y; ._ 7:83.; ,y...£
M .5 .-a. V 4 . hunk ll: .QfiMWJ. .JHLr, .-
2%.? “wk . . ‘ A47

p ..r w. 2,.

, ,
a... A ..
r. .mmfiu
.wcqwn?»

13- F]. ELL

.6 .Fimnfimm

 

 

. . . X
3:: II:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
Unive rSity This is to certify that the

 

 

 

thesis entitled

INFLUENCE OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
ON THE RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE OF SPS-2 TEST
SECTIONS

presented by

PRAVEEN DESARAJ U

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in Civil and Environmental
Science Engineering

 

 

AKX/

Major Professor’s Signature
52/151 /0 3
I

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c;/CIRCJDateDue.p65-p.15

 

INFLUENCE OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ON THE
RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE OF SPS-2 TEST SECTIONS
By

Praveen Desaraju

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

2003

ABSTRACT
INFLUENCE OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FEATURES ON THE
RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE OF SPS-2 TEST SECTIONS
By

Praveen Desaraju

This research was conducted to study the influence of design and construction features on
the performance and response of jointed plain concrete pavements. The data used in this
study were drawn from the Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) SPS-2
experiment. Pavement sections with undrained, dense-graded aggregate bases and
undrained lean concrete bases have so far performed more poorly than sections with
drained permeable asphalt—treated bases. Sections with thinner PCC slabs and lane width
of 12 ft showed higher transverse cracking and pumping. The occurrence of transverse
cracking in the sections seems to be a direct consequence of problems encountered during
construction. It is too early to comment about the occurrence of faulting because of
insignificant magnitudes of faulting in the test sections. A “Performance Index” was
developed to evaluate the pavement sections due to the various limitations in the database
and inconsistencies in the data collection process. Several statistical methods were used
to validate the results obtained from the engineering analysis. It was also found that the
individual deflections should be used in conjunction with load transfer efficiency (LTE)
and edge support factor to completely understand the performance of the joints. In
addition to the design and construction features, the effect of temperature is also an
important factor to be considered in assessing the loss of support and in joint performance

evaluation.

Copyright by
PRAVEEN DESARAJU
2003

Dedicated to
My parents, D. Ramakrishna Rao and D. Ananta Lakshmi
and

My brothers, D. S. Kalyan and D. M. Srikiran

iv

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would first like to thank my academic advisor Dr. Neeraj Buch for his continued
support and guidance throughout my graduate program at Michigan State University.

I would also like to thank the National Cooperative Highway Research Program
(NCI-IRP) for sponsoring this research and providing financial support.

I would like to thank Dr. Karim Chatti, (PI of the project) and Dr. Gilbert Baladi
for being a part of my M.S thesis committee and providing valuable suggestions on my
work.

Sincere thanks are due to my colleague Syed Waqar Haider, for his tremendous
support during this research work.

I would like to thank my friends Swaroop Mannepalli and Deepa Thandaveswara,
for their help in formatting the thesis and presentation, and Aswani Sasaanka Pulipaka for
his help in the analysis.

Finally, I would also like to sincerely thank my friends, Madhu Namani, Kalyan
Gudla, Sriharsha Chunduru, Ravi Shankar Pudipeddi and Srinivas Varanasi, who have

always been with me in tough situations.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V
CHAPTER 1 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES ........................................................................................... 1
ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS ............................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 2 3
DESCRIPTION OF THE SPS-2 EXPERIMENT 3
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3
SPS-2 EXPERIMENT .................................................................................................... 3
LIMITATIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT ...................................................................... 5
IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERIMENT VARIABLES ................................................. 7
CHAPTER 3 9
SYNTHESIS OF DATABASE FOR ANALYSIS 9
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 9
IDENTIFICATION OF DATA ELEMENTS .............................................................. 10
SYNTHESIS OF THE ANALYSIS DATABASE ....................................................... 10
CHAPTER 4 l6
DATA AVAILABILITY IN THE SPS-2 EXPERIMENT 16
AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DATA ....................... 16
AVAILABILITY OF TRAFFIC DATA .............................................................. 21
RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE DATA ...................................................... 29
CHAPTER 5 35
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF SPS-2 DATA 3S
THICKNESS ADEQUACY ANALYSIS USING AASHTO ’98 DESIGN
PROCEDURE ....................................................................................................... 35
CRACKE‘IG IN SPS-2 SECTIONS ..................................................................... 39
PUMPING ............................................................................................................. 48
PROGRESSION OF DISTRESSES WITH TIME ............................................... 52
MISCELLANEOUS DISTRESSES ..................................................................... 56
TRANSVERSE JOINT FAULTING .................................................................... 57
CHAPTER 6 63
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SPS-2 DATA 63
Performance Index and Relative Performance Index ............................................... 64
CRACKING IN SPS-2 SITES ...................................................................................... 68
Performance Index and Relative Performance Index ............................................... 68
Independent Design and Construction Variables ...................................................... 75
Simple Univariate Comparisons for Transverse cracking ........................................ 76

vi

Multivariate Analysis for Transverse cracking ......................................................... 86

 

 

 

 

 

PUMPING ..................................................................................................................... 91
Performance Index and Relative Performance Index ............................................... 91
Simple Univariate Comparisons for pumping .......................................................... 92
Multivariate Analysis for pumping ........................................................................... 99

FAULTING ................................................................................................................. 102
Performance Index and Relative Performance Index ............................................. 102
Simple Univariate Comparisons for Faulting ......................................................... 103
Multivariate Analysis for Faulting .......................................................................... 109

CHAPTER 7 114
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE .................... 114

FWD TESTING .......................................................................................................... 114

VARIATION OF DEFLECT ION DATA WITH TIME ............................................ 115

TRAN SVERSE JOINT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION ..................................... 123
Load transfer efficiency and Sum of deflections (SD) ........................................... 123

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUM OF DEFLECTIONS (SD) AND LOAD

TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (LTE) ............................................................................. 125

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LTE, VOID POTENTIAL AND D-RATIO ........... 134
CHAPTER 8 i 144
SUMNIARY AND CONCLUSIONS 144
APPENDIX A 146
APPENDIX B 194
LIST OF REFERENCES 268

 

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 SPS-2 experiment design matrix ............................................................................ 4
Table 2 Description of the LTPP SPS-2 sites ..................................................................... 5
Table 3 Categorized list of variables for rigid pavements .................................................. 8
Table 4 Identified Data Elements ..................................................................................... 11
Table 5 Deviations from the target flexural strengths for the SPS-2 test sites ................. 18
Table 6 Flexural strength deviations at the network level ................................................ 19
Table 7 Sections that met their target flexural strength at 28 days ................................... 19
Table 8 Thickness deviations at the network level ........................................................... 20
Table 9 Location of traffic data in the LTPP database ..................................................... 22
Table 10 Average of Annual KESALs (Estimated data) for SPS-2 Experiment .............. 22
Table 11 Average of Annual KESALs (Monitored data) for SPS-2 Experiment ............. 22
Table 12 Traffic data availability in Release 16.0 ............................................................ 24
Table 13 Traffic Information from the construction reports for SPS-2 Experiment ........ 25
Table 14 KESALs per year for SPS-2 Experiment ........................................................... 26
Table 15 Calculation of KESALs per year ....................................................................... 27
Table 16 Average number of Transverse cracks in the SPS-2 test sites ........................... 29
Table 17 Average joint faulting in the SPS-2 sites ........................................................... 31
Table 18 Total number of pumping occurrences in the SPS-2 sites ................................. 31
Table 19 Average midslab deflection (in microns) at sensor 1(based on last year) for SP8-
2 Experiment ............................................................................................................. 32
Table 20 Average midslab deflection at sensor 7(based on last year) for SPS-Z
Experiment ................................................................................................................ 33
Table 21 Assumptions in the AASHTO ’98 analysis ....................................................... 36
Table 22 Comparison of ESALs for SPS-2 sites .............................................................. 37
Table 23 Sections with late occurrence of transverse cracking ........................................ 40
Table 24 Total number of transverse cracks in the SPS-2 sites ........................................ 41
Table 25 Total number of transverse cracks in the SPS-2 sites (without NV) ................. 41
Table 26 Occurrence of transverse cracking in the SPS-2 sites ........................................ 46
Table 27 Pumping occurrences in the SPS-2 sites ............................................................ 52
Table 28 Progression of distresses in the SPS-2 sites ....................................................... 54
Table 29 D-cracking in SPS-2 test sites ............................................................................ 56
Table 30 Number of joints and cracks faulted in the SPS-2 sites ..................................... 59
Table 31 Occurrence of faulting in the SPS-2 test sites .................................................... 61
Table 32 Example calculation of average normalized performance over time ................ 69
Table 33 Overall factor comparisons summary for number of transverse cracks at the
network level ............................................................................................................. 7 1
Table 34 Overall factor comparisons summary for length of transverse cracks at the
network level ............................................................................................................. 71
Table 35 State Level factor comparison for Number of transverse cracks ....................... 72
Table 36 State Level factor comparison for Length of transverse cracks ......................... 72
Table 37 Performance Indices for Number of transverse cracks ...................................... 75
Table 38 Example hypothesis testing — PCC thickness .................................................... 77
Table 39 Multivariate ANOVA for SPS-2 sections-Transverse cracking ........................ 88
Table 40 Multivariate ANOVA at the state level-Transverse cracking ............................ 89

viii

Table 41 Overall factor comparisons summary for number of pumping occurrences at the

network level ............................................................................................................. 93
Table 42 Overall factor comparisons summary for length of pumping at the network level

................................................................................................................................... 93
Table 43 State level factor comparisons for number of pumping occurrences ................. 94
Table 44 State level factor comparisons for length of pumping ....................................... 94
Table 45 Hypothesis testing — Drainage condition ........................................................... 95
Table 46 Multivariate ANOVA for SPS-2 sections- Pumping ....................................... 100
Table 47 Multivariate ANOVA at the state level ........................................................... 101
Table 48 Effect of Base type on Pumping ...................................................................... 101
Table 49 Overall factor comparisons for faulting at the network level .......................... 104
Table 50 State level comparisons for faulting ................................................................ 104
Table 51 Hypothesis testing — Drainage condition ......................................................... 105
Table 52 Multivariate ANOVA for SPS-2 sections- Faulting ........................................ 110
Table 53 Multivariate ANOVA at the state level ........................................................... 111
Table 54 Effect of Drainage type on Faulting ................................................................ 111
Table 55 Effect of Base type on Faulting ....................................................................... 112
Table 56 Use of the FWD data (9) .................................................................................. 115
Table 57 Variation of deflection data with time in the SPS-2 sites ................................ 119
Table 58 Deflection parameters in J4 and J5 .................................................................. 124
Table 59 J4 and J5 deflections at 18 ft (5.2 m) in 26-0214 for the year 1998 ................ 125
Table 60 Sum of deflections at 18 ft (5.2 m) in 26-0214 ................................................ 125
Table 61 LTE at 18ft (5.2 m) in 26-0214 ........................................................................ 126
Table 62 SDs and LTEs at 180 ft (53.9 m) in 4-0214 ..................................................... 127
Table 63 Effect of base type on transverse joint performance for SPS-2 sites ............... 132
Table A- 1 Construction deviations in the SPS—2 sites ................................................... 147
Table A- 2 Mix design summary for AZ (4) SPS-2 sites ............................................... 150
Table A- 3 Mix design summary for AR (5) SPS-2 sites ............................................... 151
Table A- 4 Mix design summary for CA (6) SPS-2 sites ............................................... 152
Table A- 5 Mix design summary for CO (8) SPS-2 sites ............................................... 153
Table A- 6 Mix design summary for DE (10) SPS-2 sites ............................................. 154
Table A- 7 Mix design summary for IA (19) SPS-2 sites ............................................... 155
Table A- 8 Mix design summary for KS (20) SPS-2 sites .............................................. 156
Table A- 9 Mix design summary for M1 (26) SPS-2 sites .............................................. 157
Table A- 10 Mix design summary for NV (32) SPS-2 sites ........................................... 158
Table A- 11 Mix design summary for NC (37) SPS-2 sites ........................................... 159
Table A- 12 Mix design summary for ND (38) SPS-2 sites ........................................... 160
Table A- 13 Mix design summary for OH (39) SPS-2 sites ........................................... 161
Table A- 14 Mix design summary for WA (53) SPS-Z sites .......................................... 162
Table A- 15 Comparison of ESALs using AASHTO ’98 for AZ (4) ............................. 163
Table A- 16 Comparison of ESALs using AASHTO ’98 for CO (8) ............................. 163
Table A- 17 Comparison of ESALs using AASHTO ’98 for DE (10) ........................... 163
Table A- 18 Comparison of ESALs using AASHTO ’98 for IA (19) ............................ 164
Table A- 19 Comparison of ESALs using AASHTO ’98 for KS (20) ........................... 164
Table A- 20 Comparison of ESALs using AASHTO ’98 for M1 (26) ........................... 164

ix

*M-‘wfl

Table A- 21 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for NV (32) .......................... 165

Table A— 22 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for NC (37) ........................... 165
Table A- 23 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for ND (38) .......................... 165
Table A— 24 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for OH (39) .......................... 166
Table A- 25 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for WA (53) .......................... 166
Table A- 26 Occurrence of distresses in AZ (4) ............................................................. 167
Table A- 27 Occurrence of distresses in AR (5) ............................................................. 168
Table A- 28 Occurrence of distresses in CO (8) ............................................................. 169
Table A- 29 Occurrence of distresses in DE (10) ........................................................... 170
Table A- 30 Occurrence of distresses in IA (19) ............................................................ 171
Table A- 31 Occurrence of distresses in KS (20) ........................................................... 172
Table A- 32 Occurrence of distresses in MI (26) ........................................................... 173
Table A- 33 Occurrence of distresses in NV (32) ........................................................... 174
Table A- 34 Occurrence of distresses in NC (37) ........................................................... 175
Table A- 35 Occurrence of distresses in ND (38) ........................................................... 176
Table A- 36 Occurrence of distresses in OH (39) ........................................................... 177
Table A- 37 Occurrence of distresses in WA (53) .......................................................... 178
Table A- 38 Occurrence of distresses in WI (55) ........................................................... 179
Table A- 39 Overall factor comparison for longitudinal joint sealant damage at the
network level ........................................................................................................... 180

Table A- 40 Overall factor comparison for longitudinal spalling at the network level .. 180
Table A- 41 Overall factor comparison for area of map cracking at the network level . 181
Table A- 42 Overall factor comparison for number of map cracks at the network level 181
Table A- 43 Overall factor comparison for number of comer breaks at the network level

................................................................................................................................. 182
Table A- 44 Overall factor comparison for length of longitudinal cracking at the network
level ......................................................................................................................... 182
Table A- 45 Overall factor comparison for number of transverse joint sealant damages at
the network level ..................................................................................................... 183
Table A- 46 Overall factor comparison for number of transverse spalls at the network
level ......................................................................................................................... 183
Table A- 47 Overall factor comparison for number of scaling occurrences at the network
level ......................................................................................................................... 184
Table A- 48 Overall factor comparison for area of scaling at the network level ............ 184
Table A- 49 State level comparisons for longitudinal joint sealant damage .................. 185
Table A- 50 State level comparisons for longitudinal spalling ....................................... 185
Table A- 51 State level comparisons for length of longitudinal cracks .......................... 185
Table A- 52 State level comparisons for number of transverse joint sealant damages .. 186
Table A- 53 State level comparisons number of transverse spalls ................................. 186
Table A- 54 Summary of influence of the design and construction features on
performance and response for SPS-2 sites .............................................................. 187

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Age distribution in the SPS-2 sites ....................................................................... 6
Figure 2 Flowchart for Data Extraction Process ............................................................... 15
Figure 3 Cross section of LCB sections according to the SPS—2 factorial ........................ 21
Figure 4 Cross section of LCB sections in AR (5) ........................................................... 21
Figure 5 Summary of distress levels in SPS-2 for the latest year ..................................... 30
Figure 6 Occurrence of transverse cracks in the SPS-2 sites ............................................ 40
Figure 7 Transverse cracks in AZ (4)* ............................................................................. 45
Figure 8 Transverse cracks in CA (6)** ........................................................................... 45
Figure 9 Transverse cracks in MI (26)+ ........................................................................... 45
Figure 10 Transverse cracks in WA (53)++ ..................................................................... 45
Figure 11 Number of pumping occurrences for AR (5) ................................................... 50
Figure 12 Number of pumping occurrences for DE (10) .................................................. 50
Figure 13 Number of pumping occurrences for IA (19) ................................................... 50
Figure 14 Number of pumping occurrences for OH (39) ................................................. 50
Figure 15 Number of transverse joint sealant damages in AR (5) .................................... 51
Figure 16 Number of transverse joint sealant damages in DE (10)........-. ......................... 51
Figure 17 Number of transverse joint sealant damages in IA (19) ................................... 51
Figure 18 Number of transverse joint sealant damages in OH (39) ................................. 51
Figure 19 Progression of transverse cracking with time for AZ (4) ................................. 53
Figure 20 Scaling occurrences in the SPS-2 sites ............................................................. 57
Figure 21 Occurrence of faulting in the SPS-2 sites ......................................................... 58
Figure 22 Average joint faulting in the MI (26) SPS-2 sites ............................................ 60
Figure 23 Typical performance curves ............................................................................. 65
Figure 24 Measure of performance with time ................................................................... 66
Figure 25 Framework for overall analysis ........................................................................ 74
Figure 26 Example hypothesis testing - PCC thickness ................................................... 77
Figure 27 Hypothesis testing -PCC thickness (without NV) ........................................... 78
Figure 28 Transverse cracking-Wet Zones ....................................................................... 79
Figure 29 Transverse cracking-Dry Zones ....................................................................... 79
Figure 30 Transverse cracking-Wet Zones (without NV) ................................................ 79
Figure 31 Transverse cracking-Dry .................................................................................. 79
Figure 32 Transverse cracking .......................................................................................... 81
Figure 33 Transverse Cracking ......................................................................................... 81
Figure 34 Transverse cracking .......................................................................................... 81
Figure 35 Transverse Cracking ......................................................................................... 81
Figure 36 Example hypothesis testing for PCC thickness by climatic zones ................... 82
Figure 37 Example hypothesis testing .............................................................................. 82
Figure 38 Transverse cracks-Subgrade type ..................................................................... 83
Figure 39 Transverse cracks-Base type ............................................................................ 83
Figure 40 Transverse cracks-Drainage type ..................................................................... 83
Figure 41 Transverse cracks-Lane Width ......................................................................... 83
Figure 42 Transverse cracks-Subgrade type (without NV) .............................................. 84
Figure 43 Transverse cracks ............................................................................................. 84
Figure 44 Transverse cracks-Drainage type (without NV) ............................................... 84

xi

Figure 45 Transverse cracks-Lane Width (without NV) .................................................. 84

Figure 46 Example hypothesis testing for PCC thickness by Subgrade Type (WF). ....... 85
Figure 47 Estimated marginal means at all levels of base type and PCC thickness ......... 90
Figure 48 Estimated marginal means at all levels of PCC thickness and lane width ....... 91
Figure 49 Hypothesis testing — Drainage condition .......................................................... 95
Figure 50 Pumping-Wet Zones ......................................................................................... 96
Figure 51 Pumping-Dry Zones ......................................................................................... 96
Figure 52 Pumping —Freeze zone ..................................................................................... 97
Figure 53 Pumping-Non-freeze zone ................................................................................ 97
Figure 54 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by climatic zones ........................... 97
Figure 55 Pumping —Subgrade type .................................................................................. 98
Figure 56 Pumping —Base type ......................................................................................... 98
Figure 57 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by Subgrade type (WF) ................. 98
Figure 58 Hypothesis testing — Drainage condition ........................................................ 105
Figure 59 Faulting -Wet Zones ....................................................................................... 106
Figure 60 Faulting-Dry Zones ........................................................................................ 106
Figure 61 Faulting -Freeze zone ..................................................................................... 106
Figure 62 Faulting-Non-freeze zone ............................................................................... 106
Figure 63 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by climatic zones ......................... 107
Figure 64 Faulting —Subgrade type ................................................................................. 108
Figure 65 Faulting -Base type ................................... ' ..................................................... 108
Figure 66 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by Subgrade type (WF) ............... 108
Figure 67 Estimated Marginal means at all levels of flexural strength and lane width.. 113
Figure 68 Deflection test location of the pavement slab ................................................. 114
Figure 69 Deflections at sensors 1 and 7 for 14-ft wide sections in MI (26) ................. 117
Figure 70 Deflections at sensors 1 and 7 for 12-ft wide sections in MI (26) ................. 118
Figure 71 Definition of J4 and J5 tests ........................................................................... 124
Figure 72 LTE for DGAB sections in MI SPS-2 sites .................................................... 128
Figure 73 Deflections on the loaded side of the approach slab for section 26-0214 ...... 130
Figure 74 Deflections on the unloaded side of the approach slab for section 26-0214 .. 130
Figure 75 Deflections on the loaded side of the leave slab for section 26—0214 ............ 130
Figure 76 Deflections on the unloaded side of the leave slab for section 26-0214 ........ 130
Figure 77 Impact of base type on transverse joint performance in MI SPS-2 sites ........ 131
Figure 78 LTE, VP and D-ratio in 26-0213 for the latest year ....................................... 136
Figure 79 Deflections on the unloaded side for 26-0213 (J4 unloaded) ......................... 137
Figure 80 Deflections on the loaded side for 26-0213 (J4 loaded) ................................. 137
Figure 81 Deflections on the unloaded side for 26-0213 (J 5 unloaded) ......................... 137
Figure 82 Deflections on the loaded side for 26-0213 (J5 loaded) ................................. 137
Figure 83 Peak deflection at the edge of the slab ........................................................... 138
Figure 84 Peak deflection at the center of the slab ......................................................... 138
Figure 85 LTE, VP and D-ratio for the other SPS-2 sections in MI (26) ....................... 140
Figure 86 Illustration of the shear transfer across the longitudinal joint ........................ 141
Figure 87 Peak deflection at the center of the slab, 26-0214 .......................................... 143
Figure 88 Peak deflection at the edge of the slab, 26—0214 ............................................ 143
Figure 89 Peak deflection at the center of the slab, 26-0215 .......................................... 143
Figure 90 Peak deflection at the edge of the slab, 26-0215 ............................................ 143

xii

Figure B- 1 Thickness variability plots in AR (5) .......................................................... 195

