfer, which causes increased slab deflections [14]. These conditions can lead to pumping, faulting, and spalling at the crack [14]. Pumping involves the expulsion of water from beneath the pavement due to slab deflections [2]. Support material can become suspended in the lost water, which results 20 in a loss of support under the slab [2]. This loss of support causes increased stresses due to traffic and thus can lead to fatigue cracking [14]. Comer breaks, which are broken sections of pavement at a slab comer, can also result from increased stresses at the crack due to this loss of support [2]. Faulting is a differential vertical displacement of two sides of adjacent slab fragments [2]. It is caused by a high velocity transfer of water and suspended solids from beneath the leave side to beneath the approach side of a crack as a wheel load crosses the discontinuity [2]. This leads to a buildup of the suspended material under the approach side of the crack [2]. Here, “approach side” refers to the side before a crack as a load approaches the crack, and “leave side” refers to the side after the crack. Crack spalling is the deterioration of a crack usually caused by excessive compressive stresses developed between the concrete and entrapped incompressibles within the crack [2]. Transverse cracks (fatigue cracks, shrinkage cracks, etc.) demonstrating spalling and/or faulting lose serviceability as these distresses cause increased roughness and user discomfort [15]. Loss of load transfer across transverse cracks also increases the internal tensile stresses within the pavement and can lead to more fatigue cracking and loss of structural integrity in the pavement [16]. The next section describes the two common mechanisms of load transfer across transverse cracks: aggregate interlock and to a lesser extent reinforcement dowel action (in J RCP’s). Shear Transfer Mechanisms Aggregate Interlock Aggregate interlock is the primary mode of load transfer across transverse cracks in JCP’s. For the purposes of this study, aggregate interlock will be considered to be the 21 only mechanism contributing to load transfer across such cracks. This shear transfer mechanism is effective in providing load transfer as long as the crack faces are kept close to one another [17]. This finding was clearly affirmed by Benkelman in 1933 when he declared, “. . . when roughened edges of two slabs are held firmly together, the aggregate interlock may be expected to ftmction perfectly and permanently as a load-transfer medium” [18]. When a crack develops in a J CP, the two crack faces are usually rough and irregular [17]. Such roughness is due to aggregate protrusions from the crack face and irregular texture of the cement matrix. When one side of the crack is subjected to an approaching wheel load, a differential vertical displacement of the two slab fragments occurs, and results in the protrusions of one crack face coming into contact with the matrix of the other crack face [14]. A combination of bearing and fiiction between the aggregate particles of the two crack faces inhibits further differential movement between the slab fragments [17]. Aggregate interlock is the name given to this mechanism that allows a portion of the wheel load to be transferred from one side of a crack to the other. through shear, as it involves an interlocking of aggregate particles across a crack plane [14]. There are several models that have been developed to describe this mechanism. Theoretical Models Laible et al. proposed one model which divides the crack face roughness into “local” and “global” components. Local roughness causes interlocking of the fine aggregates through a crushing or hearing action. Global roughness involves the interlocking of coarse aggregate particles through a sliding and overriding action. Local roughness is presumed to dominate the aggregate interlock mechanism at small crack 22 widths (less than 0.25 mm), whereas global roughness controls the mechanism for wider cracks. [19] A second model depicts aggregate interlock as a phenomenon caused by frictional sliding of two rigid surfaces. Jimenez et al. represent these rigid surfaces by a sawtooth shape [20]. Fardis and Buyukozturk use a series of parabolic segments to depict the surfaces [21]. Walraven proposed a model of aggregate interlock that considers concrete to be a two-phase material consisting of aggregate and a cement matrix. Concrete is modeled as a distribution of rigid spheres of a range of sizes embedded to varying depths within a deformable rigid-plastic matrix. Shear forces are considered to be resisted through a combination of sliding and crushing of the aggregates (rigid spheres) into and over the plastic cement matrix. Initially, a sliding of the opposite crack faces occurs, where the aggregates on one side slide against the cement matrix on the other side. High contact stresses develop as the contact area is reduced and crushing of the aggregates into the matrix occurs. Eventually, equilibrium of the forces is reached and further plastic deformation ceases. This model does not consider contact between aggregates from opposing sides of the crack surface. [22] Millard and Johnson performed a laboratory investigation to test the validity of the above models. Test results did not support the local and global roughness model or the frictional sliding model. However, the two-phase aggregate interlock model did seem to provide consistent agreement with their test results. [23] 23 Reinforcement Dowel Action JRCP’s usually contain longitudinal reinforcing steel that is designed to prevent widening of transverse cracks by absorbing tensile stresses in the concrete caused by temperature and/or moisture variations. Assuming that this reinforcement does provide such restraint to crack widening, it is reasonable to believe that it also aids the aggregate interlock mechanism by keeping the crack faces in close contact. In this way, reinforcement in JRCP’s could affect load transfer. Reinforcement can also restrain crack widening caused by overriding of aggregate particles during aggregate interlock [24]. Here, frictional forces induced by the reinforcement contribute to the aggregate interlock resistance [24]. This is another example of how reinforcement could affect load transfer. However, in each of these cases, the mechanism of load transfer would still be aggregate interlock. Some investigators believe that reinforcement in J RCP’s can provide a mechanism for load transfer by itself through dowel action. Theoretical models for the mechanism of this dowel action are discussed in the following section. It should be noted that this study neglects the effect of steel reinforcement in J RCP’s on load transfer and the possible contribution of this reinforcement as a load transfer mechanism for several reasons. First, it is often found that the reinforcement in J RCP’s has dropped to the bottom or risen to the top of the slab for a variety of reasons. Where such movement has occurred, the reinforcement will have a minimal effect in restraining crack widening. Due to the seemingly frequent occurrence of this misplaced reinforcement, it was believed to be prudent to neglect its effect on load transfer in this study. It was also believed that it was not appropriate to consider this reinforcement to be a source of load 24 transfer, as it is designed merely to provide resistance against tensile stresses due to temperature and/or moisture changes. The steel is not necessarily and most likely not able to provide a significant contribution to load transfer through dowel action. Assuming that the reinforcement does provide some amount of load transfer, it would be difficult to differentiate and assess the relative affects of each mechanism (aggregate interlock and dowel action) on load transfer in a field study such as the one described here. A final reason why reinforcing steel in J RCP’s was not considered to affect or contribute to load transfer in this study is that in many cases it is found that the reinforcement has actually been sheared off during formation of the crack, thus rendering it useless for either purpose. Theoretical Models Three mechanisms - direct shear, kinking, and flexure of the bars - have been proposed to explain the shear transfer of load through dowel action in cracked reinforced concrete [25]. Direct shear and kinking of the bars would be the principal mechanisms of dowel action if the concrete supporting the reinforcement was considered to be rigid [23]. However, it is known that substantial deformation of the concrete occurs, and thus flexure of the bars is the primary mechanism of dowel action [26]. Millard modeled this flexure mechanism by considering the reinforcing bar as a beam on an elastic foundation [27]. Millard and Johnson note, however, that only the initial shear stiffness can be determined using this model. High stress concentrations in the concrete supporting the reinforcement produce non-linear behavior and negate the use of this model at higher stress levels. Such non-linear behavior is attributed to crushing or 25 splitting of the concrete supporting the bars and/or plastic yielding of the bars. Equations to predict the non-linear shear stiffness were developed and presented in [23]. Test results indicate that these equations provide a good approximation of the shear stiffness due to the dowel action mechanism. [23] Quantification of Load Transfer Load transfer across discontinuities in J CP’s is commonly quantified by a term called load transfer efficiency (LTE). Expressed as a percentage, LTE gives an indication of the effectiveness of a crack in transferring load. Computation of load transfer efficiency based on deflections near the crack under an applied load is a very useful method of determining the LTE. The load transfer efficiency computed using this approach is termed the deflection load transfer efficiency (LTE5) [28]. Use of LTE5 assumes that the amount of load transfer across a crack is directly proportional to the relative deflections of the unloaded to loaded sides of the crack [18]. LTE5 was used in this study to characterize the ability of cracks and joints to transfer load. Deflection load transfer efficiency was computed in this study by using equation (5) [28]: 8 er:8 = S—‘i x 100% (5) r. where: LTE5 = deflection load transfer efficiency, % 8U = deflection on the unloaded side of a crack or joint, pm in, = deflection on the loaded side of a crack or joint, run. 26 This definition of load transfer efficiency was adopted for this study for two reasons. First, it is relatively simple in concept and thus easily interpreted. Secondly, and more importantly, it was used because LTE5 can be easily computed using field data from a falling weight deflectometer (FWD), which was used in this study. An FWD is a device that applies an impulse load, using a 300 mm diameter circular load plate, to a pavement and measures the resulting pavement deflections through a series of sensors. Deflection data for computing LTE:> is thus readily available when this device is used. Use of the FWD in collecting deflection data to be used for data analysis purposes in this study is discussed in more detail in Chapter IV. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the meaning of LTE5 by considering the two extreme cases - 0% and 100% deflection load transfer efficiency, respectively. In these figures, a load P is shown to be applied on one side of a crack or joint. The resulting deflections are depicted in the figures as well. It is seen in Figure 4 that when there is no load transferred (0% LTEs), the unloaded side of the slab has no deflection and thus does not share in the carrying of the load. As noted earlier in this section, this is the worst-case scenario, as all the load must be canied by one side and increased deflections result. This can eventually lead to other distresses in the area of the crack or joint. The best-case scenario is depicted in Figure 5, where the LTE5 is 100%. Here, it can be seen that the deflections on each side of the crack or joint due to the applied load P are equal. Thus, the load is being equally shared by both sides of the discontinuity, and the minimum amount of damage is inflicted on the pavement. The ability of a crack to maintain its load transfer efficiency over time is sometimes referred to as load transfer endurance. Several measures of this endurance 27 (fit; ’I‘ Crack/Joint E 5u=0 Figure 4 Depiction of 0% Deflection Load Transfer Efficiency. (After Buch [29l-) _ L.— 5(— 5 5n Crack/Joint 7i 5L=5u Figure 5 Depiction of 100% Deflection Load Transfer Efficiency. (After Buch [2910 28 have been formulated by investigators. Colley and Humphrey defined the Endurance Index as one such indicator of load transfer endurance [30]. No such indicators of load transfer endurance were computed in this study, although some of the factors which have been found in previous studies to affect load transfer endurance will be discussed in the next section. Computation of an endurance index requires load transfer data throughout the life of the pavement, and is thus more suited for laboratory studies or long-term pavement field testing. Besides LTE5, other pavement performance parameters were used in this study to characterize the ability of a crack or joint to transfer load. The transferred load efficiency (TLE) was one such parameter [28]. TLE quantifies load transfer efficiency in terms of load rather than in terms of deflection [28]. The total load transferred from the loaded to the unloaded side of a crack or joint along its entire length is given by a parameter termed PT [28]. This parameter was also considered in this study. AGG, which characterizes the shear stiffness due to aggregate interlock of a crack or joint per unit length of the discontinuity, was another parameter determined in this study [28]. All three of these parameters were derived from LTEa values. The procedures and equations used to determine these parameters are discussed in Chapter V. Another parameter, 1, describes the loss of shear stress across a crack or joint under loading [29]. It is defined by equation (6) in [29]: T = (5L -5Uh)x AGG (6) 29 where: t = loss of shear stress across a crack or joint, kPa SL = deflection on the loaded side of a crack or joint, mm 5U = deflection on the unloaded side of a crack or joint, mm AGG = aggregate interlock shear stiffness per unit length of a discontinuity, kPa h = concrete slab thickness, mm. 1 was not considered in this study, as interpretation of its meaning is somewhat more difficult than that for the other parameters. Factors Affecting the Efficiency and Endurance of Load Transfer across Transverse Cracks in JCP’s Many factors have been found in previous studies to affect the efficiency and endurance of load transfer across transverse cracks in JCP’s. A summary of the findings from these studies is given in this section. These factors are categorized as: crack characteristics, aggregate properties, support conditions, concrete slab properties and parameters, reinforcement properties, environmental conditions, and load conditions. Crack Characteristics Numerous investigators have found a relationship between crack width and load transfer efficiency. Colley and Humphrey determined that as joint opening increases, the effectiveness (or efficiency) of load transfer by aggregate interlock decreases [30]. Benkelman also found that increasing the crack width can significantly decrease the load transfer efficiency [1 8]. 30 Other researchers have noted the same trend, but in terms of shear stiffness. Soroushian et al. found that decreasing the crack width caused a significant increase in the shear stiffness of the aggregate interlock mechanism [24]. Fenwick and Paulay and Paulay and Loeber also found that the aggregate interlock shear stiffness increases as the crack width decreases [31, 17]. Increasing the shear stiffness translates to a lower amount of vertical differential deflection between the opposing sides of a crack plane for a given load. Less differential deflection generally corresponds to a greater efficiency in load transfer across the crack. Snyder explains why increasing crack width causes a decrease in shear stiffness [14]. As the crack width increases, a loss in contact between the opposing crack faces results, and thus more differential vertical movement is required for sufficient contact to be made and load transferred across the crack [14]. NCHRP Synthesis 19 provides threshold limits of 0.9 to 1.0 mm for crack opening, beyond which aggregate interlock is ineffective in transferring load [32]. An interesting relationship between number of cracks per slab and crack width was found by Benkelman. For jointed plain concrete pavements, it was found that crack width decreased as the number of cracks per slab increased. This is likely due to a decrease in the length of the slab fragments with a greater amount of cracks per slab. A shorter slab fragment should result in a smaller crack width than a longer slab fragment when the fragments are contracted due to temperature changes. Noting the relationship described above between crack width and load transfer efficiency, it might be inferred that as the number of cracks per slab increases, the load transfer efficiency of the cracks increases. This relationship between number of cracks per slab and crack width did not 31 hold true for reinforced pavements, presumably due to the reinforcement effectively restraining crack widening. [18] Aggregate Properties Aggregate shape, size, hardness, type, gradation, and treatment as well as the mode of fracture through the concrete (around or through the aggregates) have all been found to significantly affect aggregate interlock load transfer across cracks in concrete. The effect of coarse aggregate shape was studied by Colley and Humphrey [30]. It was found that crushed stone aggregates provided better load transfer effectiveness and endurance than natural rounded aggregates [30]. The increased angularity of crushed aggregates provides more crack face texture for aggregate interlock. The literature also reveals that the size of the coarse aggregate can significantly affect aggregate interlock load transfer, especially at larger crack widths. Nowlen found that increasing the aggregate size significantly improves load transfer effectiveness, particularly at large joint widths [13]. It was also shown that increased aggregate size improves the endurance of load transfer [13]. Bruinsma et al. concluded in their study that it is likely that the use of large coarse aggregates in the concrete mix provides improved load transfer efficiency and endurance, provided that all other factors are the same, including concrete strength [33]. This improved performance is the result of less vertical differential movement across the crack with larger particles [33]. Soroushian et al. also found that increased aggregate size can improve the shear stiffness, and consequently the load transfer efficiency, due to aggregate interlock [24]. 32 Loss of aggregate interlock occurs over time due to abrasion of the crack faces. Thus, harder aggregates, which are more resistant to wear, would be expected to demonstrate better load transfer endurance than softer aggregates. Nowlen confirmed this notion, as he showed that harder aggregates do indeed lead to improved load transfer endurance. [13] Bruinsma et al. studied the effect of coarse aggregate type on load transfer efficiency and endurance through a laboratory investigation. Four aggregate types were considered - limestone, natural gravel, slag, and recycled concrete aggregate. Limestone and natural gravel specimens showed better load transfer efficiency and endurance than specimens using slag or recycled concrete aggregates. It was explained that this is probably due to smoother crack faces associated with the slag and recycled concrete specimens. These manufactured aggregates are usually assumed to be weaker than the natural aggregates (limestone and natural gravel). The manufactured aggregate specimens thus have smooth crack faces, as cracks propagate through the relatively weaker aggregates rather than around them. This results in a lower amount of aggregate protrusions from the surface and thus less crack face texture available for aggregate interlock. [33] The mode of fracture in concrete (i.e., around or through the aggregates) has indeed been cited as an important factor influencing load transfer characteristics [14]. When cracks propagate around the aggregates, more aggregate pullouts occur, which results in a rougher crack face [14]. Increased load transfer efficiency and endurance is generally associated with a rougher crack face. Nowlen found that the age of the concrete at time of fracture has a significant effect on the mode of fracture [13]. It was found that 33 early fractures result in more aggregate pullouts due to weaker aggregate-paste bond strengths [1 3]. Fractures ocdurring at later ages lead to less pullouts as this bond strength has been increased and cracks are more likely to propagate through the aggregates [l 3]. Thus, it was concluded that early fractures lead to improved load transfer efficiency and endurance [l 3]. Sutherland and Cashell noted that the mode of concrete fracture can explain why natural rounded gravel aggregates sometimes demonstrate better load transfer behavior than more angular, crushed limestone. The higher aggregate-paste bond strength developed in the limestone specimens leads to more cracks propagating through the aggregates. A greater amount of aggregate pullouts result for the natural gravel specimens, as the bond strength is weaker. Thus, better load transfer efficiency is found for the natural gravel specimens. [34] The effect of aggregate gradation on shear stiffness due to aggregate interlock was examined by Walraven. Two gradations were considered in his study. One gradation was formulated according to the Fuller curve, and the other had a large proportion of sand. It was found that at large crack widths the finer aggregate gradation had a significantly lower shear stiffness than the gradation using the Fuller curve. Thus, the finer aggregate gradation would be expected to have a lower load transfer efficiency than the coarser gradation. This is due to less available contact area for the finer aggregate gradation at large crack widths. [22] The effect of coarse aggregate treatment on load transfer endurance was studied by Bruinsma et al. The load transfer characteristics of virgin aggregate specimens, recycled concrete aggregate specimens, and blends of virgin and recycled concrete 34 aggregate specimens were compared. Virgin aggregate specimens showed significantly better load transfer endurance than recycled concrete aggregate specimens. Blending recycled concrete aggregate with virgin aggregate of equal or greater size resulted in an endurance level between that of the virgin aggregate and recycled concrete aggregate specimens. The differences in performance of the various aggregate treatments was attributed to differences in the crack face textures. The recycled concrete aggregate specimen had the smoothest crack face according to visual observations. The improved performance of the blended specimen over the recycled concrete aggregate specimen was probably due to a rougher crack face texture. It was also found in this study that adding virgin aggregate of a larger size to normally graded virgin aggregate results in improved load transfer endurance. [33] Vandenbossche and Snyder determined relationships between aggregate properties and load transfer efficiency indirectly by performing Volumetric Surface Texture (V ST) testing. This relatively new test procedure, which quantifies the surface texture of a crack face, was utilized in the research for this thesis to determine the effect of aggregate type on surface texture. It is discussed in more detail in Chapter VI. Vandenbossche and Snyder found that increasing the coarse aggregate size leads to a rougher volumetric surface texture. They also determined that stronger aggregates such as limestone result in a rougher volumetric surface texture than weaker aggregates such as slag. Regarding aggregate treatment, a rougher texture was found for virgin aggregate specimens than for specimens with recycled concrete aggregate. This was attributed to the reduced amount of aggregates at the crack face for recycled specimens, as they are composed of not only aggregates but also old mortar. Blending recycled aggregate with virgin aggregates did 35 lead to improvements in the volumetric surface texture. It was also found in their study that rougher volumetric surface texture corresponds to higher load transfer efficiency. Thus, it may be inferred that increased aggregate size, stronger aggregates, and/or use of virgin or blended aggregates lead to improved load transfer efficiency. [3 5] Support Conditions The support provided to the slab has a significant effect on the endurance of load transfer across transverse cracks in J CP’s. Improved support can be accomplished by using a stiff base layer and/or a stiff subgrade. Colley and Humphrey found that use of a cement-treated base significantly increases the endurance of load transfer [30]. They also showed that increasing the modulus of subgrade reaction increases the load transfer endurance [30]. Bruinsma et al. confirmed these findings, as they’found through laboratory testing that increasing the foundation stiffness leads to significantly improved endurance of load transfer [33]. The stiffer foundation reduces slab deflections and allows more load to be transferred into the foundation, reducing the amount of load carried by aggregate interlock and the reinforcing steel [33]. It is interesting to note that despite the beneficial effect that increasing the modulus of subgrade reaction has on load transfer endurance, it can actually decrease the deflection load transfer efficiency [28]. Concrete Slab Properties and Parameters Load transfer efficiency and endurance has also been found to be affected by the concrete slab properties and parameters. It was shown by Soroushian et al. that increasing the concrete compressive strength increases the aggregate interlock shear 36 stiffness [24]. Walraven also found this relationship to be true [22]. Thus, the load transfer efficiency can be expected to increase with increasing concrete strength. The slab thickness has been found to affect both the efficiency and endurance of load transfer across cracks. Aggregate interlock load transfer efficiency increases proportionally with the increased cross-sectional area available for shear resistance that is associated with increased slab thickness [2]. Colley and Humphrey determined that increasing the slab thickness also significantly increases the load transfer endurance [30]. Bruinsma et al. studied the effect of slab tension on load transfer efficiency and endurance of transverse cracks for JRCP’s. Increasing the slab tension was found to decrease both the efficiency and endurance of load transfer. This was attributed to higher strains and stresses in the reinforcing steel and larger crack widths with high slab tension. Increasing the tension leads to greater strain in the steel, which results in wider crack openings. Larger crack widths are associated with reduced amounts of contact area between the crack faces, and thus, lower load transfer efficiency. Increased abrasion of the crack faces also results and leads to a lower load transfer endurance. It was also suggested that the large crack widths force a greater amount of load to be carried by dowel action of the reinforcing steel. Consequently, fatigue failures of this reinforcing steel are more likely to occur, and reduced load transfer endurance results. Increased slab tension can result from longer slab lengths and/or greater slab-support layer friction. Thus, reducing the joint spacing and/or the slab-support layer friction should lead to improved load transfer efficiency and endurance of transverse cracks. It was also concluded in this study that using both a stiffer foundation and reduced slab tension leads 37 to an improvement in load transfer endurance greater than the sum of the individual improvements which result from using either alone. [33] Reinforcement Properties The amount, size, and type of reinforcement used in J RCP’s have been found to affect the load transfer characteristics of transverse cracks in these pavements. Larger wires and a greater amount of reinforcement were found to increase load transfer endurance in a laboratory study by Bruinsma et al. [33]. The increased size and quantity of reinforcement reduces the strain in the steel, which leads to smaller crack widths [33]. Aggregate interlock can thus be maintained longer as abrasion of the crack faces is reduced through smaller crack widths [33]. Fatigue stresses in the steel are also reduced with narrower crack widths [33]. Thus, reinforcement dowel action could also be maintained longer with increased reinforcement size and quantity [33]. Millard and Johnson found that a larger reinforcement size increases shear stiffness (and thus load transfer efficiency), but tends to induce more spalling at the crack faces [23]. Bruinsma et al. also studied the effect of reinforcement type on load transfer endurance. Deformed wire mesh was found to improve load transfer endurance, when compared to smooth wire mesh. The improved bond between the concrete and deformed steel restricts strain in the steel to the vicinity of the crack. This results in a smaller crack width, and thus, improved aggregate interlock and reduced fatigue stresses in the steel. [33] An innovative design, utilized in the study by Bruinsma et al., using large deformed bars proved to provide significant improvements to load transfer endurance. 38 An unusually strong bond between the bars and the concrete kept the crack opening very tight. Thus, improved aggregate interlock and reduced stresses in the steel resulted. Use of these large deformed bars also provided substantial improvement to the shear and bending resistance of the steel. These effects led to increased endurance of load transfer across the transverse cracks in the study. [33] The effect of combining a stiff foundation with an increased quantity of large reinforcing steel on load transfer endurance was also examined by Bruinsma et al. This effect was found to depend on the aggregate type. Recycled concrete aggregate specimens derived benefit from both of the improvements. Gravel specimens were found to be significantly improved only by the use of the stiffer foundation. Hence, it is believed that a stiffer foundation improves load transfer endurance for all aggregate types, but use of increased reinforcement size and quantity mainly improves performance for specimens comprised of aggregates with lower surface texture. [33] Combining reduced slab tension and a deformed wire mesh was found to provide an increase in load transfer endurance approximately equal to the sum of using either improvement alone. Thus, using both a deformed wire mesh and a shorter slab length and/or reduced slab-support layer friction should result in better load transfer endurance. [33] Environmental Conditions Climatic factors such as temperature and moisture also affect the load transfer efficiency across transverse cracks in J CP’s. Seasonal variations in the average temperature lead to differences in the shear stiffness across these cracks. As the average 39 temperature decreases from summer to winter, the shear stiffness (and thus load transfer efficiency) decreases as well. This decrease can be attributed to thermal contraction of the slab at lower temperatures, which results in a greater crack width and thus less load transfer efficiency across the cracks. [36] Daily temperature variations also affect aggregate interlock load transfer efficiency. If a significant temperature variation occurs between nighttime and daytime, slab curling will take place. For example, high daytime temperatures cause a strong positive temperature differential (top of slab is warmer than bottom), which results in downward curling of the slab fragments for cracked slabs. This curling reduces the crack width at the pavement surface and allows for a higher load transfer efficiency due to the increased amount of contact between the opposing crack faces. [16] Seasonal moisture variations can cause warping of the slab, which affects load transfer efficiency [37]. Slab warping is particularly an issue in climates that experience dry, low humidity conditions [10]. In such climates, a substantial amount of drying of the slab may occur following a wet season, and this would result in an upward warping of the slab fragments in a cracked slab [10]. Upward warping results in a greater crack width at the pavement surface, which reduces the load transfer efficiency across the crack. The temperature and weather conditions that existed at the time of paving can also influence the load transfer efficiency of transverse cracks in J CP’s. If cold and humid ambient conditions prevail during paving, a lower temperature than usual will be required to cause expansion of the pavement during its service life. Thus, low temperatures in the winter season may be associated with relatively narrow crack widths and high load transfer efficiency in such circumstances. [3 8] 4o Load Conditions The load magnitude, number of load repetitions, and location of load (approach vs. leave side of crack) for inclined cracks have been found to significantly affect load transfer efficiency and endurance across transverse cracks. Colley and Humphrey found that load transfer endurance decreases as the magnitude of the load increases. Furthermore, they found that load transfer endurance is not significantly affected by loads less than some critical value. Such light loads cause little to no degradation of the crack faces and thus have no significant effect on load transfer. [30] Colley and Humphrey also verified the intuitively obvious relationship between load repetitions and load transfer effectiveness (or efficiency). That is, they determined that as the number of load repetitions increases, load transfer effectiveness decreases. An interesting finding was made, however, that approximately 90% of effectiveness loss occurs during the initial 500,000 load repetitions. [30] An inclination of a crack throughout its depth affects its deflection load transfer efficiency. Where such an inclined crack exists, the approach and leave side LTE5’s will be significantly different. An inclined crack subjected to loads P1 and P2 on the approach and leave sides, respectively, is shown in Figure 6. In this case, the approach side LTEa will be higher than the leave side LTE5. When P. is applied to the approach side, the loaded side is able to rest on the unloaded side of the slab, and good contact and aggregate interlock results. When P2 is applied to the leave side, the loaded side has little contact with the unloaded side, and the load is primarily canied by the leave side alone. Thus, for inclined cracks, load transfer efficiency will be higher on the side which rests on the favorably inclined edge of the adjacent slab fragment. [16] 41 P1 P2 Approach Side C ck Leave Side LTEa, Approach > LTES, Leave Figure 6 Influence of Load Location on LTE5 for Inclined Cracks. (After Pohlete et al. [16].) 42 Other Eflects Most of the factors that have been found to affect load transfer efficiency and endurance across transverse cracks in J CP’s have been discussed in this section. There are certainly other factors that also have effects on crack performance, but an exhaustive list of these factors is beyond the scope of this thesis. However, two other factors will be briefly discussed here. The effectiveness of the joints in accommodating slab movements will affect the efficiency and endurance of load transfer across nearby transverse cracks. Misaligned or corroded dowel bars, malfunctioning dowel assemblies, and the presence of expansion joints can each result in substantial crack movements. The resulting opening in the cracks can lead to significant losses in load transfer efficiency and endurance. [14] The age of a pavement has an indirect effect on decreasing the load transfer efficiency of transverse cracks. As the pavement ages, it is subjected to more cycles of crack opening and closing, more applications of deicing salts which can corrode reinforcement, more freeze-thaw cycles, and so on. Thus, if everything else is held constant, cracks in older pavements would be expected to have lower load transfer efficiencies. [15] 43 - CHAPTER III - Literature Review 11 — Rehabilitation/Resurfacing Methods for JCP’s with Transverse Cracking OVERVIEW ’ A review of some of the common procedures used in rehabilitating/resurfacing cracked J CP’s was conducted in this study. Since this study was partially focused on development and demonstration of methods that can be used to assess when and how to repair cracked J CP’s, it was felt that such a review would provide pertinent background information to the reader. Although this review does not cover all available rehabilitation/resurfacing techniques for cracked J CP’s, it does provide an indication of some of the types of actions that can be performed to restore integrity to such pavements. Many alternatives are available for rehabilitating or resurfacing JCP’s with transverse cracks. Selection of the appropriate actions to be used on a particular pavement will depend on many factors, such as the overall existing pavement condition, the causes of the various distresses, and the cost/benefit ratio of employing the respective actions. Thus, all distresses associated with a cracked J CP must be identified and an evaluation of the causes of these distresses must be performed prior to selecting the rehabilitation/resurfacing actions to be taken on the pavement. Destructive (e.g., coring) and nondestructive (e.g., deflection testing) test methods can be used to evaluate the condition of the pavement and investigate the causes of the individual distresses. Several of the common actions used to repair existing transverse cracks and crack-related distresses and prevent their reoccurrence are discussed in this chapter. Frequently, a combination of two or more of these actions are utilized to effectively 44 rehabilitate the cracked slabs. Some overlay alternatives for resurfacing cracked J CP’s are also discussed here. The actions considered here include: “do nothing,” full-depth repair, load transfer restoration, slab stabilization, provision of improved edge support, diamond grinding, crack sealing, unbonded concrete overlay, bonded concrete overlay, and asphalt overlay. Each of these alternatives are briefly discussed with regard to: 1) when the action is feasible for use, 2) the procedures involved in carrying out the action, and 3) suggested concurrent work. REHABILITATION/RESURFACING METHODS “Do Nothing” Alternative Feasible Conditions for Use Transverse hairline cracks that extend only partially through the depth of the slab require no rehabilitation. The suggested action is therefore the “do nothing” alternative. Such cracks, which are ofien the result of plastic shrinkage, do not allow significant amounts of water to penetrate the pavement substructure and usually have a negligible effect on the serviceability of the pavement. [39] Full-Depth Repair Feasible Conditions for Use Full-depth repairs can be used to restore pavement rideability and structural integrity to a cracked J CP. Transverse cracks demonstrating severe spalling, pumping, comer breaks, and/or faulting are candidates for this repair procedure. This is also an appropriate procedure for cracks that have been deteriorated due to material-related 45 distresses such as D-cracking or alkali-silica reactivity. Cracks with poor load transfer efficiency (identified through deflection testing) and spalling should also be considered for this type of repair, even if pumping and faulting have not occurred. This method restores pavement integrity, as deteriorated concrete is replaced and load transfer is provided across the transverse joints at the patch boundaries. Note that this procedure can also be used to repair joints that are deteriorated. It should further be noted that partial-depth repairs (not discussed here) are sometimes recommended for cracks having only surface spalling. [40] Summary of Procedures Involved A summary of the procedures involved in performing full-depth repairs is provided in the following paragraphs. The first step involves defining the limits for the areas to be repaired. The repair area should be selected to include all distresses that have been identified. Once these areas have been identified, they should be isolated by sawing full-depth cuts along their perimeter. The deteriorated concrete can then be removed by either lifting it out or breaking it up. The liftout method is preferred as it usually imparts no damage to the support layers. If the concrete is too badly deteriorated to be safely lifted out, the breakup method will have to be used. There are several techniques available for carrying out both the liftout and breakup methods. [40] After the old concrete has been removed, the subbase must be prepared. If the subbase was damaged during concrete removal, new material must be added. The subbase should be uniformly compacted prior to placing the new concrete. Load transfer must be provided across the joints at the patch boundaries. It is recommended that at 46 least four 38 mm dowels be placed in' each wheelpath. Deformed tie bars can be used in lieu of dowel bars on the approach joint, but their use requires special considerations to be made (see [40]). Installation of the dowel bars involves drilling holes into the existing slab edges, cleaning out the holes using compressed air, and placing the dowel bars along with an anchoring material. For long repair lengths (> 4.5 m) or full slab replacements extending only one lane wide, tie bars are usually placed along the longitudinal joints at the patch boundaries. Holes are drilled into the edge of the existing slab and subsequently cleaned. Tie bars are then placed with anchoring material. For shorter repair areas extending only one lane wide, a bondbreaking board is placed along the longitudinal joint. A bond between the existing slab and the patch could lead to cracking in the slab adjacent to the transverse joints at the patch boundaries. A bondbreaker should also be used at longitudinal shoulder joints and at longitudinal joints connecting adjacent patches. [40] The concrete can then be placed, finished, and textured. Burlap dragging or transverse tining can be used to provide a patch surface texture similar to that of the existing slab. Proper curing measures should then be taken. This may involve the use of a curing compound and insulation boards/mats. A smooth transition should be provided between patch areas and existing slabs. This may require use of diamond grinding (to be discussed later in this chapter). Transverse and longitudinal joints should be sawed and sealed along the patch perimeter as the final step in this procedure. [40] 47 Suggested Concurrent Work In addition to repairing the transverse cracks using full-depth patches, other work may be performed to prevent distresses from reappearing at patch locations. Edge drains can be installed outside the outer wheelpath to provide improved drainage to the pavement system [40]. Slab stabilization, which is described later in this chapter, can be used to restore support to the slab if voids exist beneath the patches, cracks, and/or joints [40]. Comer deflections near the transverse joints of the patches can be reduced by constructing a rigid edge support (also described later in this chapter) [41]. Use of any or all of these three actions would lessen the likelihood of pumping, faulting, and comer breaks plaguing the repaired pavement. Load Transfer Restoration (Dowel Bar Retrofitting) Feasible Conditions for Use Load transfer restoration is useful for transverse cracks demonstrating faulting and/or poor load transfer, as this procedure inhibits the occurrence of future faulting and improves the load transfer efficiency of such cracks [42]. It is recommended that this procedure be used when load transfer efficiency drops below 50% [41]. Deflection measurements for computing load transfer efficiencies should be made at cool temperatures (10 to 27°C) [41]. Misleadingly high LTE values can result at high temperatures due to the beneficial effects of thermal expansion and downward slab curling. Load transfer restoration should not be used on cracks where major spalling or material-related distresses exist [39]. Note that this procedure is also valid for poorly 48 performing joints where dowels were not originally placed or existing dowels are malfimctioning. Summary of Procedures Involved The procedure described here involves the use of dowel bars to restore load transfer across cracks in J CP’s. It is recommended that three 38 mm dowel bars be used in each wheelpath [43, 39]. The first step in this repair method involves sawing slots in the pavement (parallel to the centerline) across the cracks so that dowelscan be placed at mid-depth in the slab. Lightweight equipment should be used to remove the concrete from the slots so that no damage is imparted to the support layers. The slots should then be sand-blasted and cleaned of saw slurry and other material. [43] Chairs should then be installed in the slots to hold the dowel bars in position when the backfill concrete is placed. The dowel bars should be coated with a parting compound and placed on the chairs. It is suggested that expansion caps be attached to the ends of the dowel bars to allow for expansion of the backfill concrete. Once the chairs are in place, the bottom and sides of the crack within the slot should be caulked. In addition to providing a smooth level surface, the caulking prevents backfill material from entering the crack at the bottom or sides of the slots. A fiber or foam filler-board should be placed around the dowels at mid-length to preserve the form of the crack across the slot [3 9, 43]. A prepackaged patching material should then be used to fill the slots. Cracks can be sealed by sawing reservoirs and then installing a joint sealant (crack scaling is discussed later in this chapter). [43] 49 Suggested Concurrent Work Diamond grinding should be performed to restore rideability at faulted cracks which were repaired using load transfer restoration. Other work may also be performed in addition to load transfer restoration to inhibit the occurrence of future distresses at crack locations. Such work might involve installation of edge drains, slab stabilization, and/or construction of a rigid edge support. These actions, combined with the improved load transfer provided by the dowel bar retrofit procedure described in this section, should effectively combat the development of pumping, faulting, and comer breaks at the repaired crack locations. Slab Stabilization Feasible Conditions for Use Slab stabilization is a nondestructive repair procedure that restores support to a pavement through the injection of grout without raising the slab [44]. Pumping of fines from pavement support layers can lead to voids under transverse cracks and joints, which results in a loss of support. Faulting and comer breaks often result after such voids are created. This repair procedure can be used to restore support where voids exist near cracks and joints in JCP’s, leading to a more structurally sound pavement [44]. It is important, however, that slab stabilization is not performed at cracks or joints which have no voids [41]. Such misuse of this procedure could cause slabs to lift off their support and/or create uneven support for the slabs [41]. It might also be noted that at least one study has found that slab stabilization is ineffective at restoring support to JCP’s with cement-treated bases [45]. 