Figure B-2 Thickness variability in AZ (4) .................................................................... 196
Figure B-3 Thickness variability in CA (6) .................................................................... 197
Figure 8-4 Thickness variability in CO (8) .................................................................... 198
Figure B-5 Thickness variability in DE (10) .................................................................. 199
Figure B-6 Thickness variability in IA (19) ................................................................... 200
Figure 3-7 Thickness variability in KS (20) ................................................................... 201
Figure B-8 Thickness variability in MI (26) ................................................................... 202
Figure B-9 Thickness variability in NV (32) .................................................................. 203
Figure B-lO Thickness variability in NC (37) ................................................................ 204
Figure B-ll Thickness variability in ND (38) ................................................................ 205
Figure B-12 Thickness variability in OH (39) ................................................................ 206
Figure 3-13 Thickness variability in WA (53) ............................................................... 207
Figure B-l4 Transverse cracks with time for AR (5) ..................................................... 208
Figure B-15 Transverse cracks with time for DE (10) ................................................... 208
Figure B-16 Transverse cracks with time for IA (19) ..................................................... 208
Figure B-17 Transverse cracks with time for KS (20) .................................................... 208
Figure 8-18 Transverse cracks with time for NC (37) ................................................... 209
Figure B-19 Transverse cracks with time for ND (38) ................................................... 209
Figure B-20 Transverse cracks with time for NV (32) ................................................... 209
Figure B-21 Transverse cracks with time for OH (39) ................................................... 209
Figure B-22 Progression of transverse cracks in AR (5) ................................................ 210
Figure B-23 Progression of transverse cracks in CA (6) ................................................ 210
Figure B- 24 Progression of transverse cracks in CA (6) (contd.) .................................. 211
Figure B- 25 Progression of transverse cracks in DE (10) ............................................. 212
Figure B- 26 Progression of Transverse cracks in IA (19) ............................................. 212
Figure B- 27 Progression of transverse cracks in KS (20) .............................................. 213
Figure B- 28 Progression of Transverse cracks in MI (26) ............................................ 213
Figure B- 29 Progression of Transverse cracks in MI (26) (contd.) ............................... 213
Figure B- 30 Progression of Transverse cracks in MI (26) (Contd.) .............................. 214
Figure B- 31 Progression of Transverse cracks in NC (37) ............................................ 214
Figure B- 32 Progression of Transverse cracks in NC (37) (contd.) .............................. 214
Figure B- 33 Progression of Transverse cracks in ND (38) ............................................ 214
Figure B- 34 Progession of Transverse cracks in NV (32) ............................................. 215
Figure B- 35 Progression of Transverse cracks in OH (39) ............................................ 216
Figure B- 36 Progression of Transverse cracks in WA (53) ........................................... 216
Figure B- 37 Joint faulting in DGAB sections - AR (5) ................................................. 217
Figure B- 38 Joint faulting in LCB sections - AR (5) ..................................................... 217
Figure B- 39 Joint faulting in PATB sections - AR (5) .................................................. 217
Figure B- 40 Joint faulting in DGAB sections - AZ (4) ................................................. 218
Figure B- 41 Joint faulting in LCB sections - AZ (4) ..................................................... 218
Figure B- 42 Joint faulting in PATB sections - AZ (4) .................................................. 218
Figure B- 43 Joint faulting in DGAB sections - CA (6) ................................................. 219
Figure B- 44 Joint faulting in LCB sections - CA (6) ..................................................... 219
Figure B- 45 Joint faulting in PATB sections - CA (6) .................................................. 219
Figure B- 46 Joint faulting in DGAB sections - DE (10) ............................................... 220
xiii

Figure B- 47 Joint faulting in LCB sections — DE (10) .................................................. 220

Figure B- 48 Joint faulting in PATB sections - DE (10) ................................................ 220
Figure B- 49 Joint faulting in DGAB sections - IA (19) ................................................ 221
Figure B- 50 Joint faulting in LCB sections — IA (19) ................................................... 221
Figure B- 51 Joint faulting in PATB sections — IA (19) ................................................. 221
Figure B- 52 Joint Faulting in DGAB sections in WA (53) ........................................... 222
Figure B- 53 Joint Faulting in LCB sections in WA (53) ............................................... 222
Figure B- 54 Joint Faulting in PATB sections in WA (53) ............................................ 222
Figure B- 55 Joint faulting in DGAB sections in WI (55) .............................................. 223
Figure B- 56 Joint Faulting in LCB sections in WI (55) ................................................ 223
Figure B- 57 Joint Faulting in PATB sections in WI (55) .............................................. 223
Figure B-58 Hypothesis testing for PCC thickness on Transverse cracks by Subgrade
Type (DF) ................................................................................................................ 224
Figure B-59 Hypothesis testing for PCC thickness on Transverse cracks by Subgrade
Type (DNF) ............................................................................................................. 224
Figure 3-60 Hypothesis testing for PCC thickness on Transverse cracks by Subgrade
Type (WNF) ............................................................................................................ 225
Figure B-6l Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on pumping by Subgrade type
(WNF) ..................................................................................................................... 225
Figure 3-62 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on pumping by Subgrade type
(DF) ......................................................................................................................... 226
Figure B-63 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on pumping by Subgrade type
(DNF) ...................................................................................................................... 226
Figure B- 64 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on faulting by Subgrade type
(WNF) ..................................................................................................................... 227
Figure B- 65 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on faulting by Subgrade type (DF)
................................................................................................................................. 227
Figure B- 66 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on faulting by Subgrade type
(DNF) ...................................................................................................................... 228
Figure B-67 Deflections for the 12-ft sections in AR (5) ............................................... 229
Figure B- 68 Deflections for the l4-ft sections in AR (5) .............................................. 230
Figure B-69 Deflections for the l4-ft sections in AZ (4) ............................................... 231
Figure B-70 Deflections for the 12-ft sections in AZ (4) ............................................... 232
Figure 8-71 Deflections for the 14-ft sections in CA (6) ............................................... 233
Figure B-72 Deflections for the 12-ft sections in CA (6) ............................................... 234
Figure B-73 Deflections for the 14- ft sections in CO (8) .............................................. 235
Figure B- 74 Deflections for the 12-ft sections in CO (8) .............................................. 236
Figure B-75 Deflections in 14- ft sections in DE (10) .................................................... 237
Figure B-76 Deflections in 12- ft sections in DE (10) .................................................... 238
Figure B-77 Deflections in 14- ft sections in IA (19) ..................................................... 239
Figure B-78 Deflections in 12- ft sections in IA (19) ..................................................... 240
Figure B- 79 Deflections in 12- ft sections in KS (20) ................................................... 241
Figure B- 80 Deflections in 14- ft sections in KS (20) ................................................... 242
Figure B- 81 Deflections in 14- ft sections in NC (37) ................................................... 243
Figure B- 82 Deflections in 12- ft sections in NC (37) ................................................... 244
Figure B- 83 Deflections in 12- ft sections in ND (38) .................................................. 245

xiv

Figure B- 84 Deflections in 14- ft sections in ND (38) .................................................. 246

Figure B- 85 Deflections in 14- ft sections in NV (32) .................................................. 247
Figure B- 86 Deflections in 12- ft sections in NV (32) .................................................. 248
Figure B- 87 Deflections in 12- ft sections in OH (39) .................................................. 249
Figure B- 88 Deflections in 14- ft sections in OH (39) .................................................. 250
Figure B- 89 Deflections in 12- ft sections in WA (53) ................................................. 251
Figure B- 90 Deflections in 14— ft sections in WA (53) ................................................. 252
Figure B— 91 Deflections in 12- ft sections in WI (55) ................................................... 253
Figure B- 92 Deflections in 14- ft sections in WI (55) ................................................... 254
Figure B- 93 Effect of base type on performance —AR (5) ............................................. 255
Figure B- 94 Effect of base type on performance -AZ (4) ............................................. 256
Figure B- 95 Effect of base type on performance —CA (6) ............................................. 257
Figure B- 96 Effect of base type on performance — CO (8) ............................................ 258
Figure B- 97 Effect of base type on performance — DE (10) .......................................... 259
Figure B- 98 Effect of base type on performance —IA (19) ............................................ 260
Figure B- 99 Effect of base type on performance —-KS (20) ........................................... 261
Figure B- 100 Effect of base type on performance -NC (37) ......................................... 262
Figure B- 101 Effect of base type on performance —ND (38) ........................................ 263
Figure B- 102 Effect of base type on performance —N V (32) ........................................ 264
Figure B- 103 Effect of base type on performance — OH (39) ....................................... 265
Figure B- 104 Effect of base type on performance —WA (53) ....................................... 266
Figure B- 105 Effect of base type on performance -WI (55) ......................................... 267

XV

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

For specific site conditions (e.g., traffic level, climatic conditions and subgrade type), the
response and performance of rigid pavements will depend not only on the pavement layer
thicknesses and material properties, but also on the design and construction features (e.g.,
drainage, base type, lane width etc.). The Long Term Pavement Performance (LTPP)
Specific Pavement Studies (SPS) were designed to provide information on the relative
merits of different design features on newly constructed pavements. These design
features include thickness, base type, drainage types, flexural strength etc. In addition to
this, instrumented sections were included in the SPS monitoring sites located in North
Carolina and Ohio. The data available from the LTPP studies, including the instrumented
SPS-2 test sections in Ohio and North Carolina, provide a unique opportunity to
understand the effects of these features on pavement response and performance, and to

develop conclusions regarding their influence.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this research are (1) to determine, for specific site conditions, the
effects of design and construction features on pavement response and (2) to determine the
contributions of design and construction features in achieving different levels of
performance. The relationship between pavement performance and response has also
been investigated in this project. The research is limited to new (i.e., non-rehabilitated)
rigid pavements and is based on the data available from the LTPP SPS-2 experiment

(Strategic study of structural factors for rigid pavements). The analysis is limited to using

the data available in the LTPP Information Management System (IMS) database,

classified as “Level E,” as well as response data available from the LTPP instrumented

test sections.

ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS

The thesis is divided into 8 chapters including the introduction. Chapter 2 describes the
SPS-2 experiment, its limitations, and identifies the experiment variables. Chapter 3
identifies the data types and details the data extraction process. Chapter 4 presents the
extent and availability of design, construction, performance, response, and traffic data in
the LTPP database. Chapter 5 presents the engineering analysis of the performance data.
Chapter 6 presents the statistical analysis of the performance data. The relationship
between the performance and response data is discussed in Chapter 7. A summary of the
conclusions and recommendations resulting from the analyses performed in this study are

contained in Chapter 8.

CHAPTER 2
DESCRIPTION OF THE SPS-Z EXPERIMENT

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the Specific Pavement Studies-2 (SPS—2) experiment in terms of

its respective goals, experimental design, and associated design and construction factors.

SPS-2 EXPERIMENT

The SPS-2 experiment examines the effect of climatic region, subgrade soil (fine and
coarse grained), and traffic on doweled jointed plain concrete pavement (JPCP) sections
incorporating different levels of structural factors. These factors include drainage
(presence or lack of it), concrete slab thickness (8 in. and 11 in.), base type (dense graded
aggregate (DGAB), lean concrete (LCB) and permeable asphalt treated base (PATB)),
concrete flexural strength of 550 psi and 900 psi at 14 days and lane width of 12 ft and 14
ft. This experiment requires that all the test sections be constructed with perpendicular
joints at 15 ft spacing and stipulate a traffic load level in the lane in excess of 200,000
Equivalent Single Axle Loads (ESALS) per year (1). The data for this study has been
obtained from Release 16.0 version of the LTPP database (2).

All sections with 12 ft lane width will be referred to as “12 ft sections” and all sections
with 14 ft lane width will be referred to as “14 ft sections”. All sections with 8 in. PCC
slab will be referred to as “8 in. sections” and those with 11 in. PCC slab will be referred
to as “11 in.” sections throughout this thesis.

The LTPP SPS-2 experiment consists of 14 states, with each state having 12 sections.

Comparisons can be made between these sections as combinations of base, subbase and

wearing surface material are varied in 12 ft and 14 ft sections. The 12 sections in a given
state are represented by either X-0201 through X—0212 or X-0213 through X—0224, where
X denotes the state ID. The number 02 indicates the SPS experiment number and the last
two digits represent the sequential numbering of the sections. Table 1 shows the proposed
design matrix for the SPS-2 experiment. The matrix has 16 columns and 12 sections in
each column. Hence, if the matrix was fully populated, then there should be 16 states

(192 sections) in the experiment.

Table 1 SPS-2 experiment design matrix

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PaveflStmcture Climatic Zones Sub ade
PCC Wet Dry
B 14-day Lane Freeze No-Freeze Freeze No-Freeze
. ase .
Drainage VP: may” 3:12;}, Wigth' Fine Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Coarse
P“ J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y

550 12 0201 0201 0201 0201 0201 0201 0201 0201
8 14 0213 0213 0213 0213 0213 0213 0213 0213
900 12 0214 0214 0214 0214 0214 0214 0214 0214

NO DGAB 14 0202 0202 0202 . 0202 0202 0202 0202 0202
550 12 0215 0215 0215 0215 0215 0215 0215 0215

11 14 0203 0203 0203 0203 0203 0203 0203 0203

900 12 0204 0204 0204 0204 0204 0204 0204 0204
14 0216 0216 0216 0216 0216 0216 0216 0216

550 12 0205 0205 0205 0205 0205 0205 0205 0205
8 14 0217 0217 0217 0217 0217 0217 0217 0217
900 12 0218 0218 0218 0218 0218 0218 0218 0218

NO LCB 14 0206 0206 0206 0206 0206 0206 0206 0206
550 12 0219 0219 0219 0219 0219 0219 0219 0219

11 14 0207 0207 0207 0207 0207 0207 0207 0207

900 12 0208 0208 0208 0208 0208 0208 0208 0208
14 0220 0220 0220 0220 0220 0220 0220 0220

550 12 0209 0209 0209 0209 0209 0209 0209 0209
8 14 0221 0221 0221 0221 0221 0221 0221 0221
900 12 0222 0222 0222 0222 0222 0222 0222 0222

YES m 14 0210 0210 0210 0210 0210 0210 0210 0210
DGAB 550 12 0223 0223 0223 0223 0223 0223 0223 0223

11 14 0211 0211 0211 0211 0211 0211 0211 0211

900 12 0212 0212 0212 0212 0212 0212 0212 0212
14 0224 0224 0224 0224 0224 0224 0224 0224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2 gives a description of the LTPP SPS-2 sites. From the table, it is evident that
seven out of the 14 states are located in the Wet Freeze (WF) zone, 3 are in the Dry-

Freeze (DF) zone and 2 states are located in each of the non-freeze regions. Hence the

mber of sections available for analysis is 167(since there are only 11 sections in
1).

Table 2 Description of the LTPP SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

. AZ(4) AR(5) CA (6) (13(8) D1300) W19) K5030)

on Western Southern Western Western North Atlantic North Central North Central
Marioopa Saline Nboed Adana Stmex POIk Dickireon

Ider'l‘ype PCB AC AC KI: AC AC KI?

ulder HI AC PCB PCIZ AC AC Kr

gion DryNoReae WetNofiem D'yNoEeem Dryfiwm Whfieeae Wetfiwe Wetfieerze

mm 232 1380.6 3(1) 370 1 143.9 9(1).5 819.4

.32 deg C 178 66 88 31 22 18 17

g Mm) Nvoz) NC(37) ND(38) 01139) WA(53) WI(55)

3n North Central Western North Atlamic North Carnal North Chiral Western Nath Central

Mmme Ianrk-r Divicbon Om Delaware Adana Mmflm

lderType AC PCE PCII AC AC AC No Daa

ulder AC PG? PCI? AC AC AC No [ha

gion WetFreeae DryFreae WetNoFreene Wetfiwze Wetfieeze D'yfieeze WetFrwne

mm 865.59 221.5 1150.8 545 971.6 308.4 815

[32 deg C 13 61 31 14 10 26 5

 

ATIONS OF THE EXPERIMENT

i-2 experiment has the following limitations:

The 12 sections in a state are designed according to the SPS-2 factorial, regardless
)f the amount of traffic that the sections will experience during their design life.
Ience, in states with relatively higher traffic levels, some sections could be
‘under—designed”. This has been demonstrated using the AASHTO’98
:upplemental design procedure (3) (to be discussed later). Therefore, test sections
.hould have been constructed on routes with the same range of traffic in all the
.tates. Also, only the lower limit of 200,000 ESALS was specified for traffic. If
he upper limit were specified, then comparison of sections across the states
vould have been better.

The dataset is not balanced, as the number of years for which the data (level E)

ivailable for sections within a given state is not the same.

The number of states assigned to each climatic zone is different. There are 2
states, each in the DNF and the WNF zone, 3 states in the DF zone and 7 states in
the WF zone.

The SPS-2 test sites in all the 14 states have not been opened to traffic at the same
time. Hence the age of the sections is not the same. Figure 1 shows the age

distribution amongst the SPS-2 sites.

 

12

Number of states

 

 

 

0-4 4-8 8-12

Age categories
Figure 1 Age distribution in the SPS-2 sites

While the SPS-2 experiment aims at evaluating the performance of new (i.e., non-
rehabilitated) rigid pavements, rehabilitation was done in some states (AR (5), KS
(20), ND (38) and NV (32). Every section is assigned a construction number of 1
when it is initially accepted into LTPP. The number is then incremented with each
change to the layer structure.

Some sections in a state have been deassigned and removed from the SPS-2
experiment due to the poor performance of the sections. Hence, no data will be

available after the sections were deassigned from the experiment.

0 There is inconsistency in the “type” of data collected. For example, monitored

traffic data is collected over some years, after which the estimated data has been

reported for subsequent years.

IDENTIFICATION OF EXPERIMENT VARIABLES

The variables in the SPS-2 experiment can be divided into two categories: (1) dependant
and (2) independent.

The dependant variables are those used to describe pavement response and performance.
Measures of pavement response are those measures that do not cumulate with time. The
majority of pavement responses in this experiment are surface deflections from Falling
Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing.

The independent variables are those that describe design and construction factors. These
can be divided into: (1) main variables, and (2) exogenous (or confounding) variables.
Main variables are those used to specify the design matrices of the SPS experiment (e. g.,
base type). Exogenous variables are those that have potential impact on pavement
response and performance but are not controlled in the experiment design. Exogenous
variables that are independent of the main experiment variables are the actual cumulative
traffic (KESALs) and age. All other exogenous variables are associated with the main
design and construction variables. These include: (1) material properties of the various
pavement layers, which constitute the structural factors in the design matrix, and (2)
climatic factors, which describe the four climatic regions in the matrix. Table 3 lists the
relevant independent and dependant variables identified for rigid pavements. Information

on the availability and extent of these variables is discussed in later sections.

Table 3 Categorized list of variables for rigid pavements

 

Factor

Variables

 

Environmental factors

No. of days with Freezing temperature

No. of days with temperature >32 deg C
Annual No. of days with precipitation

Annual No. of freeze-thaw cycles

FI, degree-days

Average Annual Precipitation

Environmental Zone

Average Max., Min. and Range of temperature,
deg C

 

Concrete Material
Properties

PCC thickness

PCC Flexural Strength

PCC Compressive Strength
PCC Splitting tensile strength
PCC Mix gradation

 

Aggregate Base Material
Properties

Thickness of base

Base type (DGAB, LCB or PATB)

Density and OMC of the base material
Moduli, gradation and atterberg limits of the
base material

 

Subgrade Material
properties

Subgrade soil type

Density and OMC of the material

Moduli, gradation and atterberg limits of the
material

 

Traffic/Age

Cumulative Annual Traffic in KESALs
Average Annual Traffic in KESALs
Age, years

 

Performance

Dominant type of distresses
0 Transverse cracking

Longitudinal cracking

Faulting

Roughness

Pumping

OOOO

 

 

Response

 

Deflections
Various deflection basin parameters
Strains (DLR)

 

 

CHAPTER 3
SYNTHESIS OF DATABASE FOR ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

The data used in this study is a subpart of the LTPP Information Management System
(IMS) database. This data is divided into the following categories: Inventory,
Maintenance, Climatic, Monitoring, Traffic, Material Testing and Rehabilitation. Since
the test sections in the LTPP SPS-2 experiment are new (i.e., not rehabilitated),
maintenance and rehabilitation data are not relevant for this study and hence will not be
discussed further. The Dynamic Load Response (DLR) data also will not be discussed
because the offset distances for North Carolina are not available. The following is a brief
description of the data elements contained in the categories that are relevant to this study.

Inventory data: Inventory tables contain information on the location of the section,
section layout, drainage type, construction dates and any other static data (data that does
not change with time).

Climatic data: Climatic data tables contain specific weather data collected from weather
stations.

Monitoring data: These tables contain data collected through monitoring activities that
are conducted at test sections. These include profile data, deflection (FWD) data, friction
data, surface distress data and transverse profile data.

Trafi‘ic data: These tables contain historical traffic estimates from State Highway

Agencies (SHA), and monitored traffic data (along with axle distribution data) collected

using the weigh-in-motion (W IM) equipment.

Material testing data: These tables contain laboratory test data for pavement and
subgrade materials as well as thickness data. This information is obtained from coring.

Additional material, design and construction information for SP8 sections are available in
the specific SPS tables. The data for all the test sections undergoes quality control (QC)
checks before being uploaded into the IMS database. The data that have satisfied these
QC checks are referred to as “Level E” data. Only this type of data has been used in the
analysis. The construction reports were obtained to review the detailed information on the

construction of the sections.

IDENTIFICATION OF DATA ELENHENTS

The first step in this study is to identify variables that are available in Release 16.0 that
may affect the response and performance of rigid pavements. This was done based on the
information contained in the literature, past experience, and engineering judgment. The
data tables within IMS that contain the relevant data elements were then identified, and
systematically reviewed. Data from all the sections in the SPS-2 experiment were
reviewed. Table 4 shows the data elements that were identified and included in the

database for use in the analysis.

SYNTHESIS OF THE ANALYSIS DATABASE

The data used in this study are “Level B” data from the IMS database for the SPS-2
experiment and are extracted from Release 16.0. It might be noted that the performance
data has been extracted from the Release 16.0 database while the response data has been

extracted from the Release 15.0 database.

The flowchart describing the process of data extraction from the LTPP database is shown

in Figure 2.

10

 

hommleH

2:368 32:8.— oufimnsm

 

mmSIHmH

$8 3538 3335

 

3mm oufimnsm .v

 

A<DZZ<I§EIm3>t§U

SUE 038m REE/w

 

A<DZZ<IEEIm3>I§U

EC 83,3 39: Such Co 53:52

 

A<DZZ<IBZmHIm>>>I§0

$30 mm o>onm whee Lo 89:: Z

 

A<DZZ<I§EIW3>I§U

S50 o 323 when .«o 5992

 

A<DZZ<In=2mHImB>I§U

05389:“: 82558 omflo><

 

A<Dzz<lmzmhlm3>l§nv

223258 E:E_§E omfio><

 

A<DZZ<IEUmEmIm3>I§U

303933 83 .6 none: Z

 

A<DZZ<IEUMMAIW3>I§D

99% 838.98%“ 3:85

 

A<DZZ<IEUmMAIm3>IEAU

coufiafiflm _m::=<

 

33 8256 .m

 

OEIUHm<mIZOEIE

33m Bees:

 

ithHmm—IZO—Zlg

Emm— 32.855

 

33 emcee .N

 

mO<I>Z~

33 5:086:00

 

ZOHHUMmIHZEmm—emm

288:: 285595 “5.5

 

San b853,: A

 

 

.585 an:

 

533.889

 

 

35:55 «a: Bees: 4 «33.

ll

 

meADOEmd/ZH

$05.25 83 32:96

 

meADOImI>ZH

3053:: oomtsm eon—:osm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«3.50515: 25 as 528%
$950515: 523 Baa 828.5
”5950595 523 32:25
$950597: 25 8&5 528.5
53.585 82:95

Emma/Emerge aaaoflmwmsea
o<mmzm01>a as umaeaco
Sam omen—Eon—

mogrmommreme Eu as
83:83:59 am as
macarmommtefi was. 2E as

 

moODINommIHmH

e53. 8530 oe

 

moODINommIHmH

BEN 52: ~35on 8e

 

NOODISODISmmIHmH

89305 :8ng 22235

 

mommlvoODlhmh

52: 96:33 owe—meow

 

mommlvoODIHmH

ea: 2%: 823%

 

 

 

 

 

83.33.53 :8: Sea Steffi
NOODISODISmmIHmH 58:00 8:36.: oemuwnsm
Gonna—58 8am oemmfim

32:2”.— 8.5 553.889

 

 

 

A5288 v 03:9

12

 

ADO.»

 

 

 

 

 

woomlhmh 3:335 88:8 ha Dom
aoUmIHmH fimcobm .888: 00m
88.59 aways” 2E2 5% 8m
Hoomlhmh fiwcgm 968$an 00m
30%ka ova Mcommmom Gum
gomfiwmrw 8:608 33.20 Dom

 

"02:2“on has 32523

 

ZOEEMZm—QWHmOmmlmv/Hm

5mg 5on

 

Hw~OEI><mOIm2m

ucfiwnsm ES 3398me
£385 350E 8:562

 

mommlvoUDIr—LmH

52: £333 ommnnsflommm

 

mommlvoODIHmH

:8: oumflm emannsmbmam

 

mommlvoODIHmh

:5: 2%: 8333\on

 

NCODJ GODJ cmmlhmu.