50 Summary of Procedures Involved Voids can exist under the approach or leave side of a crack or joint or even under shoulders, but they most frequently occur beneath the corner of the leave side of a transverse discontinuity [41]. Before slab stabilization can be performed, the cracks and joints which have voids must be identified [44]. It is sometimes desirable to estimate the size of the voids as well in order to better estimate the amount of material which will be needed to fill the voids. There are three available methods for detecting void locations — visual inspection, deflection measurement, and ground penetrating radar (GPR) [44]. Visual inspection is the simplest yet most unreliable method for estimating void locations. Transverse crack or joint faulting, comer breaks, lane-shoulder dropoff, and the presence of fines near cracks and joints are indications of the existence of voids. A limitation of this method is its lack of accuracy in estimating void location and size. [44] Deflection testing can be used to detect void locations and sizes. Large vertical deflections indicate the presence of voids [44]. Static testing can be performed using a Benkelman beam [44]. FWD’s and other devices are available for performing dynamic testing. A relatively rapid and simple method can be used to detect void locations using deflection testing [44]. This method was used in this study to detect the presence of voids at selected cracks and joints within the test sites. Results and discussion concerning the use of this method as well as a brief description of the test procedure are given in Chapters IV and V of this thesis. A second, more cumbersome method is available for determining both void locations and sizes [44]. Detailed information regarding this second method can be found in [41]. Deflection testing should be 51 performed at cool temperatures to avoid the effects of downward curling and slab expansion on deflection measurements [41]. A relatively new method for estimating void locations and sizes is the use of GPR combined with pulsed electromagnetic wave (PEW) technology. This method involves transmission of electromagnetic waves into the pavement, followed by detection of the reflection pattern of such waves from the pavement. Voids can be detected by examining the wave reflection pattern. A more detailed account of this test procedure is provided in [44]. The accuracy of this method must be improved before it becomes a viable option for void detection. [44] After the void locations have been detected, the next step is to drill holes in the concrete. The hole depths are detemrined by the base type. Holes must penetrate through stabilized bases into the subgrade, as it has been found that voids form under these stiffened bases. Where granular bases exist, holes should only go through the slab and end at the top of the base layer. Hole patterns depend on several factors, namely pavement type (JPCP or JRCP), joint spacing, and slab condition [46, 47]. Hole locations are selected to allow for filling of voids as well as grout flow between holes or towards cracks and joints. [44] Once the holes have been drilled, grout injection can begin [44]. The most common types of grout used are pozzolan-cement grout and polyurethane [48]. The grout is pumped into the holes in a sequence which tends to drive away water from under the slab and force it out through the pavement joints [44]. Pumping stops when any of the following conditions occur: the slab starts to lifi, the grout ceases to pump at the maximum allowable pressure, or the grout begins to flow out of an adjacent hole [44]. If 52 the grout is displacing water from under the slab, pumping should stop when an undiluted mixture of grout flows from the pavement [44]. Grout injection should also cease if, after one minute, there is no grout in any adjacent hole, crack, or joint, and no slab movement has been detected [44]. These are indications that a large void exists beneath the pavement, which will require repair measures other than slab stabilization (e.g., full- depth repair) [41]. After grout injection is complete, wooden plugs are sometimes driven into the holes [41]. This prevents the grout from coming out of the holes due to back pressure [41]. The need for using such plugs is questionable [44]. A cement grout is used to fill the holes after the grout has set [41]. Slab stabilization should not take place at temperatures below 4°C or if the subgrade freezes [46]. Deflection testing or GPR should be performed on stabilized slabs twenty-four (24) to forty-eight (48) hours after slab stabilization. This is done to check if the stabilization procedure was effective in restoring support. Testing should also be done on slabs that were not stabilized to allow for comparison. If stabilization was not effective the first time, it can be attempted one or two more times if necessary. After the third attempt, slabs which still suffer from loss of support should be repaired using an alternative method. [44] Suggested Concurrent Work Slab stabilization should usually be combined with other repair procedures to effectively restore the functional and structural integrity of a cracked J CP. Pumping of support material out of cracks and joints can be avoided by preventing water from accumulating beneath the slab. Sealing transverse cracks helps to block water from 53 entering the pavement. Installing edge drains can help to remove water from beneath the slab. Other techniques (full-depth repair, dowel bar retrofitting, and construction of a rigid edge support) are useful in limiting slab deflections and thus inhibiting pumping, faulting, and other associated distresses at crack locations. Diamond grinding can be used to restore rideability at faulted cracks. [44] Construction of Rigid Edge Support Feasible Conditions for Use This repair procedure involves the construction of either a slab edge beam or a tied concrete shoulder to provide improved edge support to an existing J CP [49, 50]. This edge support reduces stresses and deflections at slab edges and comers [49, 50]. By reducing the deflections at transverse crack and joint comer locations, the potential for pumping, faulting, and comer breaks is significantly decreased. The reduced edge stresses will also lessen the likelihood of transverse cracking in the pavement. This repair procedure is thus useful wherever it is suspected that the existing shoulder is not providing adequate support to the mainline pavement. This is assumed to be the case for J CP’s having asphalt or untied concrete shoulders and demonstrating a substantial amount of loss of support. If substantial loss of support exists for pavements having tied concrete shoulders, the condition of the shoulder and the tie bars should be investigated to determine if improved edge support is needed. 54 Summary of Procedures Involved Either a full-width concrete shoulder or a narrow concrete “beam” attached to the slab edge can be used. Cost and the condition of the existing shoulder will help decide which should be used. For example, if the existing shoulder is in poor condition and will require rehabilitation anyway, a full-width concrete shoulder will likely be more cost- effective. If the edge beam is used, it should have a minimum width of 610 mm. The edge beam can be constructed with or without an undercut lip. The depth of the edge beam should be at least as great as the thickness of the slab. [41] The base layer must be in good condition prior to constructing the shoulder or beam. If the base material was disturbed during excavation, it must be recompacted to provide uniform support to the shoulder or beam. Following excavation, holes can be drilled into the existing slab at mid-depth for tie bar placement. Deformed tie bars, spaced at 305 to 610 mm, are then placed into the holes and seemed using epoxy or nonshrinking grout. Once the tie bars have been secured and the shoulder area has been prepared, the concrete can be placed and textured. Texturing of the shoulder or beam surface should be performed such that drivers can distinguish between the pavement and shoulder. This can be accomplished by texturing the shoulder or beam perpendicular to the mainline pavement. The last step is to seal the longitudinal lane-edge support joint and the transverse shoulder/beam joints. [41] Suggested Concurrent Work To effectively rehabilitate a cracked J CP, use of other repair methods in addition to construction of a rigid edge support should be considered. Slab stabilization can be 55 used to restore uniform support to the slabs. Installation of edge drains and sealing of transverse cracks will inhibit the accumulation of water beneath the slabs, and thus help to prevent pumping and pumping-related distresses in the future. F ull-depth repair and dowel bar retrofitting can be used to restore the pavement’s structural integrity at transverse crack locations. Diamond grinding of faulted cracks will improve pavement serviceability. Crack Sealing Feasible Conditions for Use Crack sealing can be used to prevent water and incompressibles from entering a transverse crack. Entry of water into a crack can lead to pumping of support material out of the pavement. This can subsequently result in formation of voids beneath the pavement and subsequent faulting and comer breaks near the cracks. Spalling can result if incompressibles become lodged in a crack opening. It is thus recommended that sealing be performed on all transverse cracks that extend fully through the slab depth but do not require full-depth repair or other resurfacing. [39] Summary of Procedures Involved If concurrent repair work will be performed on the cracks to be sealed, such repairs should be done prior to crack sealing. The first step in the crack sealing procedure is to saw and shape a reservoir for the crack. The required shape of this reservoir will depend on the type of sealant to be used and the anticipated thermal movements of the crack. A special crack saw, equipped with a pivot wheel and crack- 56 sawing blades, should be used. Crack wander can be followed with these special saws. [3 9] After sawing is completed, the reservoirs must be cleaned to allow for proper sealant adhesion. Cleaning involves three basic steps. A water wash should be performed immediately following sawing to remove slurry residue from the sawing operation. The top of the reservoir should then be sandblasted to remove any remaining debris or contaminants. Just prior to sealant installation, the reservoir should be air blown to remove any sand, dirt, or dust. [3 9] The next step involves installing a backer rod into the crack reservoir. A steel roller or any smooth blunt tool can be used to insert the hacker rod. It is important that it is installed uniformly at the desired depth. After the hacker rod has been installed and the reservoir is clean and dry, the sealant can be installed. A liquid sealant (hot-pour or silicone) should be used. Manufacturer’s guidelines should be checked to ensure that the sealant installation temperature complies with any restrictions for the given sealant. The sealant is installed by fitting an injection nozzle into the reservoir and pumping the sealant. If a low-modulus silicone sealant is used, tooling should be performed to achieve proper adhesion to the reservoir walls. The surface of the sealant should be recessed at least 6 to 10 mm below the pavement surface. Manufacturer’s guidelines should again be consulted to determine the required curing time. The “knife test” can be used as a simple check to ensure that proper sealant adhesion to the reservoir walls has been attained. After fourteen (14) to twenty-one (21) days, the adequacy of sealant curing can be checked by removing a small sample of sealant, stretching it, and observing the sealant’s resilience. [39] 57 Suggested Concurrent Work Crack sealing alone should be adequate for full-depth hairline cracks [3 9]. However, cracks demonstrating poor load transfer should be repaired using dowel bar retrofitting in addition to crack sealing. Deteriorated cracks exhibiting severe spalling should be full-depth repaired rather than sealed and retrofitted. Other types of repairs will help to prevent future distresses from occurring. Slab stabilization, improved edge support, and installation of edge drains will deter void formation and pumping at crack locations. Diamond grinding can be used to restore rideability at faulted cracks. Diamond Grinding Feasible Conditions for Use Diamond grinding is a useful technique in any complete rehabilitation program for cracked J CP’s. Because grinding does not actually improve the structural integrity of a pavement, it should usually be used in conjunction with other repair procedures that do restore such integrity [51]. As part of a complete rehabilitation effort, grinding is principally used to restore rideability to faulted transverse cracks and joints and to provide a smooth transition between an existing concrete surface and repair areas (e.g., patches) [51]. It is generally recommended that grinding be used before faulting reaches 6 to 7 mm for a crack or joint [51]. In addition to the noted improvements that result from diamond grinding, this procedure also provides improved skid resistance and rideability on the existing pavement and can be used to improve transverse drainage [42]. Another positive feature of grinding is that it can be done either on only one or all lanes of a highway, depending on the particular needs of the pavement [41]. 58 Summary of Procedures Involved Prior to selecting equipment and estimating the cost for a diamond grinding job, information on the existing pavement is needed. Data on the concrete aggregate properties should be obtained as this will affect selection of equipment. The existing pavement surface profile should also be obtained (using a profilograph or some other device) to allow for estimation of the amount of grinding required and the locations of areas of roughness [41]. The diamond grinding equipment consists of diamond saw blades mounted to a cutting head. The diamond size, diamond concentration, and bond hardness of the saw blades must be selected. Since these factors depend on the concrete aggregate properties, saw blades should be selected based on the aggregate data collected for the pavement. The saw blade spacing should be selected to provide adequate texture and friction. This factor depends on aggregate hardness. [51] Diamond grinding should always be done longitudinally (parallel to the pavement centerline). Grinding can be done in either direction, as it has been found not to affect the pavement texture. The direction of grinding should thus be chosen to allow for adequate maneuvering of the equipment. The grinding operation will involve either one pass using multiple machines or several passes using one machine. The size of the project will dictate this decision. [51] Residual slurry and residue from the grinding operation is removed and collected by vacuums attached to the grinding equipment [41]. In rural areas, the slurry can be deposited onto grassy slopes along the road [41]. In urban areas, the slurry should be dumped into a truck and transported to a suitable off-site location [41]. After completion 59 of diamond grinding, the pavement should be evaluated to determine if an acceptable profile has been attained [5]]. Suggested Concurrent Work As was noted above, other repair methods should be used concurrently with diamond grinding to properly rehabilitate a cracked J CP. Full-depth repairs can be used to restore structural integrity at deteriorated transverse crack locations. For cracks exhibiting inadequate load transfer without significant deterioration, load transfer restoration is a viable option. Crack sealing and/or installation of edge drains will inhibit water from accumulating in the pavement subsystem and thus deter the formation of voids. Slab stabilization and/or construction of a rigid edge support will reduce comer deflections and further hinder the development of loss of support. Unbonded Concrete Overlay Feasible Conditions for Use An unbonded concrete overlay is a cost-effective resurfacing alternative for cracked JCP’s that are badly deteriorated. This type of overlay involves placement of a separation interlayer between the existing pavement and the overlay. The separation layer prevents such distresses as transverse cracking and D-cracking from propagating through the existing slab to the overlay. Due to the effectiveness of the separation layer, the required amount of pre-overlay repair is significantly less for unbonded concrete overlays than that for other overlay methods (i.e., bonded concrete or asphalt overlays). This procedure restores structural integrity to the pavement and improves the ride quality 60 as any roughness on the existing surface is eliminated with the addition of the overlay. [52] Summary of Procedures Involved Unbonded concrete overlays require pre-overlay repairs only where severe distresses in advanced stages exist or where there is a lack of uniform support in the existing pavement. Cracks and joints which are severely deteriorated should be full- depth repaired. Slabs which are severely deteriorated and suffer from a loss of support should be replaced. Slab stabilization and installment of edge drains can be performed if pumping and erosion has occurred in the existing pavement. Localized diamond grinding can be used to remove faulting at cracks and joints with faulting greater than 6 to 7 mm. As an alternative to grinding, a thick separation layer could be used to eliminate the effects of severe faulting. [52] Once all necessary pre-overlay repairs have been completed, the next step is to clean the existing pavement surface. This provides a suitable surface for placement of the separation interlayer. A mechanical sweeper or an air blower can be used to remove loose debris on the surface. Prior to placing the separation layer, all joints and working cracks (cracks that move and function as a joint) on the existing pavement should be marked if mismatching will be used for the overlay joints [52, 39]. These markings will allow the sawing Operation to be performed so that overlay joints are not placed above discontinuities in the existing slab. Mismatching overlay joints is believed to be beneficial in providing good load transfer across the joints in unbonded concrete overlays. It is suggested that the overlay joints be formed on the approach side of an 61 existing joint or crack. Field adjustment of the joint spacing will be required if mismatching is performed. A maximum spacing should be specified in advance. [52] The separation layer can be placed after all joint and crack markings have been made. It is recommended that a bituminous mix be used as a separation layer if the existing pavement is severely faulted and/or has excessive cracking. A 25 mm thickness is usually adequate for this layer. If the existing pavement has minimal faulting and surface roughness, a surface treatment may be used as the separation layer. A slurry seal, consisting of a diluted asphalt emulsion mixed with sand aggregate, is a typical material used for these thin separation layers. [52] If the temperature of the bituminous material in the separation layer is expected to exceed 44°C, whitewash should be applied to the interlayer. Consisting of either white- pigmented curing compound or a lime slurry, whitewash is used to prevent the accumulation of heat in a black-surfaced separation layer. Whitewash provides a cool interlayer surface temperature by creating a white surface that does not absorb sunlight. This helps to deter shrinkage cracking in the concrete and bonding between the concrete and interlayer. [52] After the separation interlayer is placed and the whitewash is applied and allowed to cool, the concrete can be placed and finished. Epoxy-coated dowel bars should be placed at joint locations to provide load transfer. Following placement and finishing of the concrete, transverse tining can be performed to provide a skid-resistant surface on the concrete. A curing compound can then be applied to prevent moisture loss and shrinkage cracking. Transverse and longitudinal joints should be sawed and sealed as soon as it is practical to do so. Mismatched joints should be created if specified. [52] 62 Shoulders will also need to be constructed to match the grade of the overlay. Tied concrete shoulders rather than asphalt shoulders are recommended. As was stated in Chapter II of this thesis, tied concrete shoulders can be expected to lead to fewer fatigue cracks in the pavement. If concrete shoulders are used, they can be placed concurrently with the mainline pavement. [52] Use of an unbonded concrete overlay also warrants other considerations. Ditches and embankments will need to be filled to meet slope requirements. Reconstruction in lieu of an overlay may be necessary at bridge decks and overhead structures. This will provide the necessary vertical transition at bridge decks and the required vertical clearance where overhead structures exist. A smooth transition from overlay slabs to reconstructed slabs can be accomplished by providing an adequate taper. [52] Bonded Concrete Overlay Feasible Conditions for Use A bonded concrete overlay is a useful method for increasing the structural capacity of a JCP that is not appreciably distressed but has become subject to a significantly greater amount of heavy truck traffic than was originally anticipated during design. This overlay method also restores rideability, as a new riding surface replaces roughness on the existing pavement. In this resurfacing procedure, a thin layer of concrete (commonly 76 to 102 mm) is bonded directly to the top of an existing concrete pavement to provide increased structural support. It must be stressed that this overlay - type can only be used if the existing pavement is not significantly distressed and has minimal material-related problems. It is not cost-effective to use bonded concrete 63 overlays on heavily distressed pavements because of the scope of pre-overlay repair that would be required. Without such repairs, distresses in the existing pavement would likely propagate into the overlay. However, when greater structural capacity is desired for a pavement without appreciable damage, bonded concrete overlays do have an advantage over other overlay methods. In such circumstances, bonded concrete overlays are often more cost-effective than asphalt overlays due to their superior structural efficiency. They are also preferred over more costly unbonded concrete overlays, which are unnecessary and unjustified in such cases. [53] Summary of Procedures Involved As noted above, bonded concrete overlays should only be attempted on pavements that are not severely distressed. Pre-overlay repairs are required for almost all distresses in the existing pavement. The type of repair required for existing transverse cracks will depend on the severity of the crack. Tight cracks that have no faulting or deterioration can be left untreated. However, reflective cracking will likely result at these crack locations within a couple of years after placement of the overlay. Such reflective cracks will then need to be sealed. Cracks that have a small amount of faulting or deterioration can be treated using “random crack control.” This procedure helps to delay - not prevent - reflective cracking. It involves putting tie bars, supported by chairs, across cracks at the existing pavement surface prior to placement of the overlay. Reflective cracks will also likely result at these crack locations and require proper sealing. Cracks and joints that are significantly faulted and/or deteriorated will require full-depth repairs. If pumping and erosion has occurred in the existing pavement, slab stabilization and 64 installation of edge drains may be useful repair procedures. Slab replacement will be needed for those slabs that are badly deteriorated and demonstrate a loss of support. Localized milling can be used to smoothen faulted cracks and joints, when full-depth repairs or slab replacement are not warranted. [53] Upon completion of all necessary pre-overlay repairs, a clean and sound surface should be created on the existing pavement. Surface preparation is a three-step procedure. A sound surface fi'ee of contaminants is obtained by first either milling or shotblasting the existing pavement surface. Shotblasting is generally the more effective method if sound concrete can be reached close to the surface. When a deeper removal is required to reach sound concrete, milling is the recommended method. Following shotblasting or milling, the second step is to remove dust and other fine residue from the surface. This can be accomplished using either sandblasting or waterblasting. The final step in surface preparation occurs just prior to placing the concrete. Either airblowing or shotblasting can be employed just ahead of the paving operation to ensure that any dust blown on the pavement is removed. [53] After the sandblasting or waterblasting operation is completed, all transverse joints and working cracks in the existing pavement should be marked. A 25 mm tolerance on each side of the joint/crack should be provided. Marking the joint/crack locations allows for the overlay joints to be matched with the discontinuities in the existing pavement. Matching of the cracks and joints is necessary to prevent reflective cracking. In addition to locations, the type and width of the joints/cracks should be matched in the overlay. It may also be necessary in some cases to mark the longitudinal joint(s) so that it can be matched in the overlay. This will be required if the existing 65 longitudinal joint(s) meanders. In such cases, offset measurements can be taken from the edge of the pavement to mark the path of the longitudinal joint. [53] Once the surface is prepared and the joints/cracks have been marked, a bonding grout can be placed on the existing pavement surface if desired. These grouts are cement-based and can help to achieve a good bond between the existing pavement surface and the overlay. While they are commonly utilized, it is debatable whether a bonding grout is needed for these overlays. If a grout is to be used, it should be sprayed on the existing surface at a distance of 2 to 3 m ahead of the paving operation. [53] Placement and finishing of the concrete takes place following final surface preparation and application of the bonding grout (if used). Transverse tining can be used to provide a skid-resistant texture on the overlay pavement surface. A curing compound should then be applied to inhibit moisture loss and provide the conditions necessary for proper strength gain in the concrete. Sawing and sealing of the transverse and longitudinal joints should be performed as soon as it is practical to do so. The type, width, and location of these joints should match the joints/cracks in the existing pavement. Joint depth should be chosen to ensure that the joint crack aligns with the discontinuity in the existing pavement. Note that dowel bars are usually not used across transverse joints in bonded concrete overlays and thus need not be considered. [53] Widening of the pavement can often be easily accomplished when applying a bonded concrete overlay. Such widening provides increased roadway capacity and can be used to meet geometric requirements. The widening as well as placement of new tied concrete shoulders can be performed monolithically with the overlay or separately from the overlay. An asphalt shoulder could alternatively be placed with the overlay, but this 66 is not recommended. Tied concrete shoulders lead to less fatigue cracks than asphalt shoulders, as explained in Chapter II of this thesis. Another consideration to be made during placement of a bonded concrete overlay is provision of smooth vertical transitions at overlay termini and bridges. This can be accomplished by milling the pavement surface to provide an adequate taper. [53] Asphalt Overlay , Feasible Conditions for Use Asphalt concrete overlays can be used to improve the structural and functional integrity of a cracked JCP. Two methods of applying an asphalt overlay over a J CP will be discussed here. One method involves placing an asphalt overlay over a rubblized J CP, while the other involves placing the overlay over an existing intact JCP. Constructing an asphalt overlay over a rubblized J CP can be a cost-effective approach if the existing pavement is badly cracked and/or deteriorated. In such a case, the cost of rubblizing the existing pavement is offset by the savings of not having to perform substantial pre- overlay repair. Applying an asphalt overlay over an intact J CP is a feasible alternative if the existing pavement has only a moderate to low amount of deterioration and/or cracking and has little to no material-related problems. This second method requires use of a reflection crack control treatment to inhibit reflective cracking. [1] Summary of Procedures Involved The required steps in constructing an asphalt overlay prior to the actual placement of the overlay differ for the two methods noted above. Therefore, these preliminary steps 67 will be discussed separately for each 6f the methods. The first method, involving placement of an overlay over a rubblized J CP, requires little pre-overlay repair. It is suggested that any areas on the existing J CP that may lead to nonuniform support following the rubblization process be removed and replaced. If drainage improvements are necessary, edge drains should be installed prior to rubblization. [1] After the required pre-overlay repairs have been made, the existing J CP can be rubblized. This involves fracturing the slabs into pieces less than 305 mm and then compacting the rubblized layer using several passes of a vibratory roller. If uniform rubblization and proper compaction have been accomplished, there should be no need for an additional reflection crack control treatment. The final step prior to placing the overlay is to apply a tack coat on the rubblized layer. [1] The second method described here for constructing an asphalt overlay, involving placement of an overlay over an intact J CP, requires pre-overlay repairs to be made wherever significant distresses exist. Deteriorated cracks and joints and all working cracks should be full-depth repaired. If excessive deterioration and/or cracking exists in a slab, the slab should be removed and replaced. Slab stabilization and installation of edge drains can be used if pumping is a problem. Faulting at cracks and joints can be removed by using localized diamond grinding. Upon completion of all necessary pre-overlay repairs, a tack coat should be applied to the existing JCP surface. [1] A reflection crack control treatment should be selected for use in combination with this second method. One such treatment option is placing a bituminous-stabilized granular interlayer prior to or concurrently with placement of the asphalt overlay. Another approach is to place a synthetic fabric or a stress-absorbing interlayer prior to or 68 within the asphalt overlay. A treatment method to slow - not prevent - reflective cracking is to increase the thickness of the asphalt overlay. Another option is to saw and seal joints in the overlay to match the joints in the existing J CP. If this last treatment technique is to be used, all joints in the existing J CP should be marked following completion of pre-overlay repairs. [1] For both asphalt overlay methods (with or without rubblization), the pavement can be overlaid once the tack coat has been applied to the existing surface. This will involve placement of an asphalt concrete overlay over the tack coat (or fabric/interlayer where such a treatment is used). Joints should be sawed and sealed in the overlay if the saw and seal treatment is to be used. [1] Additional considerations should be made when planning an asphalt overlay. The appropriate action to be taken on the existing shoulder will be determined by its condition. If the shoulder is in fairly good condition, it can be repaired and overlaid. Any deteriorated areas should be patched and an overlay can then be placed over the existing shoulder. However, if the existing shoulder is badly deteriorated, it must be removed and replaced. In either case, the shoulder grade should be matched to that of the overlay mainline pavement. [I] Widening of the pavement can be performed concurrently with construction of the overlay if desired. This can help in meeting geometric requirements and providing increased roadway capacity. Another consideration that should be made is the use of reconstruction in lieu of an overlay under overhead structures to provide the necessary vertical clearance. An adequate taper should be used to provide a smooth transition from overlay areas to reconstructed areas. [1] 69 - CHAPTER IV - Data Collection DESCRIPTION OF TEST SITES One of the first tasks of this study was to select test sites from in-service highway pavements in Michigan for use in this field investigation. A set of criteria for choosing sites was developed prior to test site selection to ensure that those chosen would allow for the analyses of all variables to be considered in this study. A listing of the principal criteria used for site selection is given as follows: 0 Presence of transverse cracking in the J CP - Varying concrete coarse aggregate types (carbonate, natural gravel, recycled concrete, and slag) among the test sites 0 Varying joint spacing (4.9, 8.2, 12.5, and 21.6 m) among the test sites 0 Varying shoulder types (asphalt, tied concrete, and tied concrete with sympathy joints —— shoulder joints having a joint spacing less than that which exists in the mainline pavement) among the test sites 0 Varying traffic levels among the test sites 0 Pavement not scheduled for rehabilitation/reconstruction within the duration of this study 0 Test sites dispersed throughout southern Michigan Using MDOT construction records and consultation with MDOT personnel, various sections of highway in Michigan that met the above criteria were identified. A team of researchers then drove through these highway sections and selected 70 approximately 150 m sections to be considered for use as test sites. The actual test site locations were selected at the time of field data collection by choosing 25 to 65 m long sections (2 to 8 slabs in length) of pavement from within the 150 m sections initially considered. The outermost traffic lane was used for all test sites. Sites were chosen as far as possible away from entry/exit ramps to prevent traffic flow problems during field data collection. During the first test cycle (April 1997), thirty-three (33) sites (Sites 1-15, 35-43, 38A, 47-52, 55, and 57) were chosen. In the period between the first and second test cycles (July 1997), three of these sites (Sites 9, 47, and 48) were lost to rehabilitation or reconstruction. In an effort to compensate for the loss of these sites and to provide a sufficient number of sites to allow for proper analysis of the variables considered in this research, fifteen (15) more test sites (Sites 16, 17, 27-29, 31, 32, 44-46, and 58-62) were added during the second test cycle. One additional test site (Site 63) was added during the third test cycle (October 1997) to provide more data on slag aggregate pavements. No new sites were added during the fourth test cycle (June 1998). The database thus consists of a total of forty-nine (49) test sites, where three sites have been “inactive” since the completion of the first test cycle. A discussion of the inventory and field data collected for the test sites is given in the following sections. INVENTORY DATA An intensive review of MDOT construction records was performed to collect and compile inventory data for the test sites. This inventory data is compiled in Appendix A of this thesis according to the aggregate type of the pavement. Test site location data as 71 well as pavement age data can be found in Tables A.1 through A.4 for carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, and slag pavements, respectively. Detailed location information for the test sites is given in these tables, including interstate and route number, mile posts, exit numbers, stationing, and an estimate of the distance of the site from the nearest major city. The sites are located as far west as 35 miles west of Kalamazoo, MI and as far east as 35 miles east of Flint, MI. The northernmost site is located several miles north of Flint, MI, while the southernmost site is located 30 miles south of Ann Arbor, MI. Test sites are found on Interstate 69, Interstate 75, Interstate 94, and US. Route 23. Pavement age varied from 3 to 29 years for the test sites. Some of the physical characteristics of the test site pavements, including the number of slabs within the site, the length and width of the site, the joint spacing, and shoulder information, are given in Tables A.5 through A8 for the four pavement types, respectively. Tables A.9 through A. 12 contain information regarding the pavement layer thickness’ and types for the test sites. The slab thickness of the test site pavements ranged from 178 to 305 mm. Information pertaining to the MDOT concrete mixture design designation (grade of concrete) for the test site pavements and the climatic conditions during construction is provided in Tables A.13 through A.16. The final group of inventory data tables, Tables A. l 7 through A.20, contain all of the traffic data for the test site pavements. This traffic data includes average daily traffic (ADT) and percent commercial data for the years 1987, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 as well as values for the cumulative truck traffic (as of 1998) that has been applied to the test site pavements. The procedure used in determining cumulative truck traffic is described below. Cumulative 72 truck traffic ranged fi'om 2.3 x 106 to 4.5 x 107 ESAL’s (80 kN equivalent single axle loads) for the test sites. ADT and percent commercial data for 1987, 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 were used to estimate the cumulative truck traffic (as of 1998) for the test site pavements. Using these five years of ADT and percent commercial data, an estimate of the ADT and percent commercial existing for a test site at the time of the pavement’s construction was interpolated or extrapolated. The ADT and percent commercial data was also used to estimate the annual grth rate of traffic for the test site, which is the percentage by which traffic (ADT and percent commercial) increases per year. The AASHTO “growth factor” was then computed using equation (7) [1]: 1+ I'-l GF=( g) (7) 8 where: GF = growth factor g = annual growth rate/ 100% n = age of pavement, yrs. The cumulative truck traffic (as of 1998) was then calculated using equation (8): Traffic = (GF)(TF)(ADT0 )(% Como )(365) (8) 73 where: Traffic = cumulative truck traffic (as of 1998), ESAL’s GF = growth factor TF = truck factor = 0.85 (supplied by MDOT at time of study) ADTO = estimated average daily traffic for year pavement constructed, vehicles/day % Como = estimated percent commercial for year pavement constructed. Note that equation (8) contains the factor “365” to convert the average daily traffic to an average annual traffic. The above procedure was used to estimate the cumulative truck traffic for each test site in this study. FIELD DATA Overview Four cycles of field data collection were performed over a fourteen month period for this research. These test cycles corresponded to different seasons of the year and thus allowed for a study of the effects of temperature on crack performance. A traffic closure was set up in the outer traffic lane for the length of the test site during all field testing to allow for data collection. Data collected in this study included manually measured data, FWD test data, and concrete core specimens. Types of data collected varied somewhat fi'om cycle to cycle. A description of the types of testing performed and data collected in this study will therefore be given separately for each test cycle. A discussion conceming the compilation of the manually measured field data in this thesis concludes this section. 74 Cycle 1 - April 1997 Field data was obtained from thirty-three (33) test sites (all of the test sites at that time) during the first test cycle. The first step taken in the data collection process was to locate all transverse cracks and draw them on field data sheets. As transverse cracks were located, they were marked with spray paint on the pavement. Special marking was used to identify cracks that were to be FWD tested and/or cored. For the purposes of this study, any visible cracking (partial- or full-width) in the transverse direction of the pavement was considered to be a transverse crack, with a couple of notable exceptions. One such exception was hairline shrinkage cracks. These cracks were not considered because they often exist only at the pavement surface and do not significantly affect the structural integrity of J CP’s. Furthermore, consideration of these cracks for data collection purposes is impractical, as such cracking can be exhaustively widespread throughout the surface of the pavement. Cracks in the transverse direction due to map cracking were also not considered in this study. Map cracking and transverse cracking are two different types of distresses. Also, it would be impractical to consider map cracking for data collection purposes, as this type of cracking is usually present throughout the pavement surface where it exists. Two types of FWD testing were performed (by MDOT) during the first test cycle. One type of testing was done at selected cracks and joints to allow for calculation of LTEa. In selecting cracks to be tested for LTE5, an attempt was made to choose cracks demonstrating a range of widths and conditions to allow for consideration of both poor and acceptably performing cracks. Joints adjacent to the selected cracks were generally chosen for this testing. FWD testing for computation of LTE5 involved dropping a 40 kN 75 load in the right wheelpath at the crack/joint location. This testing was done on both the approach (load dropped just before the crack/j oint) and leave (load dropped just after the crack/joint) sides of cracks and joints. Upon impact of the load on the pavement, the resulting pavement deflections directly below the FWD load plate and on the opposite side of the crack/joint were measured with the FWD. This deflection data could then be used in equation (5) to compute LTEs. In addition to measuring deflections, the FWD also measured the ambient and pavement surface temperatures at the time of each test. Further discussion regarding LTE5 values computed in this study is provided in Chapter V of this thesis. A second type of FWD testing performed during Cycle 1 was midslab testing on uncracked slabs. This testing was done on one uncracked slab per test site. Data obtained from this testing allows for backcalculation of pavement support and stiffness parameters. The backcalculation procedure and results from using the procedure in this study are discussed in Chapter V of this thesis. FWD midslab testing involved dropping a 40 kN load at the center of a slab. Pavement deflections at varying distances from the FWD load plate, resulting from the impact of the applied load, were measured with a series of sensors on the FWD. If an uncracked slab was not available within a given test site, midslab testing was performed either on an uncracked slab adjacent to the test site or as far as possible away from joints and cracks on a minimally cracked slab within the site. For sites where no suitable slabs were available for midslab testing, no such testing was done. In these cases, support and stiffness parametric values had to be either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 76 Coring was also performed (by MDOT) during the first test cycle. 152 mm diameter concrete core specimens were taken from the right wheelpath at one crack and one joint per test site. These cores were taken to examine the type of crack (aggregate or mortar) and to confirm the slab thickness and aggregate type. An aggregate crack refers to a crack that propagates through the concrete aggregate in the core. If the crack propagates around the aggregate, it is deemed a mortar crack. Several of the core specimens were also used for Volumetric Surface Texture (V ST) testing in this study. A discussion of the VST test procedure and results obtained using the procedure in this research is given in Chapter VI. An incidental finding from the cores taken at cracks in this study was evidence of dropped and completely sheared off reinforcement. This evidence confirmed the reasons given in Chapter II for why reinforcement effects were not considered in this research. Coring could not be performed at some test sites due to mechanical problems with the coring rig. However, cores were obtained for such sites during subsequent test cycles. In addition to FWD testing and coring, several other types of data were manually measured during Cycle 1. Crack width, length, and faulting were measured for all transverse cracks within a test site. Joint width and faulting were measured for all joints within a test site. The spacing between cracks for each slab within a site was also measured. All manually measured data, in this cycle and all others, was recorded on field data sheets. Crack length and crack spacing were measured with a measuring wheel. Joint width was measured with electronic calipers. The arms of the calipers were placed within the edges of the joint to measure the width. 77 In Cycle 1, an electronic faultrneter was used to measure faulting at cracks and joints. This device recorded positive faulting if the leave side of the discontinuity was lower than the approach side. The fault values measured with the faultrneter were, however, found to be inconsistent, as values often did not agree with visual observations of the faulting (both in sign and magnitude). Crack width was measured using a “crack comparator” card during the first test cycle. Several measurements were made at various locations along both wheelpaths of each crack. These measurements were then averaged to obtain the crack width. Several problems were encountered, however, in measuring the crack widths. One problem was that using the card to measure crack width required a subjective judgement to be made, as the crack width was basically compared to a series of lines on the card with varying known thickness’. It was thus very difficult to take consistent measurements using this device. Spalls and other forms of crack deterioration were another source of problem in measuring crack widths. Where such deterioration existed, it was difficult to distinguish between the actual crack and the spalling that surrounded it. Another subjective decision thus had to be made to choose where the width would be measured. A third problem in measuring crack widths was that measurements were only taken at the pavement surface. The crack width at the surface is not necessarily indicative of the crack width throughout the depth of the crack. Consideration of the inconsistent and unreliable nature of the crack width measurements was taken into account during data analyses and only general observations were made when using this data. 78 Cycle 2 - July 1997 Field data was collected from forty-four (44) test sites during the second test cycle. This included fifteen new sites added during this test cycle. One “active” site (Site 10) was not tested during this cycle, as construction was being performed near this test site at the time of testing and an additional traffic closure would have posed traffic flow problems. All transverse cracks identified in Cycle 1 were located and marked on the pavement. In addition, “new” cracks (either cracks that had not been there in Cycle 1 or shrinkage cracks that had deve10ped into more severe cracks between Cycles 1 and 2) were identified and marked, wherever such cracks were found. Cracks to be FWD tested and/or cored were specially marked. All cracks were drawn on the field data sheets. FWD wheelpath testing for LTE5 computation was performed at the same cracks and joints as were tested during Cycle 1. Note that a few cracks and joints tested in Cycle 1 were not tested in Cycle 2 due to inadequate communication between the FWD technician and the researchers marking the pavement. In addition to the previously tested cracks and joints, testing was also done on some other cracks and joints where it was felt that data on such cracks/joints would be useful. FWD midslab testing was performed at the same slab locations as were tested in Cycle 1, wherever possible. In some instances, testing could not be performed at the same location because a crack had developed there. In such cases, testing was performed at another slab location if a suitable slab was available. Where no other suitable slabs existed, no testing was done and support and stiffness parametric values were either assumed or copied fiom another test site and/or test cycle. 79 Coring was performed at one crack and one joint for some of the sites that had not been cored during Cycle 1. However, coring was not performed on all such test sites that were missing core data, as the coring rig was not available on some testing days. These sites missing data were cored in subsequent test cycles. Regarding manually measured data, no faulting data was collected during Cycle 2 due to the erred values obtained during the first test cycle. Crack lengths were measured, however, and the spacing between cracks was measured and updated for slabs with “new” cracks. Crack and joint widths were also measured in Cycle 2. Crack widths were again measured using the card method. In an attempt to overcome the subjectivity of the card method, pins were installed at selected cracks (those that were FWD tested for LTE5 computation) in this cycle. These pins, which were installed on either side of a crack in the wheelpath of the pavement, had divots on their top end. The distance between the two pins could be measured by placing the arms of the calipers into these divots. By measuring this distance each test cycle the change in crack width from cycle to cycle could be computed. Actual crack widths could be determined by considering the change in crack width and a card reading that was taken at the time of the first pin reading (reference measurement). Initial pin distances were measured during Cycle 2. Cycle 3 - October 1997 Data collection was performed at forty (40) test sites during Cycle 3, including the one site (Site 63) that was added during this cycle. Six “active” sites were not tested during this cycle. Sites 16 and 17 were not tested due to the restrictive times that testing was allowed on these sites. Heavy traffic volumes mandated such restrictions. Sites 38, 80 39, 40, and 41 were not tested during this cycle due to time constraints. All previously identified transverse cracks were again located and marked on the pavement. “New” cracks were identified and marked wherever such cracks were found. Cracks to be FWD tested and/or cored were specially marked. All cracks were drawn on the field data sheets. Almost all of the cracks and joints that had been previously FWD wheelpath tested for LTE5 computation (in Cycle 1 and/or 2) were again tested during Cycle 3. Inadequate communication between the FWD technician and the researchers did, however, lead to missed testing at some cracks/j oints. Testing was done at some cracks and joints that had not been previously tested, where it was felt that data on such cracks/joints would be useful. In the third test cycle, FWD midslab testing was performed at the same slab locations as were tested in Cycle 2, wherever possible. For sites where “new” cracking prevented testing on such slabs, testing was performed at another slab location if a suitable slab was available. Where no other suitable slabs existed, no testing was done and support and stiffness parametric values were either assumed or copied fi'om another test site and/or test cycle. In addition to wheelpath and midslab testing, a third type of FWD testing was performed during Cycle 3 — corner testing. This testing was done to provide data for a voids analysis procedure that is described in Chapter V of this thesis. FWD comer testing was performed at comer locations near selected cracks and joints (in the area where the crack/j oint and longitudinal lane-shoulder joint intersect). It was done at both visually faulted cracks/j oints and at cracks/j oint without noticeable faulting (control 81 tests). This testing involved dropping three loads of varying magnitude (40, 67, and 89 kN) on the leave side of a crack or joint and measuring the consequent pavement deflections directly beneath the load plate. Besides containing a description of the voids analysis procedure, Chapter V also includes a discussion of the results and analysis pertaining to the voids analyses performed in this research. Coring was performed at one crack and one joint for the sites that had not yet been cored through Cycle 2. Upon completion of coring in this cycle, only site — Site 63 - had not been cored. Site 63 was cored during the fourth test cycle. Faulting data was not collected in Cycle 3, again due to the erred measurements that the faultrneter was found to provide in Cycle 1. Crack length as well as crack spacing (updated for slabs with “new” cracks) were measured, however. Crack and joint width measurements were also obtained. Crack width was measured using both the card and pin methods. It was found, however, that like the card method, the pin method also leads to unreliable and inconsistent measurements. Inconsistencies were denoted by the measurement of both positive and negative changes in crack width for different cracks within the same test site. Such measurements suggest that some slab fragments are contracting and/or curling upward and some are expanding and/or curling downward. This behavior is contradictory and would certainly not be expected to occur to the extent that the pin measurements indicated. The inconsistent results could probably be attributed to erred pin readings. Such errors are likely the result of looseness between the caliper arms and the pinhead divots into which these arms are placed. This looseness can err the measurements by tenths of millimeters, which is on the same order of magnitude as the changes in crack width being measured. Considering the previously noted 82 difficulties in measuring crack width along with the inadequacies of both the card and pin methods, it becomes quite clear that there is a need for development of a reliable, consistent method for measuring crack width. Cycle 4 - June 1998 Field data was collected from forty-six (46) test sites (all “active” sites) during the fourth test cycle. Despite the restrictive times imposed on testing Sites 16 and 17, these sites were tested during Cycle 4 by collecting data at an off-peak time for traffic. All previously identified transverse cracks were identified and marked. “New” cracks were also located and marked, where such cracks existed. Special marking was again applied to cracks that were to be FWD tested and/or cored. All cracks were drawn on the field data sheets. FWD wheelpath testing was done at all crack and joints that had been tested in Cycles 1, 2, or 3. Inadequate communication between the FWD technician and the researchers again led to a few of these cracks/joints being missed. In addition to the cracks and joints that had been previously tested, testing was also performed at a few other cracks and joints where it was felt that such data would be useful. FWD midslab testing was not performed during Cycle 4, as it was felt that a sufficient amount of this data had been obtained during the first three cycles. Comer FWD testing was performed, however, during this test cycle. Selected cracks and joints that had not been tested during Cycle 3 were comer tested to provide data for the voids analysis procedure. Note that a few cracks that had been tested in Cycle 3 were also tested during Cycle 4. This was again due to inadequate communication between the 83 FWD technician and the researchers. The task of coring one crack and one joint per test site was completed during the fourth test cycle. Cores were obtained from Site 63, the only site that had not yet been cored. Crack length and crack spacing (updated for slabs with “new” cracks) were measured during Cycle 4. Crack and joint widths were also measured in this cycle. Both the card and pin methods were used to measure crack width. Crack and joint faulting were measured again during Cycle 4. Desiring to obtain fault measurements but noting the inconsistent measurements produced with the electronic faultrneter in Cycle 1, it was decided in Cycle 4 to manually measure faulting with a straightedge. Measurements were taken only if a crack or joint had a fault of 2 mm or greater. Cracks and joints that did not have at least 2 mm of faulting were considered to be not faulted. The rationale for this “rule” was that faulting of 1 mm or less could possibly be due to leveling error during construction rather than actual faulting. Requiring at least 2 mm of faulting better ensures that actual faulting exists. Positive fault values were recorded if the leave side was lower than the approach side of the discontinuity. Visual distress surveys were also taken at each test site during the fourth test cycle. This involved noting such distresses as faulting, spalling, joint sealant problems, and others that existed on the test site pavements. Survey comments were recorded on the field data sheets. These distress surveys were performed for a couple of reasons. One reason for taking these surveys was to provide a visual assessment of crack and joint condition to complement assessments of crack condition obtained through the FWD test procedures that were performed in this study. These surveys were also performed to allow for a cataloging of all visible distresses on the test site pavements. This 84 information is useful in getting a better perspective on the overall pavement condition of the test sites. Compilation of Field Data Manually measured field data collected during Cycles 1 through 4 is compiled in Appendix B of this thesis. Crack and joint width data as well as crack and joint fault data are provided in Tables B.1 through 3.4 for carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, and slag pavements, respectively. In these tables and others in this thesis, “C” refers to a crack and “J” refers to a joint under the “Test Type” heading. Data is provided in these tables only for those cracks and joints that were FWD tested for LTE5 computation. Crack width values in these tables were mostly taken from the measurements obtained using the “crack comparator” card. In cases where the card readings gave unreasonable values, crack widths were obtained using the pin measurements (unless these measurements led to even more unreasonable values). It should be noted that although joint width and faulting data are tabulated in this thesis, this data was not considered for analyses purposes. This is because the focus of this research was to investigate crack behavior, not joint behavior. Proper consideration of the joint data would have required additional information (e.g., dowel bar characteristics, etc.) and analysis that is beyond the scope of this study. This joint data (and all other joint data collected in this study) was collected and tabulated because it did not require much additional effort to obtain such data, and it could be used in future research by the sponsoring agency — MDOT. Information regarding the type of crack (aggregate or mortar) found within each core specimen is given in Tables B.5 through B.8 for carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, 85 and slag pavements, respectively. The number of existing cracks and average crack spacing for each slab in a test site as well as the joint spacing for the test site are also included in these tables. Note that this crack count and spacing data reflects the data updated through Cycle 4 (i.e., it includes all “new” cracks located through Cycle 4). The information recorded during the visual distress surveys performed during Cycle 4 is compiled in Tables B.9 through B. 12 for the four types of pavements, respectively. In these tables, the nomenclature “CX of SY” refers to crack [number X] of slab [number Y] in the test site. The numbering here considers all cracks in a slab, not just those FWD tested for LTE5 computation. “JX” in these tables corresponds to joint [number X] in the test site. Descriptions and more information concerning all distresses listed in these tables (except for exposed reinforcement, shrinkage cracking, and alkali- silica reactivity (ASR)) can be found in [54]. The noted exceptions are not specifically defined distresses. Exposed reinforcement refers to pavements where the steel reinforcement has risen above the pavement surface. Shrinkage cracking was defined and described in detail in Chapter II of this thesis. It can be a precursor to transverse cracking. Pavements with ASR are denoted by the presence of map-like cracking. Information relating to ASR can be found in [55]. 86 - CHAPTER V - Results and Discussion I - FWD Analysis Procedures OVERVIEW This chapter contains results and discussion pertaining to the various analyses performed in this study using FWD data. Three FWD analysis procedures - backcalculation of pavement support and stiffness parameters, determination of crack performance parameters, and assessment of void potential near cracks — were demonstrated using field data from this study. The latter two procedures can be useful to transportation agencies in determining when and how to repair J CP’s with transverse cracking. The backcalculation procedure is also useful, as it allows for determination of support and stiffness parameters that are inputs in the procedure for determining crack performance parameters. An overview of the work performed in this research relating to these analysis procedures is given in the following paragraphs. Results and discussion concerning such work are explained in more detail in subsequent sections of this chapter. FWD midslab data from this study was used to backcalculate the deflection basin area (AREA), the radius of relative stiffness (t), the concrete modulus of elasticity (E), and the modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of the test site pavements. The procedure that was used to backcalculate these support and stiffness parameters is described in the next section of this chapter. A discussion of the reasonableness of the values obtained through use of this procedure in this research is also provided in the next section. Several crack performance parameters were determined for selected cracks and joints in the test site pavements using FWD wheelpath data. These parameters, which 87 characterize the integrity of transverse cracks, included deflection load transfer efficiency (LTEs), transferred load efficiency (TLE), the total load transferred across a discontinuity (PT), and aggregate interlock shear stiffness per unit length of a discontinuity (AGG) [28]. A “standard” procedure for determining these parameters, which is described later in this chapter, was used for computation of parametric values in this study. Recognizing the practical limitations of this cumbersome procedure for use by a transportation agency, a somewhat simpler, streamlined approach to computing the performance parameters was developed in this research. This streamlined approach, which is also described later in this chapter, provides a more direct method for quickly computing these parameters based on FWD deflection data. Computation of the crack performance parameters can be useful to a transportation agency, as comparison of parametric values to established threshold limits allows for an evaluation of the condition of transverse cracks. Such evaluations can help an agency in. planning and selecting rehabilitation activities for cracked J CP’s. Threshold limits for the performance parameters were developed in this study using the field data. A discussion concerning the development of these thresholds is provided later in this chapter. Data from this study was also used to determine the effect of temperature on the performance parameters. Discussion related to the findings concerning temperature effects is also contained in this chapter. A voids analysis procedure was performed at selected cracks and joints in the test site pavements using FWD comer data. This procedure can be used by a transportation agency to determine the likelihood of loss of support at cracks and joints. By identifying areas of loss of support, this procedure allows appropriate rehabilitation actions to be 88 taken to restore support to a cracked J CP. The voids analysis procedure is described later in this chapter. Results from the voids analyses performed in this research were used to determine appropriate threshold limits for evaluating void potential using this procedure. A discussion concerning the determination of these thresholds is provided later in this chapter. BACKCALCULATION OF SUPPORT AND STIFFNESS PARAMETERS Overview A backcalculation procedure for determining various pavement support and stiffness parameters, based on FWD data, was demonstrated using field data from this research. In Cycles 1 through 3 of this study, FWD midslab data was used to backcalculate the deflection basin area, radius of relative stiffness, concrete modulus of elasticity, and modulus of subgrade reaction of each of the test site pavements. Determination of these parameters allowed for subsequent calculation of the crack performance parameters AGG, TLE, and PT for selected cracks and joints in this study. Besides allowing for calculation of the crack performance parameters, determination of these parameters also provides information regarding the support and stiffness characteristics of pavements. An explanation of the backcalculation procedure that was used to compute AREA, I, E, and k values in this research is given later in this section. An illustrative example, using actual data from this study, is also provided later in this section to demonstrate the use of this procedure in determining parametric values. A discussion of the backcalculated values obtained in this study concludes this section. Backcalculated 89 AREA and t’ values for Cycles 1 through 3 can be found in Tables B.l3 through B. l 6 of Appendix B for carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, and slag pavements. Backcalculated E and k values for these four pavement types are located in Tables B. 17 through B.20, respectively. Before moving on to a description of the backcalculation procedure, it should first be noted that some of the values in Tables B.l3 through 3.20 were either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. Values obtained in such ways are indicated in the tables. Assumed or copied values had to be used in some cases due to one of the following reasons: 1) no midslab data could be collected at a test site during a particular test cycle due to lack of a suitable slab for testing, or 2) backcalculation using the data taken during that test cycle led to unreasonable results. In such circumstances, it was initially attempted to copy parametric values either from those computed for a nearby test site or from values computed during another test cycle for the test site in need of data. If values could not be obtained using either of these methods, reasonable values for AREA, 1’, E, and k were assumed. Backcalculation Procedure The backcalculation procedure that was used to determine values for AREA, l, E, and k in this study is described below. It should be noted that some of the equations used in this procedure are regression equations that were developed using Inch-Pound units. In order to allow the use of SI units in such equations and to produce results in SI units, it was necessary to insert conversion factors into some of the equations. This explains the 90 presence of the number “25.4,” which was used to convert between inches and millimeters, in these modified equations. The first parameter that needs to be calculated in the backcalculation procedure is AREA. This parameter is defined as the cross-sectional area of the deflection basin between the center of the FWD load plate and the outermost deflection sensor, normalized with respect to the maximum deflection (i.e., deflection at the sensor directly below the center of the load plate, 80) [56]. Due to this normalization, AREA has units of length rather than area. It is computed by using deflection data measured at sensors located at various radial distances “r” (0, 203, 305, 457, 610, 914, and 1524 mm) from the center of the FWD load plate. These deflections result from the application of a 40 kN load at a midslab location. Equation (9), modified from [56], is used to calculate this parameter: p 5203) [5305) [5457) _ 4 __ _ __ +6[ 60 +5 50 +6 80 + AREA = 25.4 (9) 5610) (5914] [51524) {—60 +18 —60 +12 50 where: AREA = deflection basin area, m 8, = deflection of the rth sensor, um. Once AREA has been computed, the next parameter to be backcalculated is the radius of relative stiffness. This parameter characterizes the stiffness of the 91 slab-foundation system [56]. Equation (10), a modification of a regression equation in [57], is used to compute l: P l AREA ‘ ‘ "5“ 60 - 25 4 = . ' - . 1 t 254 hr 289.708 l/( 0698) (0) _ L _ where: l = radius of relative stiffness, mm AREA = deflection basin area, m. It should be noted that equation (10) is only valid if the load radius is equal to 150 mm [56]. Most FWD load plates, including the one used in this study, satisfy this requirement. The next step in the backcalculation procedure is to compute the concrete modulus of elasticity. The procedure for calculating this parameter involves first computing an elastic modulus value, EC, for each of the FWD sensors, based on the deflection data measured at each of those sensors. These values are computed using equation (I 1) from [56]: __ 12(1— v‘mza,‘ e - 5rh3 (11) 92 where: Ec = concrete modulus of elasticity based on 8,, kPa v = Poisson’s ratio for concrete P = applied load, kN I = radius of relative stiffness, m 8, = deflection of the r'h sensor, m h = concrete slab thickness, m 8,. = nondirnensional deflection coefficient at radial distance “r,” defined by equation (12), which is modified from [56]: ('—°‘l 6,. = aeH” 25.4 I (12) where: a,b,c = regression coefficients from [56] (see Table l) l = radius of relative stiffness, mm. Note that equation (12) is a regression equation and, as can be seen in Table 1, the regression coefficients for this equation differ for each of the sensor locations. As can be seen from equations (11) and (12), it is necessary to first compute the value of 8,. for each sensor location, and then use these values in equation (1 1) to obtain Ec values based on deflection data measured at each of the sensors. In equation (11), 8,. accounts for the dependence of pavement deflection on the distance from the load (i.e., pavement deflection decreases with increasing distance from the load). Each Ec value represents the estimated value of the concrete modulus of elasticity, a material property of the concrete, based on the pavement deflection (8,) measured at a particular sensor location “r.” Theoretically, all of these Ec values should be equal, since 93 Table l Regression Coefficients for 8;. (After Smith et al. [56].) Radal - _ _ l -. i “7 l 1’ 7T .. A l l ’7 P Distance,r a b 0 0.12450 0.14707 0.07565 203 0.12323 0.46911 0.07209 305 0.12188 0.79432 0.07074 457 0.11933 1.38363 0.06909 610 0.11634 2.06115 0.06775 914 0.10960 3.62187 0.06568 1524 0.09521 7.41241 0.06255 94 they are all estimates of the same material property — concrete modulus of elasticity. Identical values are not obtained at all sensors, however, because the 8,"s are computed using regression equations and thus have some error associated with them. This error in the 8,. values translates to error in the Ec values. Although identical Ec values are not obtained for all sensors, it is found that these values usually vary only slightly from one another. The E, values computed in Illustrative Example 1, which can be found later in this section, illustrate this point. Very close values were found for the Ec’s computed at the various sensor locations in this example. After Ec values have been computed using data from each of the sensor locations, the backcalculated concrete modulus of elasticity value for the pavement can be determined. The concrete modulus of elasticity, E, is simply computed as the average of all Ec’s. [56] The final step in the backcalculation procedure is to compute the modulus of subgrade reaction. This parameter characterizes the stiffness of the foundation in the pavement system. It is calculated using equation (1 3) fi'om [10]: Eh’ k: 2 4 120- v )r (13) where: k = modulus of subgrade reaction, kPa/mm E = concrete modulus of elasticity, kPa h = concrete slab thickness, m V = Poisson’s ratio for concrete I = radius of relative stiffiress, mm. 95 An example demonstrating the' use of the above procedure in determining values for AREA, f, E, and k for two test sites in this study is given below. Illustrative Example 1 FWD midslab testing at Sites 38A and 50 during the third test cycle yielded the following data: Site 38A: 80 = 83.67 pm 5610 = 64.33 pm Site 50: 80 = 90.67 pm 5610 = 73.67 pm 5203 = 30.00 um 5914 = 54.00 um 5203 = 86.67 pm 5914 = 66.33 pm 5305 = 75.00 um 5457 = 72.00 pm 51524 = 36.67 pm 5305 = 83.67 pm 5457 = 80.00 pm 51524 = 52.00 pm Note that these deflection values are the average of three measurements taken during three consecutive tests. Multiple tests were done for data quality control purposes. Other information required for the backcalculation procedure is given as follows: Site 38A: h = 241 mm (Site 38A slab thickness) P = 40 kN (FWD applied load) v = 0.15 (assumed Poisson’s ratio) Site 50: h = 305 mm (Site 50 slab thickness) P = 40 kN (FWD applied load) v = 0.15 (assumed Poisson’s ratio) 96 Using the above data and equation (9), the deflection basin areas fof the two sites were first determined: Site 38A: ’ 6[80.00 um) {75.00 pm) 6(7200 pm] 4 + —— + —— + —— + 83.67 pm 83.67 pm 83.67 pm AREA = 25.4 64 33 54 00 36 67 = 1097 mm 9(—-——' in”) +18(—-—' um] +12[———‘ 14m] _ 83.67 um 83.67 um 83.67 urn mesa " (86.67 pm) [83.67 um) 6[80.00 um) ' 4+6 —— +5 —— + —— + 90.67 pm 90.67 pm 90.67 um A = 25'4 73 67 6633 52 00 =1194 mm 9(——° urn] +18[———' um) +12(-———' um] _ 90.67 urn 90.67 pm 9057 um Next, equation (10) was used to compute the radius of relative stiffiress for the two sites: Site 38A: f l 1097mm‘ 60' 254 t=25.4 1m 289.708 l/(-o.698) 2.566 =936mm 97 Site 50: ' ‘ 2.566 r 1194mm ‘ (60-——l 25.4 t:25.41n< 289708 i/(—0.698) =1170mm The third parameter computed was the concrete modulus of elasticity. To detennine this parameter, Ec and 8,. values were first computed for each of the sensor locations. A sample calculation is given below for both Sites 38A and 50 to demonstrate the procedure used to determine these values. At sensor location r = 610 mm, 8610. was calculated for Site 38A using equation (11): ((—0.06775)(936 mm)) 25.4 5,“; = 0.11634el’2'06“5° l = 0.09818 In the above equation, a = 0.11634, b = 2.06115, and c = 0.06775 (corresponding to r = 610 mm) were obtained from Table 1. Emma was then computed for Site 38A using equation (12): 12(1- 0.152 )(40 kN)(O.936 m)2 (0.09818) = = .4 7 W (64.33x10’6m)(0.241m)3 4 8x“) kPa Values for 8510. and Ee,610 were similarly computed for Site 50: 98 ((-0.06775)(ll70 mm)) 8610’ = 0.1 163461-206115e 25.4 _ 120- 0.152 )(40 kN)(l.l70 m)2 (0.10623) °'°'° ' (73.67 x10'6 m)(0.305 m)3 1 = 0.10623 = 3.26 x107 kPa Ec values for the two sites were computed in the same manner for the other six sensors. These values are reported below: Site 38A: 13,, = 4.33 x 107 kPa 5,203 = 4.38 x 107 kPa 15,457 = 4.37 x 107 kPa 5,9,, = 4.32 x 107 kPa Site 50: E,,O=3.09 x107kPa 13,203 =3.16 x107kPa 13.,457=3.19x107lt1>a Ec,914=3.14x107kPa 13,305 = 4.50 x 107 kPa Ec,1524 = 3.64 X 107 kPa 13,305 = 3.20 x 107 kPa 15,524 = 2.74 x 107 kPa The seven Ec values for each site, including Emo, were then averaged to determine the concrete modulus of elasticity. Averaging the BG values yielded concrete modulus of elasticity values of 4.28 x 107 kPa and 3.12 x 107 kPa for Sites 38A and 50, respectively. The final parameter determined was the modulus of subgrade reaction. It was computed using equation (13). Values for Sites 38A and 50 were thus computed as follows: 99 Site 38A _ (4.28 x107 kPa)(241mm)3 2 4 = 66.3 kPa / mm 12(1— 0.15 )(936 mm) Site 50: (3.12 x 107 kPa)(305 mm)3 = = 40.2 kPa / mm 12(1— 0.152)(1170 mm)4 Discussion of Backcalculation Results The backcalculated values obtained for AREA, 1?, E, and k in Illustrative Example 1 are very reasonable. This was generally found to be true for all of the results obtained from using the backcalculation procedure in this study. AREA values were generally found to range from 1050 to 1250 mm, while I values ranged from 900 to 1300 mm. E values generally ranged fiom 3.0 x 107 kPa to 6.5 x 107 kPa, while k values ranged from 25 to 85 kPa/mm. All of these ranges are in fair agreement with values typically associated with these four parameters. In the few cases where the backcalculation procedure yielded values significantly outside the noted ranges, it was usually found that the pavement was actually a concrete overlay. Extremely high E and k values were computed in these cases. Overlays cause erred E and k values when using this backcalculation procedure because of the presence of the old pavement layer beneath the overlay. This old asphalt or concrete layer beneath the overlay essentially acts as a stiff base support layer. Due to the stiffness of this “base” layer, very small deflections result when the FWD applies a load to an overlay 100 pavement. These small deflections translate to exaggerated E and k values, as was found for the overlay sites in this research. To obtain reasonable values for such pavements in this study, values for the support and stiffness parameters were either assumed or copied from another nearby test site and/or test cycle. The fact that this backcalculation procedure produces extreme values when an anomaly such as an overlay is present could actually be viewed as a beneficial aspect of the procedure. The extreme values encountered in such situations can serve as a warning that there is something unusual about the pavement. CHARACTERIZATION OF CRACK PERFORMANCE Overview There are several parameters that can be used to characterize and quantify the performance of transverse cracks in J CP’s. Four such performance parameters, LTEs, TLE, PT, and AGG, were considered in this research. These parameters, which can be computed based on FWD data, were introduced in Chapter II of this thesis. They are explained in more detail later in this section. These parameters can be used to evaluate the condition of transverse cracks in a pavement network by comparing parametric values with threshold limits. When integrated into a comprehensive pavement evaluation scheme, these evaluations can act as a useful tool in planning and selecting rehabilitation activities for the pavement network. Load transfer restoration and full-depth patch repair, which are both described in detail in Chapter III, are two such rehabilitation alternatives that can be used to improve the integrity of cracked J CP’S by restoring load transfer at cracks in these pavements. 101 Field data from this study was used to demonstrate a procedure for determining values for the four crack performance parameters noted above. In Cycles 1 through 4 of this study, LTEa, TLE, PT, and AGG values were computed for selected cracks and joints in the test site pavements using FWD wheelpath data and a “standard” procedure for determining parametric values. A more detailed description of this procedure is provided later in this section. After careful consideration of this procedure, it was recognized that potential limitations (namely, its cumbersome nature) may exist for its everyday use by a transportation agency. To rectify this problem, a somewhat simpler, more direct approach to computing the performance parameters was developed in this research. This simplified approach, which is also described later in this section, is a streamlined version of the original and provides a more user-fiiendly method for practical everyday use by a transportation agency. An illustrative example, also included in this section, demonstrates the use of each of these two procedures in computing the performance parameters. In this example, both procedures utilize the same FWD deflection data from two test sites in this study to determine parametric values. This allows for a comparison of the values obtained using each method. In addition to demonstrating methods for determining parametric values, field data from this study was also used to develop threshold limits for the performance parameters. A discussion on the development of these thresholds, which can be used to evaluate crack condition, is included later this section. An analysis of the effect of pavement surface temperature on the performance parameters, specifically LTE5, was also performed using the field data from this research. Discussion pertaining to the findings regarding such temperature effects concludes this section. 102 Determination of Crack Performance Parameters “Standard " Procedure The “standar ” procedure for determining LTEs, TLE, PT, and AGG is described below. This method was used to compute the performance parameters at selected cracks and joints in this study. The first step in this procedure is to calculate LTEa. This parameter measures the extent to which load is transferred across a crack in terms of the deflections on either side of the crack under an applied load. As explained in Chapter 11, an LTEa of 100% represents the ideal condition, indicating that the load is being equally shared by both sides of the crack. LTE5 is directly computed by inputting FWD wheelpath data for a crack or joint (as discussed in Chapter IV) into equation (5). LTEa values computed for the cracks and joints in this study for Cycles 1 through 4 are compiled in Tables B.21 through B.24 of Appendix B for carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, and slag pavements, respectively. In these tables, LTE5 values are given both for tests performed before and after the crack/joint. Note that the cracks and joints in these tables correspond with those cracks and joints listed in Tables B.l through B.4. Also note that joint data in Tables B.21 through B.24, like that in Tables B] through B4, was not considered for analysis purposes in this research, as consideration of this data was beyond the scope of this study. Once LTE5 values have been computed, the next step is to determine TLE values. Contrary to deflection load transfer efficiency, transferred load efficiency is a derived parameter that quantifies load transfer in terms of load itself. TLE expresses the actual percentage of the applied load that is transferred across a crack. A TLE of 50% represents the ideal case, indicating that half of the load is transferred across the crack. 103 To determine this parameter, a plot developed by Ioannides and Korovesis, relating LTEa to TLE in terms of the radius of the loaded area (a) and radius of relative stiffness (I), is used. This plot is shown in Figure 7. In order to obtain TLE from LTE5 using this plot, values for a and I must first be determined. The radius of the loaded area is simply equal to the radius of the FWD load plate, 150 mm. The radius of relative stiffness can either be assumed, based on cross-section information and engineering judgement, or backcalculated using the procedure described in the previous section. Once these two parameters are determined, the a/t ratio is then computed. Knowing a/l and the LTE; for a given crack, TLE can be determined by using the curves in Figure 7. Since the actual a/f ratio will most likely not be equal to one of the three values (a/t = 0.047, 0.156, and 0.312) for which there are curves, some interpolation between curves will usually be needed. Thus, to determine TLE, extend a vertical line, starting from the x-axis at the value of LTEa for the crack, upward through the three curves. The three points of intersection of this line and the curves are the TLE values corresponding to the respective a/t’ ratios. The a/l ratio for the pavement in question will fall in between two of the three noted ratios. To find the TLE of the crack in question, interpolate between the two TLE values corresponding to these two a/t’ ratios. [28] The TLE values computed for the cracks and joints in this study for all four test cycles are given in Tables B.25 through B.28 for the four pavement types, respectively. The cracks and joints in these tables correspond with those in Tables B.21 through B.24. TLE values in this study were computed based on 13 values backcalculated from FWD midslab data. To determine TLE values in the fourth test cycle, when no midslab testing 104 5° : 7. l l 45 ——~——+ — 5 +— e * 40 i l l j l l i i 35 l l ' A 1 =5 3° 1 m 25 a .1 E | + all = 0.047 t- 20 f f I —a— all = 0.156 15 i Q I -I— all = 0.312 I 1 g L g . 1° 1 l 1 T l 7. z 5 i ‘ e I l i 0 l 1’ l L d 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 LTE5 (%) Figure 7 Relationship between LTE5 and TLE. (After Ioannides and Korovesis [28].) 105 was done, i values had to be taken from values determined in previous test cycles. Thus,for each site, the I value for the most recent test cycle that had such data was used to compute TLE values in Cycle 4. The third parameter to be computed in this procedure is PT. This parameter estimates the total amount of load transferred from the loaded to the unloaded side of a crack along its entire length. It is directly derived from TLE using equation (14) from [2 8]: TLE = — 14 PT 100% x P ( ) where: PT = total load transferred across crack, kN TLE = transferred load efficiency, % P = applied load, kN. PT provides a quantitative sense of the amount of load that is transferred across a crack when a specified load is applied to one side. Ideally, for a 40 kN applied load, PT would be equal to 20 kN, as half of the load would be transferred across the crack. [28] Note that TLE and PT provide the same information regarding characterization of crack performance, only in different forms. It would thus be redundant to use both of these parameters to evaluate cracks. It is suggested that PT be used rather than TLE, as it has a more physical meaning than its counterpart. Nevertheless, TLE must be computed in this procedure to allow for computation of PT. [28] 106 Tables B.29 through B.32 contain the PT values computed for the cracks and joints in this study. These tables provide values for the four test cycles. The cracks and joints in these tables correspond with those in Tables 8.2] through B.24. Note that PT values computed at joint locations were not considered for analysis purposes in this research, as such consideration would have been beyond the scope of this study. AGG is the final parameter that is determined in this procedure. This parameter characterizes the shear stiffness per unit length of a crack provided by aggregate interlock. A large AGG value indicates that the crack is relatively stiff and has good potential for aggregate interlock load transfer. To determine AGG in this procedure, a plot developed by Ioannides and Korovesis, relating LTE5 to AGG/kI, is used. This plot is shown in Figure 8. Knowing the LTE;> of a crack, a value for AGG/kI can be determined using the curve in this plot. To determine AGG, values for I and k must next be found. These values can either be assumed, based on cross-section information and engineering judgement, or backcalculated using the procedure described in the previous section. Once AGG/kI, I, and k are known, AGG can be determined using simple multiplication. [28] The AGG values computed for the cracks and joints in this study are catalogued in Tables 833 through B.36. These tables provide values for the four test cycles. The cracks and joints in these tables correspond with those in Tables B.2l through B.24. Backcalculated k and I values were used to determine AGG values in this research. To determine AGG values in the fourth test cycle, k and I values were taken from values determined in previous test cycles. Thus, for each site, the k and I values for the most recent test cycle that had such data were used to compute AGG values in Cycle 4. Note 107 fill lll l 1 ll.ll|la Ilia r,lli l .l l ii 1 I. L. l l I I l lllll l l .Ill. a ll lAIl ltkl l 147. llléfil l llllll [ 1.. l ,I ...... I, Yl.llll .lt" kl lLTI l l .lL‘lIl All rlllll Tl llIIIl lavll I1 l l li l l filll ll . rill v.1 1 l Tl l l fill. l l1 ll l létll ll l ll$>l.l l l I . l l Ll llTl IlaT. lll lli Tl rrl lJv ll ll l Ir l ll l T..l iiil l l Ill 71 l I fill. l. i l f. .I l Ell I.Jll la I: w. b 111.1. nWHUlI IUHU Ill l ll lll.ll ll”- .l lLrlllL ll. llll i I l ..l lll 1! A - frilllf Ll 1’ II T I l I all I II- II-I-lIIIIILI l i I , L - - Jr lTl . III -lilLY In . l. . Tillll ll l1 ..l ll Irl lvl lerll l .l l I. llLrl Tl. I l l Yl I l l I ll ll 1. llJl larll ll iv .llL..l l! l LY l l l l 7| lllll l l l fl I ifil T 1. lm l I l l TI l l lllJT .1 III l l ll I l llrl II Lil as. am: 1 .OE-I-OO 1 .0E+01 1 .OE+02 1 .0E+03 1 .0E+04 AGGIkI 1 .OE-01 1 .OE-OZ Relationship between LTE5 and AGG/kI. (After Ioannides and 108 Korovesis [28].) Figure 8 that the AGG values computed in this research were not considered for analysis purposes, as such consideration would have been beyond the scope of this study. In practice, once LTE5, PT, and AGG values (TLE values are redundant, as explained earlier) have been obtained at crack locations, the condition of these cracks can be evaluated by comparing the parametric values with established threshold limits. Such evaluations can be useful in deciding when and how to rehabilitate cracked J CP’s. The development of threshold values for LTE5, PT, and AGG, based on field data from this study, is explained later in this section. Streamlined Approach After considering the feasibility of implementing the “standard” procedure for determining crack performance parameters into a transportation agency’s pavement evaluation scheme, it was realized that a quicker, more efficient method would be desirable. Use of the “standar ” procedure could prove to be quite time-consuming in evaluating the condition of the many transverse cracks found in atypical pavement network. A more efficient approach to determining the performance parameters was thus developed in this project. This simplified procedure is essentially a streamlined version of the “standard” procedure. In this method, the procedure for determining LTE5 remains exactly the same as that used in the “standar ” procedure. That is, LTE5 values are computed based on deflection data obtained from FWD wheelpath testing. However, the procedure for determining PT and AGG (note that TLE is not computed in this method due to its redundancy) in this method is different. These two parameters are determined by using 109 direct relationships between LTE5 and PT and LTE5 and AGG. Such relationships are established in the form of a series of LTEa versus PT plots for a range of I values and LTE5 versus AGG plots for various combinations of k and I. In order to use this procedure, an initial effort must be undertaken by the transportation agency to develop this series of plots. A sufficient number of k and I values and combinations should be chosen to cover the range of values normally encountered for these parameters (e.g., k: 25-85 kPa/mm and I: 900-1300 mm, as found in this study). For each I value, a plot of LTE5 versus PT can be developed for a range of LTE5 values. This involves first determining TLE values for this range of LTE5’S using Figure 7 and the method described in the “standard” procedure above, noting that a is a constant equal to the radius of the FWD load plate and I is the value being considered for that plot. These TLE values can then be transformed into PT values using equation (14), noting the magnitude of load that is generally used for deflection testing. The P2 values can then be plotted against the range of LTE5 values considered. This process is repeated for each of the I values to develop all of the necessary LTE5 versus PT plots. LTEa versus AGG plots must be developed for each k and I combination considered. This involves computing AGG values for a range of LTEa’s using Figure 8 and the method described in the “standard” procedure above, noting that k and I correspond to the combination being considered for that plot. The AGG values obtained can then be plotted versus LTEs for the range of values considered. This process is repeated for each of the k and I combinations to develop all of the necessary LTE5 versus AGG plots. 