“flog—Co gum MOE Ommm

 

 

 

 

 

NOODISODISmmIHmH 598me 03m
8393me

mmoqlhmh H8 88 3582

mmSIHmH $05.25 Sufism

mmoqlbmh £052.: 9am

mmoquhmh $05.25 00m

 

Sun 593 805023 .5

 

 

Ego—um Saa—

 

53.5869

 

 

A5258 9 ozah

13

 

UUQU<IZDmIm0<MHIZH<MFmIfiQ

Emu Edam

.m

 

U<IED MIMU<MHIHQ>AIMAQ

:38 55 Saw .5300ch

 

<H<QIAOMQIEQIZOE

Emu concocou coatsm

 

 

8% 8:88“ “569$

 

PUMmIHAD/wmIDUAHImHn—IZOE
FAD<mIUUmmImHQIZOZ

8% wan—=3 Dom

 

UUfiImsgmlmHDIZOE

owafiflu 223.9.
ESE can .wcafia $5:me
.mcfiofio SE8 $5on0
383:“: 98 Bcfiazwcoq
5% 30me 33.883 00m

 

>mMIUUmHImHDIZOE

83 $0me 3288 00m

 

 

 

8% 385.5 .N
<H<DI§OMAHIZOE 8% 058m
mmhmglmdmomnmlzoz 83> my:

 

Saw mmocswsom

A

 

Saw cogs—hora Eon—9am

 

 

225$ 55

 

gag—98G

 

 

A3233 9 033—.

14

 

Select the state, experiment
type (SPS-2) and climatic
region for which the data needs
to be extracted

 

 

 

   

  

Database Exploration and

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Extraction Module,
Data Type?
Performance Data Response Data Material
Monitoring Module Monitoring Module Properties/Inventory
OCracking ODeflections Testing/SPS Specific
ORutting OStrains Module
0Roughness, [RI OThicknesses
OFaulting OAS-built type and quality
OPumping of materials in various
OSpalling pavement layers
' OLaboratory testing data

I ’F '
Climatic Data Tram“ 9"“
Climatic Module Tmfl‘“ M 0‘1“"!
OTemperature related data OHistorical traffic ESALS
OPrecipitation and moisture 0Monitored traffic ESALS

_’ related data and axle load spectrum Nd
Select the required field
l in each table to export
the necessary data
l

 

Export the selected data to Excel or Access

 

 

 

Figure 2 Flowchart for Data Extraction Process

To complement/cross-check the inventory data available in Release 16.0, construction
reports (4) for all sections within the SPS-2 experiment were obtained. These reports
were reviewed for the purpose of obtaining additional detailed information on
construction and design features. They also include “problems” encountered during the

construction of the SPS pavement sections. These have been discussed in Chapter 4.

15

CHAPTER 4
DATA AVAILABILITY IN THE SPS-2 EXPERIMENT

AVAILABILITY OF DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DATA

Construction information was obtained by reviewing the construction records for each of
the SPS-2 test sites. The construction reports include (1) the location (climatic zone) and
the layout of the test sections, (2) the process by which each layer within the pavement
was constructed, (3) average daily traffic (ADT), percentage heavy trucks, estimated
ESALS/year and the number of ESALS over the pavement design life, (4) problems
encountered during the construction process, and (5) sampling plan and test data from
field samples. In general, most of the test sections met the SPS-2 criteria of structural and
material design. However some deviations were reported during construction at certain
locations. Table A-1 of Appendix A summarizes the problems/deviations observed
during the construction of the sections in all the 14 states. Some of the construction issues
include inclement weather causing delay in the construction of sections in some states
(CO, IA, DE, KS and NC). In general, it has been found that problems have been
encountered during the construction of the LCB layers in most of the states. Shrinkage
cracking was observed in the LCB layers at the time of the placement of the PCC slabs.
These cracks appear to have reflected onto the PCC slabs in the form of transverse cracks
in some states. Several problems were encountered during the construction of sections in
NV (32), where the target strengths of 550 psi and 900 psi were changed to 475 psi and
750 psi respectively. Also, the construction of the sections in AR (5) did not conform to

the SPS-2 factorial, with the LCB layers being constructed over a GB layer. All these

16

construction deviations can have a potential impact on the performance and response of
the pavement sections.

Deviations from the 14-day target flexural strengths (550 psi and 900 psi) were observed
in some of the sections. The average flexural strength of the 550-psi sections was found
to be 570 psi. However, the average flexural strength of the 900-psi sections was 819 psi.
A summary of the sections, which did not meet the target strength requirements, is shown
in Table 5. Compressive strength, flexural strength and splitting tensile strength data were
available for all the states. The strength data of core specimens and those sampled during
construction have been shown in Tables A-2 through A-14 in Appendix A. No mix
design information was available for sections in WI (55).

Compressive and splitting tensile strength data for both the core specimens and the
specimens sampled during construction were recorded at 14, 28 and 365 days. Flexural
strength, measured only on specimens sampled during construction, was recorded at 14,
28 and 365 days.

A t-test was conducted to test the significance of deviations of the flexural strengths from
their target strengths. As can be seen from Table 6, the deviation from the target flexural

strengths is statistically significant because the absolute value of tcalc is greater than

t0.05, n-l.

tcalc :

an!

17

Table 5 Deviations from the target flexural strengths for the SPS-2 test sites

 

 

Actual

 

 

 

State SHRP Target flexural State SHRP Target Am“
flexural flexural flexural
Code strength, psi streprgth, Code In strength, psi strength, psi

5 0219 550 506 4 0214 900 810
5 0221 550 521 4 0216 900 790
8 0213 550 520 4 0218 900 860
8 0215 550 510 4 0220 900 810
8 0217 550 530 4 0224 900 805
8 0219 550 515 5 0218 900 825
8 0221 550 475 5 0224 900 506
19 0213 550 500 8 0218 900 810
19 0219 550 440 8 0220 900 890
19 0223 550 460 8 0224 900 815
32 0201 550 520 10 0208 900 620
32 0207 550 490 10 0212 900 730
53 0203 550 413 19 0214 900 700
53 0205 550 487 19 0220 900 770
53 0207 550 546 19 0224 900 790
53 021 l 550 494 20 0202 900 803
20 0204 900 784

20 0206 900 829

20 0208 900 855

20 0212 900 865

32 0204 900 885

32 0206 900 730

32 0210 900 740

37 0212 900 850

39 0202 900 71 3

39 0208 900 690

39 0212 900 43 8

53 0202 900 823

53 0204 900 870

53 0206 900 801

 

Since tcalc is negative and the absolute value of tcalc is greater than t0.05, n-l, the
deviation in the flexural strength from the target strengths (of 550 psi and 900 psi) are
significant. Such a deviation is not desirable, as the sections did not achieve their target
requirements. Not all the sections achieved their target 14—day strength at 28 days. Table

7 shows the sections, which achieved the l4-day target flexural strength at 28 days.

18

Table 6 F lexural strength deviations at the network level
550-psi 900-psi

 

 

target target
strength strength

Average 495.7 773.6
N 18.0 30.0
Max 546.0 890.0
Min 413.0 438.0
Stdev 32.5 103.3
Cov 6.6 13.4
tcalc -7.1 -6.7
t0.05,n-1 2.1 2.0

 

Table 7 Sections that met their target flexural strength at 28 days

 

 

 

 

 

Sac Seaim 14-dlytaga Ag, Arnnll4chy sac Swim 14daytagztflemal Ag: mummynaml
one 11) flml'dstm’ghtsi days nmmpsi cm: 11) strughtn' chys WIS
5 0B1 550 B 555 4 0218 901) B 925
8 0215 550 B 580 8 0218 911) B 950
8 0217 550 B 560 87 0221) 900 B 1025
8 0219 550 B 640 20 (1)02 900 B 911
19 0213 550 B 590 20 0206 901) B 9B
32 0201 550 B 575 20 (ms 901) B 1035
53 am 550 B 622 53 0112 901) B 1041
53 02107 550 B 611 53 (1204 900 B 915

53 (1211 550 B 709

 

Sections, which did not meet the l4-day target strengths at 28 days, met the target
flexural strengths at 365 days. Most of the sections were constructed in accordance with
the targeted PCC slab thicknesses of 8 in. and 11 in. The average thicknesses of the 8 in.
and the 11 in. sections are 8.31 in. and 11.23 in. respectively. The average thickness of
the DGAB layers (sections 0201-0204 and 0213-0216) is 6.42 in. (greater than the target
thickness of 6 in.), while that of the LCB layers (0205-0208 and 0217-0220) is 6.32 in.
(greater than the target thickness of 6 in.). The average thickness of the PATB layers
(sections 0209-0212 and 0221-0224) was found to be 4.41 in. (greater than the target
thickness of 4 in.). A t-test was conducted at the network level to determine if the layer

thicknesses are significantly different from their target design values. Table 8 shows the

19

results of the t-test. It has been found that there is a significant deviation in the
thicknesses of the PCC and the LCB layer from their target thicknesses (tcalc > t0.05, n-
1). However, even though there is a deviation in the thicknesses of the layers, the mean
values of the thicknesses are greater than the target thicknesses. No significant deviation

in the thickness of the DGAB layers is observed, as the tcalc is less than t0.05, n-l.

Table 8 Thickness deviations at the network level

 

8" target 11" target 6" target 6" target 4" target 4" target

 

PCC PCC DGAB LCB DGAB PATB
thickness thickness thickness thickness thickness thickness
Average 8.3* 11.3* 6.1 63* 4.1 4.1
N 72 71 48 48 47 47
Max 10.1 12.4 9.3 7.5 5.0 5.6
Min 7.1 10.6 5.4 5.5 3.1 3.4
Stdev 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5
Cov 5.7 3.1 11.3 6.3 8.8 11.1
tcalc 6.1 6.6 1.4 4.9 1.1 1.0
t00511-1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

 

* Significantly different from the target thickness at a 0.05 level of significance
Figures B—l through B-13 show the deviations in the layer thicknesses for all the states. It
might be noted that the notation of the sections in AR (5) in Release 16.0 is different
from the notation used in the construction reports. The sections were numbered from 5-
0213 to 5-0224 in Release 16.0 and the sections were numbered from 5-0201 to 5-0212 in
the construction reports. However the notation in Release 16.0 was used for the analysis.
Also, a discrepancy in the cross sections was also observed in the LCB sections in AR
(5). According to the SPS-2 factorial, the typical cross-section of all the LCB sections (5-
0217 through 5-0220) is as shown in Figure 3, while the as-constructed cross sections are

as shown in Figure 4.

20

 

 

PCC layer PCC layer

 

 

 

 

 

LCB layer
LCB layer
GB layer
Subgrade
Figure 3 Cross section of LCB Subgrade
sections according to the SPS-2
factorial Figure 4 Cross section of LCB
sections in AR (5)

The aS-built cross section was used during the analysis. The thicknesses of the LCB and
the DGAB layers were used in the thickness adequacy analysis using the AASHTO ’98
procedure. The total structural capacity of the pavement was also used to evaluate the

performance of sections in AR (5).

AVAILABILITY OF TRAFFIC DATA

Traffic data was assimilated from two sources (1) Release 16.0 database and (2) SPS-2
Construction Reports. The data is available in three forms (i) Monitored traffic data; (ii)
Axle distribution data and (iii) Estimated traffic data. The three modules from which the

data is obtained are described in Table 9.

21

Table 9 Location of traffic data in the LTPP database

 

Module Name

Description of the data

 

TRF_MONITOR_BASIC_INFO

Information on the monitored traffic data
collection and site characteristics on a
yearly basis

 

TRF_MON IT OR_AXLE_DISTRIB

Information on the number of axles in each
weight range for each axle group for
monitoring data.

 

TRF_MON_EST_ESAL

 

 

Information on the estimated annual
ESALs, truck volumes, and methods of
estimation for the period after initiation of
LTPP monitoring.

 

 

Table 10 and Table 11 show the monitored and estimated ESALS available in the Release

16.0 database. Shaded cells indicate missing data for that year.

Table 10 Average of Annual KESALs (Estimated data) for SPS-2 Experiment
1994

1992 1993

900

 

1996 1997 1998

1400

1995 2001

8882

697
492
124
409
190

557 986

1342
401

1578

382 405 460 11

Table 11 Average of Annual KESALs (Monitored data) for SPS-2 Experiment

STATE CODE 1992 1993

1

1994

 

1995 1996

726 l 1
0

240 224
0 56

1997 1998 1999

478

496

813

22

No traffic data is available for CA (6) or WI (55) in the monitored and estimated modules
of the database. The respective construction reports of the states, however, provide
information on the design ESALS of the sections.

Table 10 and Table 11 can be used to identify the states where the traffic data (estimated
or monitored) are available. It is also possible to identify the extent of data availability,
and to see if the missing data in one source can be supplemented from another available
source.

There is a good agreement between the monitored and estimated ESALS for AZ (4) and
CO (8). The monitored KESALs have been used for analysis in these states, since the
monitored data is more accurate, as it is obtained from the WIM equipment. There is a
discrepancy between the monitored and estimated KESALs for states AR (5), IA (19),
KS (20), NV (32), NC (37) and WA (53). The remaining States have data available from
either the monitoring or the estimated modules.

Inconsistency in the estimated traffic data was observed for AR (5) and NC (37), where
the KESALs per year are significantly different. The estimated traffic information was
available for only one year in the other states, viz., CO (8), DE (10), IA (19) and NV
(32). The monitored KESALs for CO (8), IA (19), KS (20), MI (26) and NC (37) are
inconsistent with time, as the KESALs per year are significantly different. Data was
available only for one year for NV (32), OH (39) and WA (53). The monitored KESALs
for AR (5) are zero and the estimated KESALs are inconsistent with time. Hence the data

from the construction reports is used in the analysis.

23

 

 

The axle distribution data is available for states AR (5), CO (8), IA (19), MI (26), NV
(32), NC (37), OH (39) and WA (53). The module reports the number of axles in each
range for each axle group (1 through 4) for monitoring data.

Table 12 summarizes the extent of traffic data availability for all the states in the SPS-2
experiment. The table also shows the source from which the data is obtained. No

monitoring data is available for the year 2001 for any of the states in the Release 16.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

database.
Table 12 Traffic data availability in Release 16.0

STATE CODE 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
4 E M M M E E NO NO NO
5 NO E.M A EM A NO A
6 NO TRAFFIC DATA AVAILABLESECTION OPENED To TRAFFIC IN 2000
8 [ NO 1 E I M.A M,A M NO NO NO NO
10 N0 E NO NO NO NO
19 NO E M E,A NO NO A A
20 EM E,M E,M E E E E E E NO
26 MA MA M M M M NO A A
32 NO E M NO A A NO
37 M M E.M E,M E,M E,M A A
38 NO E E E E E E E
39 NO NO M,A NO A A
53 1 NO E E MA A NO NO
55 NO NO NO NO NO

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E : Data available from the Estimated Module, TRF_MON_EST_ESAL

M: Data available from the Monitored Module, TRF_MONITOR_BASIC_INFO

A: Data available from the Axle Distribution Module. TRF_MON1TOR_AXLE_D1STRIB
N0 : Data not available from any source

Table 13 shows the estimated (design) ESALS from the construction reports. This data is
presented in the form of: (1) Average Daily Traffic (ADT), (2) Percent of heavy trucks,
(3) ESALS/year, and (4) Projected ESALS over the design life of the pavement section.
The table shows that the design traffic information is available for 13 out of the 14 states.
Because there is a high variability in the traffic data available from the three sources and
due to the missing data for some states, the KESALs per year have been proposed for

each state based on the monitored and estimated data and the traffic data information

24

w 4 m ain‘fifii.’

from the construction reports, as shown in Table 14. This was done by giving priority to
the monitored ESAL data (wherever available) followed by the estimated ESALS and the
ESAL information from the construction report. Table 15, describes in detail, how the
KESALs per year have been proposed for each state. The proposed rate of KESALs was
used as a covariate in the statistical analysis (to be discussed in Chapter 6) to determine
the effects of design and construction features on the occurrence of various distresses.

Table 13 Traffic Information from the construction reports for SPS-2 Experiment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Design Traffic Information

Arizona, AZ (4) ADT (1992)=15,900; ADT (2002)=20,4OO

Arkansas, AR (5) ESALS/year=1,700,000, 45% heavy trucks

California, CA (6) AADT in two directions: 89000 vehicles with 24.6 % trucks,
Total 18k ESALS in the 20 year design period = 48,100,000

Colorado, CO (8) ADT=8,400; 16% heavy trucks; 20 year design ESALs=15.6
million

Delaware, DE (10) ADT=10,708; 10% heavy trucks; 15 year design
ESALs=3.048 million

Iowa, IA (19) ADT=17,400, 16% heavy trucks; 30 year design ESALs=9.9
million

Kansas, KS (20) ADT=13,750,21.4 % heavy trucks; 20 year design
ESALs=26 million

Michigan, MI (26) AADT=35,000; 22% heavy trucks; 20 year design
ESALs=26.6 million (4% growth rate)

Nevada, NV (32) ESALS/yea1=799,000; 51% heavy trucks

North Carolina, NC N/A

(37)

North Dakota, ND (38) ADT = 8,310; 12% heavy trucks; 30 year design
ESALs=2.15 million

Ohio, OH (39) ADT (1994)=20,210, 12 heag trucks

Washington, WA (53) AADT (1993)=18,000; 40 year design ESALs=35 million

Wisconsin, WI (55) ADT (1995)=6,650;ADT (2015)=8,700; 20 % heavy trucks

 

 

 

25

Table 14 KESALs per year for SPS-2 Experiment

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KESALs/year
State ID Monitored Construction Estimated Proposed Remarks
reports
Arizona, AZ (4) 1054 - 1200 1054
Arkansas, AR (5) - 1700 1969 1700
California, CA (6) - 2405 - 2405
*TF used
Colorado, CO (8) 350 454* 395 400 from
FHW A
*Based on
KESAL
Delaware, DE (10) - 300* 410 350 322m
pavements
times 1.5
Iowa, IA (19) 56 330 94 330
*Based on
TF from
* * FHW A
Kansas, KS (20) 732* 870 670 870 **Ignored
data for 93
and 94
Michigan, MI (26) 1872 1330 - 1500
Nevada, NV (32) 813 799 492 800
North Carolina, NC 830 - 1499 1164
(37)
*TF used
NW" I???“ ND - 419* 432 420 from
FHWA
*TF used
Ohio, OH (39) 612 797* - 612 from
FHW A
wash’“g‘°n’ WA 462 875 194 462
(53)
*TF used
Wisconsin, WI (55) - 180* - 180 from
FHWA

 

 

 

 

26

 

Table 15 Calculation of KESALs per year

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State ID Calculation of KESALs/year

AZ (4) 0 Estimated traffic data is available for 3 years. The KESALs for the
three years (1993,1997 and 1998) are 900, 1400 and 1300
respectively and hence the average KESALs/year was calculated to
be 1200 KESALs/year

0 Monitored traffic data was available for 1994, 1995 and 1996. The
KESALs were 1344, 726 and 1091 and the average KESALs/year
was found to be 1054 KESAIJS year

0 Information from both the estimated data can be used to supplement
the missing information in the Monitored data, as the magnitudes of
KESALs are within the same range.

The proposed KESALs/year is 1054 as the information from the

monitored traffic data is more accurate.

AR (5) o The estimated traffic data is 1969 KESALs for year 1996 and 8882
for 1998. This data is questionable as the KESALs for both the years
are significantly different.

0 The monitored traffic data is zero for 1996 and 1998

0 However, the design KESAL (from the construction report) for the
sections is 1700. ‘

The proposed KESALs/year is 1700

CA (6) o No information about the traffic data is available from the monitored
and estimated modules.

The proposed KESALs/ year is 2405 obtained from the construction

reports.

CO (8) 0 Estimated KESALs for 1994 is 395

o Monitored KESALs for 1995, 1996 and 1997 are 478, 240 and 224
respectively. Average Monitored KESALs/year are 350

0 Design KESALs (from the construction reports) are 454

The proposed KESALs/year is 400 (average of 395,350 and 454)

DE (10) 0 Estimated traffic is 410 for year 1997.

0 Design KESALs from the construction reports are 300

The proposed KESALs/year is 350 (average of KESALs from the 2

sources)

IA (19) 0 Estimated traffic data is 94 for year 1995

0 Monitored traffic data is 56 for year 1997

0 Design KESALs from the construction reports are 330

The proposed KESALs/year is 330

KS (20) 0 Estimated traffic data is available from 1992 through 2000. Average

 

estimated KESALs/year is 670

o Monitored traffic data is 732 (1992), 53 (1993) and 212 (1994). Data
from 1993 and 1994 are ignored as there are significantly lower than
the other values

0 Design KESALs is 870

The proposed KESAL/s year is 870

 

27

 

Table 15 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State ID Calculation of KESALs/year
MI (26) 0 Estimated KESAL data is not available
0 Monitored KESALs are available from 1993 through 1998. Data for
1993 and 1995 can be ignored, as they are significantly lower than
the other values. Average monitored KESALs/s year is 1872
0 Design KESAL is 1330
The proposed KESALs/year is 1500 (average from both the sources)
NV (32) 0 Estimated KESALs is 492 for 1996
0 Monitored KESALs is 813 for 1997
0 Design KESALs is 799
The proposed KESALs/year is 800
NC (37) 0 Estimated traffic data is available from 1996 through 1999.
However, since the KESALs in 1996 was comparatively very low
(124), it has been ignored when computing the average estimated
KESALs (1499)
o Monitored traffic information is available from 1994 through 1999.
Ignoring the data from 1996 and 1998 as they are zero, the average
monitored KESALs was calculated as 830
The proposed KESAL/s year (1164) was reported as the average of the
KESALs from the two sources.
ND (38) 0 Estimated traffic information is available from 1995 through 2001.
Average estimated KESALs is 432
o Monitored KESALs/ year is not available
0 Design KESALs is 419
The proposed KESAL/s year is 420
CH (39) 0 No estimated traffic data information is available
0 Monitored traffic data is available for 612 for year 1998.
0 Design KESALs is 797 from construction reports
The proposed KESALs/year is 612 (from the monitored module)
WA (53) 0 Estimated traffic data is available for 1996 and 1998. Average
estimated KESALs is 194
o Monitored KESALs/year is 462 for year 1998.
0 Design KESALs is 875 from the construction reports
The proposed KESALs/year is 462 as the data is available from the
monitoring module
WI (55) o No information is available from the monitored and estimated

 

modules in the database
0 Design KESALs/year is 180
The proposed KESALs/year is 180.

 

 

28

 

RESPONSE AND PERFORMANCE DATA

Figure 5 illustrates the extent of performance data available by showing the distribution
of the data by their level at the latest survey year. The figure also shows the age
distribution of the SPS-2 sections. Table 16 through Table 20 summarize the availability
of the performance and response data. There are a number of sections that have exhibited
various levels of response and performance. For example, 11% of the faulting data falls
in the range of —0.02-0.00 in. (-0.5—0 mm), 15% falls in the range of 0.00-0.02 in (0-0.5
mm), 72 % falls in the range of 0.02-0.04 in (0.5-1 mm) and 2% of the data falls in the

range of 0.06-0.08 in (1.5-2 mm), respectively.