110 Once this initial effort has been completed and LTE5 versus PT and LTE5 versus AGG plots have been developed for all k and I values and combinations to be considered, the process of determining the performance parameters becomes straightforward. First, field deflection data is collected at crack locations, and LTE5 values are computed using equation (5). PT and AGG values are then determined by considering the appropriate LTEs-PT and LTEs-AGG plots for the pavement in question. These plots correspond to specific I values and k and I combinations, respectively. To select the appropriate plots, the k and I values for the pavement can be backcalculated using the procedure described in the previous section of this chapter. If such backcalculation is performed, the LTEs-PT plot corresponding to the I value closest in magnitude to the backcalculated value should be chosen. Likewise, the LTEa-AGG plot corresponding to the k and I combination that best matches the k and I values backcalculated for the pavement should be chosen. Alternatively, if it is not desired to perform backcalculation, LTEs-PT and LTEs-AGG plots can be selected by using pavement cross-section information and engineering judgement to choose the most appropriate I value and k and I combination for the pavement from among the values and combinations for which plots are available. Once the appropriate plots have been selected for the pavement, PT and AGG values can then be determined for the cracks based on the computed LTE5 values and the selected LTE5- PT and LTEs-AGG plots. Like the “standar ” procedure, the LTEs, PT, and AGG values obtained from this simplified procedure can be compared to threshold limits to evaluate the condition of the cracks. These evaluations can then be used to help in deciding when and how to rehabilitate cracked J CP’ 8 in the pavement network. 111 Although this streamlined approach requires an initial investment of time in developing the series of LTE5 versus PT and LTE5 versus AGG plots, the ease of use and time saved in determining the performance parameters with this method provide ample compensation in the long-term. An example, using data from two of the test sites in this study, is given below to illustrate the use of this approach as well as that of the “standard” procedure. Illustrative Example 2 FWD wheelpath testing on cracks at Sites 38A and 50 during the third test cycle yielded the following data: Site 38A: Cl‘flCklZ 5U] = 118.671.1111 5L1: 121.671.1111 Crack 2: 8U2 = 111.67 pm 812 = 134.33 um Site 50: Crack 12 8UI = 69.67 um 5L1 = 282.67 um Crack 2: 8112 = 108.67 um 8L2 = 115.33 um Note that these deflection values are the average of three measurements taken during three consecutive tests. Multiple tests were done for data quality control purposes. All deflections are taken from tests performed before the crack. Other pertinent informationrelated to this FWD testing is given as follows: 112 a = 150 mm (radius of FWD load plate) P = 40 kN (FWD applied load) In addition to the information given above, values for k and I were also needed to compute the performance parameters. In this study, k and I values were obtained using the backcalculation procedure described earlier in this chapter. Backcalculation of k and I using data collected at Sites 38A and 50 during Cycle 3 was demonstrated in Illustrative Example 1. The results are repeated here for convenience: Site 38A: k = 66.3 kPa/mm I = 936 mm Site 50: k = 40.2 kPa/mm I = 1170 mm All of the information required to determine the performance parameters for the noted cracks has now been given. The use of the two previously described procedures for determining performance parametric values is demonstrated below. “Standard” Procedure Using the “standar ” procedure, the first step was to compute LTE5 values for the cracks using equation (5): Site 38A: 1 18.67 pm ”Em“ = 121.67 um x 100% = 97.53% 113 111.67 urn new“ = m x 100% = 83.13% Site 50: LTE 69‘“ “m lOO‘V 24 65°/ = -——- x = _ 5‘50 282.67 um ° ° 108.67 pm 0 o LTE52,50 = m x lOO/o = 9422/0 Having determined the LTE; values, TLE was the next parameter considered. TLE values were determined using Figure 7 and the respective LTE5 values. In order to use this figure, the a/I ratios for the two sites had to first be determined: 150m-0160 St 50- /t—£9£m—-0128 936mm" 1° ' " ’1170mm" Site 38A: a / I = Since these values did not match any of the three a/I ratios (0.047, 0.156, and 0.312) in Figure 7, TLE values had to be interpolated. Thus, using the plot in Figure 7, TLE values corresponding to the three noted a/I ratios were found for each LTE5 value for the two sites by drawing vertical lines from the x-axis through the three curves. These vertical lines are drawn on the LTEs-TLE plot in Figure 9. The points of intersection of the vertical lines with the three curves are the TLE values for each of the three a/I ratios. The values thus obtained were: 114 8883883 TLE (%) 15 10 Figure 9 +all =0.047 +all = 0.156 +all = 0.312 I LTE“, 30A 3 97.53% LTE“. 50 = 94.22% 1.113,. .. = 24.65% LTE”, 3..,,= 83.13% 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 LTE8 (%) Determination of TLE Using “Standard” Procedure. 115 80 100 Site 38A: For LTE51’38A = 97.53%! TLEah = ()047 = 48.6% For LTEsz, 38A = 83.13%: TLEa/l = 0,047 = 47.0% Site 50: For LTEsl, so = 24.65%: TLEa/,= 0,047 = 23.5% For LTEsz, 50 = 94.22%: TLEaj, = o_o47 = 48.4% For Site 38A, where the a/I ratio was equal to 0.160, TLE values were determined by interpolating between the values found for a/I ratios of 0.156 and 0.312. Equation (15) was used to calculate these interpolated TLE values: (0160 — 0156)(TLEa/I=0.312 _ TLEa/I=0.156) TLEa/r = 0.156 = 450% TLEa/t = 0.156 = 436% TLEa/r= 0.156 = 21.7% TLEa/t = 0.156 = 449% TLEa/(=0.l60 = where: 0.312 —O.156 TLEa/(= 0.312 = 403% TLEa/(=O.312 = 38.9% TLEa/l = 0.312 = 19.3% TLEd, = 0,312 = 40.0% + TLEa/I=0.156 transferred load efficiency for the given a/I ratio, %. 116 The TLE values for the two cracks at Site 38A were thus computed using equation (15): (0.160 — 0.156)(40.3% - 45.0%) 0.312 — 0.156 + 45.0% = 44.87% TLE1,38A = (0.160 - 0.1 56)(3 8.9% — 43.6%) 0.312 — 0.156 TLE”, = + 43.6% = 43.47% For Site 50, where the a/I ratio was equal to 0.128, TLE values were determined by interpolating between the values found for a/I ratios of 0.047 and 0.156. Equation (16) was used to calculate these interpolated TLE values: (0128 — 0'047)(TLEa/I=O.156 - TLEall-£0047) TLEa/I=0.128 = 0156 _ 0 047 + TLEa/Iz0047 (16) where: TLEal, = transferred load efficiency for the given a/I ratio, %. The TLE values for the two cracks at Site 50 were thus computed using equation (16): (0.128 — 0.047)(21.7% — 235%) 0.156 - 0.047 + 235% = 22.16% (0.128 — 0.047)(44.9% - 48.4%) 0.156 — 0.047 + 48.4% = 45.79% TLE2,50 = 117 Once the TLE values had been determined, PT values were computed for the cracks simply by using equation (14): Site 38A: 44.87% PT1,38A = W x 40kN = 17.97 kN 43.47% Site 50: 22.16% “450 = 100% x 40kN = 8.87 kN 45.790/ PT,50 = W;- x 401(N = 18.34 kN The final step in this procedure was to detemrine AGG values for the cracks. This involved determining AGG/kI values for each of the LTE5 values for the two sites using the plot in Figure 8. Determination of these AGG/kI values using the LTEg-AGG/kI plot is depicted in Figure 10. From this plot, the following values were obtained: Site 38A: Site 50: AGG/k6,”), = 205.00 AGG/kIl, 50 = 0.33 AGG/kl; 38A = 9.00 AGG/kg; 50 = 41.00 118 . i *ll I I Ace/1a., a. = 205.00 I AGGIkl2, (to = 41.00 LTE, (%) AGGIklz. a“ 3 9.00 Ill llll'. 1.0E-02 1.05-01 1.0E+00 1.0E+01 1.0E+02 1.0E+03 1.0E+04 AGGIkI Figure 10 Determination of AGG/kI Using “Standard” Procedure. 119 AGG values were then computed for the cracks by multiplying these AGG/kI values by the k and I values for the respective test sites: Site 38A: Adam, = (205.00)(66.3 kPa/mm)(936 mm) = 1.3 x107 kPa AGGmgA = (9.00)(66.3 kPa / mm)(936 mm) = 5.6 x 105 kPa Site 50: AGGL50 = (0.33)(4o.2 kPa / mm)(1170 mm) = 1.6 x 10“ kPa AGG,so = (41.00)(402 kPa / mm)(l 170 mm) = 1.9 x 106 kPa Streamlined Approach In the streamlined approach to determining crack performance parameters, the first step is identical to that of the “standard” procedure. That is, LTE5 values are computed using equation (5). Since these calculations were already shown above in the “standard” procedure example, only the results will be repeated here: Site 38A: Site 50: LTE“, 38A = 97.53% LTE51_ 50 = 24.65% LTEsz, 38A = 83.13% LTEsz, 50 = 94.22% 120 As was explained earlier in this section, in order to determine PT and AGG using this method, an initial effort must be undertaken by the transportation agency to develop a series of LTEs, versus PT and LTE5 versus AGG plots for various k and I values and combinations. For the purposes of this example, LTEa-PT plots were developed for three I values - 900, 1100, and 1300 mm. These plots are shown in Figures 11 through 13, respectively. LTEs-AGG plots were developed for six k and I combinations — {k = 40 kPa/mm, I = 900 mm}, {70 kPa/mm, 900 mm}, {40 kPa/mm, 1100 mm}, {70 kPa/mm, 1100 mm}, {40 kPa/mm, 1300 mm}, and {70 kPa/mm, 1300 mm} — in this example. These plots are displayed in Figures 14 through 19, respectively. In practice, such plots would need to be developed for a greater variety of k and I values and combinations. A sufficient number of values and combinations should be considered to cover the range of values normally encountered in practice. Figures 11 through 13 were developed by considering several LTE5 values ranging from 15 to 100%. For each LTE5 value, TLE and PT were determined using the “standar ” procedure. These plots were developed based on an applied load of 40 kN and radius of the loaded area of 150 mm, which correspond to the FWD wheelpath test conditions used in this study. The PT values were then plotted against the respective LTEs values and a curve was drawn through these points. Figures 14 through 19 were also developed by considering several LTEa values ranging from 15 to 100%. AGG values were determined for each LTE5 value using the “standar ” procedure. These values were then plotted against their respective LTE5 values and a curve was drawn through these points. 121 20 18 ::_:4‘\;:..:::..:::c;lf;:::: :2:..::: - - 1° 1 , 9",... = 18.00 W l j j 14 J g r : 1 _|P,,,,..=17.50k~ I .2 , l I I 2 12 . 'l . l I I I 1" 5 10 / - l - l 1| : o'.’ 3 I la=150rnm l I 4 4 .B/. P=4ok~LI '1' 6 I : |‘=°°°"‘"'| it: 4 + 7 — I . a —~-~~—‘~—.——+———.4 ; I l l l I 5 I 2 . i l 7 I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LTE5(°/o) Figure 11 LTE5 versus PT Plot, I = 900 mm. 20 j w - --:e--—.--, 16 ‘ 14 PH, .0 = 18.25 m g 12 3: 1° a=150mm O. 3 P=40kN t=1100mm 6 4 P11.go=8.75 RN 2 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LTE5 (%) Figure 12 LTE; versus PT Plot, I = 1100 mm. 122 20 18 a= 150 mm I ? ,_ " A; 41 A, ‘ P = 40 kN ; , 7 ‘ , 15 l = 1300 mm v r , fl 4 ; —-_4 14 4 I 4— fL‘Mfiukfi-‘Pd . ‘ 7 7 l ‘ ‘ ‘ x A 12 4T 7 . ' hT . 7 7 .7 v 10 —- ‘ 7 7 _ A , f ____.fi r- ‘ ‘ 7 2 » a s A «~ % + e a 4 i i L 4 % 4 _L____ 4".” _ - l ‘ 1 .‘ I = 1 i 1 7 l * , r 2 7‘ ll 1 4‘ 7 f T o i A I L ‘ l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LTE5 (%) Figure 13 LTE5 versus PT Plot, 1.’ = 1300 mm. 123 1 .0E+09 k = 40 kPa/mm 1.0E+08 l = 900 mm 1 .0E+07 1 .OE-I-OB AGG (kPa) 1 .0E+05 1 DB“ l 1 .0E+03 LTE5 (%) Figure 14 LTEs versus AGG Plot, k = 40 kPa/mm and I = 900 mm. 1 .OE+09 k = 70 kPalmm 1 .0E+08 1 .0E+07 1 .0E+06 AGG (kPa) 1 .0E+05 LTE; (%) Figure 15 LTE; versus AGG Plot, k = 70 kPa/mm and Z = 900 mm. 124 1 .0E+09 k = 40 kPa/mm 1.0E+08 l = 1100 mm AGG; so = 2.0E+06 kPa A 1.0E+07 a L =5 1 0E+06 8 . < 1-0E+05 AGG1_50 = 1.5E+04 kPa 1.0E+04 1.0E+03 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LTE; (%) Figure 16 LTE5 versus AGG Plot, k = 40 kPa/mm and l = 1100 mm. k = 70 kPa/mm E‘:‘7‘—1::::’LLTV ,‘ ,_ 1.0E-1-08 t = 1100 mm ‘ ‘ ‘ A 1.0E+07 a O. i 1 0E+06 0 . (D ‘1 1.0E+05 f 1.0E+04 i 7 g . 7 r x 7 I J1 1.0E4'03 1 L 4 ‘ I 1 1 l l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LTEs (%) Figure 17 LTEs versus AGG Plot, k = 70 kPa/mm and l = 1100 mm. 125 AGG (kPa) 1 .0E+09 k = 40 kPa/mm 1.0E+08 t = 1300 mm 1 .0E+07 1 .OE+06 1 .0E+05 1 .OE-0-04 r 1 .0E+03 LTE5 (%) Figure 18 LTE5 versus AGG Plot, k = 40 kPa/mm and l = 1300 mm. AGG (kPa) 1 .0E+09 1 .0E+08 1 .OE+07 1 .0E+06 1 .0E+05 1 .0E-1-04 1.0E+03 F 0 10 20 30 40 50 00 70 so 90 100 LTE5 (%) Figure 19 LTE5 versus AGG Plot, k = 70 kPa/mm and l = 1300 mm. 126 The backcalculated k and K values for Sites 38A and 50 in Cycle 3 were found in Illustrative Example 1 to be k = 66.3 kPa/mm and f = 936 mm and k = 40.2 kPa/mm and I = 1170 mm, respectively. These k and 8 values were used to select the appropriate LTEs-PT and LTEs-AGG plots from Figures 11 through 19 to determine PT and AGG for the cracks in this example. For Site 38A, Figures 11 and 15 were found to be the most appropriate plots, as the 8 value and k and 3 combination in these plots, respectively, best matched the backcalculated k and K values for this test site. For Site 50, Figures 12 and 16 were found to be the most appropriate plots, as the I value and k and I? combination in these plots, respectively, best matched the backcalculated k and 3 values for this test site. As an alternate method, if k and i had not been backcalculated in this example, the appropriate LTEs-PT and LTEs-AGG plots for these two test sites could have been chosen based on pavement cross-section information and engineering judgement. Such information and judgement would have been used to choose the most appropriate 3 value and k and K combination for the pavements from among the values and combinations considered in Figures 11 through 19. Using Figures 11 and 15 and the appropriate LTE5 values, the following PT and AGG values for the two cracks at Site 38A were obtained: 1mm = 18.00 kN AGGI, 33,. = 1.0 x 107 kPa P1233», = 17.50 kN AGG; m = 6.0 x 105 kPa 127 Using Figures 12 and 16 and the appr0priate LTE:> values, the following PT and AGG values for the two cracks at Site 50 were obtained: PTl,SO = 8.75 kN AGGL 50 =15 X 104 kPa P1150 = 18.25 kN AGG; 50 = 2.0 x 106 kPa Comments In practice, the LTEa, PT, and AGG values computed for the cracks in this example would be compared to threshold limits. Comparison of these parametric values with the thresholds would allow for evaluation of the condition of the cracks. On a global scale, this process could be performed on all transverse cracks in the pavement network. If evaluations were performed on such a global scale, they could be used as a tool in planning and selecting rehabilitation activities for the pavement network. A comparison of the PT and AGG values determined in this example using each of the two procedures described in this section shows that fairly similar results are obtained for both methods. Generally, the PT values computed using each procedure were within 1% of each other. The AGG values determined by each method were generally within 10% of each other. It can be seen that the discrepancy in AGG values obtained using the two procedures is larger than that for the P;- values. This can be attributed to error in reading values off of the log scale of the AGG axis in the LTEs- AGG plots when using the streamlined approach. When reading values off of plots, some error inevitably occurs in visually reading the values. Such errors in reading AGG values off of the LTEs-AGG plots are magnified due to the log scale of the AGG axis. These 128 magnified errors lead to a larger discrepancy in the AGG values obtained using the “standar ” and streamlined procedures than the discrepancy associated with the PT values obtained using these two procedures. Nevertheless, the 10% discrepancy found in AGG values between the two methods in this example is still not very great, and the results obtained using each of the two methods can be considered fairly similar. It should be noted that the accuracy of the results obtained using the streamlined approach depends on the closeness between the k and 6 values in the plots used to determine PT and AGG and the actual values for the pavement. To provide sufficient accuracy using this approach, an adequate number of k and 2 values and combinations should thus be considered when developing LTEs-PT and LTEs-AGG plots. This will help to ensure the availability of plots corresponding to k and K values that are close to the actual values for the pavement. As indicated by the results in this example, the PT and AGG values obtained using the streamlined approach are close to those determined using the “standar ” procedure. Considering the similar results obtained using the two methods and the advantage in time saved by using the streamlined approach, which was evidenced in this example, the streamlined procedure would seem to be the more efficient method for determining parametric values. Thus, if a transportation agency intends to use performance parameters to evaluate transverse crack performance, it would be suggested that the streamlined approach be employed. 129 Development of Performance Parameter Thresholds Comparison of crack performance parametric values (LTEa, PT, and AGG) with threshold limits allows for evaluation of cracks in a pavement network. When integrated into a comprehensive pavement evaluation scheme, these evaluations can act as a useful tool in planning and selecting rehabilitation activities for the pavement network. Ideally, rehabilitation activities (e. g., load transfer restoration or full-depth patch repair) would be performed before parametric values reach the threshold limits, allowing the integrity of cracked J CP’s to be restored prior to the development of crack-related distresses. In order to use crack performance parameters as a means for evaluating crack condition, threshold limits must first be established for these parameters. 70% is a commonly accepted threshold value for LTE5 by many researchers. That is, cracks are considered to have adequate load transfer if they have an LTEF, of 70% or higher. No such common thresholds exist for PT and AGG, as these parameters have not been widely used for assessing crack performance to date. Addressing the lack of threshold limits for these parameters, data from this study was used to develop thresholds for PT and AGG. Field data was also used to check the validity of the 70% threshold for LTEa. To develop such thresholds, it was necessary to establish an indicator of the ability of transverse cracks to transfer load other than the crack performance parameters, so that such an indicator could be compared to the parametric values. Faulting was selected as such an indicator in this study. This distress can be used as an indicator of poor load transfer (and thus poor crack condition), because inadequate load transfer is a mechanism for faulting. It can be assumed that when faulting exists at a crack, poor load transfer also exists at that crack. 130 Using this logic, Cycle 4 crack fault data and Cycle 4 crack LTEs, PT, and AGG values were compared in an effort to establish threshold limits. Cycle 4 data was used because the fault data collected during this cycle was considered to be reliable. Inaccurate fault data was collected during Cycle 1, and no fault data was collected during Cycles 2 and 3. Since temperature is known to affect the parametric values (effect of temperature on LTEa is discussed later in this section), it should be noted that the data used in developing the thresholds in this study was taken at ambient temperatures ranging from 10 to 29°C. This included all Cycle 4 crack data except for that taken at Site 44, which was tested during very high ambient temperatures (> 40°C). A plot of Cycle 4 fault data (i.e., faulting or no faulting) versus the respective LTE5 values for all cracks tested during this cycle is given in Figure 20. From this plot, it can be seen that the fault-free cracks generally had very high LTE5 values, whereas most of the faulted cracks had low values. Considering the relationship between faulting and load transfer capacity discussed abOve, this trend is very reasonable. Of course, there are a few exceptions to this trend, but these can be attributed to the many sources of error associated with taking field data. In this case, such error could be due to faulty FWD measurements and/or error in the visual assessments of faulting. In any event, there is a clear trend that faulted cracks have lower LTE5 values than fault-flee cracks. To establish an LTE5 threshold based on faulting using this plot, a breakoff value must be established where most of the faulted data lies below this value and most of the fault-free data lies above this value. It appears that the commonly accepted LTEa threshold value of 70% is such an appropriate breakoff value. Thus, based on the data from this study, an LTEa threshold value of 70% seems appropriate. 131 A A vuu v w % 90 KW; OWOQJQ). &% (33 099%? m o 80 . o o 70 ______________________________ o - - .9 _ _ _ g 50 4 [0 June 1998, Not Faulted o o 7\— Threshold = 70% "3° 50 0 June 1998, Faulted .— ’ O .1 4° ‘ 0 o 30 ' . ' . A ' ' o o e o 20 ~ Q . ' °. . 0 0 s e O o e 10 ~ 0 0 Cracks Figure 20 Comparison of Cycle 4 Fault and LTE5 Crack Data. 132 Figure 21 contains a plot of Cycle 4 fault data versus the respective PT values for all cracks tested during this cycle. This plot, of course, shows a similar trend to that observed in Figure 20 for LTE5. That is, the fault-free cracks generally had very high PT values, whereas most of the faulted cracks had low values. Again, there are a few exceptions to this trend, but these can be attributed to the sources of error noted previously. Considering Figure 21, it appears that an appropriate breakoff value for P1 is 16.5 kN. Most of the faulted crack data falls below this value, while the fault-free data generally lies above this value. Thus, a PT threshold value of 16.5 kN seems appropriate based on the field data fi'om this study. A plot of fault data versus the respective AGG values for all cracks tested during Cycle 4 is shown in Figure 22. This plot shows a similar trend to that observed in Figures 20 and 21. That is, higher parametric values are found for fault-free cracks than for faulted cracks. Figure 22 shows that fault-free cracks generally had high AGG values, while most of the faulted cracks had low values. There are once again a few exceptions to this trend, but these can be attributed to the sources of error noted previously. Based on Figure 22, it seems that an appropriate breakoff value for AGG is 2.0 x 105 kPa. Most of the faulted crack data falls below this value, while the fault-free data generally lies above this value. Based on the field data from this study, an AGG threshold value of 2.0 x 105 kPa thus seems appropriate. Based on the results from this study, a suggested criteria for using the performance parameters would be that a crack is considered to be in acceptable condition if all of its parametric values are greater than the thresholds given above. If any of the threshold criteria are not met, the crack is considered to be in unacceptable condition. It 133 e 15 l- """""""""""""" O' """ '1 ,4 Threshold = 16.5 m j ° 0 o e E 12 - . a . o O 5 10 ‘ . O . n:- 8 - . .. 0 0° . O 6 - 0 ‘ O o 4“ oJune 1998, Not Faulted 21 0.101111 1998, Faulted o , Cracks Figure 21 Comparison of Cycle 4 Fault and P1 Crack Data. 1.0E+09 , O 0 June 1998. Not Faulted o 0 0 1.09037 OJune 1998, Faulted ° 0 of o 0 o o 000 .. 1.0E+07 o o 0 0 ° «I 0 o 06> 0 o o o 0 0 Q) 15 n. o o o (be 0 ‘bcb. o 0950 ° W O o 0 i 1.05.05? %° 0 0 00 Q). 0 0° 0 0G 6) G 0 o o o 0 1.- ———————————————————————————— Q — -.- - — II “ 1.0E+05 . o cc>0 . e e e ' . O O O 1.0E+04 . 0 "*0 0 . "’0 \ 0 Threshold = 2.0E+05 kPa 1.0E+03 Cracks Figure 22 Comparison of Cycle 4 Fault and AGG Crack Data. 134 was previously noted that the data used for developing the thresholds in this study was taken at ambient temperatures ranging from 10 to 29°C. If ambiguous results (see discussion below on temperature effects) are obtained for data taken near the limits or outside of this temperature range, performance parameters alone should not be used to evaluate crack condition. In such cases, a visual distress survey of the crack condition, taken at the time of testing, should also be considered for crack evaluation purposes. Temperature Effects on Performance Parameters Efiect of Pavement Surface Temperature on LTEJ It is well-known that temperature affects the load transfer potential of transverse cracks in JCP’s through slab curling and thermal expansion/contraction of the slab. At high temperatures, downward curling and thermal expansion reduce crack widths. This results in a greater potential for contact between opposing crack faces and thus greater potential for aggregate interlock load transfer. Noting this dependence of load transfer potential on temperature, it was desired to determine how temperature affects the performance parameters discussed in this thesis. Hence, data from this study was used to examine the effect of pavement surface temperature on LTEs. Since PT and AGG are derived from LTEs, temperature should have a similar effect on these parameters as for LTEa. Before discussing the analysis of temperature effects that was performed in this research, let us first review the temperature data that was collected in this study. As was noted in Chapter IV, ambient and pavement surface temperature measurements were made at the time of all FWD wheelpath testing. Tables B.37 through 135 8.40 of Appendix B provide ambient test temperature data for the cracks and joints that were FWD wheelpath tested. These tables contain data for the carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, and slag test site pavements, respectively. Pavement surface test temperatures for such cracks and joints are given in Tables B.41 through B.44 for the four pavement types, respectively. The data in Tables 837 through B.44 includes measurements taken for both the tests performed before and afier the crack/joint for all testing done in Cycles 1 through 4. Note that the cracks and joints in these tables correspond to those listed in Tables B.21 through B3 6. Also note that data measured at joint locations was not considered for purposes of analysis, as consideration of this data would have been beyond the scope of this study. The relationship between pavement surface temperature and LTE5 was examined on a test site-by-test site basis. In this analysis, temperature measurements were compared to LTE5 values for each crack within a test site using the data collected during Cycles 1 through 4. Results from this analysis did indeed show a relationship between temperature and LTEa. That is, increasing the pavement surface temperature was usually found to result in an increase in LTE5 and, in general, a reduction in crack width. Considering the downward slab curling and thermal expansion that occur at high temperatures, this trend is very reasonable. The reduced crack widths associated with downward curling and slab expansion allow for greater aggregate interlock and thus lead to higher LTEs’s. Note that the relationship between pavement surface temperature and crack width in this study was not consistent, probably due to the erred nature of the crack width measurements (see Chapter IV). 136 The trend of increasing LTE5 with increasing temperature was particularly evident for cracks with wide openings and low LTEa’s at low temperatures. These cracks were often found to show substantial improvement in LTEs with increasing temperature. Such improvement was likely the result of a significant reduction in crack width with increasing temperature. Cracks having LTE5’s of less than 30% at low pavement surface temperatures (5 to 15°C) were often found to increase by 40 to 80% LTE5 when temperatures rose to 30 to 40°C. Such behavior is displayed in Figure 23, which presents a plot of pavement surface temperature versus LTE5 for the two cracks tested at Site 7. From this plot, it can be seen that Crack 2 had an LTE5 just below 15% at a temperature just above 10°C. As the temperature increased to about 40°C, the LTE, of this crack climbed to above 90%. It should be noted that temperature did not seem to have a significant effect on LTEa, however, for cracks that were tight and had high LTE5’s at low temperatures. Temperature did not significantly affect the LTEs’s of these cracks, because the crack faces were already in close contact at low temperatures. Cracks demonstrating LTEa’S of 90 to 100% at low temperatures (5 to 15°C) were usually found to show a change of less than 5% when the temperature was increased to 30 to 40°C. These changes can probably be attributed more to error in the FWD measurements than the effect of temperature. Variation in LTE5 with temperature for such cracks is shown in Figure 24, which plots pavement surface temperature versus LTE5 for the two cracks tested at Site 5. It can be seen in this plot that LTE5 increased by 5% or less for Cracks 1 and 2 as temperature increased from about 10°C to about 40°C. Crack 1 in Figure 23 further demonstrates the 137 100 90- 80‘ 70~ 60‘ 501 40‘ 30~ 204 10~ LTE, (%) — o— Crack1 —e—Crack 2 Figure 23 10 20 30 40 Pavement Surface Test Temp. (C) Effect of Pavement Surface Temperature on LTE5, Site 7. LTE, (%) - 0- Crack 1 —e—Crack2 Figure 24 10 20 1‘ 30 Pavement Surface Test Temp. (C) Effect of Pavement Surface Temperature on LTE5, Site 5. 138 behavior of such cracks, as its LTE5 changed by less than 2% as the temperature increased from about 10°C to about 40°C. All three of these cracks had LTE5’s of 90 to 100% at 10°C. Consideration of Temperature Effects in Evaluating Performance Parametric Values The dependence of LTEs (and by default, PT and AGG) on pavement surface temperature suggests that the temperature at the time of FWD testing should be noted and subsequently considered when making crack evaluations based on these parameters. Temperature effects can lead to ambiguous results for LTE5, PT, and AGG. Such ambiguity can occur when low parametric values are obtained at low temperatures or high values are obtained at high temperatures. In these cases, parametric values may not be indicative of the actual crack condition. Cracks exhibiting low values at low temperatures may demonstrate significantly higher, acceptable values at higher temperatures. Similarly, cracks showing high parametric values at high temperatures may exhibit unacceptable values at lower temperatures. In such cases, visual crack distress surveys should be performed and considered in addition to the parametric values to allow for a better assessment of the crack condition. Another approach to dealing with these temperature effects is to minimize the effects by only performing FWD testing when temperatures are within a specified range. Darter et al. suggest testing when ambient temperatures are between 10 and 27°C [41]. Testing during these relatively cool temperatures helps to minimize curling and expansion/contraction effects. It also helps to ensure that if these temperature effects do occur, the result will be upward curling and/or 139 slab contraction. These conditions would lead to conservative assessments of crack condition. ASSESSMENT OF VOID POTENTIAL NEAR TRAN SVERSE CRACKS Overview Field data from this study was used to demonstrate a voids analysis procedure that allows for an assessment of the likelihood of loss of support near transverse cracks and joints. By detecting the presence of voids at cracks and joints, this procedure, which utilizes comer FWD data, allows appropriate rehabilitation actions to be taken to restore support to a cracked JCP. It is particularly usefirl for identifying void potential near cracks and joints that are in the early stages of void manifestation, but do not yet show visual evidence (faulting, comer breaks, etc.) of loss of support. Detecting the presence of voids at such cracks and joints allows appropriate rehabilitation actions to be taken before distresses develop and allows support to be restored at locations that might otherwise be overlooked. Slab stabilization, which is described in detail in Chapter III of this thesis, is one rehabilitation action that can be used to restore support near cracks or joints associated with a loss of support. The voids analysis procedure described herein can also be useful in ensuring that voids no longer exist after rehabilitation actions have been performed. FWD comer deflection data collected at selected cracks and joints during Cycles 3 and 4 was used to perform voids analyses in this study. A description of the voids analysis procedure used in this study is given below. An example, using field data from this research, is also provided in this section to illustrate the use of this procedure in 140 evaluating void potential near transverse cracks. Results fiom the voids analyses performed on the field data from this study were used to determine appropriate threshold limits for evaluating void potential using this procedure. A discussion concerning the determination of these thresholds concludes this section. Voids Analysis Procedure The first step in the voids analysis procedure involves performing FWD tests at crack and/or joint comer locations, as described in Chapter IV of this thesis. This testing should preferably be performed when the ambient temperature is below 27°C. Testing during such cool temperatures helps to ensure conservative results, as any slab curling will be upward in nature. Upward curling leads to higher comer deflections. [41] From this FWD testing, deflection values are obtained for three magnitudes of load at each crack or joint tested. This data is then used to create a plot of pavement deflection (x-axis) versus load magnitude (y-axis). For each crack or joint, a best-fit line is plotted through the three data points and extrapolated until it intersects the x-axis. The x-intercept obtained from such lines is the parameter that is used to determine the void potential of the crack or joint. If the x-intercept lies above an established threshold value, it would be considered likely that a void exists on the leave side of that crack or joint. An x-intercept below the threshold would indicate that no loss of support exists at that location. A threshold value of 50 pm is suggested by Darter eta1., while Wade et a1. recommend a value of 75 um [41, 58]. An evaluation of the validity of these thresholds, based on data from this study, is given later in this section. [41] 141 An example, using data collected in this research, is given below to demonstrate the use of the voids analysis procedure. Illustrative Example 3 FWD comer deflection testing on three cracks at Site 13 during Cycle 4 yielded the following load and deflection data: Crackl: P=40kN > 5=267um P=67kN > 8=397um P=89kN > 8=499um Crack 2: P=40kN > 8=165um P=67kN > 8=270um P=89kN > 8=352um Crack3: P=40kN > 8=486um P=67kN > 6=59311m P=89kN > 8=720um These load and deflection values were plotted on a deflection (x-axis) versus load (y-axis) graph. Best-fit lines were then drawn through the data points and extrapolated to the x-axis, as shown in Figure 25. From this figure, the following x-intercept values were obtained: 142 100 90 4 Load (kN) S e 'A o/' o/' e 41/ o/' o/' .n/ ./ , /' eCrack1 '/' nCrackZ ' ACrack3 Figure 25 r 400 500 600 700 Deflection (um) Determination of x-intercepts for Voids Analysis, Site 13, Cycle 4 Data. 143 800 x-interceptCmH = 78 um x-interceptka 2 = 13 um x-interceptka 3 = 287 pm To evaluate the void potential of these cracks, the x-intercepts found above must be compared to threshold limits. Figure 26 allows for such an evaluation. In addition to the three x-intercepts determined above, this figure contains horizontal lines drawn at the two threshold values from [41] and [5 8] noted earlier in this section. Data points plotting above these lines indicate the presence of a void, while those plotting below the lines indicate that no loss of support exists. Figure 26 shows that the Crack 2 x-intercept is well below either threshold limit, and thus no void likely exists at this location. Conversely, the Crack 3 x-intercept plots significantly above both threshold limits, and it can thus be considered very likely that some loss of support exists at this location. The x- intercept for Crack 1 plots just above the 75 um threshold. Thus, it would be considered likely that a void does exist at this crack location. Note, however, that assessment of void potential at Crack 1 cannot be made with as much confidence as for the other two cracks, as its x-intercept is very close to the threshold values. For this test site, rehabilitation action(s) (e.g., slab stabilization) are needed to restore support at Cracks 1 and 3. In practice, the voids analysis procedure could be performed on all transverse cracks in the vicinity of this test site. Assessing the void potential of all such cracks would allow appropriate rehabilitation actions to be taken on this pavement. Such actions would restore the integrity of the cracked J CP. 144 325 300 - Loss or SUPPORT LIKELY . 275 « A 250 - E 225 « 3 200 ‘ Threshold "’ Threshold 0. _ 3 175 from Darter et :orlgsvlhde et .. 15° al. [41] ' 8 125 . 1: 3 100 - 75 ~ ————— II.- ----------------------------- 1- 50 . ———————————————————————————————————— 1- 25 . NO Loss OF SUPPORT 0 . Crack 1 Crack 2 Crack 3 Crack Number Figure 26 Determination of Void Potential Using Established Threshold Limits, Site 13, Cycle 4 Data. 145 Examination of Threshold Limits for Void Potential Voids analysis results from this study were used to examine the validity of the two aforementioned thresholds (50 um and 75 um) for void potential. It was desired to determine if these thresholds were satisfactory for detecting the presence of voids, or if another threshold would be more apprOpriate, based on the data from this study. In order to do this, it was necessary to determine x-intercept values for cracks known to have voids and cracks known not to have voids. Comparison of these x-intercept values would then allow an appropriate threshold to be determined. It was thus necessary to establish a means, other than the voids analysis procedure, for determining which cracks had voids and which did not have voids. In this study, faulting was used as such an indicator to determine whether voids did or did not exist at a crack location. Faulting can be used as an indicator of the existence of voids, because a loss of support is a consequence of the faulting mechanism. As a testimonial to this, Darter et al. assert that voids are definitely present where there is faulting. It should be noted, however, that voids may be present even if there is no faulting. For purposes of this analysis, however, it was assumed that no faulting was equivalent to no loss of support. [41] Thus, FWD comer testing and the complementary voids analysis were performed on test site pavements in this study at both visually faulted cracks and cracks with no noticeable faulting. Tables B.45 through B.48 of Appendix B contain the results pertaining to the voids analyses performed at crack locations in this study for the carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, and slag pavements, respectively. Similar data obtained for joints in this study is located in Tables B.49 through B.52 for the four 146 pavement types, respectively. Tables B.45 through B.52 contain the x-intercept values determined using data from Cycles 3 and 4 as well as measurements of faulting taken during Cycle 4. Cycle 1 fault data was not considered in this analysis due to the inconsistent results obtained during that test cycle. It can be seen that comer testing was not usually done in both Cycles 3 and 4 for the same crack/joint. This was done intentionally to allow for as many cracks and joints as possible to be tested in the shortest time possible. It should be noted that the cracks and joints in these tables do not correspond to those in earlier tables of this thesis. Also note that although joint data was collected and tabulated, this data was not considered in the analyses reported in this section, as consideration of joints is beyond the scope of this research. The validity of the voids analysis procedure itself is supported by the fault and x- intercept data in Tables B.45 through B.48. It can be seen from these tables that faulted cracks generally had significantly larger x-intercepts than cracks without faulting. The average x-intercept for faulted cracks was 165 um, whereas an average intercept of 52 um was found for fault-free cracks. This indicates that cracks having voids (based on faulting) have larger x-intercepts. Indeed, that is the premise of the voids analysis procedure. In order to examine the validity of the 50 um and 75 um thresholds, a plot of fault data (i.e., faulting or no faulting) versus the respective x-intercepts for all cracks comer tested in this study was created. This plot is shown in Figure 27. Note that negative x- intercept values were taken as “zero” in this plot, as both negative and zero values essentially have the same interpretation in this analysis — that is, they indicate areas of full support. Horizontal lines were drawn in this figure at the two noted threshold values. 147 § 600 , A Oct. 1997, Not Faulted 550 . A Oct. 1997, Faulted 4‘ A g 500 7 0 June 1998, Not Faulted 0 g. 450 1 OJune1998, Faulted . E 400 7 Threshold 3 3:: 1 from ‘ o &- Darter et Threshold g 250 4 3|, [41] ‘ 0 from Wade et :5 200 4 o 2‘. al. [58] ‘ 150 « A . o .. o 100 4 04 e 531::3§::::Q' "up: ::::o?;_:;;u°::-:;::: Cracks Figure 27 Comparison of Cycles 3 and 4 x-intercepts with Cycle 4 Fault Data. 148 It appears from this figure that most of the x-intercepts for the faulted cracks plot above the 50 to 75 um range, while those for the non-faulted cracks plot below this range. Certainly, there are deviations from this trend, but these can be attributed to the many sources of error associated with taking field data (e. g., faulty FWD measurements and/or error in the visual assessments of faulting). Hence, both of these thresholds seem to be fairly reasonable. Selection of one particular x-intercept value to be used as a threshold in this procedure would be very difficult, as there is no one distinct value that can differentiate between the existence and nonexistence of a void. To improve the usefulness of this method, it might thus be suggested that, rather than using one specific threshold value, a threshold range should be established. Void potential would thus be assessed based on whether x-intercepts plot below, within, or above this range. x-intercepts below the lower limit of this range would indicate no loss of support, while values above the upper limit would signify that there is some loss of support. For those cracks demonstrating x- intercepts within the threshold range, it would be suggested that coring (or some other method) be performed to further investigate if voids exist at those locations. Using this logic and based on field data from this study, it seems that a threshold range of 50 to 75 pm is appropriate for the voids analysis procedure. When using the voids analysis procedure to evaluate void potential, it should be kept in mind that it is recommended that comer FWD testing for this procedure be performed at ambient temperatures less than 27°C. For data collected at temperatures significantly higher than 27°C, downward slab curling could cause decreased slab deflections, thus hindering the accuracy of this procedure in determining void potential. 149 - CHAPTER VI - Results and Discussion 11 - Factors Affecting Transverse Cracking in JCP’s OVERVIEW Field data from this research was used to study the effects of various factors on the occurrence and performance of transverse cracks in J CP’s. The effects of joint spacing, concrete coarse aggregate type, and shoulder type on transverse crack occurrence were examined using such data. In addition, a relatively new analysis procedure called Volumetric Surface Texture (VST) testing, which was developed at the University of Minnesota, was utilized to investigate the effect of concrete aggregate type on crack face surface texture. Noting that the surface texture of a crack face is related to the potential for aggregate interlock load transfer across a transverse crack, this procedure was used to assess the relative crack performance potential of the four aggregate types considered in this study. Results and discussion pertaining to the analysis of the above factor effects are provided in subsequent sections of this chapter. EFFECT OF JOINT SPACIN G ON TRANSVERSE CRACKING Field data from this study was used to determine the effect of joint spacing on the occurrence of transverse cracks in J CP’s. This was done by examining the relationship between joint spacing and number of transverse cracks per slab. Figure 28 depicts this relationship for the data collected in this study. This plot shows that increasing the joint spacing leads to a greater number of cracks per slab. Increasing the joint spacing from 4.9 m to 8.2 m results in almost twice the number of cracks, while an increase to 21.6 m 150 4.5 4.0 - 3.5 4 3.0 - 2.5 . 2.0 ~ 1.5 ~ 1.0 ~ 0.5 ~ 0.0 Avg. Number of Cracks I Slab 8.2 Joint Spacing (m) Figure 28 Effect of Joint Spacing 0n Number of Transverse Cracks per Slab. 151 leads to almost four times the numbef of cracks. Other studies performed in Minnesota and Michigan support this finding that the amount of transverse cracking increases with longer joint spacing [59]. Joint spacing affects transverse cracking due to its influence on curling stresses. Longer joint spacing (and thus slab length) generally corresponds to higher curling stresses in a slab. This is evidenced by considering Bradbury’s curve (briefly discussed in Chapter II), which relates the correction factor Cx (accounting for the frnite length of a concrete slab) to the joint spacing-radius of relative stiffness ratio (Lx/l) [5]. As joint spacing increases, Lx/l also increases, which leads to a higher Cx value according to Bradbury’s curve (up to DJ! = 8.5) [5]. Consideration of the curling stress equation (equation (1) in this thesis) reveals that higher Cx values result in larger curling stresses. Thus, longer joint spacing is generally associated with higher curling stresses. In a concrete slab, curling stresses manifest themselves as tensile stresses. Eventually, these tensile stresses are relieved by transverse cracking. Hence, due to its effect in producing larger curling stresses, longer joint spacing results in the potential for more transverse cracks in a slab. EFFECT OF CONCRETE COARSE AGGREGATE TYPE ON TRANSVERSE CRACKING A study of the effect of coarse aggregate type on transverse crack occurrence was also performed using data from this study. Field data from test sites with a 12.5 m joint spacing was used to investigate the relationship between aggregate type and number of transverse cracks per slab. By considering data only from pavements with this joint spacing, the influence of slab length on transverse cracking was removed. Figure 29 152 5.0 4-5 ‘ Joint Spacing = 12.5 m 4'2 4.0 1 3.5 ~ 3.0 « 2.5 . 2.0 ~ 1.5 « 1.0 « 0.5 « 0.0 - 4.4 Avg. Number of Cracks I Slab Aggregate Type Figure 29 Effect of Coarse Aggregate Type 0n Number of Transverse Cracks per Slab. 153 shows the relationship between aggregate type and number of transverse cracks per slab for the data fiom this research. It can be seen that recycled concrete and slag pavements tended to have approximately twice the number of transverse cracks as pavements with natural gravel or carbonate aggregates. This can possibly be attributed to the greater susceptibility of slag and recycled concrete pavements to shrinkage cracking, when proper curing considerations are not made. Slag aggregates have the potential to absorb a substantial amount of water from the concrete mixture due to their high porosity. If such absorption occurs, the resulting loss of water from the paste can lead to shrinkage cracking. After being subjected to repeated traffic and environmental load applications, these shrinkage cracks can develop into more severe transverse cracks. Recycled aggregates can also be highly susceptible to shrinkage cracking, as they are associated with a nonuniform, sometimes high moisture absorption capacity [14]. It is suspected that the variability in the absorption capacity of these aggregates is linked to the variability in the amount of old mortar which exists on the aggregate particles. In areas where a large amount of old mortar covers the aggregate particles, a greater tendency for moisture absorption will exist. This is at least partially due to the presence of unhydrated cement particles within the old mortar. Hydration of these particles may occur as they come in contact with the mix water. Such hydration would result in a loss of mix water and could contribute to shrinkage cracking, and eventually, more severe transverse cracks. If the aggregate particles used in recycled pavements have a high moisture absorption capacity, the susceptibility of these pavements to shrinkage cracking would be further heightened. 154 Natural gravel and carbonate pavements are much less likely to experience significant shrinkage cracking caused by aggregate absorption of mix water. These aggregates generally have low absorption capacities compared to recycled concrete and slag aggregates. If all other variables are assumed constant and proper curing methods are neglected, recycled and slag pavements would thus be expected to be plagued with more transverse cracks than natural gravel and carbonate pavements due to their relatively high proclivity towards shrinkage cracking. EFFECT OF SHOULDER TYPE ON TRAN SVERSE CRACKING It is believed that the type of shoulder used in conjunction with a JCP can significantly affect the occurrence of transverse cracking in the mainline pavement. To test the validity of this belief, an analysis was performed on the field data from this study. Specifically, field data was used to determine if shoulder type has a significant effect on the number of transverse cracks per slab. Each of the test site pavements in this study had one of three different shoulder types — tied concrete, tied concrete with sympathy joints, or asphalt. Before discussing the results from the analysis performed in this study, let us first consider why pavements with these three shoulder types are expected to behave differently with respect to transverse cracking. Note that a brief explanation of why these shoulder types affect cracking was provided in Chapter II. A somewhat more detailed explanation is given here, however, for convenience. Pavements with asphalt shoulders are expected to have more transverse cracks than those with tied concrete shoulders. The reason for this can be understood by considering a load that is applied at the midslab edge location of a J CP (see Figure 3). If 155 an asphalt shoulder exists, the mainline pavement and the shoulder structurally act as two separate entities. The load is essentially applied at a free edge, resulting in the midslab edge load condition. This is considered to be the critical load condition for fatigue cracking. Tensile stresses are greatest in this load condition because the load is located far fiom the joints, where mechanical load transfer is often provided by dowel bars, and at a free edge, where the maximum bending stress occurs [3]. Thus, pavements with asphalt shoulders are highly susceptible to fatigue cracking if they have not been designed to resist the stresses resulting from this critical load condition. In contrast, if a tied concrete shoulder is used, the slab and shoulder act as a composite support system for the load. The tied shoulder essentially extends the width of the pavement receiving the load. Consequently, if the same load positioning as described above occurs on a pavement with a tied concrete shoulder, the load is no longer applied at a free edge and the tensile bending stress in the concrete is reduced. Pavements with tied concrete shoulders would thus be expected to be less prone to fatigue cracking than those with asphalt shoulders. A tied concrete shoulder with sympathy joints is another shoulder type that is sometimes used. Sympathy joints are shoulder joints with a joint spacing less than that which exists in the mainline pavement. For pavements with these shoulders, differential responses to thermal variations between the slab and shoulder (which are tied together) induce tensile stresses in the slab. These stresses frequently result in transverse cracks in the mainline pavement adjacent to the shoulder sympathy joints. Hence, pavements with this shoulder type are expected to demonstrate more transverse cracking than would occur on a pavement with tied concrete shoulders and no sympathy joints. 156 An analysis of variance (AN OVA) was performed on the field data from this study to determine if the data agreed with the behavior that is expected (according to the above paragraphs) of pavements with the three shoulder types. This analysis procedure allowed for a statistical assessment of whether shoulder type had a significant effect on the average number of transverse cracks per slab. An analysis was performed for each possible pairing of the three shoulder types. To remove the influence of aggregate type on cracking, separate analyses were performed for each of the four concrete aggregate types. Note that there were no recycled test site pavements with asphalt shoulders and no slag test site pavements with tied concrete shoulders having sympathy joints. For the various analyses, an or (confidence level) of 0.05 was used, meaning that if the p-value (smallest or level at which significant results could be obtained) was less than 0.05, the difference in number of cracks per slab between shoulder types was considered statistically significant [60]. One final important note is that several variables believed to affect transverse cracking were not controlled in this analysis. Controlling such variables would not have provided a sufficient amount of data to perform this analysis. Results from the AN OVA analyses are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that shoulder type did affect transverse cracking for natural gravel pavements. Pavements with asphalt shoulders had a significantly greater number of cracks than those with tied concrete shoulders (with and without sympathy joints). As was previously discussed, this is due to the reduced tensile stresses that result when a tied concrete shoulder is used. Although it would be expected that significantly more cracks would occur in pavements with tied concrete shoulders having sympathy joints than in pavements having tied concrete shoulders without such joints, no significant difference in transverse cracking 157 Table 2 Effect of Shoulder Type on Number of Transverse Cracks per Slab. In . if t Concrete Coarse Avg. Number of Sign ”“9 A re ate T e Shoulder Types Cracks er Slab Difference. gg g YP a P (or = 0.05) Tied Concrete 1.33 Tied Concrete with 1 67 No Sympathy Joints ° Tied Concrete 1.33 Natural Gravel Yes Asphalt 3.70 Tied Concrete with S th J . ts 1.67 ympa y orn Yes Asphalt 3.70 Tied Concrete 3.65 Recycled Concrete Tied Concrete with Yes . 7.20 ‘ Sympathy J ornts Tied Concrete 2.35 Tied Concrete with NO . 2.25 SympathLJornts Tied Concrete 2.35 Carbonate No Asphalt 1.75 Tied Concrete with S th J . ts 2.25 ympa Y om No Asphalt 1.75 Tied Concrete 2.83 Slagb No Asphaltc 1.00 ' No recycled pavements with asphalt shoulders existed in the database. b No slag pavements with tied concrete shoulders having sympathy joints existed in the database. c All slag pavements with asphalt shoulders in the database had a 4.3 m widened lane with traffic stripes painted 0.6 m from the pavement edge. 158 was found between natural gravel pavements having the two types of tied concrete shoulders. This may be attributable to variability in the parameters not controlled for this analysis. Shoulder type also had a significant effect on transverse cracking for recycled pavements. For this aggregate type, a significantly higher number of cracks occurred in . pavements having concrete shoulders with sympathy joints compared to those having concrete shoulders without such joints. This is reasonable considering the tendency for cracking in the mainline pavement adjacent to shoulder sympathy joints. For carbonate pavements, Table 2 shows that shoulder type did not significantly affect the occurrence of transverse cracking. It actually appears that tied concrete shoulders (with and without sympathy joints) tended to result in slightly more cracks than asphalt shoulders - contrary to what is expected. Also, tied concrete shoulders without sympathy joints appear to have resulted in slightly more cracks than such shoulders with sympathy joints. These anomalies can probably both be attributed to variability in the parameters not controlled for this analysis. No significant difference in number of cracks per slab was found between slag pavements having tied concrete shoulders and those having asphalt shoulders. Although the difference was not significant, it can be seen that the pavements with tied concrete shoulders actually demonstrated more transverse cracking than those with asphalt shoulders — contrary to expectations. One reason for this could again be the variability in the parameters not controlled in this analysis. Another reason could be that the slag pavements with asphalt shoulders had 4.3 m widened lanes with traffic stripes painted at 3.7 m. The combination of widened lanes and painting the stripes 0.6 m from the 159 pavement edge tends to move traffic loads away from the critical midslab edge position. This results in lower tensile bending stresses and less transverse fatigue cracks. As the results indicate, several of the shoulder type AN OVA analyses in this study suggested that there was not a significant effect of shoulder type on transverse cracking. . Such statistically insignificant results were attributed to variability in parameters that are believed to affect transverse cracking, but were not controlled in these analyses. It is surmised that if such variability in parameters had been able to be controlled, significant relationships between shoulder type and transverse cracking (those described in the beginning of this section) may have been obtained in these cases. Despite statistically insignificant findings in the cases alluded to above, a significant effect of shoulder type on cracking was found in the analyses involving natural gravel and recycled pavements. These results indicated that a significantly greater number of transverse cracks occur for pavements with asphalt shoulders than for those with tied concrete shoulders. They further indicated that more transverse cracks occur for pavements having tied concrete shoulders with sympathy joints than for those having tied concrete shoulders without such joints. Such results are in direct agreement with the expected cracking behavior of pavements with these shoulder types. VOLUMETRIC SURFACE TEXTURE (V ST) TESTING A relatively new analysis procedure, VST testing, was utilized in this research to determine, among other things, the effect of aggregate type on crack face surface texture. The surface texture of a crack face is directly related to the potential for aggregate interlock load transfer across a transverse crack. Greater surface texture allows for more 160 interlocking and friction between aggregates of opposing crack faces, which corresponds to better load transfer across a crack. Considering this relationship between surface texture and load transfer potential, an assessment of the relative crack performance potential of pavements with the aggregates considered in this study was also obtained through the VST test results. A description of the testing performed in this study, the VST test procedure itself, and the results obtained in this study are given below. Eighteen core specimens taken at cracks in this study were sent to the University of Minnesota, where this test method was developed, to be tested for surface texture using the VST test procedure. A detailed explanation of this test procedure is given by Wade et al. in [58]. Five cores each from carbonate, natural gravel, and recycled concrete pavements were tested. The cores to be tested were selected on the basis of the crack within the core. Wherever possible, cores with full-depth cracks were chosen. Choosing such cores helped to facilitate the VST testing process, as the cores must be split into two halves (along the crack) prior to testing. F ull-depth cracks also provide a larger area for testing. Only three cores tested were fi'om slag pavements, as these were the only slag cores available at the time such testing was done. A brief description of the VST test procedure follows. The VST test procedure involves testing a given area of a crack face (cracked core face in this case) for surface texture. This test area is divided into many smaller individual areas (A,) in a grid pattern. For each of these individual areas, distances (d,) are measured from an arbitrary datum plane to the fractured surface within that area The average distance from the datum plane (dm) is then calculated, and the differences, r, = di-dm, are computed for each of the individual areas. These differences, n, are then 161 multiplied by their respective areas, A,. The product of r, and A, is V,, the volume of material above or void space below the plane defined by dave for the individual area. The absolute values of all Vi’s are then summed, and the resulting quantity is divided by the total test area to produce the microtexture volumetric surface texture ratio (V STR). The VSTR indicates the volume of texture per surface area of the specimen. A high VSTR indicates a rough surface texture, while a low value indicates a smooth texture. [5 8] It should be noted that both a microtexture and macrotexture VSTR can be computed. Microtexture VSTR quantifies the surface texture within a fracture plane due to aggregate protrusions or roughness in the paste texture, whereas macrotexture VSTR accounts for both the surface texture of the fracture surface and texture due to multiple fi'acture planes (adjacent fracture planes oriented at angles to one another). Only microtexture VSTR’s were considered in this analysis. [61] Results from the VST testing in this study are presented in Table 3. For each specimen tested the microtexture VSTR is given as well as a visual assessment of the core’s surface texture, which was made at the time of testing. The mode of fiacture through the core (i.e., through or around the aggregates) is also included in this table. The visual assessments of surface texture are found to be mostly in agreement with the VSTR values. That is, higher VSTR values generally correspond to “rougher” texture assessments. Such correspondence between visual observations and test results indicates that this may indeed be a valid procedure for assessing surface texture. A relationship between the mode of concrete fracture and surface texture is also evident in Table 3. Cracks that propagated through the aggregates were generally found to have smoother surface texture (and lower VSTR’s), whereas cracks propagating 162 Table 3 Volumetric Surface Texture Test Results. _ Mode of S ecimen Microtexture . Fracture ll‘lame Aggregate Type VSTR (cm3/cm2) Microtexture (T)hrough / = (Aground CARB-l Carbonate 0.0678 Smooth 90%T CARE-2 Carbonate 0.0767 Smooth 99%T CARE-3 Carbonate 0.0958 Smooth Poor Visabili ‘ CARB-4 Carbonate 0.0691 Smooth 98%A CARB-5 Carbonate 0.0429 Smooth-Moderate 99%T NG-l Natural Gravel 0.1624 Rough 95%A NG-2 Natural Gravel 0.1238 Rough 60%A NG-3 Natural Gravel 0.2498 Moderate 90%A NG.4 Natural Gravel 0.1406 Moderate 80%A NG-S Natural Gravel 0.0550 Moderate 98%A RCY-l Recycled Concrete 0.1426 Rough 80%T RCY-2 Recycled Concrete 0.0419 Smooth 99%T RCY-3 Recycled Concrete 0.1699 Moderate 85%T RCY.4 Recycled Concrete 0.0878 Moderate 90%T RCY-5 Recycled Concrete 0.0635 Smooth 95%T SLAG-l Slag 0.0663 Smooth 70%T SLAG-Z Slag 0.0781 Smooth 99%T SLAG-3 Slag 0.0659 Smooth-Moderate 95%A ' Poor visability - was unable to tell whether the fractures went through or around the aggregate particles. 163 around the aggregates were associated with rougher texture (and higher VSTR’s). This relationship can be easily explained, as cracks that propagate around the aggregates result in a greater amount of aggregate protrusions at the crack face and thus more surface texture. The effect of concrete aggregate type on surface texture is also readily apparent in Table 3. It can be seen that carbonate and slag specimens were generally found to have smooth surface texture, while natural gravel specimens demonstrated rough texture. Recycled concrete specimens showed a range of surface texture from smooth to rough. The difference in texture between natural gravel specimens and carbonate specimens can be explained in terms of the relative aggregate—paste bond strength and the aggregate strength of each specimen type. Natural gravel aggregates form a relatively weak bond with the paste due to their rounded shape. Cracks are thus more likely to propagate around these aggregates at the aggregate-paste interface rather than through the aggregates, which are relatively strong. Conversely, the angular shape of carbonate aggregates produces a strong aggregate-paste bond for such specimens, and cracks thus tend to propagate through rather than around these aggregates, which can be relatively weak. Considering the relation between mode of fiacture and surface texture explained above, it is reasonable that natural gravel specimens have a rougher texture than carbonate specimens. [14] The smooth surface texture of slag specimens is likely due to the porosity and size of the slag aggregates. These aggregates are often relatively weak due to their high porosity. Consequently, cracks can easily propagate through the aggregates, leading to a smooth texture at the crack face. Even if cracks propagate around slag aggregates, poor 164 texture often results due to the typically small size of the aggregates, which leads to a reduced volume of protrusions from the crack face. The variable surface texture found for the recycled concrete specimens can be primarily attributed to the composite nature of these aggregates. Recycled aggregates are composed of old aggregate particles partially covered with old mortar. At a given crack face, a higher old mortar content will translate to a lower amount of aggregate particles protruding from the face. Thus, recycled aggregates with high old mortar contents will result in a relatively smooth crack face. Conversely, if a low old mortar content is obtained, a rough surface texture can be achieved. The old mortar content obtained in practice depends on the crushing process used during recycling. It should be noted that the surface texture of these specimens also depends to a lesser extent on the type of old aggregate used. [3 5] Based on these VST results, an assessment of the relative crack performance potential of carbonate, natural gravel, recycled, and slag pavements can be made. Noting the relationship between surface texture and load transfer potential explained earlier in this section (i.e., greater surface texture corresponds to better aggregate interlock load transfer potential), the test results indicate that natural gravel pavements should show the best transverse crack performance. Slag and carbonate pavements are likely to demonstrate relatively poor crack performance, based on these results, due to the smooth crack face texture associated with these pavements. The performance of cracks in recycled pavements is uncertain, according to the VST test results, as the crack face surface texture of these pavements depends on the old mortar content of the aggregates. 165 A few comments on the VST test procedure itself and its usefulness are warranted here. The results from this study suggest that the VST test method is a promising means for assessing crack face surface texture and aggregate interlock potential. Further work is needed, however, to refine the test procedure and to develop relationships between VSTR and crack performance parameters. Vandenbossche and Snyder developed one such relationship between VSTR and load transfer efficiency [3 5]. Their work was described in Chapter 11. Once relationships between VSTR and performance parameters are established, a better understanding and assessment of aggregate property effects on crack performance will be possible through VST testing. 166 -CHAPTERVII- Conclusions, Recommendations, and Future Research Needs CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Three FWD analysis procedures - backcalculation of pavement support and stiffness parameters, determination of crack performance parameters, and assessment of void potential near cracks - were demonstrated using field data from this study: A backcalculation procedure for determining the AREA, 13, E, and k of J CP’s using FWD midslab data was described in this thesis. Determination of these parameters is useful in characterizing the support and stiffness properties of a pavement system and allows for the computation of several crack performance parameters that were discussed in this thesis. This procedure was used on data collected in this study to determine AREA, l, E, and k values for the test site pavements. The results obtained were very reasonable with the exception of those pavements that were concrete overlays. In general, the following ranges of values were obtained in this study: AREA: 1050 -1250 mm, 2: 900 - 1300 mm, B: 3.0 x107 - 6.5 x107 kPa, and k: 25 - 85 kPa/mm. These values are typical of those normally associated with these parameters. Exaggerated E and k values resulted for the overlay pavements due to the presence of the underlying pavement layer, which acted as a stiff base support layer. 167 Procedures for determining three crack performance parameters, LTEa, PT, and AGG, were also described in this thesis. Each of these parameters characterizes crack performance in a slightly different way. Determination of these parameters and subsequent comparison of the parametric values with threshold limits allows for evaluation of cracks in a pavement network. When integrated into a comprehensive pavement evaluation scheme, these evaluations can act as a useful tool in planning and selecting rehabilitation activities for the pavement network. LTEa, PT, and AGG can be determined using FWD wheelpath data and knowledge of the support and stiffness characteristics (k and I) of the pavement. Two procedures for determining these parameters were described in this thesis. One method, the “standard” procedure, was used to determine parametric values for selected cracks and joints in this study. In this method, LTE5 is directly computed using FWD data, and PT and AGG are indirectly derived from this LTE5 value. It was explained that the “standar ” procedure may be too cumbersome and time-consuming for practical everyday use by a transportation agency. Thus, a second, streamlined method for computing these parameters was developed in this study. In this streamlined approach, LTE5 is computed using the same procedure as is used in the “standard” method. However, the procedure for determining PT and AGG is different in this approach, as these parameters are determined directly fi'om LTEs values. This streamlined approach requires an initial effort by a transportation agency to deve10p direct relationships between LTE5 and PT and LTE5 and AGG, but compensates for this effort through the time saved and ease of use that it affords thereafter. 168 Based on the parametric values computed and fault data collected in this study, threshold limits were established for the three noted performance parameters. Thresholds of 70%, 16.5 kN, and 2.0 x 105 kPa were found for LTE5, PT, and AGG, respectively. A suggested criteria for using the performance parameters would thus be that a crack is considered to be in acceptable condition if all of its parametric values are greater than the thresholds given above. If any of the threshold criteria are not met, the crack is considered to be in unacceptable condition. Field data from this study was also used to determine the effect of temperature on the performance parameters. Increasing the pavement surface temperature was found to result in higher LTEa’s. Since PT and AGG are derived from LTE5, it is assumed that temperature would have a similar effect on these parameters. This temperature effect is caused by downward curling and thermal expansion of slabs at high pavement temperatures, which result in tighter crack widths and better aggregate interlock load transfer potential. This effect mandates that pavement surface temperature at the time of FWD wheelpath testing be considered when using the performance parameters to characterize crack performance. Visual crack distress surveys should accompany FWD testing to aid in assessing crack condition when temperatures render FWD results ambiguous. To limit the effects of temperature on parametric values, temperature restrictions could be placed on when this testing can be performed. A voids analysis procedure, which can be used to assess the likelihood of loss of support at cracks and joints in J CP’s, was also described in this thesis. By detecting 169 the presence of voids at cracks and joints, this procedure allows appropriate rehabilitation actions to be taken to restore support to cracked J CP’s. This procedure involves the use of FWD deflection data taken at crack and joint comer locations for a range of load magnitudes. It is recommended that voids testing be performed at ambient temperatures less than 27°C to ensure that conservative results will be obtained [41 ]. In this procedure, deflection (x-axis) data is plotted versus load magnitude (y-axis) for a given crack or joint, and an x-intercept is obtained. This x-intercept is compared to a threshold value to determine void potential for the crack or joint. An x-intercept above the threshold value indicates that there is a loss of support. The voids analysis procedure was performed at selected cracks and joints in this study. Results from these analyses indicated that this procedure is a valid method for estimating void potential. Based on the voids analysis results and fault data collected in this study, a threshold range of 50 to 75 um was established for x-intercept values when using this procedure. Values above this range would indicate a loss of support, while values below this range would signify that no voids exist at those locations. Values within the threshold range would require that coring (or some other method) be used to further investigate the void potential at those locations. 170 In addition to the above analyses involving FWD data, several other analyses were performed on field data from this research to study the effects of various factors on transverse cracking in JCP’s. Findings related to these analyses are summarized below. Longer joint spacing was found to lead to a greater number of transverse cracks per slab. This was attributed to the larger curling stresses generally associated with longer slabs. Pavements containing slag or recycled concrete coarse aggregates demonstrated a larger number of transverse cracks per slab than those using natural gravel or carbonate aggregates. A greater susceptibility to shrinkage cracking for slag and recycled pavements, when proper curing considerations are neglected, was cited as a possible reason for this. An analysis of the effect of shoulder type on transverse cracking revealed that natural gravel pavements having tied concrete shoulders (with and without sympathy joints) had significantly less cracks per slab than those having asphalt shoulders. Tied concrete shoulders essentially eliminate the critical midslab free edge load condition and thus reduce the slab tensile stresses that cause fatigue cracking. Less fatigue cracking (and thus transverse cracking) thus occurs for pavements with tied concrete shoulders than for those with asphalt shoulders. This effect was not observed in pavements containing other aggregate types, possibly due to variability in parameters not controlled in this analysis. 171 The shoulder type analysis also revealed that recycled pavements having tied concrete shoulders with sympathy joints had a significantly greater number of cracks per slab than those having tied concrete shoulders without such joints. This is reasonable, since sympathy joints almost inevitably lead to transverse cracking in the mainline pavement adjacent to these joints, as the slab and shoulder respond differently to thermal variations. No such effect was observed in the pavements containing the other aggregate types, again probably due to variability in parameters not controlled in this analysis. A relatively new analysis procedure, VST testing, was performed at the University of Minnesota (where this test method was developed) on cores from this study. This testing was done to determine, among other things, the effect of aggregate type on crack face surface texture. Very reasonable results were obtained fi'om this testing, as good agreement was found between visual assessments of surface texture and values for the surface texture indicator in this procedure, VSTR. Results from this testing also agreed with the intuitively reasonable notion that cracks propagating around aggregates lead to a rougher surface texture than cracks propagating through aggregates. Concerning aggregate type effects, the VST test results revealed a smooth crack face surface texture for carbonate and slag specimens, whereas natural gravel specimens had a rough texture. Recycled specimens demonstrated a range of textures. These differences in surface texture between aggregate types were attributed primarily to the 172 bond strengths and aggregate strengths typical of the aggregate types, which affect the mode of fracture. The surface texture of recycled specimens is believed to be dependent on the amount of old mortar clinging to the aggregates. This accounts for the variable texture found for these specimens. Noting that greater surface texture corresponds to better aggregate interlock load transfer potential, these test results can be used to make inferences regarding the crack performance potential of pavements with the four noted aggregate types. Based on the test results, natural gravel pavements should show the best crack performance, while slag and carbonate pavements should demonstrate relatively poor crack performance. The performance of cracks in recycled pavements is uncertain, based on the test results. The VST test results from this study suggest that this test method is a promising means for assessing crack face surface texture, and thus, aggregate interlock load transfer potential. In addition to the factor effects determined using the data in this study, other factors affecting transverse cracking have been determined in previous research studies. A summary of these findings was given in the literature review (Chapter II) section of this thesis. These findings, along with those determined in this study, could prove useful to a transportation agency in improving the performance of J CP’s with regard to 173 transverse cracking. A brief listing of some of these factor effects is therefore given below. The literature review revealed the following factors to affect the occurrence of transverse cracking in JCP’s: 0 Provision of good drainage to the pavement leads to less fatigue cracks. Increased slab thickness and high concrete strength also result in less fatigue cracks. Fatigue cracking can also be reduced by using widened slabs (4.0 to 4.3 m in width) with traffic stripes painted at 3.7 m. [11] o A combination of high aggregate content, moderate cement content, and low moisture content lessen the potential for drying shrinkage cracks. [9] The following factors were found through the literature review to affect the performance of transverse cracking in J CP’s: 0 Larger concrete coarse aggregates lead to improved load transfer effectiveness and endurance. Harder aggregates result in better load transfer endurance. [13] o A coarser aggregate gradation provides higher load transfer efficiency than a finer gradation [22]. 174 Virgin aggregates lead to better load transfer endurance than recycled aggregates [33]. Higher concrete strength provides higher load transfer efficiency [24]. Increased slab thickness leads to better load transfer efficiency [2]. Thicker slabs also increase load transfer endurance [3 O]. FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS The work performed in this study revealed a few areas where future research is warranted. These future research needs are listed below. There is a need for development of a reliable, consistent, and accurate method for measuring the width of transverse cracks in J CP’s. As was explained in this thesis, several problems currently exist in obtaining crack width measurements. These include: 1) lack of a reliable device for measuring the widths, 2) the difficulty encountered in locating the actual crack opening for cracks with severe surface deterioration, and 3) surface measurements of crack width may not be indicative of the crack width throughout the slab depth, where aggregate interlock occurs. In order to use crack width in future discussions and analyses of transverse crack performance, these difficulties must be addressed. 175 Laboratory and/or field studies, where all variables (especially temperature and number/magnitude of load applications) except concrete coarse aggregate properties are controlled, are needed to investigate and better understand the effect of aggregate properties on transverse crack performance. This need is being partially addressed by a research study just started at Michigan State University. This research study will involve a laboratory investigation of transverse cracking in J CP’s. It is actually being performed as a complement to the field component of the MDOT project under which this thesis work was conducted. In this laboratory investigation, the effect of concrete coarse aggregate type, size, and gradation on the measured performance (in terms of LTE5, PT, and AGG) of transverse cracks will be studied. Another research need, which is related to the need just discussed, involves VST testing. Further work is needed to refine this relatively new test method and to develop relationships between VSTR and crack performance parameters such as LTEa, PT, and AGG. If such relationships can be established, VST testing could be used as a means for better understanding aggregate property effects on crack performance. 176 APPENDICES 177 APPENDIX A: INVENTORY DATA 178 Table A.l Test Site Location and Age Data, Carbonate Pavements. , Year Age of :12: Location of Pav't _ Const. (yrs; 7 5 Route: I-69 EB; @ Sta 43+00; Btwn MP 173 & 174; West of 1983 15 Exit 176; West of Martin Rd; ~35 Miles East of Flint, MI 6 Route: I-69 EB; Starts @ Sta 78+00; Just East of MP 174; West 1983 15 of Exit 176; Just East of Martin Rd; ~35 Miles East of Flint, MI Route: I-69 EB; Starts @ Sta 100+00; Btwn MP 174 & 175; 7 Exit 176 1 Mile Sign; West of Exit 176; ~35 Miles East of Flint, 1983 15 MI 8 Route: I-69 WB; Just East ofMP 167; Btwn Sta 1197+00 & Sta 1984 14 1196+00; West of Exit 168; ~30 Miles East of Flint, MI 35 Route: I-69 SB; Starts 13’ North of Sta 1769+00; Btwn MP 68 1991 7 & 67; North of Exit 66; ~15 Miles South of Lansing, MI Route: I-69 SB; Starts 23’ South of Sta 1768+00; Just South of 36 Site #35; Btwn MP 68 & 67; North of Exit 66; ~15 Miles South 1991 7 of Lansing, MI 38 Route: 1-94 EB; Starts @ Sta 1238+00; Just East ofMP 146; 1960 38 Btwn Exits 145 & 147; ~35 Miles West of Ann Arbor, MI 39 Route: I-94 EB; Btwn MP 146 & 147; Starts 41' East of Site 1960 38 #38; Btwn Exits 145 & 147; ~35 Miles West of Ann Arbor, MI 42 Route: US-23 SB; 5’ North of Sta 1048+00; Btwn MP 18 & 1984 14 Exit 17; North of Exit 17; ~20 Miles South of Ann Arbor, MI Route: US-23 SB; Btwn MP 18 & Exit 17; Just South of Site 43 #42; Starts 32' South of Sta 1046+00; North of Exit 17; ~20 1984 14 Miles South of Ann Arbor, MI Route: US-23 SB; Btwn MP 18 & Exit 17; Just South of Site 44 #43; Starts 32' South of Sta 1044+00; Ends 25' South of Sta 1984 14 1042+00; North of Exit 17; ~20 Miles South of Ann Arbor, MI 45 Route: US-23 SB; Btwn MP 8 & 7; Starts 22' South of Sta 1995 3 514+00; South of Exit 9; ~30 Miles South of Ann Arbor, MI 46 Route: US-23 SB; Btwn MP 8 & 7; Starts 27' South of Site 1995 3 #45; South of Exit 9; ~30 Miles South of Ann Arbor, MI Route: I-75 SB; Starts 12’ South of Sta 543+00; Ends 20’-1" 49 South of Sta 542+00; Just North of MP 12; North of Exit 11; 1989 9 ~15 Miles North of Toledo, OH Route: I-75 SB; Starts 5’-7" North of Sta 747+00; Ends 2’ 50 South of Sta 746+00; Just North of MP 16; North of Exit 15; 1989 9 ~15 Miles North of Toledo, OH 179 Table A.l (cont'd). rum Site Year Age of Location of Pav't No. Const. rs. Route: I-75 SB; Btwn MP 17 & 16; Starts 57’ North of Sta 51 769+00; Just South of Site #52; South of Exit 18; ~20 Miles 1989 9 North of Toledo, OH Route: I-75 SB; Starts 50’ North of Sta 775+00; Btwn MP 17 & 16; South of Exit 18; ~15 Miles North of Toledo, OH 52 1989 9 180 Table A.2 Test Site Location and Age Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. ' ”Ruo—e I-69 ;Starts Sta81; Ends Sta _ 1 '— Mile West of MP 104; Btwn MP 104 & 103; Just West of Site #3; West of Exit 105; ~20 Miles East of Lansing, MI Route: I-69 WB; Starts @ Sta 818+00; Just West of MP 104; West of Exit 105; ~20 Miles East of Lansing: MI Route: I-69 EB; @ Sta 1534+93; Btwn MP 154 & 155; Just East of Turnaround; East of Exit 153; ~20 Miles East of Flint, MI 28 Route: 1-69 WB; @ Sta 975+00; Btwn MP 144 & 143; East of Exit 143; ~10 Miles East of Flint, MI 1 969 Rehab. 10 Route: I-69 WB; Starts 27'-6" West of Sta 969+00; Btwn MP 144 & 143; Just East ofExit 143; ~10 Miles East ofFlint, MI 1 969 29 37 Route: I-69 SB; Starts 31’ North of Sta 2899+00; Ends 12’ South of Sta 2898+00; Just North of MP 54; South of Exit 57; ~20 Miles South of Lansing, MI 1971 27 38A Route: l-69 SB; Starts 24’-6" South of Sta 2898+00; Just South of MP 54; Just South of Site #37; South of Exit 57; ~20 Miles South of Lansing, MI 1971 27 57 Route: I-69 WB; Starts l4’-7" East of Sta 158 (Metric); Just East of MP 86; Just East of Exit 85; ~5 Miles North of Lansing, MI 1981 l7 181 Table A.3 Test Site Location and Age Data, Recycled Pavements. Year Age of Location of Pav't ,_ _ __,J-_______*__ g _ ____ g ___ _ _______ __C_0ns_t._ Route I-94 WB; Starts 27’ East of Sta 305+00; @ MP 106; Btwn Exits 104 & 108; ~10 Miles East of Battle Creek, NH 1986 12 Route: 1- 94 WB; Starts 37’ -6" West of Sta 304+00; Just West ofMP 106; Just West of Site #11; Btwn Exits 104 & 108; ~10 Miles East of Battle Creek, MI 1986 12 13 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 1’-4" West of Sta 302+00; Just West of MP 106; Just West of Site #12; Btwn Exits 104 & 108; ~10 Miles East of Battle Creek, MI 1986 12 14 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 12’-3" West of Sta 1281+00; Just West of MP 91; West of Exit 92; ~5 Miles West of Battle Creek, MI 1983 15 15 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 24’ East of Sta 1279+00; Btwn MP 91 & 90; Just West of Site #14; West of Exit 92; ~5 Miles West of Battle Creek, MI 1983 15 16 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 12' East of Sta 893+00; Btwn MP 84 & 83; Btwn Exits 85 & 81; ~10 Miles East of Kalamazoo, MI 1986 12 17 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 27' West of Sta 89l+00; Btwn MP 84 & 83; Btwn Exits 85 & 81; ~10 Miles East of Kalamazoo, MI 1986 12 27 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 15'-6" East of Sta 1300+00; Btwn MP 65 & 64; West of Exit 66; ~15 Miles West of Kalamazoo, MI 1987 ll 28 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 11' East of Sta 1298+00; Starts 41' West of Site #27; Btwn MP 65 & 64; West of Exit 66; ~15 Miles West of Kalamazoo, MI 1987 11 29 Route: I-94 WB; Starts 8'-6" East of Sta 1116+00; Btwn MP 62 & 61; Just West of Exit 60 Sign; East of Exit 60; ~15 Miles West of Kalamazoo, MI 1988 10 31 Route: I-94 EB; Starts 39'-7" East of Sta 658+00; Btwn MP 112 & 113; East of Exit 112; ~20 Miles East of Battle Creek, MI 1988 10 32 Route: I-94 EB; Starts 15' West of Sta 661+00; Btwn MP 112 & 113; Just East of Site #31; East of Exit 112; ~20 Miles East of Battle Creek, MI 1988 10 47 Route: I-75 NB; Starts 11’ South of Sta 73+00; @ MP 1; ~5 Miles North of Toledo, OH 1987 Rehab. 48 Route: I-75 NB; Just North of Site #47; ~5 Miles North of Toledo, OH 1987 Rehab. 182 Table A.4 Test Site Location and Age Data, Slag Pavements. ’ l I _ h 5 J - Year Age of Location of Pav't Route: I-69 WB; Starts @ Sta 610+00 (Just East of Peacock 1 Rd); Just West of MP 97; West of Exit 98; ~10 Miles East of 1990 8 Lansigg, MI Route: I-94 WB; Starts 54’ East of Sta 321+00; Btwn MP 186 40 & 185; Wash. Co.; Just West of Exit 186; ~5 Miles East of Ann 1987 11 Arbor, MI Route: 1-94 WB; Starts @ Sta 306+00; Btwn MP 186 & 185; 41 West of Site #40; Just West of Exit 186; ~5 Miles East of Ann 1987 11 Arbor, MI Route: I-94 EB; Starts 7'-2" East of Sta 1791-1-00; Btwn MP 38 & 39; West of Exit 39; ~35 Miles West of Kalamazoo, MI Route: US-23 NB; Starts 13’-6" North of Sta 603+00; Just 58 South of MP 89; Btwn Exits 88 & 90; ~10 Miles South of Flint, 1992 6 MI Route: US-23 NB; Starts 51’ South of Sta 605+00; Starts Just 59 South of MP 89; Just North of Site #58; Btwn Exits 88 & 90; 1992 6 ~10 Miles South of Flint, MI Route: US-23 NB; Starts 25’ North of Sta 608+00; Just North of MP 89; Btwn Exits 88 & 90; ~10 Miles South of Flint, MI Route: US-23 SB; Starts 44’ North of Sta 566+00; Btwn MP 89 & 88; Btwn Exits 88 & 90; ~10 Miles South of Flint, IVfl Route: US-23 SB; Starts 8’ North of Sta 565+00; Btwn MP 89 62 & 88; Just South of Site #61; Btwn Exits 88 & 90; ~10 Miles 1992 6 South of Flint, MI Route: 1-94 EB; Starts @ Sta 1793+00; Btwn MP 38 & 39; West of Exit 39; ~35 Miles West of Kalamazoo, MI 55 1995 3 60 1992 6 61 1992 6 63 1995 3 183 Table A.5 Geometric Layout of Test Sites', Carbonate Pavements. Site Number of Joint strafing Length of Test Shoulder 7 No. Slabs Site m Width (m 7 Concrete/ 5 4 12.5 50.0 2.4 Sympathy Joints Concrete/ 6 4 12.5 50.0 2.4 Sympathy Joints Concrete/ 7 4 12.5 50.0 2.4 Sympathy Joints Concrete/ 8 4 12.5 50.0 2.4 Sympathy Joints 35 3 8.2 24.7 3.0 Asphalt 36 4 8.2 32.9 3.0 Asphalt 38 5 12.5 62.5 2.7 Concrete 39 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Concrete 42 4 12.5 50.0 2.4 Concrete 43 3 12.5 37.5 2.4 Concrete 44 5 12.5 62.5 2.4 Concrete 45 4 8.2 32.9 3.0 Concrete 46 3 8.2 24.7 3.0 Concrete 49 4 8.2 32.9 3.7 Concrete 50 4 8.2 32.9 3.7 Concrete B Slab: 51 3 125312532 33.2 3.7 Concrete 52 4 8.2 32.9 3.7 Concrete ' All sites in this table have a 3.7 m lane width. 