Table 16 Average number of Transverse cracks in the SPS-2 test Sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pavement Structure Climatic Zones, Subgrade
PCC Wet DL
. Base ’ 14-day Lane Freeze No-Frceze Freeze No-Freeze
Drmage Thickness . . . .
type (m) Flexural - “draft Fine Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Coarse
S"°“8‘*‘v95‘ JKLMNOPQRSTUVWXY
550 12 4 0 0.1 X X 17 X 6
8 14 0.2 X X 0.8 0 X X 0
900 1: 27 03 0 X 0 X X 0 53 X 0 0 X X 6 0
NO DGAB 550 12 0.1 X X 0 0 0 X 0
11 14 0 0 0 X 139 0 X 1.3
900 12 0.4 0 0 X 19 0 X 0
14 0 X X 0 X X X 0
550 12 3 9 6.2 4.8 X X 78 X 9.7
8 14 2.2 X X 1 0 X X 6.3
900 1421 1 8 1‘7 0 X 0 X X 20 1 1 1 2 1 X X X 8 3
. 1 . 6.3
NO LCB 550 12 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0.8
11 14 0 0 0 X 7.3 2.3 X 0.7
900 12 0 0 0 X 36 0 X 1
14 0 X X 0 0 X X 0.7
550 12 0 0 0 X 0.6 0 X 0
8 14 0 X X 0 0 X X 0
900 12 0 X X 0 0 X X 0
M: 14 0,4 0 0.8 X 25 0 X 0
YES DGAB 550 12 o x x o x o x o
11 14 0 0 0 X 3.5 0 X 0
900 12 0 l 0 0 X X 0 X 0
14 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

I-0

 

 

     

)— g _ .
g 3; § I 1‘0 5 I 050
I '05") 1:) 50100
El 0-0.5 E] 100.150
0 I 150-250
0'5"] a 250-350
I 1-1.5 I 350-
;,- I 1.5-2
3‘
Faulting (mm) Longitudinal cracking (m)
_ __ M3.
:3 a as I .0 _ :5 as as a I -0
as 0 a9 I 0-50
I as
0‘50 El 50-100
D 50400 D 100-150
Cl 100-150 I 150-250
I 150-250 I 250-350
a \- I 350-
* 3
# of transverse cracks _
Transverse cracking (m)
¥ ’s'é 5
I
3' I -0 -0
at! I 0.1
I 0-5 El 1_2
El 5-10 1:) 23
D 10-15 I 3-4
I 15-20 I 4-5
:1 I 5-
3°
# of Transverse spalls
° q ° 5 .-0 ,0
:8 3‘ “ g; I
I 0'5 . 0.2
1:15-10 ,9 [212-4
E] 10-15 9 04-6
1133? .. m
' H
I 8-10
6 III
<5 as
# of pumping occurrences A e

g
Figure 5 Summary of distress levels in SPS-2 for the latest year

30

Table 17 Average joint faulting in the SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pavement Structure Climatic Zones, Subgrade
PCC Wet
Lane Freeze No-Freeze Freeze No-Freeze
Dams: B”: Thickness l4-day Width
type Flexural ' Fine Coarse Fine Coarse Fine Come Fine Coarse
(m) Strength, per it
I K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y
550 12 016 032 029 X X 0.42 X 029
8 14 0 25 X X 0 96 0 22 X X 0 28
900 12 01 032 027 X 027 X X 045 06 X 029 023 x X 026
14 . . . 0 16
NO DGAB 550 12 056 X X 095 017 X X 029
ll 14 012 015 023 X 041 034 X 0
900 12 0.16 012 031 X 0.49 032 X 012
14 0 26 X X 0 34 X 0.19 X 0 26
550 12 02 074 027 X X 035 X 012
8 l4 0 18 X X 0 21 0 3’7 X X 0 18
900 12 028 X X 028 0.4 X X 023
LCB 14 0 16 0 36 0 22 X 0 24 0 24 X 014
NO 550 12 0 26 X X 0 36 X 0.32 X X
11 14 013 008 0.09 X 051 014 X 009
900 12 0.04 015 012 X 0.4 0 25 X 015
14 0 21 X X 044 0 3 X X X
550 12 0,12 04 012 X 0.41 0.27 X 01
8 14 0 23 X X 047 0 19 X X X
900 12 0 27 X X 042 0.14 X X X
YES £§_T_B_ 14 0.19 018 0.3 X 0.39 0.27 X 0.11
DGAB 550 12 017 X X 0.36 X 0 53 X X
11 14 007 005 033 X 039 027 X 002
900 12 0.14 027 051 X X 0.36 X 014
14 0 19 X X 0 52 X 0.39 X X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Numbers in cells are in mm. (1 in. = 25.4 m)

Table 18 Total number of pumping occurrences in the SPS-2 sites

Pavement Structure Climatic
Wet

Freeze N o-Preeze N o ~F rem

. Base . 14-day Lane
ge type Thickness Flexual Width Fine Come Fine Come Fine Coarse

(m) Strength. psi
550

X X

900

550

900

550

900

550

900

550

900

550

900

 

31

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.3 :8 SE :8 o 58
8.3. 8.8 was m3 3
:8 8.8 8.; oz $8
6.8 8.8 8.3 8.8 a make 88
8.3 8.8 8.8 8.8 oz m3 2
8.8 2.8 8% 3.2 $56
8.8 8.8 2.8 8.: 2 S D 2.5 :
8.8 2.8 8.8 8.8 2.6 m3 2
8.8 8.2 3.8 8.8 8.? D2 m<oo 8m
3.8 8.8 8.8 D FEE
8.8 3.: 8.2 mun S
8.2 $8 8.8 oz 3.8
8.8 8.8 coo: 9.62 a min
3.? 8.8 8.8 :8 mo; 2
832 48.: 8.8 822 oz m<oo 88
an; 882 $8 a 5.8
8.8 2.83 88: m3 2
a: : 8.88 882 oz m<oo
B: 3w: 8.5 D E5
:18 8.8 :.§ oz moo E
23 8.8 one: m<oo om
8.8 88 8.8 8.8 8.82 a min
8.8 8.8 2.8 8.8 oz 83 S
8.83 3.8 8.8 932 made a w
. cm
ommESQ ”MM“. tow—“MW? fiwcobw .E
3.5on amuse—DEB
o a o m o m o m 23 new 006
ES ”5 “23 m3 seen 9% DB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

acofitomxm «.mA—m .8.— Ahaoh «an. no .895: hem—.8 «I 3.5.5:: .5 558:3 na—mEE ou29>< 3 935.

32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8 2.3. 8.; 8.8 a 938
2.8. 8.2. 8.8 mu.— 3
8.8 8.8 :i. 92 m<oa
8.8 8.8 2.8 8.8 2 PS}. 88
3.8 8.2. 8.8 88 mo.— 2
3.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 92 2.50 2 _
8.8 8.8 2.8 8.8 :8 a 55
8.8 8.8 8.8.. 8.8 8.8 mug E
8.8 8.8 2.8 8.8 5.8 02 3.8 88
8.8 2.8 8.8 9 BE
2.2. 8.2. 8.8 mo: 2
3.8 8.8 8.3. 22 m<wn
8.8 8.8 8.2. 8.8 a mi».
8.8 $8 8.8 2.8 mug 3
8.8 8.8 8.8 3.2. 92 m<oa 88
3.8 8.2. 8.8 a 58
8.8 80.8 2.2. 92 mo.— 2
83 8.8 8.8 9682
8.8 2.8 8.3 a 5.8
8.8 32. 8.8 22 mo: 3
3.8 8.8 8.8 3.8 88
8.8 8.8 8.2. 8.8 3.8 a 9:8
88.88 2.3 8.8 8.8 22 mug 2
3:. 3.8 2.8 8.3 3.8 8 w
an
owufifia ”Mm :05.“wa camcobm .E
=2:on 835.022.
0 m o m u m u n. 8“ ea cum
”HZQ an "~23 ”m3 DGON DEW UUL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EoEEonm— $.QO .Su in?» 82 .8 683K 58:3 3 553:3. £225: ow8o>< ca 035.

33

The quantity of data available till date was found sufficient for analysis. The
dataset gives us an opportunity to make preliminary conclusions regarding the effects of
construction features on the performance of JPCP sections. Most of the cracks that
manifested in the SPS-2 test sections so far could be a direct consequence of the
shrinkage cracks that occurred in the LCB layer at the time of construction. As the
sections get older, it is expected from the knowledge of the distresses that more load-
related and material-related distresses would be manifested. These aspects could thus be
analyzed in a few years from now, when most of the sections exhibit higher distress with
age. The SPS-2 experiment being first of its kind and analysis of its data to study the
effects of design and construction features is being done for the first time, the approach
suggested in this thesis could be of use for future researchers to understand the behavior

of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements.

34

CHAPTER 5
ENGINEERING ANALYSIS OF SPS-2 DATA

This chapter presents the engineering analysis of the SPS-2 data. The analysis consists of
the thickness adequacy analysis using the AASHTO ’98 procedure, and the performance
data (cracking, pumping and faulting) analysis. The performance data analysis was done
at both the network level and state level. The network level analysis deals with evaluating
the sections in all states in terms of various performance measures. This allows for
comparing the performance of various designs under varying climatic conditions,
subgrade types and traffic loads. The state level analysis deals with evaluating the
sections within each state. This allows for comparing the performance of various designs
within a state for constant climatic conditions, subgrade type and traffic loads. The

response data analysis has been dealt with in Chapter 7.

THICKNESS ADEQUACY ANALYSIS USING AASHTO ’98 DESIGN
PROCEDURE

The amount of traffic that each of the 12 sections within a state can withstand during their
design life has been theoretically calculated (3). To investigate the influence of
construction deviations on the load carrying capacity of the sections, the ESAL levels of
the as built and the as-designed sections were compared. It has been found that most of
the 8—in sections cannot withstand the design traffic. However, this could be because of
the under-design of the sections and not the construction deviations. The assumptions
made in the analysis are shown in Table 21.

All the other inputs required for the analysis have been obtained from Release 16.0. The

results of the analysis are summarized in Tables A-lS through A-25 in Appendix A. It

35

might be noted that no analysis was done for states AR (5), CA (6) (due to non-
availability of flexural strength data) and W1 (55) (due to non-availability of thickness
data). Table 22 shows the projected traffic (obtained from the construction reports)
during the design period. Data for the other states is not available in the construction
reports. The average ESALS for the as designed and as—built cross sections (both 8 in. and
11 in. sections) are also shown in Table 22. The average ESALS of all the 8 in. and 11 in.
sections are computed for states where the design ESALS information is available. This
allows us to verify if the 8 in. and 11 in. sections have met their target ESALS. It was
found that most of the 8 in. sections did not meet their target ESALS while all the 11 in.

sections can withstand the design ESALS.

Table 21 Assumptions in the AASHTO ’98 analysis

 

 

 

 

 

Design reliability 95 %

Overall standard deviation 0.38

Mean 28—day concrete elastic modulus 4000000 psi

Concrete Poisson’s ratio 0.15

Base elastic modulus DGAB layer: 30000 psi

 

LCB layer: 2000000 psi
PATB layer: 3000000 psi

 

 

Slab/base friction coefficient DGAB layer: 1.35
LCB layer: 35
PATB layer: 6.85

 

 

 

 

 

 

DPSI 2.0

Edge support adjustment factor 1.00 for 12-ft lane and AC shoulder
0.94 for 12—ft lane and tied PCC
shoulder
0.92 for widened PCC slab

 

Mean annual temperature , , _ .
Obtained from the climatic data in the

 

al . 't t'
Mean annu precrpr a ion supplemental guide

 

 

 

 

Mean annual wind speed

 

36

.111

Table 22 Comparison of ESALS for SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Projected ESALS for the ESALS for the ESALS for the ESALS for the
State ID design as-designed as-built cross as-designed as-built cross
ESALs, cross section section (8-1n. cross section section (1 l-in.
millions (8-in. sections) sections) (1 l-in. sections) sections)
CO (8) 15.6 2.92 3.81 21.66 28.78
DE (10) 3.05 17.31 21.94 63.28 115.04
IA (19) 9.9 1.41 1.75 12.34 18.40
KS (20) 26.1 10.1 9.7 34.78 37.51
MI (26) 26.6 22.8 42.35 106.9 116.9
ND (38) 2.16 8.2 9.9 48.8 50.4
WA (53) 35 10.3 12.3 32.96 35.96

 

Performance data analysis

All the distresses that manifested in the SPS-2 test sections have been recorded in the

MON_DIS_JPCC_REV and MON_DIS_JPCC_FAULT modules of the Release 16.0

database.

summarized in Tables A-26 through A-38 in Appendix A. The most commonly occurring
distresses include: longitudinal and transverse cracking, longitudinal and transverse joint
sealant damage, longitudinal and transverse joint spalling, pumping, scaling and comer

breaks. It should be noted that the data set is not balanced, as the number of years for

The occurrence of the distresses in each of the test sections has been

which data is available for sections is inconsistent.

General observations from these tables include:

0 Transverse cracking was found mainly in sections constructed on non-drainable

bases.

0 DGAB sections, in general, exhibited more transverse cracking than sections

constructed on other base types.

37

 

0 Transverse cracking in the LCB sections could be due to the problems
encountered during construction.

0 Within a base type, 8 in. sections had greater amount of transverse cracking than
11 in. sections.

0 For a given base type and slab thickness, sections with a conventional 12 ft lane
exhibited more transverse cracking than 14 ft sections.

0 Transverse and longitudinal joint sealant damage was observed in most of the
states, irrespective of the climatic region in which they are located.

0 ‘D’ cracking was observed in states located in the WP zone (KS and ND),

0 Faulting was observed in almost all the states. However, higher levels of faulting
(0.39- 0.55 in) were observed in sections located in WF zones (DGAB sections in
MI). The magnitudes of faulting in the other states ranged from 0-0.19 in. The
relationship between faulting and dowel diameter is not obvious as the thicker
sections have 1.5 in. dowels whereas the thinner sections have 1.25 in. dowels.

o Relatively higher faulting was observed in sections constructed on a DGAB than
those constructed on an LCB or a PATB.

o Pumping was observed only in the regions located in the wet zones (rainfall
greater than 20 in.) except for NV (32), which is located in DF zone, the
reason(s)for this observation is (are) not clear from the data.

A detailed discussion of the occurrence of distresses is presented in the subsequent

sections.

38

CRACKING IN SPS-2 SECTIONS

Figure 6 shows the number of sections with 8 in. and 11 in. PCC slabs in the SPS-2
experiment that exhibited transverse cracking. Transverse cracking manifested within 0-3
years after the sections were opened to traffic in both categories of sections. The total
number of 8 in. and 11 in. sections constructed is 84 and 83 respectively. About 93 % of
the 8 in. and the 11 in. sections exhibited transverse cracking, the number of sections that
exhibited cracking within the two levels of PCC thickness being almost the same (77 and
78 respectively). Table 23 shows the sections, which exhibited transverse cracking, after
3 years of opening to traffic. Figure 6 also shows the number of sections within different
base types and different lane widths, which exhibited transverse cracking. Within the
different base types and lane widths, it was found that the number of sections, which
exhibited transverse cracking, is almost the same. Hence, it was deemed necessary to
further investigate the magnitudes of transverse cracking in each of these categories to

completely understand the occurrence of transverse cracking in the SPS-2 sections.

39

8" sections:

11" sections:

Cracked
l

84

I
No cracks

L_+7

 

 

 

 

78

‘———-§

Cracked
l

83

I
No cracks

|———>S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6 Occurrence of transverse cracks in the SPS-2 sites

Table 23 Sections with late occurrence of transverse cracking

13
r—DGAB _, 26
~fl—p 13
1211 I 14
LCB—a» 26 ——
—”—fi—> 12
12ft 1 13
»—PArB———> 25
Jill—r 12
1211 14
DGAB—v 215——
Maw
1211 13
LCB _, 26 ———1
i1. 13
1211 12
—— PATB ——+26
1411 14

 

 

 

8 in. sections 11 in. sections
Section ID Base type Lane Width, ft 22:33: Section ID Base type Lane Width, fl 2:213:21:
4—0217 LCB l4 4 4—0219 LCB 12 8
4—0218 LCB l2 4 4-0220 LCB l4 4
5-0217 LCB l4 6 26-0215 DGAB 12 6
5-0218 LCB 12 5 32-0207 LCB l4 3
20-0201 DGAB 12 5 39-0204 DGAB 12 5
20-0202 DGAB l4 5 53-0207 LCB l4 5
26-0213 DGAB l4 5
26-0214 DGAB 12 9
32—0209 LCB 12 4
37-0201 DGAB 12 8
37—0205 LCB 12 6
39-0202 DGAB l4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4o

Table 24 and Table 25 show the cumulative number of transverse cracks in the SPS-2
sites, with and without the inclusion of NV (32). The SPS-2 sections in NV have been
deassigned from the experiment because of some problems encountered during the
construction of the sections (Table A-1 of Appendix A). Hence, the occurrence of
transverse cracking in the sections was investigated with and without the inclusion of

sections in NV (32).

Table 24 Total number of transverse cracks in the SPS-2 sites

T PCC Base Lane ' Low ' cracks Medium ' cracks cracks T

12 63 64 141 268

DGAB 14 53 57 27 137
12 698 1203
14 19 315
12 4 0 0 4
14 4 0 0 4
12 14 57
14 73 644
12 68 81 68
14 34 16 14
12 0 0 0
14 78 48 72

Table 25 Total number of transverse cracks in the SPS-2 sites (without NV)
PCC Base Lane width Low severi cracks Medium ' cracks cracks T

12 32 50

DGAB 14 14 31
12 141 201
14 46
12
14
12
14
12
14
12
14

LCB

PATB

DGAB

LCB

PATB

 

LCB

PATB

DGAB

LCB

ooooooooggam
ooooooooeamg

 

41

The tables show the total number of low, medium and high severity transverse cracks in
the SPS-2 sections till date. Table 24 shows that the 8 in. sections showed more number
of transverse cracks than the 11 in. sections. The effect of lane width is predominant in
the 8 in. sections than in the 11 in. sections. Sections with a 12 ft lane, in general, showed
more number of transverse cracks than those with a 14 ft lane. All these observations
have been statistically validated and the analysis is presented in Chapter 6 of the thesis.
The same trends were also observed, when the sections in NV were not considered, as
shown in Table 25. 38% of the data in Table 25 belongs to the WP zone (DE, IA, KS, MI,
ND, OH), 28 % from the DNF zone (AZ and CA), 24% from the DF zone (CO and WA)
and 10% from the WNF zone (AR and NC). None of the sections in WI exhibited
transverse cracking till date.

The 11 in. sections, in general, exhibited lesser number of transverse cracks.
Table 25 shows that, for a given base type and lane width, the 11 in. sections had
significantly less transverse cracking than the 8 in. sections. For example, consider the
DGAB sections with a 12 ft lane in Table 25. The total number of low, medium and high
severity cracks are 3,0 and 0 respectively for the 11 in. sections, whereas the 8 in.
sections exhibited 32,8 and 10 cracks respectively. The same trends were also observed
in the LCB sections, with the 11 in sections exhibiting lesser number of transverse cracks
(low, medium and high) than the 8 in. sections. It has also been observed from the
AASHTO analysis (Tables A—15 through A-25) that sections with 11 in. PCC slab, lane

width of 14 ft and constructed on an LCB layer can withstand the ESALS for which they

have been designed.

42

The occurrence of transverse cracking will largely depend on the interaction
between the various structural factors and the location of the sections (climatic region and
subgrade). Hence the analysis was done for each state to completely understand the
occurrence of transverse cracking. Tables A-26 through A-38 in Appendix A show that
transverse cracking (TC) was not observed in any of the sections constructed on a
drainable base. Except for the PATB section in NC (37-0210) and those in NV (32), none
of the PATB sections exhibited cracking, which could be due to the drainage provision in
these sections. Cracking in the PATB sections in NV could be due to the problems
encountered during construction. In NC, the embankment experienced slope failure,
which may cause failure in the shoulder and driving lane (according to the construction
report). Example plots illustrating the cracks in non-drainable sections are shown in
Figure 7 through Figure 10. Transverse cracks in the CA (6) sections have manifested
within two years after the completion of construction.

Within the non-drainable sections, transverse cracks were prevalent in sections
founded on DGAB layers in CA (6), KS (20), MI (26), NV (32), NC (37) and OH (39).
This could be explained by the fact that the DGAB layers typically have lesser stiffness
(15,000 to 45,000 psi) than the LCB layers (1 x 106 to 3 x 106 psi) and PATB layers
(300,000 to 600,000 psi). Hence, they provide less load carrying support to the PCC slab,

when compared to the other base types.

Within the DGAB sections, the 8 in. sections exhibited higher transverse cracking
than the 11 in. sections, which indicates the greater structural capacity of the pavement.
This trend is evident in CA (6), KS (20) and MI (26). However, the relationship between

the lane width and transverse cracking is not evident within the DGAB sections. Figure 7

43

through Figure 10 and Figures B-l4 through B-2l suggest that transverse cracks were
also prevalent in most of the sections founded on LCB layer in almost all the states
except KS (20) and W1 (55).

In general, the 8 in sections exhibited higher transverse cracks than the 11 in.
sections, which could be due to the lower structural capacity of these sections. In most of
the states, transverse cracks were observed in sections with a 12-ft lane. In WA (53),
shrinkage cracks (observed during construction) may have caused transverse cracks in 14
ft lane sections. In IA (19), counter intuitive trends were observed with the 14 ft lane
sections showing more transverse cracks than 12 ft sections. This could be because of the
fact that section 19-0217 (LCB section) was constructed 0.3 in. thinner than its target
thickness, while 19-0218 (LCB section) was constructed 0.2 in. thicker than its target
thickness. The transverse cracks in all the other states could be attributed to the shrinkage
cracking (as indicated in the construction reports), which might have manifested onto the

PCC layer. Table 26 summarizes the possible reasons for the occurrence of transverse

cracking in all the states.

44

.23» 0 mm .8288 $0 <3 05 we ow<++ $53» $28 in?» 5-98 in...» 2-38 £8» 0.98 6.3 25:68 33 H2 2.: ho ow<+
mac» N m_ 25:08 6V <0 05 .3 om<**
£3» 5 mm 30:08 Gav N< 2: mo 33. ._.

++Ammv <3 5 5398 835528 3 953..— +GNV E E 9398 033889 5 0.53%

b.9253 swam D 353m 8:602. 358m 33E Begomfii 0 285mg»: I anotmefl .-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

e Gen—00m a conuom
g :m a... 8m 8a “8.08 an an 8... 8” am am a” man an an am on an 2” am an an an
.1.. -.-.oN .1...-r...._.oN
. a fi _
.. N m u N M»
r M 3 N; f M m M.“
I V m J V B 0
3 mo: fl m 1:
_... t w Wm. "H t W 3 n.
.._. . m m . o m
m. . a m . n M
r. w ..... . m m
a a o
.218 <0 5 8.3.5 omega—3:. w mun—urn L3 N< 5 8.3.8 ova—325$. h Baum...—

Buoimfii n_ Begomfigoog I Engomkoq I
358m nwfi B 3:258 8332 I 558m Bog E

 

 

 

   

     
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A: :omuoom
a com—cow .8. as. 88 38 88 2.8 28 :8 £8 28 :8 28

«a :m an 8m 8m 8m 8a 3... 3m 8m 8... an . . 1 . . . 1 r o

. . . p .... u o u N
_..... .1 5%“ . _..... N
s m m m. a N L. m
, . .. m .s a.
.1., l o q n n
m m m a n m.

t 3 1.. . Du
. S m. m . Q m. n
1 mu 5 . W

.. .. a
m .2 m
8 a

I:

 

45

Table 26 Occurrence of transverse cracking in the SPS-2 sites

 

State Climatic

Code zone Comments

 

0 Out of the 3 base types, cracking was found only in the
sections founded on an LCB layer. This could be due to
the mat defects (refer to Table A-1 in Appendix A)

0 Higher levels of cracking occurred in the 8 in. sections.
11 in. sections showed cracking 9 years after opening to
traffic.

The effect of lane width on cracking is inconclusive.
Since there were no thickness deviations observed in the
cracked sections, cracking may be due to the defects
during construction.

AZ (4) DNF

 

0 The occurrence of cracking in LCB sections is
inconclusive as there is no indication of any cracks in
the LCB layer during construction.

Most of the cracking occurred in the 8 in. sections.
High severity cracking was observed in the 12-ft section.
(5-0218)

0 Since there was no thickness deviations observed in the
cracked sections and no defects were observed during
construction, the occurrence of cracking in these
sections is not explicit.

AR (5) WNF

 

0 Transverse cracks were predominant in the LCB
sections, which could be due to the shrinkage cracks
observed during construction.

0 Intensity of Transverse cracks was high in the 8 in.
sections.ll in. sections showed low severity cracking 2
years after the pavement was opened to traffic.

0 The effect of lane width on cracking is inconclusive.
Since there were no thickness deviations observed in the
cracked sections, cracking may not be due to thickness
deviations.

CA (6) DNF

 

 

One transverse crack was observed in section 8-0218.
Transverse cracks in the LCB section (8-0218) could be
due to the design of the section (8 in. and 12-ft)

0 Since there were no thickness deviations observed in the
cracked sections, cracking may not be due to thickness
deviations.

CO (8) DE

 

 

 

46

 

 

Table 26 (cont’d).

 

State
Code

Climatic
zone

Comments

 

DE (10)

WP

Transverse cracks in the LCB section (IO—0205) could
be due to the design of the section (8 in. and 12—ft) and
also due to the serious shrinkage cracking observed
during construction.

Since there were no thickness deviations observed in the
cracked sections, cracking may not be due to thickness
deviations.

 

IA (19)

WF

Transverse cracks were observed only in the 8 in. LCB
sections.

Effect of lane width is inconclusive.

19-0217 was constructed 0.3 in. thinner than its target
thickness, which could have resulted in greater
transverse cracks than 19-0218, which is 8.2 in. thick,
and hence the effect of lane width could not be studied.

 

KS (20)

Cracking was observed in 8 in. sections constructed on
DGAB. This could be attributed to the fact that the
DGAB layers typically have lesser stiffness (15,000 to
45,000 psi) than the LCB layers (1 x 106 to 3 x 106 psi)
and PATB layers (300,000 to 600,000 psi).

 

 

MI (26)

 

 

Transverse cracks exhibited in three out of the four
DGAB sections. One explanation for this could be that
the DGAB layers typically have lesser stiffness (15,000
to 45,000 psi) than the LCB layers (1 x 106 to 3 x 106
psi) and PATB layers (300,000 to 600,000 psi).

Within the DGAB sections, however, section 26-0216
did not experience cracking. This could be attributed to
the fact that the section has a thicker slab (11 in.), which
adds to the structural capacity of the pavement, and also
a widened lane (14 ft.), which creates a pseudo-interior
loading condition.

26-0218 was the only section among LCB sections that
exhibited transverse cracks, which may be due to
transverse shrinkage cracks that appeared immediately
after construction.

11 in. sections showed cracking 7 years after the
sections were opened to traffic.

 

47

 

Table 26 (cont’d).

 

State Zone Comments
Code

 

Extensive cracking was observed in all the sections
The cracking could be mainly due to severe construction
problems. Most 750-psi mix was stiff and would tear
during placement. To attain 750-psi strength the water-
cement ratio was lowered to 0.3. High slump was
adjusted by addition of water reducing agents and
lowering of water content. Flash set occurred prior to
placement and finishing.
Transverse cracks occurred in all the base types
In 37-0210, which is a PATB section, transverse cracks
may be due to the slope failure which affected the
driving lane and the shoulder

0 Transverse cracks were observed mainly in 8 in.
sections with 12 ft lane width.

0 Transverse cracks were observed only in 38- 0217

ND (38) WP which may be due to the reflection cracks that were
observed during construction

0 In general, 8 in. sections showed more cracking than 11
in. sections.

0 More cracking was observed in sections with a 12 ft
lane width.
Cracking was exhibited only in the LCB sections.
Both the 8 in. sections showed extensive cracking.
Shrinkage cracks were found during the construction of
section 53-0206.

0 11 in. sections showed cracking 6 years after the
sections were opened to traffic.

0 No transverse cracks were found in any of these
sections.

NV (32) DF

 

NC (37) WNF

 

 

 

OH (39) WP

 

WA(53) WF

 

 

WI (55) WP

 

 

 

 

PUMPING

Pumping can be defined as the forceful displacement of a mixture of soil and water that

occurs under slab joints, cracks and pavement edges which are depressed and released

quickly by hi gh-speed heavy vehicle loads.

48

However, pumping in the LCB sections is just the ejection of water trapped
between the PCC and the LCB layers. Figure 11 through Figure 14 illustrate the number
of pumping occurrences in the SPS-2 sites. Pumping was observed in states AR (5), DE
(10), IA (19) and OH (39). Pumping was observed only in the regions located in the wet
zones (rainfall greater than 508 mm). Pumping is mainly concentrated in sections
founded on a non-drainable base (sections 0201 through 0208 or sections 0213 through
0220), confirming the intuition that pumping is directly related to the drainage condition
of the sections.

It was also found that LCB sections experienced higher pumping than DGAB
sections. One explanation could be that although both DGAB and LCB sections are non-
drainable sections, LCB could be considered as an impermeable layer resulting in a poor
drainage condition (trapping of interfacial water), when compared with DGAB sections,
supporting the higher number of pumping occurrences in the LCB sections. For example,
higher pumping was observed in LCB sections in DE (10), IA (19) and OH (39) than
those constructed on DGAB, as illustrated in Figure 11 through Figure 14. Table 27
summarizes the occurrence of pumping in the SPS-2 sites.

Another explanation for the occurrence of pumping could be the joint sealant
damages observed in these sections. Figure 15 through Figure 18 illustrate the number of
transverse joint sealant damages in sections AR (5), DE (10), MI (26) and NV (32). Since
the length of the sections is 500 ft and the joint spacing is 15 ft, the total possible number
of joints (excluding the construction joints) is approximately 34. The sealants of all the
joints in the four states shown are damaged and this could have aggravated the

occurrence of pumping in most of the sections.

49

 

any :0 ..8 moo—.2398 «5955 we 395.2 3 «Sur—

e .858
N _ 8 _ 8 o _ 8 88 88 88 88 88 38 88 88 58

p _ 5 1.? p p F b p p p

 

I

N

V

Buldumd

 

i r
\O

-._.—fi..-_'r-_ I [SJ-4-17am. .
44 A)

I

C
—d

 

 

[-1

 

 

O

00

N
u—

. romumN

30me

8: mn— aeu 89:238.. win—E:— ue hon—:52 Nfi 953..—

888%
28 :8 28 88 88 88 88 88 38 88 88 88

h _ w p P .— p F — h —

 

 

 

 

 

 

aouaunaoo Burdurnd 30 .raqurn N

 

a: S ..8 828.558 9.3.53 .3 54:52 2 0.53.”—

 

 

 

9.3325
88 88 88 a8 88 28 28 :8 £8 £8 :8 28 N
.— h h b p r. h r h h r » o n
fl. m
“,4 - N m.
M. J
L. w.
.._ .m
- o w
a. d
u . 1 w Ow
“ ,o
a m
E r v m
o.

 

 

 

Amv m< ..8 89:99.38 wfinE—E we hon—=32 S 953%

Baugm
g 88 .88 as 0N8 28 £8 28 £8 98 38 E8

 

, a

 

 

 

 

 

saouannooo Burdurnd jo raqurn N

50

83 aa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=0 5 mowing Baa—3m ~53. 8.35:9: ac boas—:2 a 253 <— E 8wa8ae «nu—3m “£3. 835:9: «a hon—=52 2 Pin:—
a .8325 :— aozuom

_ go o_ no acme memo heme mouo vomo mono Sue «mac name was 32. ammo 0:6 28 3.8

W p ..1.. n L t.‘ r 1. r Us o N

. r . a . “ ._fl a_ “a m
A . J . 8 8 H

m ._ f. .. _ H... _ .__ W W .. n

J x a a i u . ,y 1

0J .. ,. .. . .H W“ ._ bu, g : ..r. n. .. Y o — w
.. z u. . f _ s ., SA ..

m . r. . ..w, ..H , s...— — ., x... ..H i m

m . __ _ : . ._ m

m. a F g . w. 1 y g .. J _. ¢ _ w v w. a

m m . g _ m. 3.... ..P g, u. 8 .8. .F .. u 8.... w m

a ._ H , ,.. m .5 .H W WV .. .. ,_ fl 2

a .q . L L. v... ’ r W . w 9 M

m. H w. .. : .W, ‘ ,m .. m. m .. u

M ... . g M. ., N. ._ .. . . cm W

. .,. ... .. . .M . - .

m. E... .. .N. . rL rt... _ . . .. m.

3 EL." a

m. m.

u u

 

 

 

 

ow

8:

ma E mowafiac .538 :53. 88555 .3 SEE—Z 3 9.53 Amv :< 5 8 5:3. 2832.. 2.3. 835:9: ac hon—5.2 m— o.— E

.I..
5

9.3—«vow
3.8 3.8 ammo ~Nmo 8.8 98 3.8 :8 28 ENG 3.8 28

BEOSUOW
~18 Inc Sue aomo memo homo come memo «owe memo memo Smo

saiumup
mum lpIM snu'of OSJOASIIBJJ go .13qu
”Stamp
nuns qua smut mmuuo .13qu

 

Table 27 Pumping occurrences in the SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Climatic Comments
Code region
0 No pumping was observed, as the re ion is
AZ (4) DNF (rainfall <508 mm) g dry
0 Pumping was observed in all the DGAB and LCB
sections. Higher pumping was observed in the DGAB
than in the LCB sections. Pumping was also observed

AR (5) WNF in 5-0222, the reason(s) for which are not clear from
the data.

0 Pumping in all the sections could have been

aggravated due to the extensive joint sealant damages.
0 No urn in was observed, as the re ion is

CA (6) DNF (rainfsll <§08gmm) g dry
0 No um ing was observed, as the re ion is

CO (8) DP (rainfgll <IS)O8 m) g dry
Pumping was observed only in the LCB sections.

DE (10) WF Section 10-0207 showed pumping, which might be
aggravated due to the presence of longitudinal
cracking and joint sealant damages.

Pumping was observed only in the LCB sections.

IA (19) WP Section 19-0219 showed pumping, which might be
aggravated due to the presence of longitudinal and
transverse spalls.

KS (20) WF 0 No pumping occurrences were observed.

MI (26) WF 0 No pumping occurrences were observed.

NV (32) DF 0 No pumping occurrences were observed.

NC (37) WNF o No pumping occurrences were observed.

ND (38) WF 0 No pumping occurrences were observed.

OH (39) WF 0 Insignificant pumping occurrences observed.

WA (53) WF 0 No pumping occurrences

 

PROGRESSION OF DISTRESSES WITH TIME

The severity levels of transverse cracks have been obtained from literature (5) as follows:
Low severity: Crack widths < 3mm, no spalling and no measurable faulting, or well
sealed and the width cannot be determined.

Medium severity: Crack widths 2 3 mm and < 6 mm, or with spalling <75 m, or

faulting up to 6 mm.

52

High severity: Crack widths _>_ 6 mm, or with spalling Z 75 mm or faulting 2 6 mm.

It has been observed that the severity levels of the distresses and/or magnitude
increase with time for almost all the states. Figure 19 shows the severity levels of
transverse cracking with time for SPS-2 sections in AZ (4). For example, in section 4-
0217, 4 low severity cracks and 2 high severity cracks were observed in 1997 and 1999.
The medium severity cracks developed into high severity cracks in 2000 and 2001. There

was an increase in the number of low severity cracks from 2000 to 2001.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

0217 0219
a ____-i-.m_.____
3 20 g 5
'8 3 15 a 4
U B h 3 3
a 8 lo 8
5 3 5 "S B 2
z 1
5 .n
a o s o I Y I f T E
z. 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 20m
SectionID
ILowsevu-ity IMedium severity DHigh severity .Luwseverity .Modium severity flimsy/grit,
0218 0220
go _ h H __ “a 8 25
i U 2 -
'8 3 15
I: g n u .
.8 10 u
z s U
5 '3 05 ..
a o E
z 0 r v I Y I
1995 1997 1999 2000 2001
Section [D
lLowscnrity lModiumsovofity DHiduevetity ILowuvorlty IMedlmseverlty Dfilghunrlty

Figure 19 Progression of transverse cracking with time for AZ (4)

The progression of transverse cracking in the other states is shown in Figures B-22
through B-36. It might be noted that cracking and spalling are reported in three levels
viz., low, medium and high severities while the other distresses are recorded in

magnitude. Hence the progression of the other distresses is reported in terms of the

53

increase or decrease in magnitude with time. The progression of these distresses with

time for the other SPS-2 sites is shown in Table 28.

Table 28 Progression of distresses in the SPS-2 sites

State Climatic
Code region

 

Comments

 

0 Insignificant cracking occurred in the section 05-0217
compared to that of 05-0218. Both the sections have 8
in. thick PCC slabs.

0 Section 05- 0218 has shown early cracking and also
quicker progression in cracks. This may be due to the
lane width of 12 ft.

0 Cracking was observed very early (within two years) in
all the sections.

0 Transverse cracks in 11 in. sections were much lower
in magnitude than 8 in..

0 Medium and High severity cracks were observed only
in 8 in. sections.

CO (8) DF 0 No significant cracking was observed

0 Cracking occurred the very next year of opening to
traffic, only in 10- 0205

WF 0 This 8 in. LCB section showed all severities of cracks
All the sections met the target design ESALS (3.05
million)

0 Cracks, though low in number, occurred in the very
next year of opening to traffic in the two LCB sections

0 Cracks of higher severity were observed in 19- 0217
than in 19- 0218

0 Both the sections that showed cracking did not meet
the target design ESALS
High severity cracking occurred only in 20-0201
Initially both the sections, which showed cracking, had

WF only low severity cracks.

0 Both the sections that showed cracking did not meet
the target design ESALS

AR (5) WNF

 

CA (6) DNF

 

 

DE
(10)

 

IA (19) WP

 

KS
(20)

 

 

 

 

 

54

Table 28 (cont’d).

 

State
Code

Climatic
region

Comments

 

MI (26)

Cracks appeared only after five years of opening the
sections in most of the sections.

Only 8 in. sections showed medium or high severity
cracks which can be due to the less structural
capacity of the sections.

Based on the 10-year data, medium and high
severity cracks are exhibited in the two sections,
which had the least computed allowable ESALS (26-
0213 and 26-0218)

 

NV (32)

DF

Very high number of cracks of all severities were
observed in almost all the sections, from the very
next year of opening the sections to traffic

Problems during construction in these sections could
have caused the extensive cracking.

A very high number of cracks occurred in the non-
drainable bmwpes

 

NC (37)

Insignificant number of cracks exhibited in DGAB
sections.

A few medium severity cracks were found in the
section 37- 0205, which is a LCB section.

Cracks occurred six years after opening to traffic in
both the sections

 

ND (38)

Cracks appeared only in 38- 0217 immediately after
the sections were opened to traffic

Reflection cracks that appeared in the section 38-
0217 (as per the construction report) would have
caused the Transverse cracks

Cracks of all severities were observed in the section

 

OH (39)

Cracks appeared in the sections three years after the
sections were opened to traffic

More number of cracks appeared in section 39-
0205

Medium severity cracks occurred only in the section
39- 0205

 

 

WA (53)

 

 

Cracks appeared in the sections after two years of
opening to traffic

All the cracks appeared only in the following LCB
sections: 0205, 0206, and 0207.

Medium severity cracks appeared only in 0206
which may be due to the shrinkage cracks that
appeared during construction

 

55

 

MISCELLANEOUS DISTRESSES

Other distresses include joint spalling, D-crack, map cracking and scaling. Spalling
usually results from excessive stresses at the joint or cracks, caused by the infiltration of
incompressible materials and by subsequent expansion or traffic loading. It can also be
caused by disintegration of concrete, by weak concrete at the joint caused by
overworking or by poorly designed or constructed load transfer devices. D cracking is
caused by freeze-thaw expansive pressures of certain types of coarse aggregates. D
cracking was observed only in two states located in the Wet freeze zones viz., KS (20)

and ND (38) as shown in Table 29 below.

Table 29 D-cracking in SPS-2 test sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE_CO SURVEY_DA Medium
DE SHRP_ID TE Low severity severity High severity
20 0204 5/27/ 1997 l 0 O
38 0217 6/18/1999 0 l O

 

 

The severity levels for D-cracking have been obtained from literature (5) as follows:

Low severity: “D” cracks are tight, with no loose or missing pieces and no patching is in
the affected area

Medium severity: “D” cracks are well defined, and some small pieces are loose or have
been displaced.

High severity: “D” cracking has a well-developed pattern, with a significant amount of
loose or missing material. Displayed pieces, up to 0.1 m2, may have been patched.
Scaling can be caused by deicing salts, by traffic, by improper construction or by freeze
thaw cycles. The occurrence of scaling in the SPS-2 sites is shown in Figure 20. Map

cracking is caused by over finishing of the concrete and can lead to scaling of the surface.

56

CO (3)

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

AZ“)
7~- ~ ——~ 25~ - -_-
a 6" II
20.1
455‘ ‘33
§I4~ .5515“
9
:EP :5m<
U U
302‘ 50
z 11 z 5‘1
0-1 OJ
2000 WI
You
.213 I221 I221 I223
DIEGO) N'VQI)
18~r~ — ,*-zz_
2 51
'16-1 at
5‘“ ‘33”
12‘ “”34
5.1m '3'
‘3 s« .25“
U
:6- 5°].
5;: 04
z 0‘
Your

 

I207 .309 0111

 

Figure 20 Scaling occurrences in the SPS-2 sites

Tables A-26 through A-38 show that D-cracking and scaling was prevalent in the wet

freeze zones. It can also be seen that map cracking was prevalent in the wet freeze zones,

which could have led to scaling in these regions.

TRANSVERSE JOINT FAULTING
Figure 21 shows the number of sections, which exhibited faulting in the SPS-2
experiment. Even though the number of sections in both the categories of PCC thickness

is the same, the magnitudes of faulting are different. About 70 % of the 8 in. sections and

65% of the 11 in. sections exhibited faulting.

57

 

 

F— DGAB —9 19

59 LCB—* 23 ——
14ft
‘—-9 ll
12ft

Faulted ' 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 PATB—a 17
8” sections: 84 443—» 8
1 12a 10
No faultirg
I 25 r—DGAB—v 18——
12ft
_, 7
r—> 54 LCB —-b 16
14ft
Faulted ‘—’ 9
J
11" sections: 83 12 R
No faulting — PATB ’ 20

 

L—'29 1411' 9

Figure 21 Occurrence of faulting in the SPS-2 sites
Within the different base types and lane widths, the number of sections that exhibited
faulting are almost the same and hence it was deemed necessary to investigate the
magnitudes of faulting. According to literature (6), three severity levels of faulting have
been established. Faulting is classified as low (<3mm), medium (>3mm and <7 mm) and
high (>7mm).Table 30 shows the number of cracks and joints faulted in the SPS-2 sites.

Most of the cracks and joints have low severity faulting (<3mm).

58

Table 30 Number of joints and cracks faulted in the SPS-2 sites

C J

Target PCC Base type Lane Width, ft Low Medium Low Medium Hi

12 10 2044 7
14 15 1645 7
12 97 1813 20
14 51 1509 9
12 1958 7

DGAB

LCB

PATB 14 1784 4

12 2 2182 25
14 1497
12 1715
14 1750
12 1746 7
14 1715 8

DGAB

LCB

PATB

 

Also, the number of joints and cracks faulted in the non—drainable sections (DGAB and
LCB sections) are higher than those in the drainable sections (PATB sections).
Transverse cracks in the states of DE, IA, KS and MI and transverse joints in the states of
AZ, CO, DE, KS, MI, NV, NC, OH, WA and W1 experienced medium severity faulting
(between 3 mm and 7 mm). High severity faulting (>7 mm) at the joints was found in the
states of AZ, CO and MI. Figure 22 below illustrates the magnitude of faulting at all the
joints for the latest year for the MI (26) SPS-2 sites. In general, it appears that sections
without drainage (DGAB and LCB) exhibited relatively higher faulting compared to the
drained sections (PATB). However, among the non-drainable sections, the DGAB
sections experienced higher magnitudes of faulting. This could be explained through the
fact that shear transfer provided by LCB is higher than what is provided by DGAB since

LCB is stiffer (higher elastic modulus) than DGAB layers.

59

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 12
5'10- 510‘
a" ‘8‘
:2 6 €52

C

a 4 :- 4‘
u a 2‘ .
‘5 1 '3 W
n m- _ - _--_ 1---

o 0 _'"'“"‘ I ___,..._ w—— —“

0 20 N 60 m I!” 120 1‘0

 

 

+2602l70997) +26-OZISOS95) 44602190002) +2602200m2)

+260213(1990) +260214 (2002) +26-0215 (1999) +260216 (2002)
(b) LCB section

(a) DGAB sections.

 

SIS

 

Joint faulting, mm .
as

 

o ===._/,=\=_-Z:\.-,.===.A__==;é\_=:=:/:r;,\_=:=::
0 20 40 .60 80 IN 120 140

Point location, in

 

+ 26-0221 (2002) + 26—0222 (2002) + 26-0223 (2002) + 26-0224 (2002)
(c) PATB sections.

Figure 22 Average joint faulting in the MI (26) SPS-2 sites
The occurrence of faulting in sections could also be associated with pumping. For most
of the sections, the joint faulting ranged from 0 to 0.19 in. (0 to 5 mm), with some joints
in the MI (26) sections showing about 0.38 to 0.47 in. (10 to 12mm) of faulting. It might
be noted that the dowel diameters of the sections are either 1.25 inch or 1.5 inch.
According to the SPS-2 factorial, 1.25-inch diameter dowel bars are provided in the 8 in.
sections, and 1.5-inch diameter dowel bars are provided in the 11 in. sections. Figure 22
shows that sections with a greater dowel diameter had relatively higher levels of faulting.
The relationship between faulting and dowel diameter is not obvious as the thicker
sections have 1.5” dowels whereas the thinner sections have 1.25” dowels. Based on this

example and the ones summarized in the appendix (Figures B-37 through B-S7 of

60

Appendix B), it can be concluded that faulting is not significantly reducing the structural
capacity of the pavement sections. The observations made from the data are summarized
in Table 31 below.

Table 31 Occurrence of faulting in the SPS-2 test sites

 

State Comments

 

AZ (4) o The 8 in. DGAB sections have the maximum number of faulting
occurrences

o Faulting at almost all the joints is <3 mm. 2 joints in 4-0215
exhibited 4 mm and 10 mm faulting. Section 4-0223 exhibited
faulting of 9 mm.

 

AR (5) o The DGAB sections have more occurrences of faulting than the
others, which may be due to their low stiffness. It could also be due
to the high number of pumping occurrences in these sections.

0 Within the DGAB sections, the 8 in. sections have shown more

 

 

faulting
All the joints to date have faulting <3 mm

CA (6) o In all the sections, faulting was <3 mm and all sections on all types
of bases had almost same number of faulting occurrences

CO (8) a Most of the sections have shown faulting less than 3 mm. Faulting

for sections 8-0217,8-0218 and 8-0224 ranged from 3-4 mm. One
joint in section 8-0220 had a faulting of 9 mm.

 

 

DE (10) 3 joints in section 10-0201 exhibited 3-4 mm faulting.

9 joints in section 10-0205 exhibited 3-4 mm faulting to date.

1 joint in section 10-0206 exhibited 3 mm faulting.

4 joints in section 10-0209 exhibited 3-4 mm faulting.

1 joint in section 10-0210 and 10-0212 exhibited 3 mm faulting.
Except the above-mentioned joints, the remaining joints exhibited

faulting <3 mm to date.

 

 

61

 

Table 31 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Comments

IA (19) The magnitude of faulting is less than 3 mm in most of the joints.
Only one joint in section 19-0217 at point location 136.9 m
exhibited 3 mm faulting.

KS (20) 0 Except for 2 joints (at 67.5 m and 72 m) in section 20-0206 and 1
joint (at 131.9 m) in section 20-0212 where the faulting ranged from
3-4 mm, the faulting has been less than 3 mm at all the joints in all
the sections.

NV (32) o Faulting was observed in all the non-drainable sections. Faulting
ranged from 3-5 mm in these sections, with one joint (at point
location of 79.9 m) showing a faulting of 7 mm.
The remaining joints showed faulting less than 3 mm.