184 Table A.6 Geometric Layout of Test Sites', Natural Gravel Pavements. Number of Joint S acin Len h of Test Shoulder W 2 5 12.5 62.5 2.7 Concrete 3 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Concrete 4 3 21.6 64.9 2.7 Asphalt 9 3 21.6 64.9 2.7 Asphalt 10 2 21.6 43.3 2.7 Asphalt 37 2 21.6 43.3 2.7 Asphalt 38A 2 21.6 43.3 2.7 Asphalt Concrete / 57 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Sympathy Joints ‘ All sites in this table have a 3.7 m lane width. 185 Table A.7 Geometric Layout of Test Sites‘, Recycled Pavements. Number of Joint S acin Len h of Test Shoulder .__ 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Concrete 12 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Concrete 13 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Concrete Concrete / 14 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Sympathy Joints Concrete / 15 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Sympathy Joints l6 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Concrete 17 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Concrete 27 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Concrete 28 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Concrete 29 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Concrete 31 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Concrete 32 3 12.5 37.5 2.7 Concrete 47 2 12.5 25.0 3.7 Concrete 48 2 12.5 25.0 3.7 Concrete a All sites in this table have a 3.7 m lane width. 186 Table A.8 Geometric Layout of Test Sites', Slag Pavements. Site Number of Joint S acin Len h of Test Shoulder 1 4 12.5 50.0 2.7 Concrete 40 3 12.5 37.5 3.4 Concrete 41 4 12.5 50.0 3.4 Concrete 55 8 4.9 39.0 2.6 Asphalt 58 4 8.2 32.9 3.0 Concrete 59 4 8.2 32.9 3.0 Concrete 60 4 8.2 32.9 3.0 Concrete 61 4 8.2 32.9 3.0 Concrete 62 4 8.2 32.9 3.0 Concrete 63 6 4.9 29.3 2.6 Asphalt “ All sites in this table have a 3.7 m lane width, except Sites 55 and 63, which have a 4.3 m widened lane. 187 Table A.9 Pavement Cross-Section Data, Carbonate Pavements. Site Cross-Section Base T e Subbase Subgrade No. PCC mm Base (mm) Subbase (mm yp T e T e 5 254 102 203 O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 6 254 102 203 O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 7 254 102 203 O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 8 241 102 203 O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 35 241 127 254 O.G.D.C. No Data L°°ke Conover 36 241 127 254 O.G.D.C. No Data L°°ke Conover 38 216 (Possrble 76 No Data Select" No Data No Data Overlay) Subbase 39 21" (P°s"bl° 76 No Data select, No Data No Data Overlay) Subbase 178 42 wnmnded 76 229 331°“, No Data No Data Conc. Subbase Overlay) 178 43 (unwnded 76 229 361°“ No Data No Data Conc. Subbase" Overlay) 178 44 wnmnded 76 229 select No Data No Data Conc. Subbase" Overlay) 45 267 76 305 Agg. Base No Data No Data 46 267 76 305 Ag. Base No Data No Data O.G.D.C. 49 305 102 406 W/ . No Data No Data Geotextrle Separator O.G.D.C. 50 305 102 No Data W/ . No Data No Data Geotextrle Separator O.G.D.C. 51 305 102 No Data W/ .' No Data No Data Geotextrle Separator 188 Iran. r?! -.r r ‘- Table A.9 (cont'd). EFF— Cross-Section Base Type Subbase Subgrade 7 No. I PCC (mm) Base (mm) Subbase (mm Type Type O.G.D.C. 52 305 102 No Data WI . No Data No Data Geotextrle Separator 189 Table A.10 Pavement Cross—Section Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. Site I Cross-Section aBase T e Subbase Subgrade No. PCC (mm) Base (mm) Subbase (mm yp Type Type 2 241 102 254 O.G.D.C. Sand Clay 3 241 102 254 O.G.D.C. Sand Clay 4 229 102 356 select, No Data No Data Subbase' 9 229 102 254 3°13“ No Data No Data Subbase" 10 229 102 254 select, No Data No Data Subbase 37 241 102 No Data $616“, No Data No Data Subbase 38A 241 102 No Data 5616“, No Data No Data Subbase 57 241 102 254 Ag. Base Silt Clay 190 Table A.11 Pavement Cross-Section Data, Recycled Pavements. _— Site Cross-Section Base Type Subbase Subgrade No. PCC (mm) Base (mm) Subbase (mm)l T e T e 11 267 102 432 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data 12 267 102 432 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data 13 267 102 432 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data 14 254 76 305 "CO“d't'“ No Data No Data Agg. Base" 15 254 76 305 "COMM No Data No Data Agg. Base" 16 254 102 No Data O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 17 254 102 No Data O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 27 279 102 432 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data 28 279 102 432 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data 29 279 102 432 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data 31 267 102 305 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data 32 267 102 305 O.G.D.C. Sand No Data ’ Silty Clay; 47 305 102 305 O.G.D.C. No Data Loarny Sand Silty Clay; 48 305 102 305 O.G.D.C. No Data Loarny Sand 191 Table A.12 Pavement Cross-Section Data, Slag Pavements. Site No. Cross-Section Base (mm) Subbase (mm Base Type Subbase 1 PCC (mm) 1 254 102 254 O.G.D.C. Subgrade Type Type Sand Clay 40 305 102 254 O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 41 305 102 254 O.G.D.C. No Data No Data 55 305 102 203 O.G.D.C. w/ Geotextile Separator No Data No Data 58 254 178 No Data Asphalt Stab. O.G.D.C. + Agg- Base No Data No Data 59 254 178 No Data Asphalt Stab. O.G.D.C. + Agg. Base No Data No Data 254 178 No Data Asphalt Stab. O.G.D.C. + Agg- Base No Data No Data 61 254 178 No Data Asphalt Stab. O.G.D.C. + Agg. Base No Data No Data 62 254 178 No Data Asphalt Stab. O.G.D.C. + Agg. Base No Data No Data 63 305 102 203 O.G.D.C. w/ Geotextile Separator No Data No Data 192 Table A.13 Material and Construction Properties, Carbonate Pavements. Construction Conditions IS“: 3312;: Ambient Temp.'s (C) Concrete Temp.'s (C) Weather A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 5 (13411;) 21 32 29 31 No Data No Data 6 35P 21 30 31 32 No Data No Data (Mod) 7 35P 21 30 31 32 No Data No Data (Mod) 8 35P 1 7 20 23 24 Cloudy Cloudy 35 35P 15 30 24 26 Clear Clear 36 35P 15 30 24 26 Clear Clear 38 No Data 17 29 No Data No Data Clear Clear 39 No Data 17 29 No Data No Data Clear Clear 42 35P 30 30 27 29 No Data No Data 43 35P 30 30 27 29 No Data No Data 44 35P 30 30 27 29 No Data No Data 45 35P 8 12 No Data No Data No Data No Data 46 35P 8 12 No Data No Data No Data No Data 49 (1345;) 17 20 21 26 Sunny Sunny 50 35p 18 25 22 29 No Data No Data (Mod) 35P Cloudy, 51 (Mod) 26 27 27 27 Humid Overcast 35P Cloudy, Windy, 52 (Mod) 24 26 27 27 Rain Overcast 193 Table A.14 Material and Construction Properties, Natural Gravel Pavements. :1: £335: Ambient Temp.'s (C) Concrete Temp.'s (C) Weather _ A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 2 35P 16 26 No Data No Data No Data No Data 3 35F 16 26 No Data No Data No Data No Data 4 No Data 22 No Data 25 No Data C753” No Data 9 35P 1 8 22 23 26 Cloudy Cloudy 10 35P 18 22 23 26 Cloudy Cloudy 37 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 38A No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 57 35P 12 15 12 15 Clear Clear 194 Table A.15 Material and Construction Properties, Recycled Pavements. Site Grade of , , , No. Concrete Ambient Temp. s (C) Concrete Temp. s (C) Weather P.M. A.M. P.M. 27 Clear Clear 27 Clear Clear 27 Clear Clear 24 No Data No Data 24 No Data No Data 22 Overcast Overcast 22 Overcast Overcast 31 Clear Clear 31 Clear Clear 8 No Data No Data 31 35P 16 24 21 23 Sunny Sunny 32 35P 7 No Data 16 No Data Sunny Sunny 47 35P 8 8 19 21 Cloudy Cloudy 48 35P 8 8 19 21 Cloudy Cloudy 195 Table A.16 Material and Construction Properties, Slag Pavements. — Construction Conditions 181': 2:22;: Ambient Temp.'s (C) Concrete Temp.'s (C) Weather A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. A.M. P.M. 1 35P 21 27 No Data No Data No Data No Data 40 358 3 12 11 No Data Clear Clear 41 358 0 11 13 15 Clear Clear 55 35P No Data No Data 29 31 Cloudy Cloudy 58 35P 17 26 20 28 Sunny Sunny 59 35P 1 7 26 20 28 Sunny Sunny 60 35P l 7 26 20 28 Sunny Sunny 61 35P 16 30 18 24 Sunny Sunny 62 35P 16 30 18 24 Sunny SunnL 63 35P No Data No Data 29 31 Cloudy Cloudy 196 Table A.17 Traffic Data, Carbonate Pavements. _F' Traffic 1987 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Site Cum. No. % % % % % Traffic ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. (10‘ ESALs) 5 3,226 10 6,000 20 5,500 22 6,500 19 12,500 22 5.3 6 3,226 10 6,000 20 5,500 22 6,500 19 12,500 22 5.3 7 3,226 10 6,000 20 5,500 22 6,500 19 12,500 22 5.3 8 7,495 14 8,500 17 8,500 18 9,000 24 7,000 30 8.7 35 12,000 13 12,500 16 12,500 16 13,000 16 13,500 15 4.2 36 12,000 13 12,500 16 12,500 16 13,000 16 13,500 15 4.2 38 14,900 28 19,500 20 18,500 22 17,500 23 18,500 27 45 39 14,900 28 19,500 20 18,500 22 17,500 23 18,500 27 45 42 11,650 16 13,000 21 13,000 21 13,500 17 15,500 25 15 43 11,650 16 13,000 21 13,000 21 13,500 17 15,500 25 15 44 11,650 16 13,000 21 13,000 21 13,500 17 15,500 25 15 45 9,353 16 12,500 16 12,500 16 11,500 23 13,000 20 2.3 46 9,353 16 12,500 16 12,500 16 11,500 23 13,000 20 2.3 49 22,300 27 27,000 20 27,000 21 26,000 22 29,000 19 16 50 25,150 26 27,500 20 27,000 21 28,500 20 30,500 19 17 51 25,150 26 27,500 20 27,000 21 28,500 20 30,500 19 17 52 25,150 26 27,500 20 27,000 21 28,500 20 30,500 19 17 197 Table A.18 Traffic Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. Traffic 1987 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Site Cum. N0. % °/o °/o 0/o °/o Traffic ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. (10‘ ESALs) 2 10,486 12 13,000 19 12,500 21 12,500 21 13,000 22 6.0 3 10,486 12 13,000 19 12,500 21 12,500 21 13,000 22 6.0 4 10,000 14 10,000 12 12,000 20 12,000 20 12,500 22 1 1 9 14,350 7 15,500 9 15,500 11 16,500 16 16,500 16 N/A 10 14,350 7 15,500 9 15,500 11 16,500 16 16,500 16 13 37 7,250 1 1 9,500 26 9,000 29 9,500 27 9,500 27 15 38A 7,250 1 1 9,500 26 9,000 29 9,500 27 9,500 27 15 57 3,747 10 12,000 19 13,500 19 14,000 20 14,500 19 16 198 Table A.19 Traffic Data, Recycled Pavements. Traffic 1987 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Site Cum. No. % % % % % Traffic ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. (106 ESALs) ‘ l 1 16,500 22 18,000 24 18,000 34 19,500 31 20,000 30 19 12 16,500 22 18,000 24 18,000 34 19,500 31 20,000 30 19 13 16,500 22 18,000 24 18,000 34 19,500 31 20,000 30 19 14 19,150 19 19,500 23 17,000 36 14,000 43 19,000 32 25 15 19,150 19 19,500 23 17,000 36 14,000 43 19,000 32 25 16 17,767 13 22,000 23 22,500 27 16,500 37 18,000 34 25 17 17,767 13 22,000 23 22,500 27 16,500 37 18,000 34 25 27 11,100 20 15,500 26 14,500 33 13,000 37 18,000 27 15 28 11,100 20 15,500 26 14,500 33 13,000 37 18,000 27 15 29 1 1,100 20 15,500 26 14,500 33 13,000 37 18,000 27 15 31 10,600 21 15,000 28 14,000 31 13,500 36 14,500 34 13 32 10,600 21 15,000 28 14,000 31 13,500 36 14,500 34 13 47 19,000 27 24,000 23 23,500 24 19,500 29 21,000 27 N/A 48 19,000 27 24,000 23 23,500 24 19,500 29 21,000 27 N/A 199 Table A.20 Traffic Data, Slag Pavements. _EIfl-L =I=I==L m Traffic 1987 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 Site Cum. No. % % % % % Traffic ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. ADT Com. (106 ESALs) 1 10,486 12 13,000 19 12,500 21 12,500 21 12,500 22 5.9 40 27,768 21 24,500 1 1 24,500 12 36,000 8 37,500 8 15 41 27,768 21 24,500 1 1 24,500 12 36,000 8 37,500 8 15 55 14,400 18 16,000 24 15,500 25 13,000 30 13,000 30 3.6 58 21,250 9 22,500 10 25,500 13 26,000 12 26,000 11 5.2 59 21,250 9 22,500 10 25,500 13 26,000 12 26,000 1 l 5.2 60 21 ,250 9 22,500 10 25,500 13 26,000 12 26,000 1 1 5.2 61 21 ,250 9 22,500 10 25,500 13 26,000 12 26,000 1 1 5.2 62 21,250 9 22,500 10 25,500 13 26,000 12 26,000 1 1 5.2 63 14,400 18 16,000 24 15,500 25 13,000 30 13,000 30 3.6 200 ‘fi' 157m" Il' lfifil. APPENDIX B: MEASURED AND DERIVED FIELD DATA 201 Table 3.1 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 1, Carbonate Pavements. Site Test Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting”, (mm) M Type Apr. l9SLZ+July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr. 1997c June 1998“" 5 C 0.14 0.12 0.45 0.58 0.80 No C 0.14 0.17 0.42 0.45 0.05 No J 14.80 14.00 16.15 15.20 -0.50 No 6 C 0.08 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.15 No C 0.05 0.03 0.40 0.39 0.70 No J 14.62 16.91 17.72 17.73 -0.45 No 7 C 0.99 0.60 0.62 0.43 -0.25 No C 0.50 Fault 0.50 0.40 -1.05 5 J 15.72 15.28 18.13 17.89 -0.85 No 8 C 0.13 0.15 0.40 0.33 0.30 No C 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.14 0.40 No J 15.86 16.46 17.50 16.84 -1 .05 No 35 C 0.20 0.15 0.15 0.13 0.50 No C 0.19 0.17 0.24 0.19 0.15 No J 14.29 13.38 14.22 13.72 -0.15 No 36 C 0.08 0.08 0.08 O. 10 -1.00 No C 0.05 0.05 0.20 0.17 0.80 No J 13.40 13.51 13.19 13.32 -0.50 No 38 C 0.20 0.16 No Data 0.10 -0.30 No C 0.16 0.18 No Data 0.10 -0.10 No C 0.08 0.10 No Data 0.08 0.35 No J 16.06 15.05 No Data 16.69 -0.70 No 39 C 0.11 0.10 No Data 0.08 0.55 No C 0.14 0.10 No Data 0.08 -0.35 No C 0.09 0.10 No Data 0.08 0.30 No J 16.64 14.42 No Data 16.11 0.00 No 42 C 0.13 0.16 0.59 0.58 0.80 No C 0.33 0.41 0.19 0.51 -0.70 No J 15.50 15.40 16.11 No Data -0.30 No 43 C 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.40 -0.50 No C 0.90 1.00 Spall Spall -l .30 3 J 14.92 14.33 15.46 No Data -0.10 No ' Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. " Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ° No faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm of faulting (if any). 202 Table 8.1 (cont'd). sue Test Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting: (mm) M» Type Apr. 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr- 1997‘ June 1998‘" 43 J 15.83 15.31 16.09 No Data -0.30 No 44 C No Data 0.15 0.10 0.18 No Data No C No Data 1.00 Spall Spall No Data -3 J No Data 15.09 16.18 16.27 No Data No J No Data 15.14 16.85 No Data No Data No J No Data 17.64 15.71 No Data No Data 6 J No Data 15.17 15.33 No Data No Data No 45 C No Data 0.10 0.24 0.28 No Data No J No Data 17.99 18.28 18.87 No Data No J No Data 18.18 18.74 18.62 No Data No 46 C No Data 0.30 0.41 0.43 No Data No J No Data 17.26 14.84 18.15 No Data No J No Data 16.82 16.92 17.45 No Data No 49 C 0.30 0.11 0.23 0.16 -0.25 No J 20.05 16.93 17.35 17.32 -0.65 No 50 C 0.25 1.53 Spall Spall -1.65 3 C 0.05 0.07 0.24 0.33 -0.15 No C 0.09 0.1 1 0.49 0.46 0.35 No C 0.06 0.07 0.33 Spall -0.25 4 J 18.67 15.89 16.92 16.58 -1.15 No 51 C 1.00 l .50 Spall Spall -0.15 No C 0.03 0.01 0.62 0.55 0.20 No C 0.11 0.14 0.44 0.46 0.30 No C 0.24 0.20 0.26 0.23 -0.50 No 52 C 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.32 0.00 No C 0.37 0.25 0.34 0.32 0.15 No C 0.09 0.10 0.30 0.32 0.95 No J 20.31 18.12 18.09 17.80 -0.70 No ° Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. b Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ‘ No faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm of faulting (if any). 203 Table 8.2 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 1, Natural Gravel Pavements. sate Test Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting” (mm) N0- Type Apr. 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr- 1997‘ [June 199811 2 C 0.37 0.20 0.21 0.31 0.85 No C 0.40 0.30 0.35 0.26 0.40 No C 0.32 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.35 NO I 19.42 16.67 20.15 17.90 0.80 No 3 C 0.18 0.20 0.25 0.15 -1.60 No C 0.21 0.23 0.44 0.42 -0.05 No C 0.19 0.18 0.70 0.65 0.00 No J 18.62 15.81 19.33 17.41 -0.35 No 4 C 0.18 0.20 0.90 0.68 1.10 No C 0.41 0.45 0.75 0.69 0.40 No J 15.64 12.55 17.46 19.93 -3.65 6 9 C 0.40 NO Data NO Data NO Data -0.80 NO Data C Fault NO Data NO Data NO Data -6.40 NO Data J 12.59 NO Data No Data NO Data -1.85 NO Data 10 C 4.11 NO Data Spall Spall -5.35 5 C 4.04 NO Data Spall Spall -4.05 4 C 0.45 No Data 0.25 0.31 -0.50 No J 12.96 No Data 13.82 13.50 -0.45 NO 37 C 0.22 0.25 0.90 0.57 1.05 NO c Spall 1.24 Spall Spall ' .4.90 5 C Spall 0.18 Spall Spall -8.85 10 C Fault 1.08 0.80 Spall -9.30 l 1 C Spall 0.73 Spall Spall -6.20 5 C 0.55 0.16 Spall Spall 0.85 . NO J 10.19 9.40 11.92 11.26 -7.35 8 38A C 0.12 0.15 1.38 0.76 0.60 NO C Spall 0.30 Spall Spall -10.05 1 1 C 0.1 1 0.15 Spall Spall 0.55 NO C 0.1 1 0.13 Spall Spall 0.10 NO C 0.35 0.39 Spall Spall 0.45 NO C 0.65 0.48 0.53 0.58 0.35 NO J 10.19 9.72 12.07 9.41 -8.15 9 ' Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. b Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. c No faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm of faulting (if any). 204 Table B.2 (cont'd). Site Test Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting-"b (mm) M Tyne Apr. 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr-1997c June 1998‘“e 57 C 0.07 0.08 0.41 0.33 0.75 No C 0.06 0.09 0.69 0.49 0.65 No c 0.06 0.04 0.37 0.27 0.35 No c 0.04 0.05 0.48 0.41 1.05 No C 0.29 0.48 0.32 0.35 0.00 No J 14.09 15.37 16.64 15.20 0.05 No J 13.17 13.00 15.41 13.88 -0.75 NO ‘ Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. b Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ° NO faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm of faulting (if any). 205 Table 8.3 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 1, Recycled Pavements. Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting? (mm) Apr. 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998J Apr-1997c June 1998““ C 0.80 0.85 Spall Spall ' -540 9 C 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.46 0.20 No C 0.28 0.27 0.38 0.44 -050 No c 0.12 0.20 0.21 0.22 -035 No C 1.38 1.30 Spall Spall .435 5 C 0.55 0.50 0.37 0.63 0.15 No C 0.37 0.30 Spall Spall -210 5 J 17.30 16.81 19.12 17.65 -0.85 No 12 C 0.90 1.40 Spall span -2.95 4 C 0.27 0.20 0.22 0.28 0.80 No C 0.65 0.70 0.10 Spall -5.85 5 C 0.55 0.60 Spall Spall -6.15 6 C 0.40 0.44 Spall Spall -3.65 5 C 0.40 0.25 0.30 0.30 0.50 No J 15.96 17.10 16.27 16.29 -025 No 13 C 0.13 0.15 Spall Spall -0.60 4 C 0.12 0.15 0.29 0.23 0.05 No C 0.90 1.42 Spall Spall -3.60 4 J 14.85 15.09 16.07 15.88 -040 No J 17.54 19.26 19.27 19.38 -0.85 No 14 C 0.28 0.25 0.16 0.16 -0.20 No C 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.22 -005 No C 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.10 -015 No C 0.08 0.15 0.18 0.08 0.00 No J 13.42 12.88 14.88 13.10 -1.15 No 15 C 0.15 0.10 0.12 0.08 -0.30 NO C 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.08 -0.40 No C 0.13 0.16 0.25 0.30 0.55 No J 14.61 14.31 16.25 15.88 -1.20 NO J 13.93 12.85 15.51 14.24 -090 NO 16 C NO Data 0.70 NO Data Fault NO Data 4 C NO Data 0.27 No Data 0.40 No Data NO ' Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. b Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. 6 April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ° No faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm of faulting (if any). 206 Table 8.3 (cont'd). Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting“ (mm) I Site Test N0- Type Apr. 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr. 1997c June 1998"? 16 C NO Data 0.33 NO Data 0.67 No Data NO J NO Data 15.97 NO Data 15.33 No Data NO J NO Data 16.92 No Data 16.70 No Data 3 J No Data 16.43 NO Data 17.17 NO Data NO J No Data 16.80 No Data 16.43 NO Data NO 17 C NO Data 0.92 NO Data Spall NO Data 7 C NO Data 0.30 NO Data 0.29 No Data NO J No Data 14.76 NO Data 15.32 NO Data No J No Data 15.34 NO Data 15.48 NO Data NO J NO Data 15.13 NO Data 15.31 NO Data 2 27 C NO Data 0.33 0.35 0.26 No Data NO C NO Data 0.65 Spall Spall NO Data 4 J NO Data 16.49 18.86 16.57 NO Data No J NO Data 15.19 18.80 15.11 NO Data NO J NO Data 16.17 17.84 16.16 NO Data NO 28 C NO Data 0.40 0.45 Spall No Data 3 C NO Data 0.38 0.34 0.41 NO Data NO C NO Data 0.36 0.32 0.32 NO Data No J NO Data 16.52 18.84 16.98 NO Data No J NO Data 16.40 19.06 17.03 No Data NO J NO Data 16.02 18.17 16.25 NO Data NO 29 C NO Data 0.20 0.18 0.10 No Data NO C No Data 0.20 Spall Spall No Data 6 J NO Data 16.87 18.35 16.99 NO Data No J NO Data 16.23 18.72 16.59 NO Data NO J NO Data 16.81 17.89 16.93 NO Data NO J NO Data 15.76 17.59 15.98 No Data 3 31 C No Data 0.44 0.45 0.25 No Data 2 C NO Data 0.30 Spall Spall No Data 5 J NO Data 16.09 18.32 17.45 No Data NO J NO Data 16.61 18.73 17.17 NO Data NO J NO Data 16.33 17.32 16.40 NO Data NO ° Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. b Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ° NO faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm Of faulting (if any). 207 Table B.3 (cont'd). sate Test Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting" (mm) I NO- Type Apr. 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr. 1997c June 1998*" —-1 32 C No Data Patch 0.45 0.23 No Data 7 C No Data 0.33 0.45 0.20 No Data NO C NO Data 0.15 Spall Spall NO Data NO J No Data 16.89 19.18 17.96 No Data No J No Data 16.21 18.48 17.87 NO Data No J No Data 16.43 18.34 16.45 No Data No 47 C 0.30 NO Data No Data NO Data 0.55 NO Data C 0.50 No Data NO Data NO Data 0.00 NO Data C 0.24 No Data NO Data NO Data -0.40 NO Data C Spall NO Data NO Data NO Data -3.20 NO Data J 15.17 NO Data NO Data NO Data -0.95 NO Data 48 C Spall NO Data NO Data NO Data -5.10 NO Data C 0.25 NO Data NO Data NO Data 035 NO Data C 0.20 NO Data No Data No Data -2.50 NO Data C 0.33 NO Data NO Data NO Data -1.95 No Data C 0.32 No Data No Data NO Data 025 No Data J 18.41 No Data NO Data No Data _ -1.40 NO Data J 17.43 No Data NO Data No Data -0.95 No Data ’ Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. ” Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ° NO faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm of faulting (if any). 208 Table 3.4 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 1, Slag Pavements. Site Test Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting“ (mm) N0- Type A r. 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr- 1997c June 1998"" 1 C 0.37 0.33 0.42 0.20 0.20 No C 0.16 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.05 NO C 0.22 0.20 0.28 0.25 0.25 NO C 0.15 0.17 0.47 0.33 0.45 No J 14.38 13.70 14.42 14.29 -0.15 No 40 C 0.55 0.22 NO Data 0.58 0.30 No C 0.23 0.18 NO Data 0.20 0.30 NO J 16.48 18.20 No Data 16.77 -0.65 No 41 C 0.45 0.14 NO Data 0.63 0.07 NO C 0.40 0.30 NO Data 0.34 -0.30 No C 0.21 0.31 NO Data 0.60 -0.13 NO C 0.19 0.21 NO Data 0.21 -0.45 NO J 14.37 14.42 No Data 14.59 0.05 NO 55 C 0.32 0.13 0.37 0.17 -0.65 NO C 0.32 0.27 0.24 0.15 -0.65 NO J 12.09 11.19 12.38 11.70 0.10 NO J 1 1.90 10.94 12.04 11.71 -0.25 NO J 12.13 11.24 12.07 11.73 -0.60 NO J 1 1.94 1 1.29 12.29 12.09 -0.25 NO 58 C No Data 0.15 0.12 0.10 No Data No C NO Data 0.15 0.29 0.28 NO Data NO J No Data 13.83 14.45 12.95 No Data NO J No Data 14.93 15.77 14.36 No Data No J NO Data 13.92 15.06 13.51 No Data NO J No Data 14.57 15.65 13.95 No Data NO 59 C NO Data 0.13 0.15 0.15 NO Data NO C NO Data 0.15 0.17 0.19 No Data NO J NO Data 14.32 15.74 14.46 NO Data NO J No Data 14.26 15.26 14.44 NO Data No J No Data 13.11 14.03 12.56 No Data NO 60 C No Data 0.20 0.17 0.16 No Data No C NO Data 0.25 0.25 0.27 NO Data NO ' Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. b Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. d June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ‘ NO faulting is reported for cracks/j oints that had less than 2 mm Of faulting (if any). 209 Table 8.4 (cont'd). Crack/Joint Width (mm) Faulting"’b (mm) . Oct. 1997 June 1998 Apr- 1997c [June 1998‘“c 60 J NO Data 12.74 13.96 13.13 NO Data NO J No Data 14.86 15.95 15.16 No Data No J NO Data 14.09 15.20 14.88 No Data NO 61 C No Data 0.15 0.23 0.18 NO Data NO C NO Data 0.20 0.24 0.23 No Data NO J NO Data 15.42 15.70 16.52 NO Data NO J NO Data 13.38 15.09 13.59 NO Data NO J NO Data 14.24 14.68 13.45 NO Data NO J NO Data 14.26 15.41 14.77 No Data NO 62 C NO Data 0.15 0.21 0.16 No Data No C NO Data 0.15 0.18 0.16 NO Data NO J NO Data 14.72 16.27 14.90 NO Data NO J NO Data 14.26 15.32 14.10 NO Data NO J NO Data 13.79 15.24 14.68 NO Data No 63 C NO Data NO Data 0.27 0.16 NO Data No C No Data No Data 0.15 0.15 No Data No J No Data NO Data 12.80 11.40 NO Data No J NO Data NO Data 12.82 NO Data NO Data No J No Data No Data 13.05 NO Data NO Data NO ' Faulting was not measured during July and Oct. 1997 testing cycles. b Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. ° April 1997 faulting was measured using electronic faultmeter. a June 1998 faulting was measured manually using a straightedge. ° No faulting is reported for cracks/joints that had less than 2 mm of faulting (if any). 210 Table 8.5 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Carbonate Pavements. ___-a—— Site Type of Crach Type Slab Number of Avg. Crack Joint No. Core Sp(eciol:leen) Number Cracks Spacing (m) Spacing (m) 5 Crack Aggregate 1 4 2.4 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 2 4.2 12.5 3 3 2.8 12.5 4 2 4.1 12.5 6 Crack Mortar 1 3 2.8 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 2 3.9 12.5 3 3 2.8 12.5 4 3 2.5 12.5 7 Crack Aggregate 1 3 2.7 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 2 3.9 12.5 3 6 1.3 12.5 4 3 2.8 12.5 8 Crack Mortar 1 1 7.4 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 3 2.7 12.5 3 2 3.8 12.5 4 1 7.4 12.5 35 Crack Surface Crack 1 4 1.4 8.2 Joint Mortar 2 1 4.0 8.2 3 0 ---- 8.2 36 Crack Aggregate 1 3 1 .9 8.2 Joint Mortar 2 1 5.2 8.2 3 1 5.2 8.2 4 0 ----- 8.2 38 Crack Mortar 1 5 1.8 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 1 9.1 12.5 3 3 3.0 12.5 4 6 1.4 12.5 5 2 4.2 12.5 39 Crack Surface Crack 1 2 3.0 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 2 3.7 12.5 3 2 3.0 12.5 4 2 2.3 12.5 42 Crack Mate 1 2 2.2 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 0 ----- 12.5 3 1 6.4 12.5 4 1 8.1 12.5 43 Crack Aggregate 1 2 3.5 12.5 211 Table B.5 (cont'd). Crack Type Site Type of (Core No. Core 43 Joint Mortar 44 Crack John Slab Number N 3 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 l 2 3 4 212 Number of Avg. Crack Cracks Spacing (m) Spacing (m) h—‘NMNAMN-hNUJH—‘WONH—HHMt—‘w—‘v-‘NNOH 6.7 3.4 3.3 4.9 5.8 2.7 3.9 1.7 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.0 2.1 1.7 4.3 3.6 1.8 2.7 1.3 2.9 1.7 2.2 2.4 1.0 2.2 3.1 1.3 Joint 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 12.5 12.5 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 Table 13.6 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Natural Gravel Pavements. cm" Type Slab Number of Avg. Crack Joint Number Cracks Spacing (m) Spacing (m) 2 Crack Mortar 1 2 3.3 12.5 ‘ Joint Mortar 2 1 6.2 12.5 3 0 ---- 12.5 4 1 7.1 12.5 5 1 5.9 12.5 3 Crack Aggregate 1 1 6.1 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 0 ---- 12.5 3 1 7.0 12.5 4 2 2.3 12.5 4 Crack Aggregate 1 5 3 .7 21 .6 Joint NO Data 2 2 5.6 21.6 3 6 3.0 21.6 9 Crack Mortar 1 3 4.6 21.6 Joint NO Data 2 3 4.8 21.6 3 3 5.8 21.6 10 Crack Mortar 1 3 4.8 21.6 Joint Mortar 2 4 3.8 21.6 37 Crack Mortar 1 3 5.1 21.6 Joint Mortar 2 3 5.2 21.6 38A Crack Mortar 1 6 3.0 21.6 Joint No Data 2 5 3.6 21.6 57 Crack Mortar 1 1 6.1 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 2 4.1 12.5 3 2 3.7 12.5 4 1 4.0 12.5 213 Table 8.7 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Recycled Pavements. 5 Crack Type (Core ecimen) Slab Number Number of Cracks Avg. Crack Spacing (m) m Joint Spacing (m) 11 Crack Mortar 1 3 3.0 12.5 Joint NO Data 2 6 1.6 12.5 3 3 3.0 12.5 12 Crack Aggegate 1 4 2.2 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 4 3.7 12.5 3 6 1.5 12.5 13 Crack Mortar 1 3 3.1 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 3 3.4 12.5 3 3 3.4 12.5 14 Crack Mortar 1 10 0.9 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 5 1.8 12.5 3 7 1.2 12.5 15 Crack Aggregate 1 3 2.9 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 7 1.1 12.5 3 7 1.4 12.5 16 Crack Mortar 1 5 1.9 12.5 Joint Aggregate 2 3 2.4 12.5 3 2 3.2 12.5 17 Crack NO Data 1 4 2.3 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 2 2.4 12.5 3 4 2.5 12.5 4 2 2.8 12.5 27 Crack Mortar 1 3 3.1 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 5 1.6 12.5 3 2 4.7 12.5 4 l 9.4 12.5 28 Crack Mortar 1 4 2.2 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 2 4.2 12.5 3 2 4.8 12.5 4 5 2.0 12.5 29 Crack Mortar 1 1 3.4 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 4 2.3 12.5 3 3 2.7 12.5 4 4 2.3 12.5 31 Crack Mortar 1 4 2.6 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 5 2.0 12.5 3 5 1.8 12.5 214 Table 8.7 (cont'd). —_ — fi Site Type of Crack Type Slab Number of Avg. Crack Joint (Core . . No. Core . Number Cracks Spacmg (m) Spacmg (m) Speclmen) A _ .- 32 Crack Mortar 1 3 2.6 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 4 2.4 12.5 3 5 1.8 12.5 47 Crack Aggregate 1 3 3. 1 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 3 3.4 12.5 48 Crack Aggregate 1 4 2.6 12.5 Joint Mortar 2 5 1.7 12.5 215 Table B.8 Measured Crack and Joint Field Data 11, Slag Pavements. Crack Type Site Type of (Core No. Core 1 Crack Joint Slab Number of Avg. Crack Joint Number Cracks Spacing (m) Spacing (m) 2.3 12.5 3.5 12.5 5.0 12.5 3.1 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 "OUJUJNUJ-h fl H 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 wNQJNu—INOo—tr—u—Iu—au—AON—d—i—ti—aNNNu—s—tr—an—nu—tbwm 216 Table B.8 (cont'd). C1223?” Slab Number of Avg..Crack Joint Specimen) Number Cracks . Spacing (m) Spacing (m) 3 3 2.1 8.2 4 4 1.3 8.2 63 Crack Aggregate 1 1 2.4 4.9 Joint Aggegate 2 1 2.1 4.9 3 1 2.7 4.9 4 1 2.4 4.9 5 1 2.4 4.9 6 2 1.4 4.9 217 Table 13.9 Visual Distress Data, Carbonate Pavements. Fultma: C of SI, C20fSZ;Spa11ng— _& SI, 1 _& C 82, 3 5 of S3, C1 & C2 of S4, J3; Exposed Reinforcement; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff 6 Faulting: C2 Of 82; Spalling: C2 Of S2, C2 of S3 7 Faulting: C1 of S2, C2 of S3, C2 & C3 Of S4, Lane-Lane; Spalling: C1 of S2, C2 of S3, C3 of S4; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff 8 Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Scaling on 81 35 Popouts; Shrinkage Cracking 36 Popouts; Shrinkage Cracking 38 Spalling: J 3; Shrinkage Cracking 39 Shrinkage Cracking 42 Spalling: J 1; Dropped Sealant: J1 & J5 43 Faulting: C1 of S2, J3; Spalling: C1 of S2; Dropped Sealant: J 1, J2, J3, & J4; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff 44 Faulting: C1 of SS, J5; Spalling: C1 Of S5, J5; Drflgd Sealant: J4 45 Shrinkage CrackinL 46 Shrinkage Cracking 49 Faulting: Lane-Lane; Sealant Damage: Lane-Lane; Polished Aggregate; Shrinkage Cracking 50 Faulting: C1 ofSl, C1 of S4; Spalling: C1 OfSl, C1 of S4; Sealant Damage: J5, Lane-Lane; Popouts; Polished Aggregate Faulting: C1 & C4 Of S2, J2, J3, Lane-Lane; Spalling: C2 of $1, C1 & C4 of 82; 51 Sealant Damage: J1 , J2, J4, Lane-Shoulder; Exposed Reinforcement; Lane- Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggregate 52 Faulting: Lane-Lane; Popouts; Polished Aggregate 218 Table 8.10 Visual Distress Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. * - _ Site Distress Comments No. 2 Popouts 3 Spalling: Cl & C2 of S4 4 Faulting: J3, Lane-Lane; Spalling: C3 & C5 of 81, C2 of $2, J 1, J3, J4; C4 Of 81 is Concrete Patched; Popouts; Exposed Reinforcement; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Lane-Lane Separation; Polished Aggregate 9 No Data 10 Faulting: C1, C2, & C3 of SI, C2 & C4 of S2, Lane-Lane; Spalling: C1, C2, & C3 OfSl, C2 & C4 0f S2, J2,J3;’Dropped Sealantle & J3; C2 & C3 ofSl are Asphalt Patched; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Lane-Lane Separation; Polished Aggregate 37 Faulting: C2 & C3 ofSl, C1 & C2 of S2, J1, J2, J3, Lane-Lane; Spalling: C1, C2, & C3 of 81, C1, C2, & C3 of 52, J2; Dropped Sealant: J3; Sealant Damage: J 1, J2, & J 3; C3 of S2 is Asphalt Patched; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Agflgate 38A Faulting: C2 of S1, C4 of 82, J 1, J2, J3, Lane-Lane; Spalling: C1, C2, C3, & C6 ofSl, C1, C2, & C4 OfS2, J2; Sealant Damage: J1, J2, & J3; C2 & C3 ofSl, C1, C2, & C4 of 82, J2 is Asphalt Patched; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggregate 57 Scaling 219 Table 8.11 Visual Distress Data, Recycled Pavements. Distress Comments __ g Faulting: C1 OfSl, C1& C3 OfSB;Spalling:ClofS1, C1& C3 ofS3; Lane- “ Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggregate; Shrinkage Cracking 12 Faulting: C1 & C4 OfSl; C2 & C3 OfSZ; C3 OfS3;Spalling:C1& C4 OfSl; C2 & C3 of 82; C3 of S3; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Shrinkage Cracking 13 Faulting: C1 OfSl, C1& C2 ofS2, C1& C2 OfS3;Spa11ing:ClofS1, C1& C2 Of 82, C1 & C2 of S3; Polished Aggregate; Shrinkage Cracking 14 Dropped Sealant: J 1, J 3, & J4; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggregate; Shrinkage Cracking Spalling: C2 & C4 of S3; Dropped Sealant: J 1, J2, J3, & J4; Polished Aggregate; 15 . . Shrinkage Cracklng 16 Faulting: C1 & C4 OfSl, C10fSZ, J2; Spalling: C1, C4, & C5 OfSl, C1& C3 of S2; Dropped Sealant: J1, J2, J3, & J4 17 Faulting: C2 OfSl, C2 Of S3, J3; Spalling: C1 & C2 OfSl, C2 Of S3; Dropped Sealant: J 1, J2, & J 3; Shrinkage Cracking Faulting: C3 Of S2; Spalling: C2 Of 81, C3 of 82, C1 & C2 Of S3; Dropped 27 Sealant: J 2; Alkali-Silica Reactivity; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggregate; Shrinkage Cracking 28 Faulting: C2 of SI; Spalling: C2 of 81, C1 & C2 Of 82; Alkali-Silica Reactivity; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggregate; Shrinkage Cracking 29 Faulting: C1 Of S4, 15; Spalling: C1 & C2 Of S4; Dropped Sealant: J 1, J2, J3, J4, & J 5; Alkali-Silica Reactivity; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Agggate 31 Faulting: C2 & C3 OfSl, C1& C3 OfSZ, C3 ofS3; Spalling: C2 & C3 OfSl, C1 & C3 Of S2, C3 of S3; Popouts; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggegate 32 Faulting: C1 OfSl, C10fS2, C4 OfS3;Spalling:C1& C3 OfSl, C1& C3 ofS2, C4 of S3; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Polished Aggregate 47 No Data 48 No Data 220 [5 an 1"»: ~ ~1- Table 8.12 Visual Distress Data, Slag Pavements. 1 Site No. =1:- Distress Comments Alkali-Silica Reactivity; Lafihoulder Dropoff Faulting: J 1; Dropped Sealant: J2 & J4; Lane-Shoulder Dropoff; Shrinkage 40 Cracking . 41 Polished Aggregate; Shrinkage Cracking 55 Spalling2C10fSI, C10fS2, C10fS3, C10fS4, C10fS5, C10fS7, C10fS8; Dropped Sealant: J6, J7, J8 58 Sealant Damage: J 1, J2, J3, J4, & J5; Longitudinal Cracking; Polished Agflgate 59 Sealant Damage: J 1, J2, J 3, J4, & J 5; Longitudinal Cracking; Lane-Shoulder Dropofl‘; Polished Aggregate 60 Sealant Damage: J 1, J2, J3, J4, & J5; Longitudinal Cracking 61 Alkali-Silica Reactivity; Polished Aggregate 62 Longitudinal Cracking; Alkali-Silica Reactivity; Durability Cracking; Polished Aggregate Spalling: C1 of 81, C1 of S2, C1 of S3, C1 of S4, C1 of SS; Dropped Sealant: J4, 63 J 5, J6, & J7 221 Table 8.13 Backcalculated Parameters I', Carbonate Pavements. No. * April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 5 1127 1128 1148 998 1001 1048 6 1209 1202 1233 1216 1195 1295 7 1160 1158 1115 1078 1073 972 8 1180 1147 1118 1130 1045 980 35 1172 1155 1179 1107 1066 1127 36 1079 1220 1064 902 1251 875 38 1248 1151 No Data 1349 1055 No Data 39 1218 1162 No Data 1245 1083 NO Data 42 987 987b 987” 755 755" 755b 43 987b 987" 987b 755" 755" 755" 44 No Data 987b 987b No Data 755" 755” 45 No Data 1114 1175 No Data 972 1115 46 NO Data 1088 1175” NO Data 919 1115‘3 49 1235 1216 1219 1301 1239 1247 50 1213" 1290 1194 1228" 1529 1170 51 1213" 1035 1186” 1228b 825 1148b 52 1213 1204 1186 1228 1198 1148 ' Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 222 A ’V 1 Table 8.14 Backcalculated Parameters 1', Natural Gravel Pavements. Site AREA (mm) Z (mm) No. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 2 1097 1 152 1 100 936 1057 942 3 1122 1104 1116 989 951 974 4 1139 1111 1117 1025 965 977 9 1133 No Data NO Data 1013 NO Data No Data 10 1110 NO Data 1072 964 NO Data 889 37 1130b 1170b 1097” 1006'” 1104b 936b 38A 1130 1170 1097 , 1006 1104 936 57 1 126 1077 1081 997 898 905 a Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 223 Table 8.15 Backcalculated Parameters I', Recycled Pavements. ite AREA (mm) I (mm) No. A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1997 A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1997 11 1233 1150 1148b 1296 1052 1046b 12 1175 1081 1148 1116 905 1046 13 1179 1113 1198 1126 968 1182 14 1136 1071 1084" 1018 886 911b 15 1260 1275 1084 1396 1462 91 1 16 No Data 1128 No Data NO Data 1000 No Data 17 No Data 1133 No Data NO Data 1011 NO Data 27 NO Data 1171 1185 NO Data 1107 1145 28 No Data 1162 1207 No Data 1082 1208 29 NO Data 1200 1187 No Data 1188 1149 31 No Data 1154 1105 No Data 1062 952 32 No Data 1146 1105b No Data 1043 952b 47 1143” No Data No Data 1036b NO Data NO Data 48 1143b No Data No Data 1036b No Data No Data ‘ Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 224 Table 8.16 8ackcalcu1ated Parameters 1', Slag Pavements. Agril 1997 I July 1997 I Oct. 1997 1261 1052 1052 1400 854 40 1179 1152 No Data 1127 1058 NO Data 41 1188 1130 No Data 1153 1005 NO Data 55 1247 1290 1245 1348 1531 1340 58 No Data 1146 1154b No Data 1043 1061b 59 No Data 1110 1154 NO Data 963 1061 60 NO Data 1098 1102 NO Data 938 947 61 NO Data 1078 1073 NO Data 901 891 62 No Data 1110 1073b No Data 964 891” 63 No Data No Data 1245b No Data No Data 1340b ' Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 225 ,. 1:1 1r!- Table 8.17 Backcalculated Parameters II', Carbonate Pavements. Site E (kPa) k (kPa/mm) No. A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1997 Atri11997 Jul 1997 Oct. 199___ 'WWM ““4 h T— 53.8 W 53.3 6 4.235+07 4,545+07 5.435+07 27.0 31.1 26.9 7 3.81E+07 3.795+07 3.425+07 39.4 39.8 53.5 8 5.81E+07 5.925+07 4.445+07 42.5 59.3 57.4 35 7,425+07 5.61E+07 6.10E+07 58.8 51.9 45.1 36 4.235+07 6.1 15+07 3.495+07 76.2 29.7 70.9 38 1.57+08" 5.865+07b No Data 40.7b 40.7b No Data 39 1.145+08b 6.515+07" No Data 40.7b 40.7b No Data 42 6.055+07 6.055+07" 6.055+07" 89.3 89.3" 89.3b 43 6.055+07" 6.055+07" 6.055+07" 89.3b 89.3" 89.3" 44 No Data 6,055+07b 6.055+07" No Data 89.3” 89.3b 45 NO Data 4.525+07 5.26E+07 NO Data 82.2 55.1 46 NO Data 3.64E+07 5.2512407b No Data 82.9 55,1” 49 4.935+07 4.305+07 4.495+07 41.6 44.1 44.9 50 3.925+07" 6.01E+O7 3.125+07 41.7b 26.6 40.2 51 3.925+07b 9.81E+06 3.555+07” 41.7b 51.1 49.4" 52 3.925+07 4.095+07 3.555+07 41.7 47.9 49.4 a Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 226 Table 8.18 Backcalculated Parameters 11‘, Natural Gravel Pavements. E (kPa) k (kPa/mm) No. A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1997 A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1__9 _ 2 4.835+07 5.68E+07 4.975+07 75.1 54.2 75.1 3 4.125+07 3.36E+O7 4.425+07 51.3 49.1 58.5 4 4,415+07 4.355+07 4.455+07 40.8 51.3 49.9 9 6.02E+07 NO Data NO Data 58.5 NO Data NO Data 10 5.555+07 No Data 5.375+07 65.8 No Data 88.0 37 4,385+07" 3.871=.+07b 4.285+07" 51.0" 31.1" 66.3b 38A 4.38E+07 3.87E+07 4.28E+07 51.0 31.1 66.3 57 5.395+07 5.295+07 5.175+07 65.1 97.1 92.1 ' Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 227 Table 8.19 Backcalculated Parameters II', Recycled Pavements. Site E (kPa) k (kPa/mm) No. A . ril 1997 Ju 1997 Oct. 1997 A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1997 1 1 3.83E+07 3.83E+07 4.095+07b 22.0 50.7 55.3" 12 3.325+07 2.88E+07 4.095+07 34.7 69.7 55.3 13 3.395+07 3.325+07 5.255+07 34.2 61.3 43.7 14 2.915+07 2,345+07 3.775+07b 37.8 52.9 76.4" 15 6.53E+07 7.67E+07 3.775+07 24.0 23.4 76.4 16 No Data 4.595+07 No Data NO Data 64.0 No Data 17 No Data 4.555+07 No Data No Data 60.6 No Data 27 NO Data 3.765+07 3.66E+07 No Data 46.4 39.5 28 NO Data 3.86E+07 4.425+07 NO Data 52.0 38.4 29 NO Data 4.475+07 3.715+07 No Data 41.5 39.4 31 No Data 4.685+07 3.64E+O7 NO Data 59.6 71.8 32 NO Data 3.675+07 3154134417b No Data 503 71 .8b 47 1,935+07b No Data No Data 40.7b No Data No Data 48 1,935+07b No Data No Data 40,7b No Data No Data 3‘ Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 228 Table 8.20 Backcalculated Parameters II‘, Slag Pavements. Site E (kPa) k (kPa/mm) __No. _A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oct. 1997 A . ril 1997 Jul 1997 Oc__ 1 4.40E+07 4.025+07 1.88E+07 50.2 14.6 49.3 40 2.98E+07 3.12E+07 No Data 44.7 60.1 No Data 41 3.03E+07 3.07E+07 NO Data 41.3 72.6 No Data 55 4.93E+07 4.34E+07 5.56E+07 36.1 - 19.1 41.7 58 NO Data 5.725+07 6.375+07'° No Data 67.4 70.1b 59 NO Data 5.20E+07 6.37E+07 NO Data 84.5 70.1 60 NO Data 5.06E+07 5.48E+07 NO Data 91.1 95.1 61 NO Data 3.46E+07 3.98E+07 No Data 73.3 88.2 62 No Data 4.87E+07 3,935+07" No Data 78.9 88,2b 63 No Data No Data 555134.07b No Data No Data 41 .7b a Midslab deflection data was not collected for June 1998 testing cycle. b This data was either assumed or copied from another test site and/or test cycle. 229 Table 8.21 LTE5 Data, Carbonate Pavements. Site Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 No Ty“ LTE5 (%) LTE5 (%) LTE5 (%) LTE5 (%) ' w Before After Before After Before After Before After 5 C 94.98 100.00 95.69 99.77 93.20 97.88 94.10 96.88 C 92.84 96.83 98.66 98.42 91.54 96.15 97.73 95.25 J 75.85 67.07 97.95 94.81 65.80 53.87 92.23 92.37 6 C 99.84 99.49 100.00 95.18 95.03 94.83 94.84 91.88 C 100.00 95.86 100.00 96.69 99.15 97.24 94.43 94.05 J 88.53 84.58 90.57 87.11 86.44 84.51 97.74 93.46 7 C 100.00 90.46 98.06 93.17 99.14 88.87 98.83 91.01 C 18.32 30.75 100.00 95.10 13.62 13.08 93.73 96.77 J 80.61 79.61 85.02 85.67 78.97 82.03 88.69 89.00 8 C 94.96 96.06 94.16 90.91 95.87 93.41 97.19 92.07 C 100.00 92.92 95.51 88.19 94.23 89.64 98.93 91.78 J 100.00 93.71 100.00 89.42 89.17 74.81 100.00 91 . 