NC (37) The usage of 1” diameter dowels instead of 1.25” bars in the
sections can have an impact on faulting. So far the magnitudes of
faulting have been less than 7 mm.

o The faulting has been less than 3 mm in all the joints except for one
joint in section 37-0202 (at point location 72.1 m) and one joint in
section 37-0205 (at point location 115.7 m) where the magnitudes of
faulting are 3mm and 5 mm respectively.

ND (38) o The magnitudes of faulting are less than 3 mm in all the sections.
Sections are yet to exhibit consistently higher faulting trends.

OH (39) o Insignificant faultingobserved

WA (53) 0 Most of the joints exhibited either zero faulting or less than 3 mm

0 7mm faulting was observed at 7.6 m in section 53-0201

0 6mm faulting was observed at 62 min section 53-0202

0 Faulting of 6mm and 3 mm were observed at 81 m and 108.5 m
respectively, in section 53—0204

0 3mm faulting was observed at 44.2 min section 53-0209.

0 3mm faulting was observed at 71.8 min section 53-0210.

- Faulting of 3-4 mm was observed at 4 joints in section 53-0212.

WI(55) 0 Except for 2 joints at 75.8m and 103.1m which exhibited 3 mm

 

faulting, all the other sections exhibited zero faulting or less than 3
mm.

 

62

 

CHAPTER 6
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF SPS-2 DATA

Several statistical methods can and have been employed to establish performance criteria,
to study the effect of design and construction methods on pavement response and
performance. The statistical methods range from trend plotting to complex regression
analysis.
The simpler statistical methods include Univariate and Bivariate analysis of data. These
methods include (1) determination of data statistics such as mean, standard deviation and
data variability and (2) degree of dependence between variables. Such an analysis can
also provide summary statistics such as the coefficient of correlation. Bivariate analysis
can also assist in identifying outliers.
Hypothesis testing is a tool that allows one to determine if a specific numerical value is
equal to, less or greater than a specified number or means of two sets of data are equal or
significantly different. The mean response values for each group can be determined and
then compared using hypothesis testing for a certain level of confidence. If this
relationship is significant, then the impact of the given factor on the response should be
further investigated.
Some of the multivariate statistical methods include:

0 Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

0 Regression Analysis
The ANOVA is a tool that allows one to compare the relationship between one dependant
variable and one or more independent variables. For example, the relationship between

the number of transverse cracking (dependant variable) and base type are ideal candidates

63

for such an analysis. This method can be applied at both the network and the project level
analyses.

Regression Analysis attempt to explain some dependent variable, y, in terms of many
independent (explanatory) variables, x’s. The model (equation) can either be linear or
non-linear and with actual, transformed, or interaction clusters of variables. The model
coefficients can be estimated using best (least squares) fitting techniques.

The normal density function will provide the basis for most of the statistical
inferences regarding the investigation of treatment effects on continuous random
response variables. For a normally distributed random variable, the z-transformation
transforms a normal distribution with any mean u and variance 0'2 to that of the standard
normal distribution. All the statistical analysis will be done at an 0t: 5 % level of
significance (7,8).

Performance Index and Relative Performance Index

It might be noted that since the sections were not all opened to traffic at the same
time, the age of all the sections in the SPS-2 experiment is not the same. Moreover, as
mentioned before, the dataset is not balanced, as the number of years for which data is
available for sections within a state is also inconsistent. A direct comparison of sections
is not possible as the age of the sections is different. Hence, it was deemed necessary to
develop an index, such that comparisons can be made across different states without the
need for age.

Figure 23 shows a hypothetical (typical) performance curve over time for a
pavement section. The response/performance for the majority of SPS-2 test sections is

not measured continuously i.e., at every year or over the same period necessarily. The

area under the performance curve represents the overall performance of a particular
section but it cannot be used for comparing two sections having the same performance at
different ages. Figure 24 shows two typical sections; the first section shows an early
deterioration over time (0-3 years) whereas the second section exhibits signs of distress at
a later age (5-8 years). The performance curves for sections in CA (6) are similar to
Figure 24a, while the performance curves for sections in MI (26) follow the pattern
shown in Figure 24b. Hence a direct comparison of sections in CA (6) and MI (26) is not
possible due to the difference in the age of the sections. The area under the performance
curves for both the sections might have the same value, however the second section is

performing better since the same distress level was accumulated at a much later time.

Performance I Performance

A A

   

       

 

 

b—-————————-

 

2

Pt

V

 

4 5

 

 

H p——.—
00 L————-—————-

p—s
N ..------
DJ
05

(a) Continuous Response Measurement (b) Discontinuous Response Measurement

Figure 23 Typical performance curves

65

A

Performance T Performance

 

00 V_--—-

>r
3 5 7

 

 

I
I
I
I
I
I
2

(a) Poor performance over time (b) Good performance with time

Figure 24 Measure of performance with time

Therefore, a Performance Index was calculated for each section with respect to different
performance measures such as cracking, faulting, spalling, pumping and roughness. This
was calculated by summing the product of the performance over years (performance
value multiplied by the survey year for all the survey years) divided by the sum of the
survey years for a particular section as shown below:
2 Yi’i

= 1'

2’1"

i

Y

 

where Y is the performance index , and yi and ti are the performance value and the
pavement age, respectively, at survey year i. It might be noted that the Performance Index
of any distress will have the units of that distress. If the Performance Index is calculated
for the two sections shown in Figure 24, the second section will have a lower value
(indicating better performance) than the first one.

After the performance index is calculated for all the sections, the main factors in

the experiment design were compared to investigate the relative performance. Hence a

66

relative performance index was calculated. The relative performance index is defined as
the ratio of the average performance index at that level to the average of all the
performance indices at all levels of that factor. An example calculation is shown in the
subsequent sections. The sum of relative performance indices for a given category is
equal to the number of levels in that category. For paired comparisons (e.g., PCC
thickness, lane width etc.), the ratio ranges from “0” to “2”, with a value of “1” indicating
that there is no significant difference in the performance between the two levels (i.e., on
an average, the amount of distress for the two levels of a given factor is almost the same).
A value less than “1” indicates lower distress (better performance) and a value greater
than “1” indicates higher distress (worse performance). The best possible performance
translates to “0” and the worst possible performance translates to “2”. It might be noted
that, for cases where there is no distress for both levels of a given factor, the relative
performance index cannot be defined.

For the effect of base type, the ratio varies from “0” to 3’ since there are three base
types, with a value of “l” for all base types indicating that the amount of distresses is the
same (on an average) for alI the base types. Values close to “1” indicate no significant
effect of base type. A value higher than 1 indicates more distress (worse performance) for
a particular base type. The worst possible performance translates to 3 (all other base types
would show “0”, indicating no distress), and the best possible performance translates to
“”.0

The relative performance index for various levels of the main factors was calculated for
all the states in the SPS-2 experiment and for each performance measure; the effects of

climatic zone and subgrade type were compared across the states. The concept of relative

67

performance index can be utilized across the states without considering the traffic
because it is a dimensionless quantity. The summary tables for factor comparison were
prepared for each performance measure for all the states.

All the afore mentioned techniques have been used in this research to identify the
factors that contribute to the occurrence of transverse cracking, faulting and pumping in
the SPS-2 sections, thus validating the results obtained from the engineering analysis
(presented in Chapter 5). The subsequent sections in this Chapter present the statistical

analysis for the three distresses (transverse cracking, faulting and pumping).

CRACKING IN SPS-2 SITES

As mentioned before, the performance index and the relative performance index were
calculated for transverse cracking. Then the univariate and the multivariate analysis were
done to identify the factors contributing to the occurrence of transverse cracking.
Performance Index and Relative Performance Index

Table 32 shows the example calculation of performance index and relative performance
index with time for number of transverse cracks with respect to drainage type (presence

or lack of it) for the state of Kansas KS (20).

68

Table 32 Example calculation of average normalized performance over time

(State- KS (20), Number of transverse cracks)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non-drainable sections Drainable sections
SI-[RP ID Performance Index SHRP ID Performance Index
0201 6.34 0209 0.00
0202 1.81 0210 0.00
0203 0.00 021 1 0.00
0204 0.00 0212 0.00
0205 0.00
0206 0.00
0207 0.00
0208 0.00
Average 1 .02 Average 0.00
Mean performance L_—)‘1'022+ 0 = 0'51 Mean performance _L__)_l.022+ O = 0'51
Relative 1.02 = 2 Relative 0.00 = 0
performance index 0.51 performance index 0.5 1

 

In the above example, comparing the performance indices indicates that the pavement
sections founded on a drainable base are performing better than those founded on non-
drainable bases, since the relative performance index is lower.

Table 33 and Table 34 show an example of factors’ comparison for number and length of
transverse cracks at the network level respectively. As can be seen from the table, the
sum of the relative performance indices for factors with two levels (PCC thickness and
drainage type) is “2” and “3” for factors with three levels (base type). The table compares
the effect of PCC thickness, drainage type and base type on the occurrence of transverse
cracking. For example, consider the effect of base type on the number of transverse
cracks. All the LCB sections in the DF region and founded on a coarse subgrade had high
relative performance indices (2.60, 3.00 and 3.00). Such high values (close to 3.00)

indicate the poor performance of the sections constructed on LCB layers, which could be

69

due to the transverse shrinkage cracks observed during construction in most of the states.
As mentioned before, most of the cracks in these sections were contributed by sections in
NV (32).

Table 35 and Table 36 show the comparisons for the relative performance index at the
state level for number and length of transverse cracks at all the levels of the main factors
in the SPS-2 experiment. Also, the effect of climatic zone and the subgrade type were

compared across the states.

70

3:23 on 8:58 eunuch—atom 03328 no 02?
of .38 a :03 E .83 8a .883 2: .20 .96— 35 on 80me we mouaEwaE of 85 2365 ..X: E woo—BE £00 6qu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x x x x x x ooo ooo 8M RN ooo 8o x x x x ooo 8N ooN ooo ooo 8N H x H x ooo oo~ x x ooo oo~ you
x x x x x x 2.2 8.— ooo oom So So on x x x oom ooo ooN ooo x x x x ooo oom ooo ooN ooo ooN x x E30 EB
x x x ooo SN omo w: 82 So of :2 8o x on $2 3o 52 2o ooN ooo ooo ooa ooa ooo ooo oow ooo ooo ooo oo.~ wmo No.2 ”am
on x x x x x x x x oom ooo ooo x x x x x x oom ooo x x x x x x ooo SN 2 x x x 9280 "5
Now moo ooo oom ooo ooo am So ooo mow moo ooo oom ooo oom ooo ooN ooo oo~ ooo x x x x ooo 82 2o 82 omo 8.2 ooo ooN 580 wzo
2o 22 moo x x x ooo moo w: x x x of :o x 2 So R2 22 2o 8o 22 x x ooo «2 m3 moo 2: 2o x N «am
oom ooo ooo x x x oom ooo ooo RN moo ooo oom ooo N x oom ooo oom ooo x x x x ooo NZ ooo oom x H ooo oom 0:80 "8
m3 mica 2.5 m3 $8 222 m3 989 2.52 m3 939 meg .: .o .2 .m .: .o .2 .o .2 .m .: .o
Qz o 02 o Qz Q oz 9 Qz 9 oz Q Qz a 92 o .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 05.
.2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 2.5 m3 269 fififim 25m
.2 .m .2 .o a Qz
25 ”am 25 a 5 3083. 002
iguangooawg
—O>Q— v—hO3HQ—n 0.: a“ mv—Ufihu Owhv>m=flhu m0 Saw:9_ hawk ~mHQEE—um gOmtflQEOU hOaUflh =eo>o QM Q—Dflh.
x x x x x x ooo ooo oom oo~ 2o ooo x M x ooo ooN oom ooo ooo SN 2 x x x ooo SN 2 x ooo ood gem "EB
x x x x x x 8.2 2.2 ooo oom ooo ooo x x 2 SN ooo oom ooo x x M x ooo ooa ooo ooN coo ooN x x 330
x x x ooo SN omo $2 22 2o 22 on— ooo x x 32 3o 2.2 2o oom ooo ooo oom ooN ooo ooo ooN ooo oom ooo ooN 8o o: am "5
x x x x x x x x x oom ooo ooo x x x x x oom ooo x x x x x x ooo oom x x x x 0:80
ovm So ooo ooo ooo ooo o: mmo ooo mow 2o ooo ooN ooo ooN ooo oom ooo oom ooo x x x x to 82 So 2; «mo of ooo oom 8:30 E9
ooo 3m ooo x x x moo 2.o N: x x x 32 2o 2 ooo 2: o: ooo ovo 22 x 2 So «2 3.— moo 2— moo x N am we
oom ooo ooo x x x ooo ooo ooo ova ovo ooo oom ooo x oom ooo ooN ooo x x x x :— moo ooo SN 2 x ooo 8m ago
m3 $.09 2.5 m3 369 2.: m3 m<oo meg mg 3.09 mean .: .o .2 .m .2 .m .2 .o .: .w .2 .m
Qz o Qz o oz 9 Qz Q oz 9 Qz 9 oz 9 oz 9 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 x5.
.2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 2.42 mug mode 3828 23m
.2 .m .: .m o Qz
2535 25 33509.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

.96— v—uckuo: 05 an 8398 8.85:9: me .8385: new mud—555 2.82.3258 ~33.“ =a._o>O mm «35,—.

71

It is evident from Table 35 that sections with 11 in. PCC thickness showed lesser number
of transverse cracks than the 8 in sections. Sections with a lane width of 14 ft showed
lesser number of transverse cracks than those with a lane width of 12 ft. Sections founded

on a drainable base (PATB) performed better since the relative performance indices are

lower.

Table 35 State Level factor comparison for Number of transverse cracks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NUMBER OF TRANSVERSE CRACKS

Dram 1: Base T c PCC Thickness Flexural Stre Lane Width

zm subg‘d‘ 3“” D D a8ND DGAB L013yp PATB 8' 11' 550 psi 900%: 12' 14'
C 10 0.00 2.00 0 00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 0.00
F 19 000 200 000 300 0.00 200 000 1,90 0.10 010 1.90
WI: F 20 000 200 300 000 000 200 000 156 044 156 044
P 26 000 2.00 073 2.27 000 1.89 011 0.27 1.73 1.84 0.16
P 38 0 00 2 00 0 00 3.00 0.00 2 00 0 00 2.00 0.00 000 2.00
F 39 0.11 189 0 99 1.84 0.17 190 010 0.96 1.04 1.06 0.94
WNF C 5 0.00 2.00 012 2.88 0,00 2 00 0.00 0.18 1.82 1.82 0.18
P 37 0.16 1.84 0 09 2.67 0.24 2 00 0.00 184 0.16 1.84 0.16
F+C 8 0 00 2 00 0 00 3 00 0 00 2 00 0 00 0 00 2 00 2 00 0 00
DP F+C 32 0.10 1.90 1,22 1.58 020 121 079 1.22 0.78 0.89 1 11
C 53 0.00 2,00 0.00 3.00 0.00 1.08 0.92 1.34 0.66 0.42 1 58
DNF C 4 0.00 2.00 0.00 3 00 0.00 1.81 019 0.90 1.10 115 0 85
C 6 0.00 2 00 128 1.72 0 00 181 019 1.10 0.90 1.05 0.95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 36 State Level factor comparison for Length of transverse cracks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LENGTH or TRANSVERSE CRACKS

Dr 1: Base T e PCC Thickness Flexural Str Lane Width

2°“ “wad“ 8“" D D a”8ND DGAB LCByp PATB 8' 11' 550 p3: 9008; 12' 14'
c 10 0 00 2 00 0 oo 3 00 0.00 200 0.00 2. 00 0.00 2. 00 000
P 19 000 200 000 3.00 0.00 200 0.00 1.99 0,01 001 199
w}: 1: 20 0 oo 2 00 3 00 o 00 o 00 2 00 o 00 1 24 o 76 1 24 o 76
P 26 0.00 2,00 072 2,28 0.00 187 013 0 34 1.66 1.78 022
F 38 0.00 2 00 0 00 3 00 0 00 2,00 0 00 2 00 0.00 0 00 2 00
1= 39 0.12 1.88 0,99 1.83 0.18 191 009 0.90 1.10 0.99 1.01
m c 5 0.00 2.00 0.07 2.93 0.00 2 00 o 00 0.14 1.86 1.86 o. 14
P 37 0.04 196 0 06 2.88 0.06 2 00 o 00 1 96 0.04 1.96 0.04
1=+c 8 0 00 2 00 0 00 3.00 0 00 2 00 0 00 0 00 2 00 2, 00 000
DP 1=+c 32 0.16 1.84 1.27 1.41 032 123 0.77 0.99 1.01 0.72 128
c 53 0.00 2.00 0 00 3.00 0,00 148 0 52 0.71 1.29 o, 19 1,81
DNF c 4 000 2.00 000 3.00 000 184 0.16 1.09 0.91 1.00 1.00
c 6 0.00 2.00 1 51 1.49 0.00 1.85 0.15 0.97 1.03 0.92 1.08

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The above factor comparisons at both the network and the state level have been repeated

for all the other performance measures.
The overall statistical analysis involves the use of independent data (inventory,

construction, performance and response) from all the states in the SPS-2 experiment. The

72

advantage of this approach is that the wealth of data from all states combined is used.
This data is also conducive for performing formal statistical analysis as outlined below.
Figure 25 shows the general framework of overall analysis for the SPS-2 experiment.

The data that actually populate the experimental design matrix have been thoroughly
reviewed and it is known, for example, which cells of the matrix contain data that can be
used in the analysis. A typical matrix is shown in Table 37. In this example, the
dependant variables are those used to describe the pavement performance (e.g. transverse
cracking); independent design variables are those used to specify the design matrix (e.g.,
PCC thickness); and independent exogenous variables are those which have potential
impacts on pavement performance but are not controlled in the experiment design (e.g.,
actual cumulative ESALS).

In this particular instance, the dependant variable is the performance index for number of
transverse cracks. Number in a cell in Table 37 indicates the average of the performance

indices of all the sections that belong to that cell.

73

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- PCC

l thickness
0 Drainage

Main factors to be investigated for Type 4
SPS-2 experiement - Flexural
Strength ~—

- Base Type
0 Lane Width

 

 

\d/\

0 Performance

Response Measures
(various
distresses) J

. Roughness J

0 Deflections
(FWD)

0 Strains (DLR)

\/\

0 Material
Properties
with various
states and
zones

0 Traffic levels .4

within states
etc.

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

Confounding
factors

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

Statistical analysis
Test of significance

  

 

Results:
List of factors that are
significant

 

 

 

Figure 25 Framework for overall analysis

74

 

“(m u a.“

Table 37 Performance Indices for Number of transverse cracks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pavement Structure Chmanc Zones. Subgrade
PCC Wet
Dramas: Base mcmss 14-day Lane Freeze No-Freeze Freeze N0~Freeae 1.15;; r
type (111) Flexural . Wrdth. 8 Fine Coarse Pure Coarse Fme Coarse Fme Coarse
5mm P” J K L M N o p Q R s r U v w x r
550 12 5 31 0 02 X X 20 8 X 9 1
8 14 0 4 X X 1.11 X X X 0 2
900 1: 4 26 0 6 0 X 0 X X 0 X x 0 0 X x 9 67 0 3
4
N0 DGAB 550 12 03 X X 0 X X X 0 5
1] 14 0 0 0 X X 0 X 2 6
900 12 0.72 0 0 X X 0 X 0 7
14 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0 8
550 12 6 93 8 54 6.1 X X 965 X 14.7 9
8 14 2 1 X X 1.37 X X X 7 92 10
900 12 3.9 X X 256 X X X 10.4 11
NO LCB 14 4.67 0 0 X X 27 X 10.3 12
550 12 0 X X 0 X 0 X 1 22 13
11 14 0 0 0 X X 378 X 1 14
900 12 0 0 0 X X 0 X 1.67 15
14 0 X X 0 X X X 0.72 16
550 12 0 0 0 X X 0 X 0 I7
8 14 0 X X 0 X X X 0 18
900 12 0 X X 0 X X X 0 19
YES PAD: 14 0 86 0 0 55 X X 0 X 0 20
DGAB 550 12 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0 21
11 14 0 0 0 X X 0 X 0 22
900 12 0.21 0 0 X X 0 X 0 23
14 0 X X 0 X 0 X 0 24
Cabana letter A B C D E F O H I J K l. M N 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each cell in the matrix has a row (a number from 1 to 24) and a column (a letter from A
to P) designation for ease of reference. These labels are shown in the 1ast column and
bottom row, respectively of Table 37.

Independent Design and Construction Variables
The matrix is defined by independent design variables. Here, there are two (2) drainage
conditions, three (3) base types, two (2) PCC thickness, two (2) flexural strength values,
two (2) lane widths, four (4) zone conditions, and two (2) subgrade types. All these
V311 ables are treated as nominal. Variables like P200 (percent passing # 200 sieve), as-
cOnStructed PCC thickness, base thickness etc. have been treated as interval (or
Con ti n uous) variables. The main effects of these design variables on pavement

pethl‘rnance and the interaction effects among independent variables has been thoroughly

75

investigated and the analysis is presented in the subsequent sections. As mentioned
before, the experiment matrix is not fully populated. Also the sample sizes are unequal
and hence the straightforward AN OVA analysis cannot be done.
The analysis will begin at the simplest/grossest level, considering the effects of only one
design variable, and proceed to more detailed levels, considering (as the data permits)
additional design variables and their interactions. All the statistical analyses were done at
a 5% level of significance.
Simple Univariate Comparisons for Transverse cracking
With reference to Table 37, the first step is to consider the effect of PCC thickness on
Transverse Cracking, ignoring the effects of other variables. This is a simple comparison
of the mean value of the transverse cracking data with PCC thickness=8 in. with the mean
value of transverse cracking data with PCC thickness=11 in.. The statistical comparison
is a basic t-test of the equality of two means.
The actual hypothesis being tested is:
H- lover columns A-P:
[average (transverse cracking) for all data with PCC thickness=8 in.] =
[average (transverse cracking) for all data with PCC thickness=11 in.]
Figure 26 shows that the 8 in. sections, in general, experienced more number of
transverse cracks than the 11 in. sections. From the Univariate analysis, the overall
Significance of the model is P: 0.209 which is greater than 0.05 (significance level).
A130, the P-value for PCC thickness is 0.209, which is greater than 5 % level of
Significance. Hence it appears that PCC thickness does not seem to be significant

4 . . . . . .
C:<=C>z-<irng to the srmple unrvarrate analysrs. The hrgh number of transverse cracks in these

76

sections is mostly contributed by NV (32). The extensively high transverse cracking in

NV is because of the problems encountered during construction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

U, 20
.2
o
E
o
o ____.__
E
“3” IO
1: ____.._
8
b-t
8 _— U
2 0‘ ——
5
8°
3 -10

 

8 1'1
PCC Thickness. in.
Figure 26 Example hypothesis testing - PCC thickness
Table 38 Example hypothesis testing — PCC thickness

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: NP

 

 

Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.__‘
Corrected Model 818.662‘1 1 818.662 1.591 .209
Intercept 4664.026 1 4664.026 9.065 .003
PCC_THIC 818.662 1 818.662 1.591 .209
Error 7 87 16.376 153 514.486
Total 84224.507 155
Corrected Total 79535.038 154

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a. Fl Squared = .010 (Adjusted R Squared = .004)
The analysis was also done by excluding the sections from NV and the results are as
Shovvn in Figure 27. This analysis shows that the PCC thickness seems to be significant in
the Occurrence of transverse cracking. Since there was extensive cracking in both the 8 in.

and the 11 in. sections in NV because of the shrinkage cracking, the PCC thickness was

not Significant in Figure 26.

77

*ué‘lfl-‘I '

 

 

 

 

 

4

m 3‘

a)

.3 ca

m

> 2‘

Q:

Z __

5 1‘

§

ex 0‘ §
-1

 

8 1'1

PCC Thickness, in.

Figure 27 Hypothesis testing -PCC thickness (without NV)

The second step is to consider only the data in columns A-H because the data in that half
of the overall matrix belongs to the wet zones in the SPS-2 experiment. The same test
was repeated for sections located in the dry zones (columns LP). The results of both the

tests are shown in Figure 28 and Figure 29 respectively.

78

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u: 4 U, 40
x __ a:
0 o
8 g __
Q53) 3< 8 30.
2 :3 §
2 2* w 204 __
g 5 ca
In
3 I:
“- 1* —4—— e 10.
E % C!
H H .__.__
L: 0 I U o _l
3‘» go __
° '1 153 -10
8 ll 8 1’1
PCC Thickness, in. PCC Thickness, in.

Figure 28 Transverse cracking-Wet Zones Figure 29 Transverse cracking-Dry Zones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 6
5.
(I) 3‘ U) —'-r-——
0 0)
a u 7: 4
> 2‘ > 3.
g a. n
2 1 —«— o ‘
O
E) O :m: E 1‘ ——
0. I
'1 . . -1
8 11 é 1'1
PCC Thickness, in. PCC Thickness in.

Figure 30 Transverse cracking-Wet Zones . . .
(without NV) Figure 31 Transverse cracking Dry
Zones (without NV)

Figure 28 and Figure 29 show that sections located in the Dry zones had significantly
greater amount of transverse cracking than those in the Wet zones. It might be noted that
mOSt of the transverse cracking in the dry zones was contributed by sections located in
We Vacla, NV (32). The same trends were observed in Figure 30 and Figure 31 which

Show the comparison without the inclusion of NV. It might be noted that the dependant

79

variable throughout this analysis is the total number of transverse cracks. The severity
levels of the cracks are not considered here.

A similar comparison can also be done for sections located in the Freeze (columns A-D
and LL) and No-Freeze (columns EB and M-P) climates as shown in Figure 32 and
Figure 33. The sections located in the Freeze zones have higher transverse cracking than
those located in the non-freeze zones. The same analysis was done for sections without
the inclusion of NV as shown in Figure 34 and Figure 35, where the same trends were
observed. Figure 36 shows an example of hypothesis testing (for effect of PCC thickness)
considering the various climatic zones separately. The 8 in. sections located in the DF
zone have higher transverse cracking than the other sections. Figure 37 shows the same
comparison done without the inclusion of NV. The 8 in. sections located in the DNF

region had higher transverse cracking.

8O

~—1-n-‘r-r—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 U, 8
__ .M
g __
3 6‘
__ if.
Q. 10‘ up 3
2 g 4. (a
r—t a:
‘3 <3 E
E o _— i 2'
. __ z __
a 0 I
9‘:
-10 . . 0‘ -2 . .
8 11 8 11
PCC Thickness, in. FCC Thickness, in.
Figure 32 Transverse cracking Figure 33 Transverse Cracking
-Freeze zones -Non-Freeze zones
3.0 8
25. “7— —_
m U, 6‘
3 2.04 g
a r: f; 4. q:
E 1.5- %
E3 1.0“ a 2.
$3 .5‘ —_ 5‘2 ““
o o I
0.
0.0 I
-.5 . r -2 . .
8 1 l 8 l l
PCC Thickness PCC Thickness
Figure 34 Transverse cracking Figure 35 Transverse Cracking
-Freeze zones (without NV) -Non-Freeze zones (without NV)

81

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6G
50 —— Zone
40 I
E —_ 0 BF
I-t 30 ',
U :1 ‘
‘68 20 3 DNF
V3
0‘ I! I
10 “T7 WF
o
0. ““11 r . E, I
-10 "— - o WNF

 

a 11
PCC Thickness, in.

Figure 36 Example hypothesis
testing for PCC

thickness by climatic
zones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

8‘ f. Climatic zone
m T I
3 6‘ ; a DF
‘9 .~ .
a. 4‘ ‘
Z i I“ : DNF
... 2. L
U -_.— I
g 0‘ I E M a WF

-2. "1— I

-4 . _ o WNF t

8 11
PCC Thickness, in. '

Figure 37 Example hypothesis testing E
for PCC thickness by climatic zones .4
(without NV) r

Similar hypothesis testing can also be done with the subgrade type, base type, drainage

type and lane width. The results are shown in Figure 38 through Figure 41. The non-

drainable (LCB) 8 in. sections constructed on a coarse subgrade, have significantly

greater transverse cracking. Also sections with a 12 ft lane exhibited higher transverse

cracking than those with a 14 ft lane width. The same analysis was done for sections

excluding NV as shown in Figure 42 through Figure 45.

The third step consists of testing the data from columns A—H on the left half of the matrix,

Which has the effect of controlling the effect of zone=wet-freeze/no-freeze and subgrade

conditions=finelcoarse.

82

95% CI NP Transverse cracks

W
O

N
C?

1—a
O

C?

.1..
o

 

 

 

 

 

 

q: ' T7

im— :3:

{a 1'1
PCC Thickness, in.

Subgrade type

I
0 Coarse

._- Fine

95% CI NP

 

 

 

 

 

4O
30
20 “7' Base type
T I
10‘ D DGAB
: CD , r
01 I i _ =3: 8‘: LCB
__ I
-10 c1 PATB

 

8 1'1

PCC Thickness, in.

Figure 38 Transverse cracks-Subgrade type Figure 39 Transverse cracks-Base type

95% CI NP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

30
20« ——
lo . I11 F"—
0 . % hlt:
- 10 . .
8 l l
PCC Thickness, in.

Drainage Condition

I

0N0

1

a Yes

95% CI NP

-lO

 

3O

20

 

 

 

 

 

PCC Thickness, in.

Lane Width

0 12'

14'

Figure 40 Transverse cracks-Drainage tYPe Figure 41 Transverse cracks-Lane Width

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10
6
__ 8 E _
5‘ §
§ 4‘ T—i 6< ’: Base type
'3 i ; I
> E! z 4 4
a. 3i ,.._ _.- __ . c1 DGAB
Z Q . -
a 21 Subgrade type 59 2. 1
Be ‘ I 53 , : LCB
V) 1 J I— 0‘ I I -_ .._.—
Ch w ~—v— 0 Coarse I
0‘ I -2 . . . pm
-1 ; Fine 8 11
s .3
PCC Thickness
PCC Thickness
. Figure 43 Transverse cracks
Figure 42 Transverse cracks-Subgrade .
type (without NV) -Base type (Wltlwllt N V)
6
6 5. —r—
5« ”T“ § 4.
v. a
g 4. Z 31 ca _ 7 )
> 3 . E 2‘ ; Lane Width
U ,'_
g 2‘ -_ Drainage type a? l4 __ it I
U I g: T _.fi__ 0 12
69 1 . 0. I.__‘i‘__. T
g D Yes ‘
o. I $211k; T -| , . 14
‘ 8 11
-1 . . 1': No
3 1 1 PCC Thickness
PCC ThiCkneSS Figure 45 Transverse cracks-Lane
Width (without NV)

Figure 44 Transverse cracks-Drainage
type (without NV)

Figure 46 shows an example of the above hypothesis by subgrade type for sections in the

WP zone.

84

 

 

 

 

 

6
(I)
x __
U
5 4‘
a) :
F i
g 2.4 1"}
,_ _ r
E— 0 .7: 2.1-H: Subgrade Type
% 1
U 2‘ 0 Coarse
5° - —_
In 1
ox -4 1': Fine

 

a 1'1

PCC Thickness, in.

Figure 46 Example hypothesis testing for PCC thickness by Subgrade Type (WF).

This comparison is repeated for the other three climatic zones with three other similar
hypotheses being tested. These comparisons basically reveal whether there are
differences in transverse cracking between pavements with PCC = 8 in. and PCC=11 in.
for the various combinations of zone=wet-freeze/no—freeze and subgrade conditions. It
might be noted that there are differences in the base type, lane width, and the drainage
type between the two sets of data. Figures B-58 through B-60 show these graphs.

It can be concluded from the univariate analysis that sections with an 8 in. PCC slab,
founded on an LCB layer and a coarse subgrade with a 12 ft lane width exhibit higher
transverse cracking. The same trends have also been observed in the engineering analysis
(presented in Chapter 5). The occurrence of cracks in the 8 in. LCB sections could be
because of the transverse shrinkage cracks during construction. The occurrence of
transverse cracking in the 8 in DGAB sections could be because of the low structural

capacity of the sections. Also, the 8 in. sections with a 12 ft lane could not withstand the

85

target design ESALS for which they have been designed (as obtained from the thickness
adequacy analysis using AASHTO ’98).

Multivariate Analysis for Transverse cracking

The data in the matrix also allows for multivariate testing- e. g. testing for the main effects
of two or more design variables and their interactions. Since the experiment design
matrix for transverse cracking has empty cells, the main and the interaction effects cannot
be considered in their entirety. Rather, the multivariate relationships were considered
with some constraints (as defined by the available data).

The fifth step in the analysis is to consider all the design variables in the multivariate
analysis, while treating the effects of traffic and PCC thickness variability as covariates.
(It might be noted that the proposed KESALs/ year in Table 14 has been used in this
analysis due to non-availability of traffic data). Hence, the multivariate analysis was done
at the network level to determine the effects of the various factors and all possible
interactions between them. Table 39 shows the multivariate analysis for all SPS-2
sections with the normalized performance value of transverse cracking as the dependant
variable.

The overall model is not significant as the P-value (0.224) is greater than 0.05. None of
the variables seem to show any effect (since the significance values are greater than 0.05)
on the occurrence of transverse cracking in the sections. Most of the sections have very
low magnitudes of transverse cracking. Hence, it was deemed necessary to perform the

same analysis at a state level to determine the factors that contribute to transverse

cracking.

86

At the state level, it was necessary to calculate the z-scores of the normalized
performance values. The reason for using the z-scores is to remove the effect of the age

of the sections. The z-score for each section in a given state is calculated as follows:

2 - score( for a given section) =

(Performance index of section — Average of Performance Indices of all sections in that state)
(Standard deviation of Performance Indices values of all sections in that state)

Table 40 shows the multivariate analysis done at the state level. It has been found that
base type, PCC thickness, variability in the PCC thickness, the interaction between base
type & PCC thickness, and PCC thickness & lane width are statistically significant (as
their respective P-values are less than 5 % level of significance) and hence contribute to

the occurrence of transverse cracking in these sections.

87

Table 39 Multivariate ANOVA for SPS-2 sections-Transverse cracking

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: NP VALUES

 

Si.

 

 

Type III Sum

Source of Squares (11 Mean Square F

orrected Model 24997.360a 42 595.175 1.201
Intercept 2056.585 1 2056.585 4.148
DRAINAGE 91 1.291 1 91 1 .291 1.838
NBASETYP 192.384 1 192.384 .388
PCC_THIC 1050.555 1 1050.555 2.119
FLEX_COD 21 .252 1 21 .252 .043
LW_CODE 86.428 1 86.428 .174
ZONE 3061 .981 3 1020.660 2.059
SUBGRADE .350 1 .350 .001
RECENT ER 178.903 1 178.903 .361
V26 1 92.007 1 1 92.007 .387
DRAINAGE * PCC_THIC 25.373 1 25.373 .051
DRAINAGE " FLEX_COD 156.979 1 156.979 .317
DRAINAGE " LW_CODE 138.031 1 138.031 .278
DRAINAGE ' ZONE 1946.693 3 648.898 1.309
DRAINAGE * SUBGRADE 651.550 1 651.550 1.314
NBASETYP * PCC_THIC 1887.916 1 1887.916 3.808
NBASETYP " FLEX_COD 24.521 1 24.521 .049
NBASETYP " LW_CODE 988.158 1 988.158 1.993
NBASETY P ' ZONE 296.925 3 98.975 .200
NBASETYP * SUBGRADE 1007.139 1 1007.139 2.031
PCC_THIC ‘ FLEX_COD 23.187 1 23.187 .047
PCC_THIC ' LW_CODE 268.580 1 268.580 .542
PCC_THIC " ZONE 241.578 3 80.526 .162
PCC_THIC * SUBGRADE 573.386 1 573.386 1.157
FLEX_COD ' LW_CODE 193.196 1 193.196 .390
FLEX_COD " ZONE 255.773 3 85.258 .172
FLEX_COD * SUBGRADE 488.093 1 488.093 .985
LW_CODE ' ZONE 739.035 3 246.345 .497
LW_CODE " SUBGRADE 1177.852 1 1177.852 2.376
ZONE * SUBGRADE 1020.507 2 510.254 1.029
Error 54534.729 1 10 495.770
Total 84161 .058 1 53
Corrected Total 79532.089 152

 

 

 

 

 

.224

.178
.535
.148

.677
.1 10
.979
.549
.535
.821
.575
.599
.275
.254
.054
.824
.1 61
.896
.1 57
.829
.463
.921
.285

.915
.323
.685
.126
.361

 

a. R Squared = .314 (Adjusted R Squared = .052)

88

 

Table 40 Multivariate ANOVA at the state level-Transverse cracking

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: Z-SCORES

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum
_S&1rce of Squares df Mean Sewers F Sig.

Corrected Model 72.857‘il 15 4.857 9.720 .000
Intercept 1 .485 1 1 .485 2.971 .087
DRAINAGE 1 .603 1 1 .603 3.207 .076
BASETYP 10.627 1 10.627 21 .265 .000
PCC_THIC 19.453 1 19.453 38.928 .000
FLEX_COD .354 1 .354 .709 .401
LW_CODE .825 1 .825 1 .651 .201
PCC_thick_var 3.694 1 3.694 7.392 .007
DRAINAGE ' PCC_THIC .329 1 .329 .658 .419
DRAINAGE * FLEX_COD .400 1 .400 .801 .372
DRAINAGE ‘ LW_CODE .075 1 .075 .150 .699
NBASETYP * PCC_THIC 11.611 1 11.611 23.235 .000
NBASETYP " FLEX_COD .061 1 .061 .121 .728
NBASETYP * LW_CODE .762 1 .762 1.524 .219
PCC_THIC * FLEX_COD .011 1 .011 .022 .882
PCC_THIC " LW_CODE 2.208 1 2.208 4.418 .037
FLEX_COD " LW_CODE .036 1 .036 .073 .787
Error 68.462 137 .500

Total 141 .326 1 53

Corrected Total 141.319 152

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .516 (Adjusted R Squared = .463)
Having known the factors within which interaction is present, the marginal means were
then compared at different levels of the factors. The term Marginal Mean implies a mean
taken over all other factors in the experiment. For example, since it was concluded that
interaction exists between base type and PCC thickness, the marginal means were

obtained as shown in Figure 47.

89

 

15

10‘

Estimated Marginal Means
L11

 

 

 

PCC Thickness
0.0; D 8"
_.5 WFI _._._.-—— «'“HIA II‘H D ll"
DGAB LCB

Base type
Figure 47 Estimated marginal means at all levels of base type and PCC thickness

Figure 47 shows that PCC thickness was found to be more significant for sections
constructed on an LCB than those constructed on a DGAB, since the marginal means for
both the levels of the PCC thickness are significantly different. This could be because of
the fact that, since most of the LCB sections had transverse shrinkage cracking during
construction, which reflected onto the PCC surface. However, this was observed mostly
in the 8 in. sections and not in the 11 in. sections (to be discussed later). Hence, PCC
thickness was found to be significant in the LCB sections than in the DGAB sections.
Since there are two base types with no drainage (DGAB and LCB) and one base type
with drainage (PATB), it will not be possible to compare the effect of drainage. Hence,
all PATB sections were considered to be DGAB sections with drainage provision.

Figure 48 shows the estimated marginal means at all levels of PCC thickness and lane
width. From the analysis, it appears that the lane width seems to have a significant effect
for 8 in. sections. This could be because of the fact that sections constructed with 11 in.
FCC will have lower transverse cracking than 8 in. sections. Hence, within the 8 in.

sections, lower transverse cracking is found in 14 ft sections, because of the pseudo

90

interior loading condition. Hence, the effect of lane width would be more significant in 8

in. sections than in 11 in. sections.

 

 

 

 

 

 

2
8
2
a
C
E"
‘2‘
Lane width
3 _
('6
E ' 14'
mm .— .-
-.6 D 12'
8 11

PCC Thickness, in.
Figure 48 Estimated marginal means at all levels of PCC thickness and lane width

PUMPING

The performance index and the relative performance index were calculated for the
number of pumping occurrences. Then the univariate and the multivariate analysis were
done to identify the factors contributing to the occurrence of transverse cracking.
Performance Index and Relative Performance Index

The overall factor comparisons were done at both the network level and at the state level
to study the effect of various design factors on pumping. This has been illustrated in
Table 41 and 42. Consider the effect of base type on the number of pumping occurrences
in Table 41. For sections located in the WNF zone and constructed on a coarse subgrade,
all the non-drainable sections had higher values of performance index than the drainable
sections. Within the non-drainable sections, the LCB sections had higher performance
indices than DGAB sections. This could be because the LCB layer can be considered to

be a relatively impermeable layer than the DGAB sections. The sum of factors is 2

91

because the number of levels in drainage type is two (drainage and no-drainage). Sections
constructed on a drainable base perform relatively better than those constructed on a non-
drainable base. Also, sections constructed on a DGAB and sections with 8 in. PCC slab
perform better, since their relative performance indices are lower. A similar analysis was
done at the state level. The response variable is the z score of the normalized performance
of pumping occurrences (as discussed before for transverse cracks). The analysis has
been shown in Tables 43 and 44. It can be observed that the non-drainable sections
founded on LCB have high performance indices in all the states, indicating the poor
performance of these sections.

Simple Univariate Comparisons for pumping

The first step is to consider the effect of drainage condition on the occurrence of
pumping, ignoring the effects of other variables. This is a comparison of the mean of the
number of pumping occurrences of cells with no drainage, to those with drainage. The
statistical comparison is a t-test of the equality of the two means. The hypothesis being
tested is:

H-l [average (number of pumping occurrences) for all sections with no drainage] =

[average (number of pumping occurrences) for all sections with drainage]

92

2022:2022 on 20:23 oocmfiootom 0322—8
28 022—22> 0:2 .320 a :85 E .802 82 .8822 2: 2o 35. 225 :2 882.26 .20 oceanowafi on. 225 8365 :X: E 28.22: 2:00 682

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a2
2.2 22 82 222 22.2 82 22.2 2: 222 2: 2: 22 82 82 222 82 222 222 :2 222 2 2 222 222 82 222 2: 22 22 22.2 22 2: ago 222.
222 22 so :2 2: 222 22 222 222 222 2.2 82 22 22 82 222 82 222 222 82 82 222 2 2 22,2 22 222 2: 222 E 222 22 3.2
222 222 2; 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 82 82 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 82 22.2 2 2 2 2 2 2 use 22.
22222222222222222222222222222222.3228
2 2 2 2 2 2 82 2; 222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 82 222 2 2 8:22 2 2 2 2 222 222 2 2 2 2 a2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 222 82 2 2 2 2 2 2 222 82 2 2 2 2 2 2 222 82 2 2 82 222 2.3 2o
28 $8 2.222 28 $8 222.22 8.2 $8 2222 28 $8 222 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2
oz o oz o oz 2 92 o oz o oz o oz o oz o .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 a:
.2 .2 .2 2 .2 .2 .2 .2 2222 82 $8 22222 .82
.2 .2 .2 o oz
:5 33 Kb 2 , 238229 002
82522323
.95. 2.8.52. 2: 3 922953 «e now—$— .28 2.325252 222322.258 2322.2 =23>O NV 235.
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .92 oz;
222 2: 222 222 22 222 222 2.2 222 222 2.2 222 222 82 82 82 222 82 222 22 22.2 222 :2 22 22 222 2: 22 22.2 E 226
22 22.2 :2 2: 222 222 222 2.2 82 22.2 222 222 22,2 22 82 82 22.2 222 222 222 82 82 2 2 222 2: 22.2 22.2 2: 222 22 22.2 22 22.
222 82 222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 82 222 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22,2 222 2 2 2 2 2 2 ago
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ago ozo
2 2 2 2 2 2 222 222 82 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 82 82 2 2 22:22 2 2 2 2 22.2 222 2 2 2 2 2.2 2o
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22.2 82 82 2 2 2 2 2 2 22.2 22,2 2 2 2 2 2 2 222 222 2 2 222 222 :3
28 $8 $22 23 $8 2222 28 $8 2.222 8.2 $8 222 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2
oz o oz o oz o oz o oz o oz o oz o oz o .2 .2 .2 2 .2 .2 222.
.2 .2 .2 .2 .2 2 .2 .2 2222 28 $8 2.222 as
.2 .2 .2 .2 o oz
22:22 2222 ..o 2352222 08
288288 magma 225252

 

 

.96— 229522 25 on 23:22:28 ”Em—2::— 22 23:5: .28 2.382252 2:823:58 .2328 ..EoZv :2 039—.

93

Table 43 State level factor comparisons for number of pumping occurrences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dram c Base T c PCC Thickness Flexural 81!: Lane Width
2°“ sub?” SW D D a8ND DGAB 1c? PATB 8' 11' 550 psi 90018; 12' 14'
c 10 0.00 2.00 o 00 3 00 0 00 0.00 2 00 2.00 0.00 0.00 2.00
P 19 0 00 2 00 0 00 3 00 0 00 0 00 2 00 2 00 0.00 2.00 000
W}. F 20 0 00 2 00 1 50 1 50 0 00 2 00 0 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00
1: 26 000 200 041 259 0,01 1.74 026 124 0.76 0.78 1.22
F 38 0 00 2,00 0 00 3.00 0 00 2.00 0 00 1.75 0.25 0.25 1.75
P 39 0 00 200 0 00 3 00 0 00 2.00 0 00 0 42 1 58 0.42 1 58
W c 5 0.27 1.73 097 1.63 0.40 1.31 0.69 0.88 1.12 1.35 0.65
F 37 X X X X X X X X X X X
r+c 8 X X X X X X X X X X X
DF P+C 32 0.50 1.50 1 25 0.82 0 93 0.65 1 35 0 23 1 77 1.50 0.50
c 53 X X X X X X X X X X X
DNF c 4 X X X X X X X X X X X
c 6 X X X X X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 44 State level factor comparisons for length of pumping

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Drain 3 Base T 1: PC C Thickness Flexural Strc Lane Width
2°“ subga‘“ State D D agND DGAB LCByp 9.4.113 8' 11' 550 psi 9038:; 12' 14'
C 10 0.00 2.00 0 00 3.00 0.00 0.00 2 00 2.00 0.00 0 00 2.00
F 19 0.00 2.00 0. 00 3 00 0 00 0.00 2 00 2 00 0 00 2.00 0.00
W]: P 20 0,00 2.00 2.90 0 10 0 00 2.00 0 00 1.93 0 07 1.93 0 07
F 26 0.00 200 095 205 000 131 069 133 067 1.12 0.88
F 38 0,00 2.00 0.00 3.00 0 00 2.00 0 00 1.01 0.99 0 99 1.01
P 39 0.00 2.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0 96 1.04 0.96 1.04
WNF C 5 0.11 1.89 083 2.01 0.16 1.15 0.85 091 1.09 1.02 0.98
F 37 X X X X X X X X X X X
F+C 8 X X X X X X X X X X X
DF P+C 32 0.21 1.79 0.68 1.92 040 0.38 1.62 023 1.77 1.79 0.21
C 53 X X X X X X X X X X X
DNF C 4 X X X X X X X X X X X
C 6 X X X X X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Cells marked in “X” indicate that the magnitudes of distress at that level of the
factor are zero. In such a case, the value of relative performance cannot be defined.

94

 

95% CI NP Pumping occurrences

Figure 49 Hypothesis testing — Drainage condition

Table 45 Hypothesis testing - Drainage condition

3.0

 

2.51
2.0‘
1.51
1.04

0.0
-.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

1')

Ni)

Drainage condition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum
_§Lource of Squares d1 Mean Srmare F Sig.