10 35 C 94.06 94.62 93.27 92.00 93.76 93.05 96.83 92.55 C 93.54 92.71 92.48 93.29 94.27 93.55 94.56 96.03 J 92.32 99.36 95.46 90.05 86.34 88.65 93.59 87.56 36 C 91.98 91.92 90.19 89.31 92.29 90.66 93.68 93.43 C 93.80 94.42 92.55 94.35 90.14 96.96 94.18 93.90 J 82.73 97.68 97.85 90.07 67.93 85.72 97.92 90.78 38 C 90.96 87.23 87.79 86.23 No Data NO Data 95.45 87.79 C 91.59 90.36 88.21 91.10 NO Data NO Data 93.45 91.98 C 92.79 86.61 89.00 82.33 NO Data NO Data 97.35 87.51 J 87.49 79.65 61.71 73.59 NO Data No Data 52.62 59.72 39 C 91.06 90.75 89.05 88.59 NO Data NO Data 94.70 91.33 C 92.50 88.86 89.87 86.86 NO Data No Data 92.01 87.80 C 90.91 87.28 91.21 85.16 NO Data No Data 92.58 86.08 J 84.84 80.82 94.62 87.38 NO Data No Data 55.36 61.68 42 C 90.97 88.02 81.14 94.76 87.55 94.10 80.83 100.00 C 91.19 83.10 81.76 75.32 86.94 78.40 25.51 29.59 J 92.17 82.92 90.06 86.51 89.54 78.58 96.05 88.64 43 C 88.95 84.50 88.08 87.91 82.23 80.61 70.83 67.80 C 66.17 75.72 63.51 58.99 52.98 60.84 46.39 28.70 J 90.11 81.86 82.02 74.17 82.67 72.35 89.97 95.87 J 83.75 80.75 79.88 71.98 82.31 71.00 72.45 85.52 44 C NO Data NO Data 88.33 85.21 89.55 88.10 93.57 88.59 C NO Data NO Data 63.41 70.90 53.17 66.78 49.11 64.39 J No Data NO Data 76.51 54.15 77.40 72.76 91.05 72.51 J NO Data NO Data 64.19 81.26 79.39 72.74 62.27 70.82 230 Table 8.21 (cont'd). Site Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 No. Type LTE5 (%) LTEa (%) LTE5 (%) LTE5 (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 44 J NO Data NO Data 72.98 42.10 72.57 39.75 71.04 65.64 J No Data NO Data 77.45 74.17 77.13 78.84 81.54 79.53 45 C NO Data NO Data 93.25 91.00 96.79 93.63 94.98 93.18 J NO Data No Data 89.92 90.10 76.82 93.92 91.35 98.36 J NO Data NO Data No Data No Data 98.81 79.31 93.06 93.97 46 C NO Data NO Data 93.93 95.19 88.14 98.20 94.55 100.00 J NO Data No Data 94.44 87.50 92.29 87.34 91.77 93.36 J NO Data NO Data 90.52 74.88 70.46 70.95 82.43 81.11 49 C 98.60 95.97 95.62 90.18 97.92 98.92 100.00 94.61 J 93.62 89.97 97.83 94.91 66.41 64.56 98.30 91.63 50 C 20.66 23.48 93.95 97.84 24.65 21.21 95.50 89.09 C 94.15 93.12 90.35 96.82 99.01 95.37 95.69 89.26 C 100.00 92.04 97.29 93.41 94.22 91.29 98.06 91.91 C 100.00 92.97 96.27 96.92 77.98 73.10 71.62 56.90 J 61.68 56.17 89.41 95.23 58.48 50.64 85.84 81.72 51 C 11.26 6.99 9.88 6.72 10.44 9.03 7.41 5.94 C 98.49 95.49 100.00 99.01 100.00 93.34 92.55 92.61 C 99.65 89.69 97.28 95.56 94.43 96.26 93.52 90.75 C 88.75 94.30 92.56 93.52 94.25 95.71 98.89 90.42 52 C 99.59 95.38 94.70 90.32 97.82 93.53 97.94 91.87 C 100.00 96.38 94.93 95.65 91.02 95.42 98.02 95.94 C 97.89 98.54 93.97 95.66 97.68 96.91 95.65 89.97 J 100.00 97.78 99.52 100.00 98.37 88.95 95.12 97.38 231 Table 8.22 LTE5 Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 3;: LTE, (%) LTE8 (%) LTE8 (%) LTE, (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 2 C 93.68 95.28 92.64 92.00 83.25 98.70 98.59 100.00 C 97.83 93.64 92.34 95.59 85.88 96.06 91.51 93.82 C 96.97 98.29 95.31 90.97 87.54 95.52 95.57 100.00 J 55.60 81.43 94.81 92.09 46.98 77.19 51.32 82.75 3 C 97.55 100.00 98.90 92.53 97.80 93.11 98.23 95.02 C 100.00 100.00 95.24 96.57 97.65 99.57 94.47 98.71 C NO Data NO Data 88.11 99.76 46.06 82.07 93.01 NO Data J 54.22 74.89 60.68 71.51 52.70 78.51 43.41 70.84 4 C 97.03 95.28 99.69 93.81 98.02 97.71 94.47 90.14 C 100.00 99.72 100.00 95.63 97.48 98.69 97.55 92.41 J 77.83 67.80 80.19 80.91 22.94 28.87 77.12 58.84 9 C 97.63 95.57 NO Data No Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data C 22.03 29.47 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data J 70.19 63.77 No Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data 10 C 39.35 34.28 No Data No Data 25.79 28.02 20.43 40.10 C NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 19.30 31.54 C 100.00 96.71 No Data NO Data 22.26 29.28 100.00 100.00 J 73.87 67.35 No Data NO Data 66.35 67.45 71.51 67.77 37 C 92.81 92.93 100.00 90.11 89.37 94.58 93.06 91.02 C 31.55 51.94 100.00 95.02 21.68 26.31 21.53 34.90 C No Data No Data 97.99 100.00 21.10 25.00 19.54 19.02 C 27.55 89.41 96.30 96.68 16.07 21.53 15.09 39.85 C 67.37 83.04 100.00 90.06 34.47 26.41 36.68 30.32 C 90.56 93.06 100.00 84.25 96.24 97.92 88.44 90.24 J 45.20 51.11 88.09 84.93 29.53 44.01 30.4598 28.68 38A C 96.44 94.31 100.00 95.62 91.49 97.24 95.83 90.02 C 67.75 87.10 99.56 89.82 25.81 26.66 26.45 20.80 C 100.00 94.72 99.28 91.07 97.53 91.43 99.77 92.70 C 94.21 97.53 99.78 91.27 91.43 92.90 91.54 96.98 C 78.98 93.17 91.64 64.16 83.13 93.83 76.42 95.94 C NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data 98.78 93.73 J 47.30 40.57 83.05 66.82 34.65 32.79 34.21 31.88 57 C 96.96 90.54 93.64 88.11 93.67 89.86 97.61 91.95 C 98.85 93.33 99.44 92.53 84.93 93.65 100.00 98.56 C 98.15 92.06 96.22 83.21 97.46 94.59 92.74 93.97 C 93.39 93.80 95.60 97.49 91.62 100.00 89.54 91.10 C NO Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data 95.37 92.44 232 Table 8.22 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 " Jue1998 ' LTE, (%) LTE, (%) LTE, (%) LTE, (%) Before After Before After Before After 80.13 84.39 , 82.78 85.36 78.75 81.50 | J 93.08 [89.73 72.06 86.12 65.35 86.90 | 68.11 1 81.41 233 Table 8.23 LTE5 Data, Recycled Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 LTE5 (%) LTE5 (%) LTE, (%) LTE5 (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 11 C 47.57 46.37 19.98 95.05 12.94 16.21 18.12 18.55 C 100.00 96.57 91.44 93.34 97.50 92.80 90.55 88.40 C 96.99 98.57 91.83 92.79 94.49 100.00 93.27 93.67 C 95.81 90.48 95.42 82.68 99.50 91.25 96.57 85.37 C NO Data No Data 21.43 17.62 16.85 12.81 23.65 15.55 C 92.78 87.41 80.98 88.30 91.24 89.40 83.29 93.19 C NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 27.99 18.35 J 70.56 69.61 64.88 76.51 67.94 74.96 73.17 71.80 12 C 42.33 43.64 26.89 40.73 18.75 20.89 24.02 37.00 C 96.63 95.17 89.80 91.84 NO Data NO Data 90.01 92.82 C 36.62 35.35 24.62 34.09 21.32 17.27 24.82 15.97 C 42.30 39.09 28.57 25.22 30.07 40.48 34.44 24.69 C 54.73 58.40 NO Data No Data 19.88 44.25 28.74 29.98 C 100.00 97.50 92.15 93.01 96.42 91.95 92.51 94.38 J 63.29 73.50 81.32 90.36 80.93 76.74 74.26 74.28 13 C 100.00 87.76 23.15 86.43 21.92 71.26 18.56 86.16 C 96.18 97.72 92.77 92.31 94.31 99.38 92.41 92.17 C 51.65 63.82 37.85 37.01 26.81 35.89 35.39 38.72 J 65.43 70.61 67.29 65.71 72.09 78.08 66.50 74.27 J 82.33 76.94 81.33 67.83 83.36 81.62 86.54 78.74 14 C 97.41 94.52 94.28 93.33 88.63 90.80 93.31 90.87 C 95.93 90.19 95.34 87.86 92.71 89.28 96.37 89.65 C 92.58 90.03 92.89 83.38 94.29 89.35 94.07 89.52 C 93.21 95.08 91.35 92.08 93.14 89.03 92.25 90.59 J 95.56 88.69 92.03 87.43 75.86 65.50 90.78 91.38 15 C 95.03 89.87 97.12 89.06 90.54 87.40 92.76 90.09 C 97.49 90.07 97.32 88.03 92.28 88.47 92.57 88.35 C 96.40 96.06 94.34 93.42 94.56 93.48 NO Data No Data J 86.45 81.58 82.27 79.99 83.84 72.80 82.11 77.26 J NO Data 79.12 87.61 81.25 No Data NO Data 78.42 71.40 16 C NO Data NO Data 17.45 34.85 NO Data No Data 16.07 22.90 C NO Data No Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data 25.82 16.53 C NO Data NO Data 97.79 91.09 NO Data NO Data 94.27 99.03 J NO Data NO Data 81.49 70.95 NO Data NO Data 75.26 74.91 J NO Data No Data 49.66 30.38 NO Data NO Data 26.17 31.80 J No Data No Data 67.01 62.70 NO Data NO Data 83.70 85.02 J NO Data NO Data 76.21 73.11 NO Data No Data 75.56 68.36 234 Table 8.23 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 :3: LTE, (%) LTE5 (%) LTE, (%) LTE, (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 17 C NO Data No Data 24.56 23.36 NO Data No Data 32.32 29.22 C NO Data NO Data 97.56 90.53 NO Data NO Data 97.68 94.56 J NO Data NO Data 31.55 30.56 NO Data NO Data 38.53 25.63 J NO Data No Data 61.46 46.73 NO Data NO Data 59.15 45.18 J No Data No Data 31.75 30.71 No Data NO Data 32.63 29.75 27 C NO Data NO Data 96.52 90.39 98.67 96.22 94.84 97.21 C No Data NO Data 24.71 41.34 11.08 13.00 16.27 15.45 J No Data NO Data 60.37 84.99 52.30 75.82 49.24 78.28 J NO Data NO Data 77.02 85.25 71.86 75.39 63.55 65.83 J No Data No Data 70.11 74.29 68.78 77.22 64.18 64.78 28 C NO Data No Data 57.41 77.76 14.92 37.84 15.70 35.28 C NO Data NO Data 96.81 78.09 100.00 100.00 95.06 100.00 C NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 94.20 96.12 J NO Data NO Data 52.68 79.30 52.88 73.94 47.07 63.89 J No Data No Data 79.18 77.24 70.88 78.57 75.42 67.27 J NO Data No Data 67.89 78.35 76.93 84.61 70.30 84.85 29 C No Data NO Data 94.82 95.00 95.24 83.10 56.52 73.90 C NO Data No Data 99.86 94.54 21.00 22.50 90.83 98.70 J No Data NO Data 96.82 93.99 60.14 51.21 54.12 40.97 J NO Data No Data 100.00 91.51 60.02 91.51 49.66 66.28 J NO Data NO Data 96.45 91.17 59.44 61.70 49.11 38.85 J NO Data NO Data 62.85 69.34 53.53 53.46 48.20 44.39 31 C No Data No Data 48.26 85.12 41.87 43.48 15.42 65.31 C No Data No Data 93.13 95.84 19.58 16.58 20.13 41.68 J No Data No Data 90.62 73.69 66.15 59.76 76.17 63.62 J No Data No Data 82.39 83.40 57.30 52.47 59.26 42.54 J NO Data NO Data 96.94 92.11 57.05 46.61 51.79 38.02 32 C NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 39.23 32.69 C NO Data NO Data 89.27 76.66 54.15 16.86 NO Data 28.78 C NO Data NO Data 99.85 90.56 33.71 11.54 55.73 25.55 J No Data No Data 96.77 88.36 64.21 47.24 55.03 38.41 J No Data No Data 91.30 88.57 59.53 68.25 49.85 44.49 J NO Data NO Data 100.00 91.33 83.13 73.77 62.87 68.17 47 C 100.00 96.65 NO Data NO Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data C 99.70 92.57 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data NO Data C 97.17 89.56 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data C 35.08 27.35 No Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data 235 Table 8.23 (cont'd). Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Type LTES (%) LTE5 (%) LTE5 (%) LTES (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 47 J 54.72 50.96 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data 48 C 31.15 26.06 No Data No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data C 97.14 88.14 No Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data C 79.36 77.43 No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data C 97.56 90.51 No Data NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data C 96.72 96.17 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data J 39.80 34.37 No Data NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data J 50.59 58.37 No Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data 236 Table 8.24 LTE5 Data, Slag Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 LT85 (%) LTE, (%) LTE; (%) LTE5 (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 1 C 100.00 87.12 97.17 91.63 94.46 84.23 96.79 91.64 C 100.00 93.41 98.81 93.89 91.07 87.53 No Data No Data C 97.77 90.34 98.38 92.80 90.42 86.52 NO Data No Data C 98.81 89.76 95.95 94.05 99.29 87.74 No Data No Data J 72.14 56.19 99.26 92.05 68.11 55.40 96.38 88.33 40 C 89.94 92.26 97.68 85.39 NO Data No Data 99.33 87.12 C NO Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data 94.57 88.33 J 88.95 85.77 93.44 90.01 No Data No Data 95.71 90.88 41 C 97.68 91.31 95.47 94.79 No Data NO Data 91.70 92.92 C NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data 92.12 93.70 C 94.49 93.95 95.14 91.42 NO Data NO Data 95.36 92.10 C 98.35 90.13 97.24 91.52 NO Data NO Data 95.10 92.88 J 88.54 87.61 95.18 87.08 No Data NO Data 92.21 87.18 55 C 27.15 46.62 88.80 93.40 28.08 24.65 22.45 30.35 C 46.24 80.64 95.20 87.13 25.79 24.80 43.23 66.89 J No Data 54.54 61.84 64.62 36.87 48.21 27.08 34.64 J 27.19 NO Data 78.77 96.23 34.26 40.97 24.83 26.29 J NO Data NO Data 80.69 90.42 37.07 64.08 28.85 46.39 J NO Data NO Data 75.24 91.42 30.98 69.13 29.76 44.34 58 C NO Data No Data 90.12 92.72 94.76 90.13 95.41 93.80 C No Data No Data 89.93 91.54 92.62 92.51 92.86 93.89 J NO Data No Data 71.73 69.29 78.03 73.38 80.20 73.48 J NO Data NO Data 69.86 66.45 73.05 69.86 89.46 92.04 J NO Data NO Data 47.57 43.24 38.47 37.69 95.12 89.43 J No Data NO Data 48.02 72.40 45.81 49.07 95.04 92.05 59 C NO Data NO Data 90.80 92.83 91.22 90.06 90.36 91.17 C No Data No Data 96.00 89.17 88.28 90.11 88.05 90.84 J NO Data NO Data 47.19 79.03 47.40 59.95 87.80 91.42 J NO Data NO Data 56.04 56.49 50.37 54.00 88.52 91.87 J NO Data NO Data 58.15 66.55 45.09 49.65 85.36 84.51 60 C NO Data NO Data 93.07 89.80 88.14 90.95 92.94 87.94 C NO Data NO Data 92.34 88.66 89.39 94.86 95.29 92.63 J NO Data No Data 91.48 89.95 51.99 65.91 92.11 90.48 J NO Data No Data 69.34 80.25 37.79 49.00 94.85 88.80 J No Data NO Data 67.95 69.20 36.33 38.80 91.84 85.14 61 C NO Data No Data 88.40 87.61 88.93 84.60 90.00 86.31 C No Data No Data 92.50 88.73 92.14 89.22 94.92 87.86 237 V r"- 'n Table 8.24 (cont'd). , April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 18;? 11;: L'rla:8 (%) LTE, (%) LTE, (%) LTE, (%) ° Before After Before After Before After Before After 61 J No Data No Data 97.01 87.65 74.49 76.90 92.39 78.38 J NO Data NO Data 93.19 85.85 59.65 64.54 90.84 85.00 J No Data No Data 90.82 90.81 58.49 52.49 95.67 86.77 J NO Data No Data 92.03 92.11 36.17 36.10 98.77 88.57 62 C No Data No Data 91.50 89.16 91.10 86.86 95.54 89.45 C No Data No Data 91.63 87.45 89.03 91.34 93.72 89.11 J NO Data NO Data 93.01 87.92 66.17 57.27 94.47 89.03 J No Data NO Data 95.94 89.34 55.72 65.52 95.45 90.04 J No Data No Data 94.66 84.62 57.17 62.40 92.44 87.33 63 C No Data No Data No Data No Data 33.86 24.16 26.12 NO Data C No Data No Data NO Data No Data 78.59 74.49 38.01 67.37 J NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 34.20 58.00 30.77 44.18 J NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data 25.13 35.72 25.03 39.55 J NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 26.45 33.31 28.75 37.20 238 Table 8.25 TLE Data, Carbonate Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 5 C 45.18 45.20 45.19 45.21 45.21 45.42 45.31 45.42 C 44.98 45.19 45.20 45.20 45.01 45.41 45.42 45.41 J 42.48 40.66 45.20 45.19 40.56 36.93 45.10 45.20 6 C 46.13 46.13 46.06 45.97 46.29 46.29 46.29 45.95 C 46.13 46.04 46.06 45.97 46.36 46.33 46.19 46.19 J 45.37 44.88 45.47 45.10 45.39 45.11 46.33 46.15 7 C 45.58 45.04 45.53 45.32 45.05 44.35 45.05 44.65 C 17.41 26.34 45.56 45.52 13.21 12.81 44.95 45.05 J 43.64 43.44 44.40 44.50 42.95 43.45 44.35 44.35 8 C 45.74 45.74 45.29 44.99 45.09 44.99 45.09 44.79 C 45.81 45.54 45.39 44.61 44.99 44.49 45.10 44.79 J 45.81 45.62 45.43 44.81 44.39 42.29 45.10 44.69 35 C 45.56 45.56 45.37 45.17 45.63 45.53 45.75 45.51 C 45.54 45.44 45.27 45.37 45.63 45.61 45.63 45.73 J 45.44 45.71 45.49 44.90 44.83 45.05 45.61 44.93 36 C 44.38 44.38 45.59 45.59 44.31 44.03 44.41 44.41 C 44.57 44.58 45.92 46.06 43.93 44.53 44.41 44.41 J 43.19 44.69 46.19 45.59 40.24 43.52 44.53 44.12 38 C 46.04 45.58 44.65 44.44 No Data NO Data 45.44 44.65 C 46.04 45.94 44.65 45.04 No Data No Data 45.33 45.13 C 46.24 45.54 44.75 43.94 NO Data No Data 45.45 44.64 J 45.64 44.34 39.39 42.33 NO Data NO Data 36.54 38.89 39 C 45.74 45.74 44.87 44.87 No Data No Data 45.46 45.16 C 45.91 45.47 44.97 44.67 NO Data NO Data 45.24 44.77 C 45.74 45.34 45.16 44.44 NO Data NO Data 45.34 44.56 J 45.01 44.34 45.46 44.76 No Data No Data 37.55 39.49 42 C 43.28 42.94 41.97 43.66 42.91 43.56 41.97 43.74 C 43.28 42.31 42.14 40.99 42.81 41.54 21.76 24.21 J 43.38 42.31 43.11 42.78 43.11 41 .54 43.68 43.01 43 C 43.04 42.58 42.94 42.94 42.14 41.87 40.07 39.44 C 38.99 40.99 38.39 37.09 35.09 37.72 32.59 23.53 J 43.11 42.14 42.14 40.74 42.24 40.37 43.11 43.68 J 42.48 41.97 41.77 40.27 42.24 40.07 40.37 42.68 44 C No Data NO Data 43.01 42.58 43.11 42.94 43.56 43.01 C No Data No Data 38.39 40.07 35.09 39.27 33.63 38.59 J NO Data NO Data 41.19 35.39 41.37 40.54 43.28 40.37 J NO Data NO Data 38.49 42.04 41.67 40.37 38.12 40.07 239 "'1 F- -r'-__'.-‘|l _u Table 8.25 (cont'd). April 7 1997 q ‘ Oct.997 ‘ Jun 1998 ‘— TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) Before After Before I After Before I After I Before I After I 44 J No Data No Data 40.54 30.57 40.37 29.74 40.07 38.89 J No Data No Data 41.37 40.74 41.27 41.64 42.04 41.67 45 C No Data No Data 44.85 44.65 45.71 45.57 45.69 45.49 J No Data No Data 44.45 44.45 43.17 45.59 45.29 45.73 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 45.73 43.59 45.49 45.59 46 C No Data No Data 44.67 44.77 44.91 45.71 45.59 45.75 J No Data No Data 44.67 43.98 45.47 44.89 45.37 45.57 J No Data No Data 44.28 41.99 41.77 41.95 44.19 43.89 49 C 46.38 46.30 46.12 45.55 46.18 46.21 46.24 46.04 J 46.17 45.74 46.15 46.12 41.35 40.81 46.21 45.74 50 C 19.30 21.53 46.76 46.91 22.16 19.61 45.89 45.21 C 45.98 45.88 46.36 46.91 45.94 45.89 45.89 45.31 C 46.18 45.75 46.91 46.70 45.79 45.49 45.91 45.56 C 46.18 45.88 46.86 46.91 43.54 42.66 42.26 38.34 J 39.96 38.10 46.31 46.86 38.94 36.01 44.89 44.19 51 C Low'l LOWa LOW. L0w° LOWIll LOW' Lowa Lowa C 46.15 46.08 44.24 44.24 45.88 45.69 45.59 45.59 C 46.18 45.51 44.22 44.20 45.71 45.81 45.69 45.41 C 45.41 45.98 43.99 44.09 45.71 45.81 45.86 45.31 52 C 46.18 46.08 45.89 45.49 45.83 45.69 45.83 45.49 C 46.18 46.08 45.99 45.99 45.41 45.81 45.83 45.81 C 46.11 46.15 45.89 45.99 45.83 45.83 45.81 45.23 J 46.18 46.1 1 46.07 46.07 45.86 45.13 45.81 45.83 "Low" indicates that the LTE, was below 12% and thus no value could be determined for TLE, as this is out Of the range of the LTEs-TLE plot. 240 Table 8.26 TLE Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After I 2 C 44.76 44.86 45.24 45.14 43.50 44.90 44.90 44.90 C 44.87 44.76 45.24 45.45 43.90 44.90 44.50 44.80 C 44.87 44.87 45.45 45.05 44.10 44.90 44.90 44.90 J 36.98 43.17 45.45 45.14 33.72 42.40 35.71 43.40 3 C 45.14 45.15 44.94 44.74 45.06 44.86 45.06 45.06 C 45.15 45.15 44.94 44.94 45.06 45.07 44.96 45.07 C No Data No Data 44.14 44.94 33.45 43.46 44.86 NO Data J 36.71 42.33 38.65 41.34 36.25 42.86 32.25 41.36 4 C 45.32 45.31 45.02 44.92 45.08 45.08 44.98 44.48 C 45.33 45.33 45.02 45.02 45.08 45.08 45.08 44.88 J 42.99 40.98 43.02 43.22 20.64 24.75 42.58 38.37 9 C 45.26 45.25 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 20.01 25.15 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 41.23 39.92 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 10 C 30.50 28.10 No Data No Data 22.67 23.77 18.62 30.41 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 17.83 26.04 C ’ 45.01 45.01 NO Data No Data 20.11 24.76 44.62 44.62 I 42.01 40.61 NO Data No Data 39.94 40.22 41.03 40.32 37 C 45.02 45.02 45.70 45.06 44.27 44.77 44.67 44.47 C 26.44 36.17 45.70 45.64 19.44 23.12 19.44 28.30 C No Data No Data 45.66 45.70 19.14 22.03 17.94 17.54 C 23.82 44.62 45.64 45.64 15.05 19.44 14.35 30.60 C 40.80 43.81 45.70 45.06 28.01 23.12 29.00 25.52 C 44.72 45.02 45.70 44.41 44.87 44.87 44.17 44.27 J 33.08 35.77 44.86 44.52 24.9196 32.303 25.5196 24.22 38A C 45.22 45.12 45.70 45.64 44.47 44.87 44.87 44.27 C 40.90 44.32 45.70 45.06 22.82 23.12 23.12 19.14 C 45.24 45.12 45.70 45.24 44.87 44.47 44.87 44.66 C 45.12 45.22 45.70 45.24 44.47 44.67 44.47 44.87 C 43.1 1 45.02 45.24 40.27 43.47 44.76 42.28 44.87 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 44.87 44.76 J 34.18 31.05 44.22 41.07 28.01 27.21 27.81 26.51 57 C 45.18 44.67 44.55 43.87 44.59 44.10 44.70 44.39 C 45.18 45.07 44.67 44.45 43.59 44.59 44.71 44.70 C 45.18 44.87 44.65 43.26 44.70 44.59 44.49 44.59 C 45.07 45.07 44.65 44.66 44.30 44.71 44.10 44.29 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 44.69 44.49 241 Table 8.26 (cont'd). Test April 1997 *5 July 19971979 5 Juue1 T e TLE (“/3) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) yp Before After Before After Before After Before After J 44.9 44.67 42.68 43.55 43.30 43.69 42.51 431 1 J | 44.97 44.58 | 41.18 43.65 39.82J 43.80 40.41 | 43.01 ] 242 Table 8.27 TLE Data, Recycled Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) Before Before After Before After Before After 11 C 35.07 34.67 18.60 45.43 12.92 15.24 16.95 17.36 C 46.40 46.29 45.03 45.31 45.41 45.20 44.90 44.71 C 46.33 46.36 45.1 1 45.23 45.30 45.44 45.29 45.29 C 46.29 45.79 45.43 43.93 45.44 45.00 45.40 44.39 C No Data No Data 19.70 16.56 16.14 12.92 21.20 14.84 C 46.09 45.49 43.63 44.74 45.00 44.81 44.09 45.20 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 24.23 17.36 J 42.35 42.12 40.38 42.83 41.07 42.59 42.19 41.89 12 C 32.25 32.75 23.32 30.68 17.36 19.38 21.51 29.55 C 45.69 45.69 44.10 44.40 No Data No Data 44.81 45.20 C 29.53 29.03 21.55 27.69 19.68 16.55 22.31 15.24 C 32.25 30.75 24.12 21.94 25.55 31.19 28.35 21.91 C 37.35 38.77 NO Data No Data 18.58 33.02 24.54 25.55 C 45.75 45.71 44.40 44.50 45.40 45.09 45.19 45.30 J 40.21 42.57 43.01 44.20 43.60 42.80 42.49 42.49 13 C 45.79 44.95 20.61 44.13 20.33 42.30 17.57 44.93 C 45.73 45.75 44.83 44.83 45.83 46.01 45.70 45.60 C 36.36 40.34 29.82 29.32 24.00 29.38 29.18 30.61 J 40.74 41.81 40.63 40.13 42.40 43.58 41.15 43.00 J 44.23 43.21 43.33 40.73 44.60 44.23 45.03 43.68 14 C 45.28 45.18 44.49 44.48 44.03 44.33 44.62 44.33 C 45.28 44.68 44.59 43.81 44.52 44.13 44.73 44.13 C 45.07 44.68 44.39 43.30 44.63 44.13 44.62 44.13 C 45.08 45.28 44.20 44.29 44.53 44.04 44.43 44.23 J 45.28 44.58 44.29 43.80 42.05 39.85 44.33 44.33 15 C 46.56 46.00 46.76 46.06 44.23 43.93 44.53 44.13 C 46.60 46.00 46.76 45.96 44.52 44.03 44.52 44.03 C 46.56 46.56 46.61 46.56 44.63 44.62 NO Data No Data J 45.66 44.86 45.21 44.71 43.53 41.54 43.14 42.35 J No Data 44.41 45.91 45.01 NO Data No Data 42.54 41.15 16 C No Data No Data 16.47 28.51 NO Data No Data 15.16 20.69 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 23.00 15.57 C No Data No Data 45.19 44.79 No Data No Data 45.09 45.20 J No Data No Data 43.49 41.48 No Data No Data 42.39 42.38 J No Data No Data 35.05 25.72 NO Data No Data 23.00 26.72 J No Data No Data 40.67 39.47 NO Data No Data 43.88 44.08 J No Data No Data 42.49 41.98 NO Data No Data 42.39 40.97 243 I!" -. Table 8.27 (cont'd). April 1997 ‘ July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 7 TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) Before After Before After Before After 17 C No Data No Data 21.83 21.12 No Data No Data 27.06 24.85 C No Data No Data 45.25 44.74 NO Data NO Data 45.25 45.14 J No Data No Data 26.46 25.76 No Data No Data 30.16 22.63 J No Data No Data 39.22 33.80 NO Data No Data 38.52 33.10 J No Data No Data 26.46 25.76 No Data No Data 27.06 25.45 27 C No Data No Data 45.65 45.15 45.84 45.80 45.80 45.82 C N0 Data No Data 22.04 31.79 LowII 13.03 15.80 14.97 J No Data No Data 39.30 44.53 36.82 43.10 35.34 43.55 J No Data No Data 43.13 44.53 42.28 43.00 40.31 40.91 J No Data No Data 41.62 42.73 41.63 43.28 40.41 40.71 28 C No Data No Data 38.26 43.22 14.72 30.44 15.05 29.24 C N0 Data No Data 45.57 43.22 46.11 46.11 46.02 46.11 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 45.92 46.02 J No Data No Data 36.63 43 .45 37.11 42.99 34.64 40.60 J No Data No Data 43.44 43.04 42.26 43.76 43.22 41.53 J No Data No Data 41.21 43.32 43.49 44.86 42.09 44.89 29 C No Data No Data 45.95 45.95 45.81 44.39 38.07 42.79 C No Data No Data 46.03 45.85 19.57 20.67 45.41 45.86 J No Data No Data 45.98 45.85 39.34 36.23 37.25 31.70 J No Data No Data 46.03 45.55 39.34 45.41 35.55 41.04 J No Data No Data 45.95 45.55 39.22 39.72 35.35 30.84 J No Data No Data 40.24 41.80 37.13 37.13 34.87 33.35 31 C No Data No Data 34.79 44.36 31.46 32.16 14.68 40.05 C No Data No Data 45.27 45.47 17.98 15.48 18.38 31.26 J No Data No Data 44.97 42.36 40.15 38.55 42.25 39.55 J No Data No Data 43.97 44.16 37.75 36.15 38.45 31.66 J No Data No Data 45.49 45.16 37.55 33.56 35.95 29.76 32 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 30.26 26.87 C No Data No Data 44.80 42.79 36.55 15.98 NO Data 24.67 C No Data No Data 45.42 44.89 27.56 Lowa 37.05 22.47 J No Data No Data 45.40 44.70 39.65 33.76 36.85 29.96 J No Data No Data 44.99 44.70 38.45 40.75 35.06 32.66 J No Data No Data 45.42 44.99 43.55 41.95 39.35 40.65 47 C 45.38 45.35 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data ' "Low" indicates that the LTE, was below 12% and thus no value could be determined for TLE, as this is out Of the range of the LTEs-TLE plot. 244 Table 8.27 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 June 1998 TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) __ _ _ Before After_ Before After Before After Before A“; 47 C 45.38 45.14 "No Data N3 Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 45.36 44.76 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 28.61 23.90 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 37.08 35.87 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 48 C 26.22 23.08 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 45.36 44.56 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 43.25 42.94 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 45.36 44.85 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 45.35 45.35 NO Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 30.94 28.32 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 35.58 38.49 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 245 1"" «f Table 8.28 TLE Data, Slag Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 1 C 45.46 44.54 46.61 46.17 44.29 43.19 44.40 44.00 C 45.46 45.31 46.66 46.47 43.99 43.60 NO Data No Data C 45.44 44.93 46.66 46.37 43.90 43.49 No Data No Data C 45.45 44.84 46.57 46.47 44.42 43.60 NO Data No Data J 41.91 37.55 46.70 46.22 40.12 36.56 44.39 43.70 40 C 45.15 45.51 45.47 44.44 No Data No Data 45.49 44.57 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 45.35 44.77 J 45.05 44.73 45.34 44.87 No Data No Data 45.45 45.05 41 C 45.85 45.43 45.21 45.21 No Data No Data 44.81 45.01 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 44.91 45.11 C 45.73 45.73 45.21 44.81 No Data No Data 45.21 44.91 C 45.88 45.25 45.22 44.81 No Data No Data 45.21 45.01 J 45.15 45.03 45.21 44.32 NO Data No Data 44.91 44.32 55 C 24.28 34.79 46.21 46.71 24.81 22.43 20.95 26.53 C 34.59 44.53 46.86 46.01 23.63 22.83 33.09 41.75 J No Data 37.95 40.75 41.45 30.19 35.37 24.27 28.99 J 24.28 NO Data 44.71 46.86 28.99 32.15 22.83 23.93 J No Data No Data 44.96 46.36 30.19 40.95 25.55 34.77 J No Data No Data 44.01 46.46 26.89 42.19 26.19 33.83 58 C No Data No Data 44.80 45.18 45.47 44.88 45.47 45.37 C No Data No Data 44.80 44.99 45.25 45.25 45.27 45.37 J No Data No Data 41.78 41.27 43.14 42.35 43.47 42.35 J No Data No Data 41.37 40.66 42.25 41.44 44.88 45.15 J No Data No Data 34.32 32.30 30.31 29.89 45.47 44.88 J No Data No Data 34.52 41.98 33.79 35.07 45.47 45.15 59 C No Data No Data 44.60 44.80 45.07 44.88 44.97 45.07 C No Data No Data 45.00 44.30 44.78 44.88 44.68 45.07 J No Data No Data 33.80 42.90 34.39 39.03 44.68 45.07 J No Data No Data 37.20 37.40 35.67 36.97 44.78 45.15 J No Data No Data 38.00 40.30 33.29 35.27 44.45 44.34 60 C No Data No Data 44.68 44.28 44.13 44.52 44.72 44.13 C No Data No Data 44.67 44.18 44.32 44.92 44.92 44.72 J No Data No Data 44.48 44.28 35.93 40.13 44.62 44.42 J No Data No Data 40.79 42.89 29.74 34.64 44.92 44.23 J No Data No Data 40.58 40.79 29.04 30.24 44.62 43.82 61 C No Data No Data 43.98 43.88 43.93 43.51 44.02 43.71 C No Data No Data 44.47 43.98 44.31 43.93 44.61 43.83 246 Table 8.28 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) TLE (%) Before After Before After Before After Before After 61 J No Data No Data 44.68 43.88 41.73 42.14 44.41 42.43 J No Data NO Data 44.47 43.67 38.15 39.45 44.21 43.51 J No Data No Data 44.27 44.27 37.85 35.85 44.61 43.72 J No Data No Data 44.37 44.37 28.52 28.52 44.63 43.92 62 C No Data No Data 44.61 44.31 44.21 43.72 44.61 44.02 C No Data No Data 44.61 44.21 43.93 44.22 44.51 43.93 J No Data No Data 44.81 44.21 39.85 37.45 44.51 43.93 J No Data No Data 45.01 44.41 36.75 39.75 44.61 44.02 J No Data No Data 44.91 43.91 37.25 38.95 44.41 43.82 63 C No Data No Data No Data No Data 28.75 22.03 23.63 NO Data C No Data No Data No Data No Data 44.13 43.47 30.69 41.89 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 28.75 39.17 26.89 33.53 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 22.83 29.49 22.83 31.43 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 23.93 28.45 25.55 30.19 247 Table 8.29 PT Data, Carbonate Pavements. Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Type P T (W Pr (“‘0 PT (kN) Pr (kN) Before After Before After Before After Before 5 C 18.10 18.10 18.10 18.11 18.11 18.19 18.15 18.19 C 18.02 18.10 18.10 18.10 18.03 18.19 18.19 18.19 J 17.01 16.28 18.10 18.10 16.25 14.79 18.06 18.10 6 C 18.48 18.48 18.45 18.41 18.54 18.54 18.54 18.40 C 18.48 18.44 18.45 18.41 18.57 18.55 18.50 18.50 J 18.17 17.98 18.21 18.06 18.18 18.07 18.55 18.48 7 C 18.26 18.04 18.24 18.15 18.04 17.76 18.04 17.88 C 6.97 10.55 18.25 18.23 5.29 5.13 18.00 18.04 J 17.48 17.40 17.78 17.82 17.20 17.40 17.76 17.76 8 C 18.32 18.32 18.14 18.02 18.06 18.02 18.06 17.94 C 18.35 18.24 18.18 17.86 18.02 17.82 18.06 17.94 J 18.35 18.27 18.19 17.94 17.78 16.94 18.06 17.90 35 C 18.25 18.25 18.17 18.09 18.28 18.24 18.32 18.23 C 18.24 18.20 18.13 18.17 18.28 18.27 18.28 18.32 J 18.20 18.31 18.22 17.98 17.96 18.04 18.27 18.00 36 C 17.77 17.77 18.26 18.26 17.75 17.63 17.79 17.79 C 17.85 17.85 18.39 18.45 17.59 17.84 17.79 17.79 J 17.30 17.90 18.50 18.26 16.12 17.43 17.84 17.67 38 C 18.44 18.25 17.88 17.80 NO Data No Data 18.20 17.88 C 18.44 18.40 17.88 18.04 No Data No Data 18.15 18.07 C 18.52 18.24 17.92 17.60 NO Data No Data 18.20 17.88 J 18.28 17.76 15.78 16.95 NO Data No Data 14.63 15.58 39 C 18.32 18.32 17.97 17.97 No Data No Data 18.21 18.09 C 18.39 18.21 18.01 17.89 No Data No Data 18.12 17.93 C 18.32 18.16 18.09 17.80 No Data No Data 18.16 17.85 J 18.02 17.76 18.21 17.93 NO Data No Data 15.04 15.82 42 C 17.34 17.20 16.81 17.48 17.19 17.44 16.81 17.52 C 17.34 16.95 16.88 16.42 17.15 16.64 8.71 9.69 J 17.38 16.95 17.27 17.14 17.27 16.64 17.50 17.23 43 C 17.24 17.05 17.20 17.20 16.88 16.77 16.05 15.80 C 15.62 16.42 15.38 14.86 14.06 15.11 13.05 9.42 J 17.27 16.88 16.88 16.32 16.92 16.17 17.27 17.50 J 17.01 16.81 16.73 16.13 16.92 16.05 16.17 17.10 44 C No Data No Data 17.23 17.05 17.27 17.20 17.44 17.23 C No Data No Data 15.38 16.05 14.06 15.73 13.47 15.46 J No Data No Data 16.50 14.18 16.57 16.24 17.34 16.17 J No Data No Data 15.42 16.84 16.69 16.17 15.27 16.05 Table 8.29 (cont'd). ‘ April 1997 H J I Juy11997 ‘ 0c. 1997 7 June 1998 Pr (RN) Pr (kN) Pr (“‘0 Before After I Before After Before After 44 J No Data No Data 16.24 12.24 16.17 11.91 16.05 15.58 J No Data No Data 16.57 16.32 16.53 16.68 16.84 16.69 45 C No Data No Data 17.96 17.88 18.31 18.25 18.30 18.22 J No Data No Data 17.80 17.80 17.29 18.26 18.14 18.31 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 18.31 17.46 18.22 18.26 46 C No Data No Data 17.89 17.93 17.99 18.31 18.26 18.32 J No Data No Data 17.89 17.61 18.21 17.98 18.17 18.25 J No Data No Data 17.73 16.82 16.73 16.80 17.70 17.58 49 C 18.57 18.54 18.47 18.24 18.49 18.51 18.52 18.44 J 18.49 18.32 18.48 18.47 16.56 16.35 18.51 18.32 50 C 7.73 8.62 18.73 18.79 8.87 7.85 18.38 18.11 C 18.42 18.38 18.57 18.79 18.40 18.38 18.38 18.15 C 18.49 18.32 18.79 18.70 18.34 18.22 18.39 18.25 C 18.49 18.38 18.77 18.79 17.44 17.09 16.93 15.35 J 16.00 15.26 18.55 18.77 15.59 14.42 17.98 17.70 51 ,-. C Lowll Lowa LOWa LOWll LOWa LOWa Low"1 Low“ C 18.48 18.46 17.72 17.72 18.37 18.30 18.26 18.26 C 18.49 18.23 17.71 17.70 18.31 18.35 18.30 18.19 C 18.19 18.42 17.62 17.66 18.31 18.35 18.37 18.15 52 C 18.49 18.46 18.38 18.22 18.36 18.30 18.36 18.22 C 18.49 18.46 18.42 18.42 18.19 18.35 18.36 18.35 C 18.47 18.48 18.38 18.42 18.36 18.36 18.35 18.12 J 18.49 18.47 18.45 18.45 18.37 18.08 18.35 18.36 ‘ "Low" indicates that the LTE, was below 12% and thus no value could be determined for PT, as this is out of the range of the LTE5-TLE plot. 249 Table 8.30 PT Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. Site Test 1 April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 N 0. Type Pr (kN) P1- (kN) 1’1 (kN) PT (“‘0 Before After Before After Before After Before After 2 C 17.93 17.97 18.12 18.08 17.42 17.98 17.98 17.98 C 17.97 17.93 18.12 18.20 17.58 17.98 17.82 17.94 C 17.97 17.97 18.20 18.04 17.66 17.98 17.98 17.98 J 14.81 17.29 18.20 18.08 13.51 16.98 14.30 17.38 3 C 18.08 18.08 18.00 17.92 18.05 17.97 18.05 18.05 C 18.08 18.08 18.00 18.00 18.05 18.05 18.01 18.05 C No Data No Data 17.68 18.00 13.40 17.41 17.97 NO Data J 14.70 16.95 15.48 16.56 14.52 17.16 12.92 16.56 4 C 18.15 18.15 18.03 17.99 18.05 18.05 18.01 17.81 C 18.16 18.16 18.03 18.03 18.05 18.06 18.05 17.97 J 17.22 16.41 17.23 17.31 8.27 9.91 17.05 15.37 9 C 18.13 18.12 NO Data No Data No Data No Data N0 Data No Data C 8.02 10.07 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 16.51 15.99 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 10 C 12.22 11.26 No Data No Data 9.08 9.52 7.46 12.18 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 7.14 10.43 C 18.03 18.03 NO Data No Data 8.05 9.92 17.87 17.87 J 16.82 16.26 NO Data No Data 15.99 16.11 16.43 16.15 37 C 18.03 18.03 18.30 18.05 17.73 17.93 17.89 17.81 C 10.59 14.48 18.30 18.28 7.79 9.26 7.79 11.34 C No Data No Data 18.29 18.30 7.67 8.82 7.19 7.03 C 9.54 17.87 18.28 18.28 6.03 7.79 5.75 12.26 C 16.34 17.55 18.30 18.05 11.22 9.26 11.62 10.22 C 17.91 18.03 18.30 17.78 17.97 17.97 17.69 17.73 J 13.25 14.32 17.97 17.83 9.98 12.94 10.22 9.70 38A C 18.11 18.07 18.30 18.28 17.81 17.97 17.97 17.73 C 16.38 17.75 18.30 18.05 9.14 9.26 9.26 7.67 C 18.12 18.07 18.30 18.12 17.97 17.81 17.97 17.89 C 18.07 18.11 18.30 18.12 17.81 17.89 17.81 17.97 C 17.27 18.03 18.12 16.13 17.41 17.93 16.93 17.97 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 17.97 17.93 J 13.69 12.44 17.71 16.45 11.22 10.90 11.14 10.62 57 C 18.09 17.89 17.84 17.57 17.86 17.66 17.90 17.78 C 18.10 18.05 17.89 17.80 17.46 17.86 17.91 17.90 C 18.09 17.97 17.88 17.33 17.90 17.86 17.82 17.86 C 18.05 18.05 17.88 17.89 17.74 17.91 17.66 17.74 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 17.90 17.82 250 Table 8.30 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 P'r(kN) Pr(kN) Pr(kN) f Before After Before After Before After . 5 17.09 17.44 17.34 17.50 17.02 17.22 1 I J j 18.01 1785 16.49] 17.48 15.95 17.54 | 16.18 17.22 251 .- _:‘TI 1 H Table 8.31 PT Data, Recycled Pavements. Site Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 No. Type Pr (kN) Pr (kN) Pr (kN) Pr (kN) __ Before After Before After Before After Before After 11 C 14.05 13.89 7.45 18.19 5.17 6.10 6.79 6.95 C 18.58 18.54 18.03 18.15 18.19 18.10 17.98 17.91 C 18.55 18.57 18.07 18.11 18.14 18.20 18.14 18.14 C 18.54 18.34 18.19 17.59 18.20 18.02 18.18 17.78 C No Data No Data 7.89 6.63 6.46 5.17 8.49 5.94 C 18.46 18.22 17.47 17.92 18.02 17.95 17.66 18.10 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.70 6.95 J 16.96 16.87 16.17 17.15 16.45 17.06 16.90 16.78 12 C 12.92 13.12 9.34 12.29 6.95 7.76 8.61 11.84 C 18.30 18.30 17.66 17.78 NO Data No Data 17.95 18.10 C 11.83 11.63 8.63 11.09 7.88 6.63 8.93 6.10 C 12.92 12.32 9.66 8.79 10.23 12.49 11.36 8.77 C 14.96 15.53 NO Data No Data 7.44 13.23 9.83 10.23 C 18.32 18.31 17.78 17.82 18.18 18.06 18.10 18.14 J 16.10 17.05 17.23 17.70 17.46 17.14 17.02 17.02 13 C 18.34 18.00 8.26 17.67 8.14 16.94 7.04 17.99 C 18.31 18.32 17.95 17.95 18.35 18.43 18.30 18.26 C 14.56 16.16 11.94 11.74 9.61 11.77 11.69 12.26 J 16.32 16.74 16.27 16.07 16.98 17.45 16.48 17.22 J 17.71 17.30 17.35 16.31 17.86 17.71 18.03 17.49 14 C 18.14 18.09 17.82 17.81 17.64 17.75 17.87 17.75 C 18.13 17.90 17.86 17.54 17.83 17.68 17.91 17.68 C 18.05 17.90 17.78 17.34 17.87 17.68 17.87 17.68 C 18.05 18.13 17.70 17.74 17.83 17.64 17.79 17.72 J 18.13 17.86 17.74 17.54 16.84 15.96 17.75 17.76 15 C 18.65 18.42 18.73 18.45 17.72 17.60 17.83 17.68 C 18.66 18.42 18.73 18.41 17.83 17.64 17.83 17.64 C 18.65 18.65 18.67 18.65 17.87 17.87 No Data No Data J 18.29 17.96 18.11 17.91 17.43 16.64 17.28 16.96 J No Data 17.79 18.39 18.03 No Data No Data 17.04 16.48 16 C No Data No Data 6.60 11.42 No Data No Data 6.07 8.29 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.21 6.24 C No Data No Data 18.10 17.94 NO Data No Data 18.06 18.10 J No Data No Data 17.42 16.61 NO Data NO Data 16.98 16.97 J No Data No Data 14.04 10.30 NO Data No Data 9.21 10.70 J No Data No Data 16.29 15.81 No Data No Data 17.58 17.66 J No Data No Data 17.02 16.81 NO Data No Data 16.98 16.41 252 Table 8.31 (cont'd). *w Site Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 No. Type Pr(kN) Pr(kN) Pr(kN) Pr(kN) Before After Before After Before After Before After 17 C No Data No Data 8.74 8.46 No Data No Data 10.84 9.95 C No Data No Data 18.12 17.92 No Data No Data 18.12 18.08 J No Data No Data 10.60 10.32 NO Data No Data 12.08 9.06 J No Data No Data 15.71 13.54 NO Data No Data 15.43 13.26 J No Data No Data 10.60 10.32 No Data No Data 10.84 10.19 27 C No Data No Data 18.28 18.08 18.36 18.34 18.34 18.35 C No Data No Data 8.83 12.73 Low' 5.22 6.33 6.00 J No Data NO Data 15.74 17.84 14.74 17.26 14.15 17.44 J No Data No Data 17.28 17.84 16.93 17.22 16.14 16.38 J No Data No Data 16.67 17.12 16.67 17.33 16.18 16.30 28 C No Data No Data 15.32 17.31 5.90 12.19 6.03 11.71 C No Data No Data 18.25 17.31 18.47 18.47 18.43 18.47 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 18.39 18.43 J No Data No Data 14.67 17.40 14.86 17.22 13.87 16.26 J No Data No Data 17.40 17.24 16.93 17.53 17.31 16.63 J No Data No Data 16.50 17.35 17.42 17.97 16.86 17.98 29 C No Data No Data 18.40 18.40 18.35 17.78 15.25 17.14 C No Data No Data 18.44 18.36 7.84 8.28 18.19 18.37 J No Data No Data 18.42 18.36 15.76 14.51 14.92 12.70 J No Data No Data 18.44 18.24 15.76 18.19 14.24 16.44 J No Data No Data 18.40 18.24 15.71 15.91 14.16 12.35 J No Data No Data 16.12 16.74 14.87 14.87 13.97 13.36 31 C No Data No Data 13.93 17.77 12.60 12.88 5.88 16.04 C No Data No Data 18.13 18.21 7.20 6.20 7.36 12.52 J No Data No Data 18.01 16.96 16.08 15.44 16.92 15.84 J No Data No Data 17.61 17.69 15.12 14.48 15.40 12.68 J No Data No Data 18.22 18.09 15.04 13.44 14.40 11.92 32 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 12.12 ' 10.76 C No Data No Data 17.94 17.14 14.64 6.40 No Data 9.88 C No Data NO Data 18.19 17.98 11.04 Low" 14.84 9.00 J No Data No Data 18.18 17.90 15.88 13.52 14.76 12.00 J No Data No Data 18.02 17.90 15.40 16.32 14.04 13.08 J No Data No Data 18.19 18.02 17.44 16.80 15.76 16.28 47 C 18.18 18.16 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data "Low" indicates that the LTE, was below 12% and thus no value could be determined for PT, as this is out Of the range of the LTEs-TLE plot. 253 Table 8.31 (cont'd). Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Type Prod“) PT(kN) Pr(kN) - Prod“) Before After Before After Before After Before After 47 C 18.18 18.08 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 18.17 17.93 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 11.46 9.57 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 14.85 14.37 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 48 C 10.50 9.24 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 18.17 17.85 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 17.32 17.20 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 18.17 17.96 NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 18.16 18.16 No Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data J 12.39 11.34 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 14.25 15.42 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 254 Table 8.32 PT Data, Slag Pavements. S' T April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 "e ‘3‘ mm Pr(kN) PTG‘N) PTO‘N) Before After Before After Before After Before After- 1 C 18.21 17.84 18.67 18.49 17.74 17.30 17.78 17.62 C 18.21 18.15 18.69 18.61 17.62 17.46 No Data No Data C 18.20 17.99 18.69 18.57 17.58 17.42 NO Data No Data C 18.20 17.96 18.65 18.61 17.79 17.46 No Data No Data J 16.79 15.04 18.70 18.51 16.07 14.64 17.78 17.50 40 C 18.08 18.23 18.21 17.80 No Data No Data 18.22 17.85 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 18.16 17.93 J 18.04 17.92 18.16 17.97 NO Data No Data 18.20 18.04 41 C 18.36 18.19 18.11 18.11 No Data No Data 17.95 18.03 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 17.99 18.07 C 18.31 18.31 18.11 17.95 No Data No Data 18.11 17.99 C 18.37 18.12 18.11 17.95 No Data No Data 18.11 18.03 J 18.08 18.03 18.11 17.75 No Data No Data 17.99 17.75 55 C 9.72 13.93 18.51 18.71 9.94 8.98 8.39 10.62 C 13.85 17.84 18.77 18.43 9.46 9.14 13.25 16.72 J No Data 15.20 16.32 16.60 12.09 14.17 9.72 11.61 J 9.72 No Data 17.91 18.77 11.61 12.88 9.14 9.58 J No Data No Data 18.01 18.57 12.09 16.40 10.23 13.93 J No Data No Data 17.63 18.61 10.77 16.90 10.49 13.55 58 C No Data No Data 17.94 18.09 18.21 17.97 148.21 18.17 C No Data No Data 17.94 18.02 18.12 18.12 18.13 18.17 J No Data No Data 16.73 16.53 17.28 16.96 17.41 16.96 J No Data No Data 16.57 16.28 16.92 16.60 17.97 18.08 J No Data No Data 13.75 12.94 12.14 11.97 18.21 17.97 J No Data No Data 13.83 16.81 13.53 14.05 18.21 18.08 59 C No Data No Data 17.86 17.94 18.05 17.97 18.01 18.05 C No Data No Data 18.02 17.74 17.93 17.97 17.89 18.05 J No Data No Data 13.54 17.18 13.77 15.63 17.89 18.05 J No Data No Data 14.90 14.98 14.29 14.81 17.93 18.08 J No Data No Data 15.22 16.14 13.33 14.13 17.80 17.76 60 C No Data No Data 17.89 17.73 17.67 17.83 17.91 17.67 C No Data No Data 17.89 17.69 17.75 17.99 17.99 17.91 J No Data No Data 17.81 17.73 14.39 16.07 17.87 17.79 J No Data No Data 16.34 17.18 11.91 13.87 17.99 17.71 J No Data No Data 16.25 16.33 11.63 12.11 17.87 17.55 61 C No Data No Data 17.61 17.57 17.59 17.43 17.63 17.51 C No Data No Data 17.81 17.61 17.75 17.59 17.86 17.55 255 Table 8.32 (cont'd). Test April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Type Pr (“‘0 Pr (“‘0 PT (kN) PT (kN) Before After Before After Before After Before _A” H 61 J No Data No Data 17.89 17.57 16.71 16.88 17.78 16.99 J No Data No Data 17.81 17.49 15.28 15.80 17.71 17.43 J No Data No Data 17.73 17.73 15.16 14.36 17.87 17.51 J No Data No Data 17.77 17.77 11.42 11.42 17.87 17.59 62 C No Data No Data 17.87 17.74 17.71 17.51 17.87 17.63 C No Data No Data 17.87 17.70 17.59 17.71 17.82 17.59 J No Data No Data 17.95 17.70 15.96 15.00 17.83 17.59 J No Data No Data 18.03 17.79 14.72 15.92 17.87 17.63 J No Data No Data 17.99 17.58 14.92 15.60 17.78 17.55 63 C No Data No Data No Data No Data 11.51 8.82 9.46 No Data C No Data No Data No Data No Data 17.67 17.41 12.29 16.78 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 11.51 15.69 10.77 13.43 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.14 11.81 9.14 12.59 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 9.58 11.39 10.23 12.09 256 Table 8.33 AGG Data, Carbonate Pavements. April 1997 '- Site No. 5 , Test AGG (kPa) July 1997 AGG (kPa) Oct. 1997 AGG (kPa) June 1998 AGG (kPa) 5;] “ll 6’ Before After Before After Before After Before After 2.8E+06 2.4E+08 3.6E+06 2.7E+08 1 .9E+06 1.7E+07 2.3E+06 6.2E+06 1 .7E+O6 5.4E+06 2.6E+07 2.6E+07 1 4134-06 4.2E+06 1.1E+07 3.7E+06 2.5E+05 1.5E+05 1 .6E+07 3.1E+06 1 .6E+05 8.4E+04 l .6E+06 1 7134-06 1.6E+08 9.3E+07 1 .9E+08 2.2E+06 2.0E+06 2.0E+06 2.0E+06 9.8E+05 1 .6E+08 2.5E+06 l .9E+08 3.4E+06 2.3E+07 3.8E+06 1 .7E+06 1 .4E+06 5.6E+05 3.5E+05 8.0E+05 5.2E+05 4.5E+05 3.7E+05 7.lE+06 1 .3E+06 2.1E+08 9.1E+05 L3E+07 1.5E+06 3.4E+07 9.4E+05 3.4E+07 1 .2E+06 9.3E+03 2.0E+04 2.1E+08 2.5E+06 8.3E+03 7.8E+03 2.0E+06 5.7E+06 3.2E+05 2.9E+05 4.7E+05 4.9E+05 3.4E+05 4.4E+05 8.8E+05 9.4E+05 2.8E+06 3.6E+06 2.5E+06 1 .4E+O6 4.2E+06 2.1E+06 6.2E+06 1 .6E+O6 2.4E+08 1 .6E+06 4.1E+06 9.9E+05 2.3E+06 1.1E+06 3.7E+07 1 .6E+06 2.4E+08 1 8154-06 3.1E+08 1 .2E+06 1 .0E+06 2.7E+05 2.8E+08 1 .3E+06 35 2.7E+06 3.2E+06 2.1E+06 1.5E+06 2.1E+06 1 .7E+06 5.6E+06 1 .6E+06 2.4E+06 2.0E+06 1.7E+06 2.1E+06 2.5E+06 1 .9E+06 2.5E+06 3.8E+06 2.0E+O6 1.8E+08 3.7E+06 1.1E+06 6.6E+05 8.6E+05 1 .9E+06 7 .6E+05 36 l .9E+06 1 .9E+O6 7.4E+05 7.1E+05 l .9E+06 1.3E+06 2.3B+06 2.3E+06 2.8E+06 3.4E+06 1 .2E+06 1 .8E+06 1 .2E+06 6.8E+06 2.5E+06 2.5E+06 6.0E+05 l .4E+07 1.1E+07 7.4E+05 1 .9E+05 7.1E+05 1 .9E+07 1 .4E+06 38 1 .3E+06 7.7E+05 6.9E+05 5.2E+05 No Data No Data 2.9E+06 6.9E+05 1 .4E+O6 1 .2E+O6 6.9E+05 9.9E+05 No Data No Data 1 .6E+O6 1 .2E+O6 1 .9E+06 7.1E+05 7.7E+05 3.8E+05 No Data No Data 8.8E+06 6.4E+05 8.2E+05 3.7E+05 9.7E+04 1 .9E+05 No Data No Data 6.1E+04 8.4E+04 39 1 .2E+06 1 .2E+06 7.9E+05 7.5E+05 No Data No Data 2.2E+06 1.1E+06 5.6E+05 4.1E+05 8.8E+05 6.2E+05 No Data No Data 1 .2E+O6 7.0E+05 1 .2E+06 7.6E+05 1 .OE+06 4.8E+05 No Data No Data 1 .4E+06 5.3E+05 5.6E+05 4.1E+05 2.2E+06 6.6E+05 No Data No Data 7.0E+04 9.9E+04 42 1 .6E+06 1.1E+06 5.4E+05 3.9E+06 1 .OE+06 2.8E+06 5.4E+05 3.4E+08 1 .6E+06 6.1E+05 5.7E+05 3.4E+05 9.4E+05 4.2E+05 2.4E+04 3.0E+04 1 .9E+06 6.1E+05 1.3E+06 8.8E+05 1.3E+06 4.2E+05 5.1E+06 1.1E+06 43 l .2E+O6 7.1E+05 1.1E+06 1.1E+06 5.7E+05 5.1E+05 2.5E+05 2.1E+05 1 .9E+05 3.4E+05 1.7E+05 1.3E+05 9.8E+04 1.5E+05 7.0E+04 2.8E+04 1 .3E+06 5.7E+05 5.7E+05 3.0E+05 5.9E+05 2.8E+05 1.3E+06 5.1E+06 6.7E+05 5.4E+05 4.7E+05 2.7E+05 5.9E+05 2.5E+05 2.8E+05 7.8E+05 No Data No Data 1.1E+06 7.4E+05 1 .3E+06 1.1E+06 2.5E+06 1.1E+06 No Data No Data 1 .7E+05 2.5E+05 9.8E+04 2.0E+05 7.8E+04 1.8E+05 No Data No Data 3.6E+05 l .0E+OS 3.9E+05 2.8E+05 1 .6E+06 2.8E+05 HHOOHHOOHOOHOOOHOOOHOOHOOHOOHOOHOOHOO No Data No Data 1 .7E+05 5.6E+05 4.6E+05 2.8E+05 1 .6E+05 2.5E+05 257 Table 8.33 (cont'd). T Ty '—4 t 88 pe A197 '— AGG (kPa) 997 ’5 AGG (kPa) Oct.197 5 AGG (kPa) " _ Juc 1998 5 AGG (kPa) A Before No Data No Data Before After Before 2.8E+05 5.45+04 2.8E+05 After 5. 1E+04 Before 2.5E+05 After 1 .9E+05 No Data No Data 3.9E+05 3.0E+05 3.8E+05 4.4E+05 5.6E+05 4.6E+05 45 No Data No Data 2.7E+06 1 .8E+06 6.8E+06 2.3E+06 3.6E+06 2.1E+06 No Data No Data 1 .6E+O6 1 .6E+06 3.4E+05 2.5E+06 1 .6E+06 2.9E+07 No Data No Data No Data No Data 4.0E+07 4.2E+05 2.1E+06 2.5E+06 46 No Data No Data 3.1E+06 4.4E+06 9.8E+05 1.8E+07 3.0E+06 3.1E+08 No Data No Data 3.8E+06 1.1E+06 1 .9E+O6 9.2E+05 1 .7E+06 2.3E+06 No Data No Data 1 .6E+06 3.7E+05 2.2E+05 2.3E+05 5.4E+05 4.9E+05 49 2.6E+07 4.1E+06 3 .6E+06 1.1E+06 1 .7E+07 3.6E+07 2.8E+08 2.8E+06 2.0E+06 1.1E+06 L6E+07 3.2E+06 1 .6E+05 1.5E+05 2.7E+07 l .4E+06 50 1.3E+04 1 .6E+04 1 .7E+O6 1 .2E+O7 1 .6E+04 1 .2E+04 3.1E+06 8.5E+05 2.1E+O6 1 .7E+06 8.8E+05 4.5E+06 3.1E+07 3.1E+06 3.1E+06 9.0E+05 2.6E+08 1 .4E+06 8.3E+06 1 .5E+O6 1 .9E+06 1 .2E+06 1 .4E+O7 1 .3E+06 2.6E+O8 l .7E+O6 3.8E+06 4.5E+06 2.8E+05 2.0E+05 l .8E+05 8.0E+04 1 .2E+05 8.2E+04 7.7E+05 2.4E+06 8.7E+04 5.9E+04 5.7E+05 3.9E+05 51 6.7E+03 3.6E+03 4.2E+03 3.0E+03 6.2E+03 5.1E+03 4.5E+03 3.4E+03 2.4E+07 3.4E+06 2.1E+08 2.7E+07 2.8E+08 2.1E+06 l .8E+06 1.8E+06 1 .4E+08 9.7E+05 8.7E+06 2.8E+06 2.8E+06 5.2E+06 2.1E+06 1.3E+06 9.2E+05 2.5E+06 1 .3E+06 1 .6E+O6 2.3E+06 3.8E+06 3.7E+07 1 .2E+06 52 1 .4E+08 3.4E+06 2.8E+06 1 .2E+06 1 .7E+07 2.1E+06 1 .7E+07 1 .6E+06 2.6E+08 4.7E+06 3.3E+06 3.8E+06 I .3E+06 3.8E+06 1 .7E+07 4.3E+06 1.5E+07 2.4E+07 2.4E+06 3.8E+06 1 .2E+07 6.2E+06 3.8E+06 1.1E+06 HOOOOOOOHOOOOHOHHOHHOH 2.6E+08 1.5E+07 l .6E+08 2.9E+08 2.7E+O7 l .0E+06 3.3E+06 1 .2E+07 258 Table 8.34 -1 .3; AGG Data, Natural Gravel Pavements. April 1997 7 AGG (kPa) uly 1979 AGG (kPa) Oct. 1997 AGG (kPa) June 1998 AGG (kPa) :3 “El 01} Before 2.6E+06 After 47E+O6 Befr- 1 .8E+06 After 1.6E+O6 Before 6.4E+05 After 3.4E+07 Before 3.4E+07 After 7 _ 3.5E+08 2.1E+07 2.6E+06 1 .8E+06 3.8E+06 8.5E+05 5.3E+06 1 .8E+06 2.9E+06 7 .7E+06 3.3E+07 3.8E+06 1.3E+06 1.1E+06 4.7E+06 4.7E+06 3.5E+08 1.1E+05 5.8E+05 3.3E+06 1 .6E+O6 7 .4E+04 4.0E+OS 9.6E+04 6.2E+05 l .0E+07 2.5E+08 3.0E+07 1 .4E+O6 1.7E+07 1 .9E+06 1 .7E+07 3.3E+06 2.5E+08 2.5E+08 2.7E+06 4.3E+06 l .2E+07 l .6E+08 2.8E+06 2.7E+07 No Data No Data 7.5E+05 2.3E+08 5.7E+04 4.8E+05 1 .9E+06 No Data 1 7 .6E+O4 2.4E+05 9.8E+04 1 .8E+05 8.2E+04 3.6E+05 5.1E+04 2.1E+05 4.6E+06 2.8E+06 1 .4E+08 2.0E+06 1.5E+07 1 .0E+07 2.4E+06 9.8E+05 2.1E+08 1 .2E+08 2.5E+08 3.3E+06 1 .0E+07 2.3E+07 1 .0E+07 1.5E+06 2.5E+05 1.3E+05 3.5E+05 4.0E+05 1 .5E+04 2.0E+04 2.7E+05 9.3E+04 1.2E+07 3.9E+06 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data l .7E+04 2.6E+04 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2.1E+05 LSE+05 No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 10 4.6E+04 3.7E+04 No Data No Data 2.8E+04 3.1E+04 2.0E+04 5.9E+04 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 1 .9E+O4 3.8E+04 3.2E+08 5.9E+06 No Data No Data 2.3E+04 3 .4E+04 3.9E+08 3.9E+08 2.9E+05 1 .9E+05 No Data No Data 2.3E+05 2.4E+05 3.0E+05 2.4E+05 37 1 .7E+06 1 .7E+06 1.7E+08 6.9E+05 1 .2E+06 3.113406 2. 1E+06 l .4E+06 2.5E+04 7.2E+04 1.7E+08 2.0E+06 1 .7E+04 2.3E+04 1 .7E+04 3.7E+04 No Data No Data 1 .0E+07 1.7E+08 1 .6E+O4 2. 1E+04 1.5E+04 1 .4E+04 2.0E+04 9.8E+05 3.2E+06 3 .2E+06 1 .2E+04 l .7E+04 1.1E+04 4.7E+04 1.6E+05 4.6E+05 1.7E+08 6.9E+05 3.6E+04 2.3E+04 3.9E+04 2.9E+04 1.1E+06 1 .7E+06 1.7E+08 3.4E+05 4.7E+06 1.9E+07 1.1E+06 1 .2E+06 4.9E+04 6.7E+04 5.5E+05 3.8E+05 2.7E+04 5.6E+04 2.9E+04 2.5E+04 38A 4.7E+06 2.5E+06 1 .7E+08 2.3E+06 l .6E+06 6.8E+06 4.7E+06 1 .2E+06 1.6E+05 7.2E+05 9.7E+07 6.9E+05 2.2E+04 2.3E+04 2.3E+04 1 .6E+04 2.6E+08 2.5E+06 9.7E+07 7.9E+05 1 .3E+O7 l .6E+06 3.1E+08 1 .9E+O6 2.1E+06 1.1E+07 1 .7E+08 8.8E+05 1 .6E+O6 2.1E+06 1 .6E+06 6.8E+06 3.3E+05 1 .7E+O6 8.8E+05 8.6E+04 5.6E+05 2.5E+06 3.4E+05 4.7E+06 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4.0E+O7 2.3E+06 5.5E+04 4.0E+04 3.1E+05 1 .OE+05 3.6E+04 3.3E+04 3.4E+04 3.1E+04 57 7.1E+06 1 .4E+O6 3.3E+06 1 .4E+06 3.1E+06 1.7E+06 1 .7E+07 2.3E+06 4.2E+07 2.4E+06 2.5E+08 2.7E+06 9.2E+05 3.1E+06 4.2E+08 4.0E+07 1 .9E+O7 1.8E+06 6.5E+06 7.9E+05 1.7E+07 4.1E+06 2.6E+06 3.4E+06 2.4E+06 2.7E+06 5.8E+06 1.8E+07 2.1E+06 4.2E+08 1 .6E+06 1 .9E+O6 OOGOO'-t0000COHOOOOOCHOOOHOOHOOHOOOHOOOI No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 5.5E+06 2.6E+06 259 Table 8.34 (cont'd). ‘ April 1997 g”: AGG (kPa) yp Before After 57 AGG (kPa) 0c. 19 AGG(kPa) June 1998 AGG (kPa) J 2.0E+06 1 .4E+O6 Before After 6.1E+05 9.2E+05 Before After 7.5E+05 9.6E+05 Before After 5.2E+05 6.9E+05 1 J I2.2E+06 l .2E+06 3.5E+05fl.OE+06 2.35+05 I 1.25+06 2.6E+05 6.9E+05 260 Table 8.35 AGG Data, Recycled Pavements. AGG (kPa) AGG (kPa) '1997 AGG (kPa) 1998 AGG (kPa) . Before After Before I After Before After Before 3.1E+04 2.9E+04 1.3E+04 3.1E+06 8.7E+03 1.1E+04 1 .2E+04 I After I 1 .3E+04 1 .4E+O8 2.6E+06 1 .4E+06 2.0E+06 1 .2E+07 2.0E+06 1 .2E+06 9.8E+05 3.1E+06 1 .4E+07 1.5E+06 1 .8E+O6 2.9E+06 2.9E+08 2.2E+06 2.2E+06 2.1E+06 6.1E+05 3.6E+06 4.7E+05 1 .6E+08 1.5E+06 5.4E+06 6.7E+05 No Data No Data 1.5E+04 1.1E+04 l .2E+04 8.7E+03 l .8E+O4 1 .0E+04 9.7E+05 4.3E+05 4.3E+05 9.1E+05 1.3E+06 1.1E+06 5.5E+05 2.0E+06 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2.3E+04 1.3E+04 1 .0E+05 9.7E+04 1.4E+05 2.9E+05 1.8E+05 2.8E+05 2.4E+05 2.3E+05 12 3.3E+O4 3 .5E+04 2.4E+04 4.9E+04 1.3E+04 1 .5E+04 1 .9E+O4 3.8E+04 3.6E+06 2.3E+06 1 .3E+06 1 .8E+06 No Data No Data 1 .2E+06 2.0E+06 2.4E+04 2.4E+04 2.1E+04 3.5E+04 1 .6E+04 1 .2E+04 2.0E+04 1.1E+04 3.3E+04 2.8E+04 2.6E+04 2.1E+04 2.6E+04 4.5E+04 3.4E+04 1 .9E+04 5.9E+04 7.2E+04 No Data No Data 1 .4E+04 5.4E+04 2.4E+04 2.6E+04 1 .9B+08 8.0E+06 1 .8E+06 2.1E+06 5.4E+06 1 .6E+06 1.8E+06 2.9E+06 9.5E+04 1 .7E+05 S.2E+05 l .4E+06 4.6E+05 3.1E+05 2.7E+05 2.7E+05 13 1.9E+08 6.2E+05 1 .8E+04 7.7E+05 1 .5E+04 2.0E+05 1.1E+04 6.2E+05 2.9E+06 7.9E+06 2.0E+06 1 .8E+06 2.6E+06 1.5E+08 1 .6E+06 l .4E+06 5.2E+04 9.6E+04 4. 1E+04 3.9E+04 2.0E+04 3.2E+04 3.2E+04 3.6E+04 1.1E+05 1 .4E+05 1.8E+05 1.6E+05 2.1E+05 3.1E+05 1.5E+05 2.4E+05 3.4E+05 2.2E+05 4.9E+05 1.8E+05 4.9E+05 4.3E+05 6.7E+05 3.2E+05 14 7.9E+06 1 .9E+06 2.3E+06 1.8E+06 1 .2E+O6 1 .6E+06 2.6E+06 1 .6E+06 2.9E+06 7 .7E+05 3.1E+06 7.5E+05 2.2E+06 1.3E+06 6.4E+06 1.3E+06 1 .2E+06 7.7E+05 1 .6E+06 4.5E+05 3 .4E+06 1.3E+06 2.9E+06 1.3E+06 1.3E+06 2.2E+06 l .2E+O6 1.3E+06 2.4E+06 1.3E+06 2.0E+06 l .5E+06 2.6E+06 6.6E+05 l .3E+06 7.0E+05 3.6E+05 1 .9E+05 1 .6E+06 1 .8E+06 15 l .9E+06 6.7E+05 3.8E+06 6.2E+05 l .5E+06 1 .0E+06 2.4E+06 1 .4E+06 6.9E+06 6.7E+05 7.0E+06 5.5E+05 2.2E+06 1 .2E+O6 2.2E+06 l .2E+06 3.1E+06 2.5E+06 1 .7E+O6 1.3E+06 3.4E+06 2.6E+06 No Data No Data 4.4E+05 2.8E+05 3.0E+05 2.4E+05 7 .0E+05 2.9E+05 5.9E+05 4.0E+05 No Data 2.2E+05 5.1E+05 2.8E+05 No Data No Data 4.4E+05 2.7E+05 16 No Data No Data 1 .3E+04 3.8E+04 No Data No Data 1 .2E+O4 1 .9E+04 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 2.3E+04 1.3E+04 No Data No Data 1 .9E+07 1 .5E+06 No Data No Data 3.2E+06 4.2E+07 No Data No Data 5.3E+05 2.4E+05 No Data No Data 3.2E+05 3.1E+05 No Data No Data 7.6E+04 2.9E+04 No Data No Data 2.3E+04 3.2E+04 No Data No Data 1 .9E+05 1.5E+05 No Data No Data 6.1E+05 7.0E+05 HHHHOOOHHOOOHOOOOHHOOOHOOOOOOHOOOOOOOE No Data No Data 3.3E+05 2.7E+05 No Data No Data 3.2E+05 2.1E+05 261 Table 8.35 (cont'd). AGG 7Ap11997 (kPa) July1997 AGG (kPa) Oct. 1979 AGG (kPa) AGG (kPa) Before After No Data No Data Before! After BeforeI After I Before! After I 2.0E+04 1.9E+04 No Data No Data 3.2E+04 2.6E+04 No Data No Data 1.3E+07 1.3E+06 No Data No Data 1.3E+07 3.0E+06 No Data No Data 2.9E+04 2.8E+04 No Data No Data 4.3E+04 2.1E+04 No Data No Data 1.4E+05 6.3E+04 No Data No Data 1.2E+05 5.8E+04 No Data No Data 2.9E+04 2.8E+04 No Data No Data 3.2E+04 2.8E+04 27 No Data No Data 4.8E+06 1.1E+06 2.1E+07 3.4E+06 2.6E+06 5.0E+06 No Data NO Data 1 .7E+O4 4. 1E+04 5.4E+03 6.8E+03 9.0E+O3 8.1E+O3 No Data No Data 1.1E+05 5.7E+05 6.5E+04 2.4E+05 5.2E+04 2.8E+05 No Data No Data 2.9E+05 5.7E+05 1.8E+05 2.3E+05 1.1E+05 1.3E+05 No Data NO Data 1.8E+05 2.4E+05 1.5E+05 2.5E+05 1.1E+05 1.2E+05 28 No Data No Data 9.9E+04 3.4E+05 7 .9E+03 3.2E+04 8.4E+03 2.8E+04 No Data No Data 6.2E+06 3.4E+05 2.3E+08 2.3E+08 2.7E+06 2.3E+08 No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 1 .9E+06 3.5E+06 No Data No Data 8.1E+04 3.8E+05 6.7E+04 2.1E+05 4.9E+04 l .2E+05 No Data NO Data 3.7E+05 3.2E+05 1.7E+05 2.9E+05 2.3E+05 1 .4E+OS No Data No Data 1 .7E+05 3.5E+05 2.6E+05 4.9E+05 1.7E+05 5.1E+05 29 No Data No Data 2.9E+06 2.9E+06 2.6E+06 4.1E+05 7.5E+04 2.0E+05 No Data No Data 2.5E+08 2.4E+06 1 .2E+O4 1 .4E+04 l .0E+06 2.2E+07 No Data No Data 5.4E+06 2.0E+06 9.lE+04 5 .9E+04 6.8E+04 3.5E+04 No Data No Data 2.5E+08 1 .3E+06 9.1E+04 1 .2E+06 5.3E+04 1.3E+05 No Data No Data 4.6E+06 1.1E+06 8.8E+04 1 .0E+05 5.2E+04 3.2E+04 No Data No Data 1.2E+05 1 .7E+05 6.7E+04 6.7E+04 5.0E+04 4.2E+04 31 No Data No Data 7.2E+04 7.0E+05 S.5E+04 6.1E+O4 1 .2E+04 1.9E+05 No Data No Data 2.2E+06 4.7E+06 l .6E+04 1 .4E+04 1 .6E+04 5.4E+04 No Data No Data 1 .4E+06 2.8E+05 1 .9E+05 1 .4E+05 3.6E+05 1.7E+05 No Data NO Data 5.5E+05 6.0E+05 1 .2E+05 9.8E+04 1.3E+05 5.7E+04 No Data No Data 7 .OE+06 1 .8E+O6 1.2E+05 7.0E+04 9.6E+04 4.7E+04 32 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4.9E+04 3.6E+04 No Data No Data 1 .0E+06 2.8E+05 1 .0E+05 1 .4E+04 No Data 2.9E+O4 No Data No Data 2.6E+08 1.1E+06 3.7E+04 8.9E+03 1.1E+05 2.4E+04 No Data No Data 5.8E+06 8.9E+05 1.7E+05 7 .2E+04 1.1E+05 4.8E+04 No Data No Data 1.3E+06 8.9E+05 1.3E+05 2.2E+05 8.2E+04 6.4E+04 No Data No Data 2.6E+08 1.3E+06 6.2E+05 3.1E+05 1 .6E+05 2.1E+05 47 2.1E+08 3.9E+06 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data L2E+08 1.3E+06 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 4.6E+06 8.0E+05 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data OOOOHHHOOOHHHOOHHHHOOHHHOOOHHHOOHHH 2.5E+04 1 .6E+O4 No Data No Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data 262 Table 8.35 (cont'd). April 19 _ AGG (kPa) 5 June 1998 _ AGG (kPa) Oct. AGG (kPa) 1997 I " ‘ Tm AGG (kPa) Type ' ’ " _6.4E+O4 Before 5.5E+04 Before After NO Data 0 Data Before I After N NO Data Before No Data $4 No Data 1 .9E+04 l .5E+04 No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data 1"4-8-1 4.6E+06 6.7E+05 No Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 2.8E+05 2.4E+05 No Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data 8.6E+06 9.1E+05 NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data 3.9E+06 3.2E+06 No Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data 3.2E+04 2.4E+04 No Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data HHOOOOO 5.3E+04 7.8E+04 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 263 Table 8.36 AGG Data, Slag Pavements. Test Type Before April 1997 AGG (kPa) 5 le 197 ’ ' " AGG (kPa) Oct. 1997 AGG (kPa) June 1998 AGG (kPa) 2.6E+08 After 7.4E+05 Before 2.3E+06 After I Before 5.2E+05 After Before After I 2.1E+06 4.213+05 4.6E+06 1.1E+06 2.6E+08 2.0E+06 1.3E+07 8.4E+05 9.7E+05 6.3E+05 No Data No Data 1.6E+07 1.1E+06 9.7E+06 7.0E+05 9.1E+05 5.5E+05 No Data No Data 3.4E+07 1.1E+06 l .5E+O6 8.4E+05 1.2E+08 6.3E+05 No Data No Data 2.1E+05 8.5E+04 5.8E+07 5.7E+05 1.3E+05 6.7E+04 3.9E+06 7.2E+05 40 1.0E+O6 1 .6E+O6 1.3E+07 7.3E+05 NO Data NO Data 1.8E+08 8.9E+05 No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data NO Data 3.1E+06 1.1E+06 9.1E+05 6.0E+05 2.4E+06 l .3E+06 NO Data NO Data 4.2E+06 1 .5E+06 41 9.8E+06 1.2E+06 4.9E+06 4.2E+06 No Data No Data 1 .9E+06 2.5E+06 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data 2.0E+06 2.7E+06 2.4E+06 2.0E+06 4.2E+06 1 .9E+06 No Data NO Data 4.9E+06 2.0E+06 2.3E+07 9.5E+05 8.0E+06 1 .9E+06 NO Data No Data 4.2E+06 2.5E+06 8.1E+05 7.2E+05 4.2E+06 l .0E+06 NO Data No Data 2.0E+06 1 .0E+06 55 1.9E+04 5.0E+04 5.3E1+05 1.1E+06 2.2E+04 1 .8E+04 1 .7E+O4 2.6E+04 4.9E+04 3.7E+05 1 .7E+06 4.1E+05 2.0E+04 1 .9E+O4 4.9E+04 1 .7E+05 No Data 7.5E+04 6.7E+04 7.6E+04 3.6E+04 6.1E+04 2. 1E+O4 3.2E+04 1 .9E+04 No Data 1 .9E+05 2.2E+06 3.2E+04 4.4E+04 1 .9E+04 2.1E+O4 No Data NO Data 2.2E+05 6.3E+05 3.6E+04 1.4E+05 2.3E+04 5.8E+04 NO Data No Data 1 .4E+05 7.5E+05 2.6E+04 1.8E+05 2.5E+04 5.2E+04 58 No Data NO Data 1 .4E+06 2.2E+06 4.3E+06 1.5E+06 4.9E+06 3.1E+06 No Data No Data 1 .4E+06 1 .8E+06 2.3E+06 2.3E+06 2.5E+06 3.1E+06 NO Data NO Data 2.7E+05 2.4E+05 4.5E+05 3.2E+05 5.2E+05 3.2E+05 No Data No Data 2.5E+05 2.0E+05 3.1E+05 2.6E+05 1 .4E+06 2.1E+06 No Data NO Data 7.6E+04 6.2E+04 5.2E+04 5.0E+04 4.3E+06 l .4E+06 No Data No Data 7.7E+04 2.9E+05 7.4E+04 8.6E+04 4.3E+06 2.1E+06 59 No Data No Data 1 .9E+O6 2.8E+06 1 .7E+06 1.5E+06 1 .6E+06 1 .7E+06 NO Data No Data 6.1E+O6 1 .5E+O6 1 .3E+06 1.5E+06 1 .2E+06 l .7E+06 No Data No Data 8.5E+04 5.3E+05 8.0E+04 LSE+05 1.2E+06 1 .9E+06 No Data No Data 1.3E+05 1.3E+05 9.3E+04 1.1E+05 1.3E+06 2.1E+06 No Data No Data LSE+05 2.4E+05 7.1E+04 8.8E+04 8.6E+05 7.8E+05 60 NO Data NO Data 2.9E+06 l .7E+06 1 .4E+06 2.1E+06 3.1E+06 l .4E+06 No Data No Data 2.7E+06 1 .5E+06 1 .7E+06 5.2E+06 6.0E+06 2.8E+06 No Data NO Data 2.2E+06 1 .7E+06 1.3E+05 2.5E+05 2.5E+06 1 .9E+O6 No Data NO Data 2.9E+05 6.0E+05 6.2E+04 1.0E+05 5.2E+06 1 .6E+06 No Data No Data 2.7E+05 2.8E+05 5.7E+04 6.4E+04 2.5E+06 9.9E+05 61 No Data NO Data 1.1E+06 9.9E+05 1 .4E+06 8.3B+05 1 .6E+06 1 .0E+06 OOHHHOOHHHOOHHHHOOHHHHOOHOOOOHOOHOOOO: NO Data No Data 2.1E+06 1.1E+06 2.2E+06 1 .4E+06 4.6E+06 l .3E+06 264 Table 8.36 (cont'd). Site Test No. Type 61 April 1997 AGG (kPa) July 1997 AGG (kPa) Oct. 1997 AGG (kPa) June 1998 AGG (kPa) Before No Data After No Data Before 7 .3E+06 After 9.9E+05 Before 3.7E+05 After 4.4E+05 Before 2.4E+06 After 4.9E+05 NO Data NO Data 2.2E+06 7.9E+05 1.5E+05 2.0E+05 1 .8E+06 8.6E+05 No Data No Data 1.5E+06 1.5E+06 1.5E+05 1.1E+05 5.2E+06 1.1E+06 No Data NO Data 1 .9E+06 1 .9E+06 4.8E+04 4.8E+04 5.1E+07 1.3E+06 62 No Data NO Data 1 .9E+O6 1 .4E+06 1.8E+06 1.1E+06 S.2E+O6 1.5E+06 No Data No Data 1 .9E+O6 1.1E+06 1 .4E+O6 2.0E+06 2.9E+06 1 .4E+O6 NO Data No Data 2.6E+06 1 .2E+06 2.ZE+05 1.4E+05 3.9E+06 l .4E+06 NO Data No Data 5.7E+O6 1 .4E+06 l .2E+05 2.2E+05 S.2E+06 1 .6E+06 No Data No Data 3.8E+06 8.0E+05 1.3E+05 1.8E+05 2.4E+06 1 .2E+06 63 No Data NO Data NO Data No Data 3.1E+04 1 .8E+04 2.0E+04 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 3.5E+05 2.6E+05 3.9E+04 l .7E+05 NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data 3.1E+04 1 .OE+05 2.6E+04 5.0E+04 No Data No Data No Data NO Data 1 .9E+O4 3.4E+04 1 .9E+04 4.1E+04 HHHOOHHHOOHHHH NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data 2.1E+04 3.0E+04 2.3E+04 3.6E+04 . . fir 265 Table 8.37 Ambient Test Temperatures, Carbonate Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Before After Before After Before After 5 C 17 17 28 29 10 10 29 29 C 17 17 29 29 10 10 29 28 J 16 17 29 29 9 10 29 29 6 C 18 18 30 29 10 10 28 29 C 17 17 29 29 10 10 27 27 J 18 18 29 30 10 10 28 28 7 C 17 17 30 30 10 11 28 27 C 18 18 29 29 11 11 28 27 J 17 17 30 29 10 11 28 27 8 C 15 15 33 34 11 11 24 24 C 16 17 34 34 11 11 23 24 J 15 16 34 34 11 11 23 24 35 C 15 16 33 33 11 12 24 24 C 16 15 33 34 12 12 24 23 J 16 16 34 34 12 12 25 24 36 C 16 16 34 35 11 11 23 24 C 16 16 35 33 11 12 24 24 J 16 16 34 34 11 11 24 24 38 C 11 11 25 26 No Data No Data 17 16 C 12 12 26 26 No Data No Data 17 17 C 12 12 26 26 No Data No Data 17 17 J 11 11 25 25 No Data No Data 17 17 39 C 12 12 26 27 No Data No Data 18 17 C 13 13 27 26 NO Data NO Data 17 17 C 14 14 27 27 No Data No Data 18 18 J 12 13 26 27 No Data No Data 17 17 42 C 18 17 22 22 15 15 10 10 C 19 19 22 22 16 16 10 10 J 18 18 22 22 15 15 10 10 43 C 18 19 22 22 16 16 11 12 C 19 19 22 23 16 16 18 20 J 19 19 22 22 16 16 14 14 J 18 18 22 23 16 17 23 27 44 C No Data NO Data 22 23 16 17 43 46 C No Data NO Data 23 23 17 16 45 45 J No Data No Data 23 22 16 16 26 26 266 "a. - ___...‘Jt IFS! Klrr‘l t'_ Table 8.37 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem :1. (C) _ __ - ___ efre After Before After 44 J No Data NO Data 23 23 16 17 50 52 J NO Data No Data 23 23 17 17 47 42 J NO Data No Data 23 23 17 17 44 42 45 C No Data No Data 23 23 19 19 10 10 J NO Data NO Data 23 23 19 19 12 10 J No Data NO Data No Data No Data 21 21 11 11 46 C NO Data No Data 23 23 21 20 10 10 J NO Data No Data 23 23 20 20 10 10 J NO Data NO Data 22 23 20 20 10 10 49 C 13 13 25 25 12 12 22 23 J 14 14 26 25 11 13 22 22 50 C 13 13 26 26 10 10 22 22 C 14 13 26 26 10 11 20 21 C 14 14 26 27 11 1 1 20 20 C 13 14 27 26 10 11 20 20 J 14 14 26 27 10 10 20 20 51 C 13 12 25 25 11 10 18 19 C 12 11 25 25 10 10 19 19 C 1 1 10 24 25 10 10 18 20 C 1 1 1 1 25 25 10 1 1 19 20 52 C 10 10 24 24 11 10 19 17 C 12 12 24 25 10 10 18 18 C 13 13 24 24 10 10 19 17 J 12 11 24 24 10 10 18 17 267 Table 8.38 Ambient Test Temperatures, Natural Gravel Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Tact No. Type Temp. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem J. (C) Before I After Before After Before After;=I=Il Before After 2 C 11 12 33 33 10 11 17 17 C 12 12 34 35 10 11 17 16 C 1 1 12 35 33 1 1 10 17 18 J 12 12 33 34 11 11 17 16 3 C 9 9 35 35 4 4 15 15 C 9 9 33 34 5 5 15 16 C No Data No Data 33 33 5 5 16 No Data J 9 9 34 34 5 5 16 16 4 C 15 14 28 29 8 8 24 24 C 14 14 28 28 8 8 24 24 J 16 16 28 28 8 8 24 24 9 C 9 9 No Data NO Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data C 10 10 No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 9 9 No Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data 10 C 8 8 No Data No Data 10 10 13 13 C No Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data 13 13 C 7 9 No Data No Data 10 10 13 13 J 8 8 NO Data No Data 10 10 14 13 37 C 19 19 35 35 6 6 17 17 C 18 20 36 35 7 6 17 17 C NO Data No Data 36 36 6 5 17 17 C 21 21 36 37 6 5 17 18 C 21 21 37 36 6 5 17 17 C 21 20 36 36 6 6 17 17 J 20 20 36 36 5 5 17 17 38A C 19 19 35 35 6 6 17 17 C 21 21 35 36 2 6 17 17 C 19 20 36 37 5 5 17 17 C 20 20 36 36 6 6 17 17 C 20 20 39 36 6 6 16 17 C No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 17 17 J 21 21 36 37 6 6 17 17 57 C 23 24 33 33 5 5 16 16 C 24 24 33 33 4 4 16 16 C 23 23 31 30 4 4 17 16 C 23 24 31 30 4 4 16 17 268 Table 8.38 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Temp. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem J. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Before After Before AfterI Before After 57 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 16 17 L I J I 24 I 24 I 33 33 5 5 16 I 17 L I J I 23 I 22 I 32 31 4 4 16 | 16 269 Table 8.39 Ambient Test Temperatures, Recycled Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Temp. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem 0. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Before After Before After Before After 11 C 21 21 27 26 5 5 17 17 C 21 21 26 27 5 5 17 16 C 21 21 27 25 5 5 17 16 C 21 20 27 27 6 5 17 17 C NO Data NO Data 27 28 6 6 17 17 C 21 21 27 29 6 6 16 16 C NO Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data 17 17 J 21 21 26 26 5 6 16 17 12 C 21 21 27 27 6 6 17 18 C 21 20 27 28 No Data NO Data 18 17 C 21 20 28 27 6 6 18 17 C 21 21 28 27 5 6 18 18 C 21 21 NO Data No Data 6 6 17 17 C 21 21 27 28 6 6 18 17 J 20 20 28 27 6 5 18 18 13 C 22 22 28 28 5 5 18 18 C 22 21 28 28 6 6 18 17 C 22 21 28 29 5 6 18 18 J 22 21 29 29 5 6 18 18 J 22 22 28 29 5 5 19 19 14 C 23 23 31 30 7 7 20 20 C 23 22 32 31 6 7 20 20 C 23 23 31 31 6 7 20 19 C 23 23 31 31 6 6 19 19 J 22 23 33 32 6 6 19 20 15 C 23 23 32 32 7 8 20 20 C 22 22 32 32 7 8 21 21 C 23 24 33 33 7 8 No Data No Data J 23 23 32 32 6 7 20 20 J No Data 23 34 34 NO Data No Data 21 21 16 C No Data NO Data 22 22 No Data NO Data 19 19 C No Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data 19 19 C No Data No Data 22 22 No Data No Data 19 20 J NO Data No Data 21 22 NO Data No Data 20 20 J No Data No Data 22 24 No Data No Data 20 19 J No Data No Data 22 21 No Data NO Data 20 20 270 Table 8.39 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Tem J. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem 3. (C) Tem J. (C) Before After Before After Before After Before ABE: 16 J NO Data NO Data 23 23 No Data No Data 20 20 17 C No Data No Data 22 22 NO Data NO Data 22 22 C No Data No Data 23 23 NO Data No Data 21 21 J No Data No Data 22 22 No Data NO Data 22 21 J NO Data No Data 22 23 No Data NO Data 22 22 J NO Data No D3131 23 24 No Data No Data 22 21 27 C No Data No Data 25 26 6 5 19 19 C No Data NO Data 27 28 6 6 19 19 J No Data NO Data 25 25 6 6 18 18 J NO Data NO Data 26 26 6 6 19 18 J No Data NO Data 25 24 6 6 19 19 28 C NO Data NO Data 25 25 7 7 20 19 C NO Data NO Data 24 24 7 7 20 20 C No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data 20 19 J No Data No Data 25 24 7 7 19 19 J No Data No Data 24 24 7 7 20 20 J No Data No Data 26 25 7 7 20 20 29 C No Data NO Data 27 27 8 8 23 23 C No Data No Data 27 26 9 8 23 23 J NO Data NO Data 27 27 8 8 23 23 J No Data NO Data 27 27 8 8 23 23 J No Data No Data 27 27 8 8 23 23 J NO Data No Data 27 28 8 8 23 24 31 C NO Data NO Data 27 26 4 4 19 19 C No Data No Data 25 25 4 4 19 19 J NO Data No Data 27 27 4 4 19 18 J NO Data No Data 26 26 4 4 19 19 J No Data No Data 26 26 4 5 19 19 32 C NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 19 20 C NO Data NO Data 28 28 4 4 No Data 20 C No Data No Data 29 29 4 5 19 19 J No Data No Data 28 28 5 4 20 20 J NO Data No Data 29 29 4 4 19 19 J NO Data No Data 28 28 4 5 19 19 47 C 15 15 No Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data C 16 17 NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data 271 Table 8.39 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Tem 3. (C) Before I After Before After Before After Before Afte-1;“ 47 C 17 16 NO Data NO Data No Data No Data NO Data NO Data C 16 15 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data J 17 17 No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data _NO Data 48 C 17 17 NO Data NO Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data C 17 18 No Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data C 18 17 No Data No Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data C 16 17 No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 17 18 No Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data J 16 17 NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data J 16 16 No Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data 272 11 Table 8.40 Ambient Test Temperatures, Slag Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Temp. (C) Temjl. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Before After Before After Before After 1 C 10 11 37 36 12 11 21 22 C 11 11 37 36 11 12 NO Data NO Data C 11 11 35 36 12 12 No Data NO Data C 10 11 35 34 13 13 No Data No Data J 10 11 37 36 12 12 22 22 40 C 20 21 26 25 No Data NO Data 23 24 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 25 25 J 21 20 26 26 No Data No Data 25 24 41 C 21 21 27 27 No Data No Data 24 24 C NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data 24 23 C 20 21 27 27 NO Data No Data 24 24 C 20 20 28 28 No Data NO Data 23 23 J 20 21 26 26 NO Data NO Data 23 24 55 C 17 15 29 28 9 9 25 24 C 16 16 29 30 10 10 24 24 J NO Data 16 29 29 10 10 24 25 J 16 No Data 29 29 9 10 24 25 J NO Data NO Data 30 29 9 10 25 24 J NO Data NO Data 29 30 9 9 24 24 58 C NO Data No Data 21 20 7 6 - 18 19 C No Data NO Data 21 21 6 6 18 18 J No Data NO Data 20 20 6 7 19 19 J NO Data No Data 21 21 6 6 19 17 J No Data No Data 20 21 6 6 19 19 J NO Data No Data 20 21 6 6 18 17 59 C No Data NO Data 21 21 6 6 19 19 C NO Data No Data 21 21 7 6 18 19 J No Data No Data 20 21 6 7 18 18 J NO Data NO Data 21 21 7 6 18 18 J NO Data NO Data 22 21 6 6 19 19 60 C No Data No Data 22 22 6 6 20 19 C NO Data NO Data 22 22 7 6 21 19 J NO Data No Data 22 22 7 7 20 20 J No Data No Data 22 22 7 6 19 19 J No Data NO Data 23 23 6 7 18 19 61 C No Data No Data 22 23 4 4 14 14 273 Table 8.40 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test Ambient Test No. Type Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) After 61 C NO Data NO Data 24 23 5 5 14 14 J No Data No Data 23 23 4 5 14 14 J No Data No Data 23 23 5 5 14 14 J No Data No Data 23 23 5 5 14 14 J No Data NO Data 23 23 4 5 14 14 62 C NO Data No Data 23 23 6 6 14 14 C No Data NO Data 23 23 6 6 14 15 J NO Data No Data 23 23 6 6 14 15 J No Data NO Data 23 23 6 6 14 15 J NO Data No Data 23 23 6 6 15 15 63 C No Data NO Data No Data No Data 10 10 23 No Data C No Data NO Data NO Data No Data 10 10 23 23 J NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data 10 10 23 23 J No Data NO Data No Data No Data 10 10 23 23 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 10 10 23 23 274 Table 8.41 Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Carbonate Pavements. April 1997 June 1998 Site Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test No. Type Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Tem 3. (C) Tem J. (C) Before After Before After 5 C 18 17 31 32 10 9 38 34 C 18 18 34 34 10 10 38 36 J 18 18 32 31 9 8 39 37 6 C 19 18 34 33 10 10 35 35 C 19 19 34 35 10 10 36 35 J 23 20 36 35 13 12 37 36 7 C 19 19 39 38 11 11 36 36 C 19 20 38 39 11 10 38 36 J 22 20 40 39 13 12 38 36 8 C 20 20 40 49 11 11 34 33 C 22 21 41 40 14 14 33 32 J 20 19 40 41 11 11 32 32 35 C 11 11 32 32 14 15 33 33 C 15 15 31 32 15 16 34 33 J 11 12 32 33 15 15 33 32 36 C 12 11 33 33 15 ' 15 33 33 C 16 15 38 36 18 18 37 34 J 12 12 35 34 16 14 34 34 38 C 11 11 26 26 No Data NO Data 22 20 C 14 13 27 27 NO Data No Data 22 21 C 14 13 27 28 No Data No Data 22 21 J 13 12 25 25 No Data NO Data 21 20 39 C 15 14 27 27 No Data No Data 21 21 C 17 16 29 29 No Data No Data 24 24 C 16 15 29 28 NO Data No Data 24 24 J 15 14 27 28 No Data No Data 22 21 42 C 22 22 22 21 12 13 13 13 C 21 21 22 22 13 13 12 12 J 23 23 24 22 12 13 13 12 43 C 22 22 22 22 14 13 11 11 C 24 24 23 24 14 13 12 12 J 22 22 22 22 13 13 12 12 J 22 22 23 23 15 14 12 10 44 C No Data No Data 23 23 14 13 11 11 C No Data No Data 24 23 14 14 10 10 J No Data No Data 23 23 13 14 11 10 275 .__— ... ._._- “A... "In!“ 31 ’ Table 8.41 (cont'd). Site No. T1997“ " 1997 Oct. 1997 June 198 Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) 44 J No Data No Data 25 24 15 15 12 13 J NO Data No Data 23 24 14 14 10 11 J No Data No Data 25 24 14 14 11 11 45 C No Data No Data 24 24 18 18 16 15 J NO Data No Data 24 23 18 17 17 17 J No Data NO Data No Data No Data 23 22 15 16 46 C No Data No Data 24 24 19 18 16 17 J NO Data No Data 24 23 22 20 18 16 J No Data No Data 25 25 20 19 20 18 49 C 14 14 31 31 16 16 33 32 J 13 13 30 30 17 16 32 31 50 C 11 11 31 31 17 17 34 32 C 12 11 32 31 16 15 30 30 C 12 12 32 31 17 17 31 30 C 14 14 33 32 15 15 33 31 J 11 11 32 31 16 15 30 30 51 C 14 12 25 24 16 15 25 23 C 11 12 25 25 15 16 24 22 C 11 11 25 25 17 18 27 27 C 10 10 25 24 16 16 26 25 52 C 9 9 23 22 15 15 22 22 C 12 12 24 24 17 17 21 22 C 12 12 23 25 16 16 24 23 J 9 9 24 23 15 15 21 21 276 Table 8.42 Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Natural Gravel Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test No. Type Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Before After Before After Before After 2 C 13 12 39 38 12 11 24 23 C 13 13 41 40 13 14 26 24 C 14 14 42 39 14 13 27 25 J 14 13 39 39 13 12 26 25 3 C 9 8 38 38 6 6 20 19 C 10 9 38 38 8 6 22 22 C No Data No Data 41 38 9 8 23 No Data J 10 10 38 36 8 7 21 21 4 C 13 12 31 30 6 6 25 26 C 20 18 31 30 7 7 26 25 J 14 14 32 30 10 7 28 26 9 C 8 7 NO Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data C 8 8 NO Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data NO Data J 8 8 No Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data NO Data 10 C 8 9 No Data No Data 10 9 15 15 C NO Data No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data 18 18 C 11 9 No Data No Data 10 10 17 16 J 9 8 No Data No Data 9 10 17 16 37 C 15 15 41 41 5 5 18 19 C 16 16 40 38 6 5 18 18 C No Data NO Data 42 41 7 6 19 19 C 17 16 43 42 6 5 19 19 C 18 16 43 40 6 6 19 19 C 17 17 41 41 7 6 20 20 J 19 18 43 42 6 6 19 19 38A C 18 18 45 43 6 6 19 18 C 18 18 43 42 7 7 18 19 C 19 18 44 42 9 8 20 20 C 20 19 44 42 9 8 19 19 C 20 19 43 41 10 8 20 20 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 19 19 J 20 19 44 43 9 8 20 20 57 C 26 25 26 26 3 3 16 16 C 26 25 26 26 3 3 17 16 C 26 26 26 26 3 4 17 18 C 25 26 27 28 4 4 18 17 277 Table 8.42 (cont'd). June 1998 Site Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test No. Type Temp. (C) Tem I). (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Bgfore After Before After Before After I 57 C INO Data NO Data 1‘10 Data NO Data No DataINO DataI 19 19 I | J I 27 26 27 27 3 I 4 I 17 18 I I J I 27 26 27 28 3 | 4 I 18 18 J 278 Table 8.43 Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Recycled Pavements. Site No. Test Type Anlp1979 ' 1997 Oct.97 “Juue199_" Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) 11 C 23 23 25 24 4 4 16 16 C 21 22 25 24 4 4 17 17 C 22 21 24 24 4 5 16 17 C 25 24 25 25 9 7 21 19 C No Data No Data 24 25 7 7 19 18 C 24 23 25 25 6 4 18 16 C No Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 17 16 J 24 24 25 24 7 6 18 18 12 C 23 23 27 26 5 5 18 17 C 23 23 27 27 NO Data No Data 17 18 C 22 23 27 27 6 5 18 17 C 25 24 30 30 7 8 20 20 C 24 22 No Data No Data 6 5 18 18 C 24 22 28 27 5 6 17 17 J 24 24 29 28 8 7 19 20 13 C 24 23 29 29 6 5 18 19 C 25 24 29 28 6 6 18 19 C 24 24 29 30 7 6 20 20 J 27 27 31 30 9 8 21 21 J 32 29 36 34 8 7 22 21 14 C 27 26 38 35 8 7 21 20 C 26 25 37 36 8 7 21 21 C 26 26 38 38 9 10 22 21 C 29 27 38 38 8 8 20 21 J 27 27 39 37 9 8 23 21 15 C 29 28 41 40 10 10 22 22 C 26 26 39 38 9 10 23 22 C 28 28 43 43 12 10 No Data No Data J 29 28 41 40 8 8 20 20 J NO Data 27 39 39 No Data NO Data 21 21 16 C No Data No Data 23 24 NO Data No Data 22 21 C No Data NO Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data 23 23 C NO Data NO Data 25 24 No Data No Data 22 22 J No Data NO Data 23 23 NO Data No Data 22 22 J No Data NO Data 27 27 No Data NO Data 23 22 J NO Data No Data 25 25 NO Data No Data 22 21 279 Table 8.43 (cont'd). Jue1998 April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 Site Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test No. Type Tem J. (C) Tem J. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Before After Before I After Before After 16 J No Data No Data 28 28 No Data No Data 25 25 17 C NO Data No Data 26 25 No Data NO Data 25 24 C NO Data No Data 27 26 No Data NO Data 26 24 J NO Data No Data 26 25 No Data No Data 24 24 J NO Data No Data 26 27 No Data No Data 25 25 J NO Data No Data 31 29 No Data No Data 28 27 27 C No Data NO Data 21 20 5 5 19 18 C No Data No Data 23 23 7 7 19 19 J No Data No Data 22 21 5 5 19 17 J NO Data No Data 25 23 8 7 19 19 J NO Data NO Data 23 22 6 6 18 17 28 C NO Data NO Data 23 23 6 7 19 18 C NO Data NO Data 23 23 7 6 19 20 C NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 19 19 J NO Data No Data 24 24 5 6 18 19 J NO Data No Data 23 24 7 7 20 19 J No Data No Data 27 27 9 8 22 21 29 C NO Data NO Data 30 30 7 8 25 24 C NO Data No Data 32 32 8 8 26 25 J No Data NO Data 30 29 7 7 25 25 J No Data No Data 33 32 11 9 27 26 J NO Data NO Data 33 33 7 8 26 26 J No Data No Data 36 35 11 10 29 28 31 C NO Data No Data 35 34 6 6 22 22 C No Data No Data 36 35 5 5 22 22 J NO Data No Data 36 36 6 6 23 21 J No Data NO Data 37 37 7 7 24 23 J NO Data NO Data 38 36 9 7 26 23 32 C NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data 24 23 C NO Data NO Data 40 39 7 7 No Data 25 C No Data No Data 40 39 7 6 27 26 J NO Data No Data 35 35 8 8 24 23 J No Data NO Data 38 37 5 6 26 25 J No Data No Data 39 37 4 5 24 23 47 C 21 21 NO Data NO Data No Data No Data No Data No Data C 19 19 NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data 280 ”131 Table 8.43 (cont'd). _E-"E April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test No. Type T em 0. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem 0. (C) Tem J. (C) E Before After Before After Before After Before After 47 C 23 21 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data C 24 24 No Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data J 22 22 NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data 48 C 23 22 No Data NO Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data C 21 21 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data C 23 22 No Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data C 24 24 NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data NO Data No Data C 24 25 NO Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data NO Data J 23 22 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data J 22 23 NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data No Data No Data 281 '3..- Jul] ‘ At."- (a ‘ Table 8.44. Pavement Surface Test Temperatures, Slag Pavements. April 1997 July 1997 Oct. 1997 June 1998 Site Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test No. Type Tem J. (C) Temp. (C) Tem J. (C) Tem 11. (C) Before After Before After Before After Before After 1 C 12 11 47 45 15 15 34 333-1 C 13 12 45 43 16 16 NO Data No Data C 13 14 46 45 18 18 No Data NO Data C 13 13 46 44 16 17 No Data NO Data J 15 14 47 46 20 17 36 34 40 C 26 25 29 28 No Data No Data 36 33 C No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data No Data 34 33 J 30 27 31 31 No Data NO Data 35 33 41 C 26 26 30 29 NO Data No Data 35 34 C No Data No Data No Data No Data NO Data No Data 33 34 C 27 25 31 30 No Data No Data 35 33 C 29 28 34 33 No Data NO Data 36 35 J 31 29 34 32 No Data No Data 34 35 55 C 20 20 39 37 10 10 27 27 C 26 24 39 40 12 11 29 29 J No Data 21 40 39 10 10 28 28 J 21 No Data 37 37 10 9 27 27 J No Data No Data 40 38 12 11 28 29 J No Data No Data 39 39 10 10 28 27 58 C NO Data No Data 20 20 5 6 25 25 C NO Data No Data 20 21 5 5 26 25 J No Data No Data 20 20 6 5 27 26 J NO Data No Data 23 23 7 7 27 26 J No Data NO Data 23 23 6 6 27 25 J NO Data NO Data 24 22 8 8 28 26 59 C No Data NO Data 22 22 6 6 27 26 C No Data NO Data 23 24 8 7 28 28 J NO Data NO Data 20 22 6 7 28 26 J NO Data No Data 24 24 8 8 29 27 J No Data No Data 25 25 8 9 29 29 60 C No Data No Data 23 22 7 6 31 30 C No Data No Data 26 25 8 8 32 31 J NO Data NO Data 23 22 6 7 32 31 J NO Data No Data 26 26 8 8 33 30 J No Data NO Data 27 25 8 7 32 31 61 C NO Data No Data 25 25 6 5 17 18 282 Table 8.44 (cont'd). April 1997 July 1997 Site Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test Pavement Test No. Type Tem J. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Temp. (C) Before After Before I After Before After Before After 61 C No Data No Data 26 25 4 4 18 17 J No Data No Data 26 25 4 3 19 17 J No Data NO Data 27 26 5 5 18 18 J No Data No Data 26 26 6 6 20 19 J No Data No Data 28 26 7 8 19 18 62 C NO Data No Data 26 26 5 5 17 17 C NO Data No Data 29 28 6 6 20 18 J No Data NO Data 27 26 5 4 17 17 J NO Data NO Data 29 29 7 6 18 19 J NO Data No Data 29 28 7 8 19 19 63 C No Data No Data No Data No Data 10 10 24 No Data C NO Data NO Data No Data NO Data 11 11 24 23 J NO Data NO Data NO Data NO Data 11 11 24 23 J No Data No Data No Data No Data 10 11 24 23 J No Data No Data No Data NO Data 12 12 25 24 283 Table 8.45 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Carbonate Pavements. 5 1 3 NO Data 124 2 6 195 No Data 3 3 390 No Data 4 N0 No Data 30 6 1 N0 No Data 86 2 4 142 NO Data 7 1 6 No Data 117 2 N0 No Data 39 3 3 No Data 193 8 1 N0 No Data 175 2 N0 133 No Data 35 1 N0 No Data 21 2 N0 14 No Data 36 1 N0 No Data 12 2 NO 12 No Data 38 1 NO NO Data 2 39 1 N0 No Data -1 42 1 N0 No Data 27 2 N0 12 No Data 43 1 N0 No Data 337 2 3 25 No Data 44 1 NO NO Data 0 2 -3 -4 No Data 45 1 N0 8 No Data 2 N0 No Data -9 46 1 N0 45 No Data 2 N0 No Data 1 49 1 NO 7 No Data 2 N0 No Data 10 50 1 3 167 No Data 2 N0 No Data 2 3 4 No Data 97 51 1 N0 -613 NO Data 52 1 N0 4 No Data ' Crack numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. ° Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. a NO faulting is reported for cracks that had less than 2 m (if any) Of faulting. Table 8.46 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Natural Gravel Pavements. Crack Number' Faulting"’°"I (mm) ' October 1997 2 1 N0 3 No Data 2 N0 No Data 81 3 1 N0 No Data 108 2 N0 108 NO Data 3 N0 488 483 4 1 N0 No Data 13 2 NO 8 NO Data 9 No Data NO Data No Data No Data 10 1 5 19 No Data 2 7 No Data 14 3 4 No Data 23 4 9 68 No Data 5 N0 No Data 18 6 5 NO Data 24 37 1 NO NO Data 40 2 5 No Data 1 15 3 10 59 No Data 4 11 93 No Data 5 5 NO Data 60 38A 1 N0 No Data 44 2 11 16 No Data 3 7 -8 No Data 57 1 N0 No Data 107 2 NO 8 No Data 1' Crack numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. c Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. a N0 faulting is reported for cracks that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. 285 Table 8.47 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Recycled Pavements. 3 Crack N umber'I Faulting“ (mm) W x-intercept (um) October 1997 _ June998 - 11 1 9 233 No Data 2 No No Data 39 3 5 326 No Data 4 5 No Data 275 12 1 5 386 No Data 2 No 286 No Data 3 6 No Data 113 4 5 No Data 113 13 1 4 No Data 73 2 No No Data 13 3 4 119 No Data 4 5 237 No Data 5 5 355 No Data 6 4 No Data 237 14 1 No 16 No Data 1 5 1 NO 3 NO Data 2 No NO Data 9 1 6 1 3 NO Data 139 17 1 7 NO Data 32 2 No No Data 57 3 4 NO Data 68 27 1 No No Data 149 2 No 581 No Data 3 4 573 No Data 28 1 3 225 No Data 2 N0 No Data 54 29 1 No No Data 61 2 6 203 No Data 31 1 4 182 No Data 2 5 1 72 164 3 3 No Data 250 4 6 NO Data 115 32 1 7 No Data 95 2 5 351 NO Data 1' Crack numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. c Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. d No faulting is reported for cracks that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. Table 3.47 (cont'd). if x-mtercept (um) 47 No Data No Data No Data No Data 48 No Data No Data No Data No Data ’ Crack numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. ° Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. d No faulting is reported for cracks that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. 287 Table B.48 Voids Analysis Results - Cracks, Slag Pavements. E Crack Number' Faultingb’c'd (mm) x-mtercept (Hm) October 1997 June 2 1 1 N0 N0 Data 37 2 No 2 No Data 40 1 N0 N0 Data 17 41 1 N0 N0 Data 8 55 1 N0 105 N0 Data 2 No No Data 30 3 No 94 No Data 58 1 No -3 No Data 2 No No Data -5 5 9 1 No -13 No Data 2 No No Data '6 60 1 N0 N0 Data '6 2 N0 -10 NO Data 61 1 N0 N0 Data ’4 2 N0 -2 NO Data 6 2 1 NO .4 N0 Data 2 No No Data -8 63 1 No No Data 96 2 N0 88 N0 Data 3 Crack numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. c Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. a No faulting is reported for cracks that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. 288 Table 8.49 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Carbonate Pavements. 18;“ Joint Numberll Faulting'm"I (mm) x-intercept (um) 0' October 1997 June 1998 5 1 No 9 No Data 2 No No Data 9 6 1 No No Data 31 2 No 47 No Data 7 1 No 81 No Data 2 No No Data 44 8 1 No No Data -13 2 No 154 No Data 35 1 No No Data 7 2 No 57 No Data 36 1 No No Data 35 2 No 33 No Data 38 1 No No Data 26 39 1 No No Data 27 42 1 No 9 No Data 2 No No Data 239 43 1 No No Data 196 44 1 No 80 No Data 2 No No Data 307 3 6 50 No Data 45 1 No No Data 402 2 No 78 No Data 46 1 No 75 No Data 2 No No Data 192 49 1 No No Data 9 2 No 26 No Data 50 1 No 49 No Data 2 No No Data 25 51 No Data No Data No Data No Data 52 1 No 13 No Data a Joint numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. c Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. a No faulting is reported for joints that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. 289 Table 13.50 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Natural Gravel Pavements. 1 No 4 No Data 2 No No Data 31 3 No No Data 23 4 No No Data 24 5 No No Data -14 3 1 No 133 No Data 2 No No Data 46 3 No No Data 204 4 No 11 No Data 4 1 No No Data 9 2 6 120 No Data 3 No 116 No Data 9 No Data No Data No Data No Data 10 1 No 0 No Data 2 No No Data 63 37 1 10 No Data 131 2 12 10 No Data 3 8 No Data 110 38A 1 10 33 No Data 2 8 53 No Data 57 1 No 39 No Data 2 No 15 No Data 3 No No Data 66 a Joint numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. c Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. a No faulting is reported for joints that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. 290 Table 3.51 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Recycled Pavements. . b,c,d - Faulting (mm) June 1998 11 1 No No Data 102 2 No 113 No Data 12 1 No No Data 125 2 No 70 No Data 13 1 No No Data 73 2 No 47 No Data 14 1 No 31 No Data 15 1 No 8 No Data 2 No No Data -3 16 1 No No Data 121 2 3 No Data 478 17 1 2 No Data 88 2 No No Data 61 27 1 No 321 No Data 2 No 134 No Data 3 No No Data 198 28 1 No No Data 180 2 No 117 No Data 29 1 No No Data 109 2 No 332 No Data 3 3 293 No Data 31 1 No No Data 318 32 1 No No Data 346 47 No Data No Data No Data No Data 48 No Data No Data No Data No Data a Joint numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. ° Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. d No faulting is reported for joints that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. 291 Table 8.52 Voids Analysis Results - Joints, Slag Pavements. i x-intercept (um) Faultingb’“ (mm) 1 No No Data 10 2 No 3 No Data 40 1 3 No Data 3 2 No No Data 5 41 1 No No Data 7 55 1 No No Data 26 2 No 57 No Data 58 1 No -15 No Data 2 No No Data -7 59 1 No No Data -1 2 No -1 No Data 60 1 No No Data -8 2 No 0 No Data 61 1 No 2 No Data 2 No No Data -2 62 1 No No Data -3 2 No 2 . No Data 63 I No 1 18 No Data 2 No No Data 127 ' Joint numbers in this table do not correspond with those in other tables. b Faulting values here refer to data collected in June 1998. ° Positive fault values mean that leave side was lower than approach side. a No faulting is reported for joints that had less than 2 m (if any) of faulting. 292 REFERENCES 293 - REFERENCES - . AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 1993. . McGhee, K.H. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of PC C Pavement Joints. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 211. Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council, 1995. . Huang, Y.H. Pavement Analysis and Design. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1993. . Westergaard, H.M. Analysis of Stresses in Concrete Pavement Due to Variations of Temperature. Proceedings, Highway Research Board, Vol. 6, 1926, pp. 201-215. . Bradbury, R.D. Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Wire Reinforcement Institute, Washington, DC, 1938. . Westergaard, H.M. New Formulas for Stresses in Concrete Pavements of Airfields. ASCE Transactions, Vol. 113, 1948, pp. 425-444. . Miner, M.A. Cumulative Damage in Fatigue. Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 67, 1945, pp. A159-Al64. . Ioannides, A.M. Pavement Fatigue Concepts: A Historical Review. Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Materials for High Performance, Vol. 3, Indianapolis, IN, Nov. 18-21, 1997, pp. 147-159. . Mindess, S., and J .F. Young. Concrete. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1981. 10. Darter, M.I., K.T. Hall, and C. Kuo. Support under Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. NCHRP Report 372. TRB, National Research Council, 1995. 11. Smith, K.D., M.J. Wade, H.T. Yu, and M.I. Darter. Design Considerations for Improved J PCP Performance. Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Materials for High Performance, Vol. 1, Indianapolis, IN, Nov. 18-21, 1997, pp. 89-109. 12. Darter, M.I. Initial Evaluation of Michigan JRCP Crack Deterioration in JRCP. Revised Report. Michigan Concrete Paving Association, 1989. 294 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Nowlen, W.J. Influence of Aggregate Properties on Effectiveness of Interlock Joints in Concrete Pavements. Journal of the PCA, Research and Development Laboratories, Vol. 10, No. 2, May 1968, pp. 2-8. Raja, 2.1., and MB. Snyder. Factors Affecting Deterioration of Transverse Cracks in Jointed Reinforced Concrete Pavements. Transportation Research Record 1 307, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1991, pp. 162-168. Khazanovich, L., M.I. Darter, and K.D. Smith. Transverse Crack Deterioration Model for J RCP. Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Materials for High Performance, Vol. I , Indianapolis, IN, Nov. 18-21, 1997, pp. 311-327. Poblete, M., R. Valenzuela, and R. Salsilli. Load Transfer in Undoweled Transverse Joints of PCC Pavements. Transportation Research Record 120 7, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1988, pp. 39-49. Paulay, T., and P.J. Loeber. Shear Transfer by Aggregate Interlock. Shear in Reinforced Concrete. ACI Special Publication SP 42-1, Vol. 1. American Concrete Institute (ACI), Detroit, MI, 1974, pp. 1-15. Benkelman, A.C. Tests of Aggregate Interlock at Joints and Cracks. Engineering News-Record, Vol. 111, No. 8, Aug. 24, 1933, pp. 227-232. Laible, J .P., R.N. White, and P. Gergely. Experimental Investigation of Seismic Shear Transfer Across Cracks in Concrete Nuclear Containment Vessels. Reinforced Concrete Structures in Seismic Zones. ACI Special Publication SP 53-9. ACI, Detroit, MI, 1977, pp. 203-226. Jimenez, R., P. Gergely, and RN. White. Shear Transfer across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete. Report 784. Cornell University, 1978. F ardis, M.N., and O. Buyukozturk. Shear Transfer Model for Reinforced Concrete. Proceedings, ASCE, Vol. 105, No. EM2, April 1979, pp. 225-275. Walraven, J .C. Fundamental Analysis of Aggregate Interlock. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. 11, Nov. 1981, pp. 2245-2270. Millard, 8.6., and RP. Johnson. Shear Transfer Across Cracks in Reinforced Concrete Due to Aggregate Interlock and to Dowel Action. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 36, No. 126, Mar. 1984, pp. 9-21. Soroushian, P., K. Obaseki, and K. Choi. Analysis of Aggregate Interlock Behaviour at Cracks in Reinforced Concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 40, No. 142, Mar. 1988, pp. 43-49. 295 25. Paulay, T., R. Park, and M.H. Phillips. Horizontal Construction Joints in Cast-in- Place Reinforced Concrete. Shear in Reinforced Concrete. ACI Special Publication SP 42, Vol. 2. AC1, Detroit, MI, 1974, pp. 599-616. 26. Mills, G.M. A Partial Kinking Criterion for Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 27, No. 90, Mar. 1975, pp. 13-22. 27. Millard, S.G. Shear Transfer in Cracked Reinforced Concrete. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Warwick, 1983. 28. Ioannides, A.M., and GT. Korovesis. Aggregate Interlock: A Pure-Shear Load Transfer Mechanism. Transportation Research Record 1286, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1990, pp. 14-24. 29. Buch, N.J. Development of Empirical-Mechanistic Based Faulting Models in the Design of Plain Jointed Concrete Pavements. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, 1995. 30. Colley, BE, and HA Humphrey. Aggregate Interlock at Joints in Concrete Pavements. Highway Research Record 189, Highway Research Board (HRB), National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1967, pp. 1-18. 31. F enwick, RC, and T. Paulay. Mechanisms of Shear Resistance of Concrete Beams. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, No. 10, Oct. 1968, pp. 2325-2350. 32. Design, Construction, and Maintenance of PC C Pavement Joints. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 19. HRB, National Research Council, 1973. 33. Bruinsma, J .E., 2.1. Raja, M.B. Snyder, and J .M. Vandenbossche. Factors Aflecting the Deterioration of Transverse Cracks in JRCP. Final Report. Michigan Department of Transportation, 1995. 34. Sutherland, EC, and H.D. Cashell. Structural Efficiency of Transverse Weakened- Plane Joints. Public Roads, Vol. 24, No. 4, Apr.-June 1945, pp. 83-97. 35. Vandenbossche, J .M., and MB. Snyder. Estimating Potential Aggregate Interlock Load Transfer Based upon Measurements of Volumetric Surface Texture of the Fracture Plane. A Paper Prepared for the Open Paper Session of A CI Annual Meeting, Denver, CO, Mar. 1996. 36. Armaghani, J .M., J .M. Lybas, M. Tia, and BE. Ruth. Concrete Pavement Joint Stiffness Evaluation. Transportation Research Record 1099, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1986, pp. 22-36. 296 37. Smith, K.D., D.G. Peshkin, M.I. D'arter, A.L. Mueller, and SH. Carpenter. Performance of Jointed Concrete Pavements, Phase 1, Volume IV - Appendix A. Report FHWA-RD-89-l 39. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), US. Department of Transportation, 1990. 38. Neville, A. Properties of Concrete. Pittman Publishing, Ltd., Aulander Cliffs, NC, 1975. 39. Joint and Crack Sealing and Repair for Concrete Pavements. Report TB-012P. American Concrete Pavement Association (ACPA), 1993. 40. Guidelines for F uIl-Depth Repair. Report TB-OOZP. ACPA, 1995. 41. Darter, M.I., E.J. Barenberg, and WA. Yrjanson. Joint Repair Methods for Portland Cement Concrete Pavements. NCHRP Report 281. TRB, National Research Council, 1985. 42. Snyder, M.B., M.J. Reiter, K.T. Hall, and M.I. Darter. Rehabilitation of Concrete Pavements: Volume I - Repair Rehabilitation Techniques. Report FHWA-RD-88- 071. FHWA, US. Department of Transportation, 1989. 43. Pierce, L.M. Design, Construction, Performance, and Future Direction of Dowel Bar Retrofit in Washington State. Proceedings, Sixth International Purdue Conference on Concrete Pavement Design and Materials for High Performance, Vol. 2, Indianapolis, IN, Nov. 18-21, 1997, pp. 87-100. 44. Slab Stabilization Guidelines for Concrete Pavements. Report TB-018P. ACPA, 1 994. 45. Hossain, M., and A.J. Gisi. Detection of Voids under Concrete Pavements Using Deflection Testing - Kansas Experience. Proceedings, Fourth International Conference on the Bearing Capacity of Roads and Airfield, Minneapolis, MN, July 17-21,1994, pp. 1703-1718. 46. Construction Handbook on PCC Pavement Rehabilitation. FHWA, Washington, DC, 1984. 47. Cement-Grout Subsealing and SIabjacking of Concrete Pavements. Report IS212.01P. Portland Cement Association, 1982. 48. Taha, R., A. Salim, S. Hasan, and B. Lunde. Evaluation of Highway Undersealing Practices of PCC Pavements. Paper No. 940104, Presented at the I 994 Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, Jan. 1994. 297 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61 Sawan, J .S., M.I. Darter, and B.J. Dempsey. Structural Analysis and Design of PCC Shoulders. Report F HW A-RD-8l-122. FHWA, US. Department of Transportation, 1982. Colley, B.E., C.G. Ball, and P. Arrigavat. Evaluation of Concrete Pavements with Tied Shoulders or Widened Lanes. Transportation Research Record 666, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC, 1978, pp. 3945. Diamond Grinding and Concrete Pavement Restoration 2000. Report TB-008P. ACPA, 1990. Guidelines for Unbonded Concrete Overlays. Report TB-OOSP. ACPA, 1990. Guidelines for Bonded Concrete Overlays. Report TB-007P. ACPA, 1990. Distress Identification Manual for the Long- Term Pavement Performance Studies. Report SHRP-LTPP-FR-90-001. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), National Research Council, 1990. Helmuth, R., D. Stark, S. Diamond, and M. Moranville-Regourd. Alkali-Silica Reactivity: An Overview of Research. Report SHRP-C-342. SHRP, National Research Council, 1993. Smith, K.D., H.T. Yu, M.J. Wade, D.G. Peshkin, and M.I. Darter. Performance of Concrete Pavements, Volume I - Field Investigation. Report F HWA-RD-94-l 77. F HWA, US. Department of Transportation, 1997. Hall, K.T. Backcalculation Solutions for Concrete Pavements. A Paper Prepared for Long- Term Pavement Performance Data Analysis. Report SHRP-P-ZO. SHRP, National Research Council, 1992. Wade, M.J., G.D. Cuttell, J .M. Vandenbossche, H.T. Yu, K.D. Smith, and MB. Snyder. Performance of Concrete Pavements Containing Recycled Concrete Aggregate. Report F HWA-RD-96-164. F HWA, US. Department of Transportation, 1997. Darter, M.I. Design of Zero-Maintenance Plain Jointed Pavements. Report FHWA- RD-77-11 l. FHWA, US. Department of Transportation, 1977. Milton, J .S., and J .C. Arnold. Introduction to Probability and Statistics: Principles and Applications for Engineering and Computing Sciences. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1990. . Snyder, M.B. VSTR Test Results and Interpretation. Letter to Neeraj Buch, Mar. 25, 1998. 298 "lllltlllltlfill