Corrected Model 60.5143 1 60.514 4.072 .045
Intercept 119.186 1 119.186 8.019 .005
DRAINAGE 60.514 1 60.514 4.072 .045
Error 2273.953 153 14.862

Total 2543.214 155

Corrected Total 2334.467 154

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .026 (Adjusted R Squared = .020)

Figure 49 shows that sections with no drainage have significantly high levels of pumping
occurrences than those constructed on a drainable base as is suggested from the

significance values (0.045). Also the model is significant (P-value= 0.045) at a 5 % level

of significance.

The second step is to consider only the data in columns A-H because the data in that half

of the overall matrix belongs to the wet zones in the matrix.

95

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 5 4. __
1: 4- —— i: ‘ "TF—
3 8
8 3 5 '3‘
E9 :3 g? .2 .
Q 2‘ ‘5. c:
S E 1 C5
13.. 1 __ 6:
2 2 0.0-
H C3 H ‘—'_
U 04 U _ 1 .
as —— ~° ' ——
a -1 a -.2
v r O\ . v
D ND D ND
Drainage condition Drainage condition
Figure 50 Pumping-Wet Zones Figure 51 Pumping-Dry Zones

Figure 50 shows that, for sections located in the Wet zones, sections founded on a non-
drainable base have significantly higher number of pumping occurrences than those
founded on a drainable base. The same test can be repeated for sections located in the dry
zones (Figure 51). The effect of drainage is not significant in the dry zones, as the
number of pumping occurrences in the dry zones is significantly low.

A similar comparison can also be done for sections located in the Freeze zone (columns

A-D and LL) and No-Freeze (columns E-H and M-P) climates as shown in Figure 52 and

Figure 53.

96

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

g 3.0 gm), 5
g 2.54 ______ E 4. ___
D
g 2.0« g 3.
an 1.5‘ DD __ c:
'a. c: .S 2*
E 1.01 a.
1
g .5 E " ——
5 on I #h— E 0‘
59 ' E3 -1‘ __._L__
a --5 . c s?
D ND 5; -2 . 1
D ND

Drainage condition

 

 

 

 

Drainage condition

Figure 52 Pumping —Freeze zone

Figure 53 Pumping-Non-freeze zone

From the analysis, pumping appears to be prevalent in the non-drainable sections in both

the zones. Figure 54 shows an example of hypothesis testing (for effect of drainage)

considering the various climatic zones separately. Sections located in the wet zones have

significantly high pumping occurrences than the others.

95% CI NP Pumping Occurrences

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10
Zone
8‘ __
I
6‘ a DP
4« _._ m I
m “r I
01 Iwfi + thk— 0 WF
-2' *— I
.4 . o WNF
D ND
Drainage condition

Figure 54 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by climatic zones

The effect of base type and subgrade type have also been investigated and shown in

Figure 55 and Figure 56.

97

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53 4

U

C

Q)

E 3~ ——

8

0

:° 2‘ . l

E‘ _f i Subgrade

E 1‘ I

an m —— i

E ”T" __2___ 0 Coarse

U 0‘ "‘1‘" 7

§ —_ 1

g -l . . u Fine
D ND

Drainage condition

Figure 55 Pumping -Subgrade type

95% CI NP Pumping Occurrences

 

 

n

3

 

 

 

 

 

f)

Drainage condition

ND

Base type

I
0 DGAB

-

i

D LCB

Figure 56 Pumping -Base type

The third step consists of testing the data from columns A-H on the left half of the matrix,

which has the effect of controlling the effect of zone=wet-freeze/no-freeze and subgrade

conditions=fine/coarse.

 

NUJAUI

 

 

95% CI NP Pumping Occurrences

 

___J__._

 

 

 

Yes

Drainage condition

No

Subgrade type

I

0 Coarse

I
a Fine

Figure 57 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by Subgrade type (WF)

Figure 57 shows an example of the above hypothesis by subgrade type for sections

located in the WP zone.

98

This comparison is repeated for the other three climatic zones with three other similar
hypotheses being tested. These comparisons will basically reveal whether there are
differences in pumping occurrences between pavements with and without drainage
provision for the various combinations of zone=wet~freezelno-freeze and subgrade
conditions. It might be noted that there are differences in the base type, lane width, and
the drainage type between the two sets of data. Figures B-6l through B-63 show these
graphs.

It can be concluded from the univariate analysis that sections located in the wet zones
with no drainage provision and founded on a coarse subgrade show more number of
pumping occurrences. The same trends were observed in the engineering analysis
(presented in Chapter 5).

Multivariate Analysis for pumping

The fifth step in the analysis is to consider all the design variables in the multivariate
analysis, while treating the effects of traffic and PCC thickness variability as covariates.
(It might be noted that the proposed KESALs/ year in Table 14 has been used in this
analysis due to non-availability of traffic data). Hence, the multivariate analysis was done
at the network level to determine the effects of the various factors and all possible
interactions between them. Table 46 shows the multivariate analysis for all SPS-2
sections with the performance index of pumping occurrences as the dependant variable.
The overall model is significant (at 0.05 level) with zone and subgrade type showing
significant contribution to pumping. The interaction between these two variables also

seems to be significantly contributing to pumping occurrences.

99

The state level analysis was done by calculating the z—scores of all the sections (explained
before). From Table 47, the overall model is significant with the base type significantly
contributing to the occurrence of pumping. Knowing that the base type affects pumping,
the marginal means were compared at different levels of the base type. From Table 48,

the mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level of significance.

Table 46 Multivariate ANOVA for SPS-2 sections- Pumping

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: NP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. ‘
Corrected Model 984.1838 42 23.433 1.913 .004
Intercept 73.964 1 73.964 6.038 .016
ZONE 138.894 3 46.298 3.779 .013
DRAINAGE 6.774 1 6.774 .553 .459
SUBGRADE 51.607 1 51.607 4.213 .042
PCC_THIC 29.811 1 29.811 2.433 .122
NBASETYP 31.213 1 31.213 2.548 .113
FLEX_COD .001 1 .001 .000 .991
LW_CODE .523 1 .523 .043 .837
RECENTER 4.367 1 4.367 .356 .552
PCC_VAR 3.138 1 3.138 .256 .614
ZONE ' DRAINAGE 13.206 3 4.402 .359 .782
ZONE " SUBGRADE 164.712 2 82.356 6.723 .002
ZONE ' PCC_THIC 28.099 3 9.366 .765 .516
ZONE ' NBASETYP 43.965 3 14.655 1.196 .315
ZONE ' FLEX_COD 15.869 3 5.290 .432 .731
ZONE " LW_CODE 42.758 3 14.253 1.163 .327
DRAINAGE ' SUBGRADE 2.616 1 2.616 .214 .645
DRAINAGE ‘ PCC_THIC 2.611E—06 1 2.611E-06 .000 1.000
DRAINAGE ‘ NBASETYP .000 O . . .
DRAINAGE ' FLEX_COD .001 1 .001 .000 .994
DRAINAGE ’ LW_CODE .145 1 .145 .012 .913
SUBGRADE ' PCC_THIC .035 1 .035 .003 .958
SUBGRADE ' NBASETYP 2.378 1 2.378 .194 .660
SUBGRADE ' FLEX_COD 2.266 1 2.266 .185 .668
SUBGRADE ' LW_CODE 3.757 1 3.757 .307 .581
PCC_THIC ' NBASETYP 26.126 1 26.126 2.133 .147
PCC_THIC ' FLEX_COD 3.612 1 3.612 .295 .588
PCC_THIC ‘ LW_CODE 1.490 1 1.490 .122 .728
NBASETYP ' FLEX_COD 20.651 1 20.651 1.686 .197
NBASETYP ' LW_CODE 15.113 1 15.113 1.234 .269
FLEX_COD ' LW_CODE 33.121 1 33.121 2.704 .103
Error 1347.555 110 12.251
Total 2543.214 153
Corrected Total 2331.738 152

 

8- R Squared = .422 (Adjusted R Squared = .201)

100

 

Table 47 Multivariate ANOVA at the state level

Dependent Variable: ZNP

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. ‘
Wuecred Model 23.71328 15 1.595 1.939 .032
Intercept .235 1 .235 .287 .593
DRAINAGE .832 1 .832 1.018 .316
PCC_THIC 1 .981 1 1.981 2.423 .124
NBASETY P 6.399 1 6.399 7.827 .007
FLEX_COD .140 1 .140 .171 .680
LW_CODE .562 1 .562 .687 .410
PCC_VAR .069 1 .069 .085 .771
DRAINAGE * PCC_THIC .016 1 .016 .019 .890
DRAINAGE ' NBASETYP .000 0 . . .
DRAINAGE " FLEX_COD .093 1 .093 .113 .737
DRAINAGE * LW_CODE .879 1 .879 1.076 .303
PCC_THIC * NBASETYP .490 1 .490 .599 .441
PCC_THIC * FLEX_COD .313 1 .313 .383 .538
PCC_THIC " LW_CODE 1.309 1 1.309 1.601 .210
NBASETYP * FLEX_COD 1.144 1 1.144 1.399 .240
NBASETYP * LW_CODE 3.139 1 3.139 3.840 .054
FLEX_COD * LW_CODE .288 1 .288 .353 .554
Error 62.951 77 .818
Total 86.739 93
Corrected Total 86.733 92

 

 

 

8- R Squared = .274 (Adjusted R Squared = .133)

Table 48 Effect of Base type on Pumping

Pairwise Comparisons

Dependent Variable: ZNP

 

 

 

 

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for
Difference Differencé
J.” NBASETYI (J) NBASETYI (l-J) Std. Error Sig.a Lower Bound Upper Bound
0 1 -.769"b .201 .000 -1 .169 -.369
1 o .759"6 .201 .000 .369 1.169

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Based on estimated marginal means
'- The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
b- An estimate of the modified population marginal mean (J).
C- An estimate of the modified pepulation marginal mean (I).

101

 

Table 48 (cont’d).

Univariate Tests

Dependent Variable: ZNP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

F Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Si .
Contrast 1 1 .980 1 1 1.980 14.654 .000
Error 62.951 77 .818

 

 

 

7 The F tests the effect of NBASETYP. This test is based on the linearly
independent painrvise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.

F AULTING

The performance index and the relative performance index were calculated for faulting.
Then the univariate and the multivariate analysis were done to identify the factors
contributing to the occurrence of faulting.

Penformance Index and Relative Performance Index

The overall factor comparisons were done at both the network and the state level to study
the effects of various design factors on faulting. From Table 49 and Table 50, it can be
inferred that sections constructed on a drainable base perform better, as indicated by the
relative performance indices of the sections. For example, consider the effect of base type
on faulting for sections located in the DNF zone and on a coarse subgrade. For 8 in.
sections with a 12 ft lane width, the DGAB sections had the highest value of relative
performance index (1.55) followed by LCB (1.32) and PATB (0.13). The same trends
were observed at both the state level as shown in Table 50. For any given state, sections
with no drainage and constructed on an 8 in. PCC slab showed higher performance
indices, indicating poor performance. For example, consider the state of DE (10). The
non-drainable sections had a higher performance index (of 1.09) than the drainable

sections (0.91). Also, sections with 8 in. PCC slab thickness had higher performance

102

index (1.43) compared to sections constructed with 11 in. PCC slab, indicating worse
performance of the 8 in. thick sections.

Simple Univariate Comparisons for Faulting

The first step is to consider the effect of drainage condition on the occurrence of faulting,
ignoring the effects of other variables. This is a comparison of the mean of faulting of
cells with no drainage in the matrix, to those with drainage. The statistical comparison is

a t-test of the equality of the two means.

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

85o vm. mo. 8.0 one om. av... 3d 8.. 3.. who w o
R... 8.. mo. no... 8.. 3... $2... $2... $2.. $2.. $2.. v o "H75
...... 3.. mm... 8.. R... 8.. 8.. ...... m... 8... 8.. mm o
8.. mo... 8.. 8.. mo. Rd 3... mm... 3.. 8.. 3.0 mm 0+... "HQ
8... 8.. mo... 8.. M8,. mm... .... 8.. a... Na... mo. m 0+...
8.0 .40.. 2.. mm... mod No. R. mod mo. 5... a... R m
no. mo... Va... 2.. 3.. mo... mm... 8.0 m: mo. 3... m o E
mm... m... no. mod mm... :4. mm. 3... vmd mm... x... mm m
on... .N. 8... mm. m... mm... x... 2.. 8.. m... mm... mm m
mbo hm. cm... 0... 8.. 3.0 S... 3.0 S. om. obo wm m
8.0 8.. R... 8.. Ma... 8.. who 8.. «m. a... ...... om n. ”5
3.0 8.. .... mm... mm... m: an... hm... v: 2.. mm... a. ..m
R... mm. .3 3.. S... m... 2.... mm. 5... 8.. 3.0 o. o
.... .N. .8 85 .8 om .... _. e
as... 83 588m 5.9.5....h 85.89 RM. m... a ”Mom... .209 Susana... a 9% 85.8 23m
$5.58 ..8 38.3988 .96. 88m em 28:.
.M. .... M: ..M. .... ... ... ... .... ... .... ... .... .M. .... .... .... ... .M. ... .... .... ... M... N... .... .... .... ... .... ... .... a. .2...
... .... ... .... ... ... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... ... ... .... .... .... ... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... M... 95.
... .... .... R. .... .... a. ...... .... ... m... .... .... .... .... .... .... M... .... .8. m... .... ... .... .... 8.. .... .... ... a. 8. 8.. a. .3
M... N... ... .... R. .M. .... ... .... ... .... .... .... ... E. a. ... N... N... ...... .... .... .... .... ...... .... .... .... N... .2 ... .M. .86
.... ... N... .M. .... ... .... ... .... ... .... .... .... .... .... ...... ... ... .... .... .... .... ... ... a. M: M... .... ... .... ... .... 3. ......
... .... N... x x x .... ... .... x x x .... a. x x .... ... R. M... 8. a. x x 2.... .... N... .... .... .... x x 8.. ....
.... ... .... ... ... ... .... ... .... .... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... ... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... ... .... ... ... a...
8.. ...... a... 8.. m... a... 8. ...... a... 6. ...... a... ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... .. ... ..
e. a e. o e. o e. a e. a e. A. e. o e. a .... ... 2 ... ... ... a...
... ... ... N. ... ... .... ... ...... .3 .28 as... 9..
... .. ... .. a e.
2585 25%... a2...... 8..

 

 

 

 

 

 

.96. ...—952. 05 «a «52:8 ..8 38.88.53 .888 =auo>O an 03a...

104

Figure 58 and Table 51 show that sections with no drainage have significantly high levels

of faulting than those constructed on a drainable base. However, drainage seems to have

no effect on the occurrence of faulting at step 1. (P-value of 0.408 is higher than 0.05

level of significance).

.36

 

.341
.321
.301
.281
.261
.24-

.22
.20

 

95% CI NP Pumping occurrences

 

 

_l_

 

 

 

1')

*fi

ND

Drainage condition

Figure 58 Hypothesis testing - Drainage condition

Table 51 Hypothesis testing — Drainage condition

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: NP

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum
Source 0fS uares df Mean S uare F Si .
Weed Model q .0378 1 q.037 .689 9'4?
Intercept 9.821 1 9.821 181 .105 .000
DRAINAGE .037 1 .037 .689 .408
Error 7.971 147 .054
Total 19.902 149
Corrected Total 8.009 148

 

 

 

 

 

a. R Squared = .005 (Adjusted R Squared = -.002)

The second step considers only the data in columns A-H because the data in that half of

the overall matrix belongs to the wet zones in the matrix.

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.4
.5
DO
9 ~25
.3 __ -" 3 —_
:3; .4- E __
E g 0 r:
__. —’"—‘ ca
0 3. 5° 2 ~—
58 ' ‘8
In :3
0‘ —— _.l.__
.1 - .
-2 —.‘_ , D ND
D ND
Drainage condition
Drainage condition . .
Figure 60 Faulting-Dry Zones

Figure 59 Faulting -Wet Zones

Figure 59 shows that, for sections located in the Wet zones, sections founded on a non-
drainable base have higher faulting than those founded on a drainable base. The same test
can be repeated for sections located in the dry zones (Figure 60). A similar comparison
can also be done for sections located in the Freeze zone (columns A-D and I-L) and No-

Freeze (columns E—H and M-P) climates as shown in Figure 61 and Figure 62.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.4 .5
g 4 -—
3 .3q —— n
E .‘3 0 (ll
1: _..___
5 _____
. 2 2 2. _.
32 u —
5Q .____.
V” .1
.l 0‘ - .
D ND D ND

. . . Draina e condition
Drainage condition g

Figure 61 Faulting -Freeze zone Figure 62 Faulting-Non-freeze zone

106

Figure 63 shows an example of hypothesis testing (for effect of drainage) considering the

various climatic zones separately. Sections located in the wet zones have higher faulting

occurrences than the others.

 

——_- Zone

m '3 DF

I
I I 1 EL 0 DNF
T I
._ i am
.4 i: I

 

O'CODCCUIOO
~O~Nw4>mo~q

 

 

 

95% CI NP Faulting

 

D ND
Drainage condition

Figure 63 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by climatic zones

The effect of base type and subgrade type have also been investigated and shown in

Figure 64 and Figure 65.

107

 

.4—T—
i
riw
i
9

Ex.)

95% CI NP Faulting
DJ

 

 

4
l
,

 

 

D

ND

Drainage condition

Subgrade type

I
0 Coarse

4 Fine

Figure 64 Faulting —Subgrade type

 

 

 

 

 

E" .4

§

63

LL.

E '3 y , , Base type

2 1’ 4

E .2 :DGAB
.1 ' :LCB

D ND

Drainage condition

Figure 65 Faulting —Base type

The third step consists of testing the data from columns A—H on the left half of the matrix,

which has the effect of controlling the effect of zone=wet-freeze/no-freeze and subgrade

conditions=fine/coarse. Figure 66 shows an example of the above hypothesis by subgrade

type for sections located in the WF zone. This comparison is repeated for the other three

climatic zones with three other similar hypotheses being tested.

95% CI NP Faulting

2|;

i.»

i9

r—n

0.0

 

 

 

Subgrade type
I
0 Coarse

 

" Fine

 

D

ND

Drainage condition

Figure 66 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition by Subgrade type (WF)

These comparisons will basically reveal whether there are differences in the levels of

faulting between pavements with and without drainage provision for the various

108

combinations of zone=wet-freeze/no-freeze and subgrade=finelcoarse conditions. It
might be noted that there are differences in the base type, lane width, and the drainage
type between the two sets of data. Figures B-64 through B-66 show these graphs. It can
be concluded from the univariate analysis that sections located in the wet zones with no
drainage provision and founded on a coarse subgrade tend to exhibit higher faulting.
Multivariate Analysis for Faulting

The fifth step in the analysis is to consider all the design variables in the multivariate
analysis, while treating the effects of traffic and PCC thickness variability as covariates.
(It might be noted that the proposed KESALs/ year in Table 14 has been used in this
analysis due to non-availability of traffic data). Hence, the multivariate analysis was done
at the network level to determine the effects of the various factors and all possible
interactions between them. Table 52 shows the multivariate analysis for all SPS-2
sections with the performance index of faulting as the dependant variable. The overall
model is significant (P-value of 0.001 is less than 0.05 level of significance) with
drainage, base type and climatic zone showing significant contribution to faulting, as
indicated by the respective P-value. There also seems to be an interaction of drainage and
flexural strength towards faulting.

The state level analysis was done by calculating the z-scores of all the sections (explained
before). From Table 53, the overall model is significant with the base type and drainage
significantly contributing to the occurrence of faulting. Knowing that the base type and
drainage affect faulting, the marginal means were compared at different levels of both the
variables as shown in Table 54 and Table 55. From the mean difference, both the factors

are significant (at the 0.05 level) at all the levels. As can be seen from Figure 67, there is

109

significant effect of lane width at the 550-psi flexural strength, since the marginal means
for both the levels of the lane width are significantly different.

Table 52 Multivariate ANOVA for SPS-2 sections- Faulting

Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: NP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum
Source of Squares of Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 3.654a 42 .087 2.113 .001
Intercept 3.726 1 3.726 90.489 .000
DRAINAGE .174 1 .174 4.225 .042
PCC_THIC .001 1 .001 .033 .855
FLEX_COD .01 9 1 .019 .460 .499
LW_CODE .004 1 .004 .092 .762
NBASETYP .304 1 .304 7.383 .008
ZONE .664 3 .221 5.379 .002
SUBGRADE .129 1 .129 3.134 .080
RECENTER .169 1 .169 4.094 .046
V24 .005 1 .005 .121 .728
DRAINAGE ' PCC_THIC .008 1 .008 .202 .654
DRAINAGE ' FLEX_COD .212 1 .212 5.155 .025
DRAINAGE ' LW-CODE .038 1 .038 .921 .340
DRAINAGE ’ NBASETY P .000 0 . . .
DRAINAGE " ZONE .088 3 .029 .710 .548
DRAINAGE ' SUBGRADE 6.844E-06 1 6.844E-06 .000 .990
PCC_THIC ‘ FLEX_COD .001 1 .001 .035 .852
PCC_THIC ' LW_CODE .057 1 .057 1.391 .241
PCC_THIC ' NBASETYP .014 1 .014 .334 .564
PCC_THIC ' ZONE .089 3 .030 .724 .540
PCC_THIC " SUBGRADE .015 1 .015 .372 .544
FLEX_COD ' LW_CODE .083 1 .083 2.027 .158
FLEX_COD ' NBASETYP .116 1 .116 2.825 .096
FLEX_COD ' ZONE .053 3 .018 .426 .735
FLEX_COD ‘ SUBG RADE .030 1 .030 .737 .393
LW_CODE ' NBASETYP .004 1 .004 .103 .749
LW_CODE ‘ ZONE .092 3 .031 .744 .528
LW_CODE ' SUBGRADE .001 1 .001 .029 .864
NBASETYP " ZONE .183 3 .061 1.478 .225
NBASETYP ' SUBGRADE .002 1 .002 .059 .808
ZONE ‘ SUBGRADE .246 2 .123 2.992 .055
Error 4.282 104 .041
Total 19.880 147
Corrected Total 7.936 146

 

 

8- R Squared = .460 (Adjusted R Squared = .243)

110

Table 53 Multivariate ANOVA at the state level
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent Variable: ZNP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type III Sum
Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Corrected Model 29.592‘3| 15 1.973 2.444 .004
Intercept .142 1 .142 .175 .676
DRAINAGE 4.618 1 4.618 5.721 .018
PCC_THIC .413 1 .413 .512 .476
FLEX_COD .073 1 .073 .090 .765
LW_CODE 1 .764 1 1 .764 2.185 .142
NBASETYP 8.433 1 8.433 10.448 .002
V24 1.299 1 1.299 1.610 .207
DRAINAGE " PCC_THIC 1.708 1 1.708 2.116 .148
DRAINAGE ' FLEX_COD 2.896 1 2.896 3.588 .061
DRAINAGE ' LW_CODE 1.194 1 1.194 1.479 .226
DRAINAGE " NBASETYP .000 0 . . .
PCC_THIC " FLEX_COD .058 1 .058 .071 .790
PCC_THIC ' LW_CODE 1.468 1 1.468 1.818 .180
PCC_THIC ' NBASETYP .006 1 .006 .008 .929
FLEX_COD " LW_CODE 3.584 1 3.584 4.440 .037
FLEX_COD ' NBASETYP .055 1 .055 .068 .794
LW_CODE " NBASETYP .066 1 .066 .082 .775
Error 100.897 125 .807
Total 130.493 141
Corrected Total 130.489 140

 

 

 

a. n Squared = .227 (Adjusted a Squared = .134)

Table 54 Effect of Drainage type on Faulting

Palrwlse Comparisons

Dependent Variable: ZNP

 

5% Confidence Interval for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean
Difference Differenca
_Q) DRAINAGE 001 (.1) DRAINAGE COl (IQ Std. Error Sig.a Lower Bound Upper Bound
D ND 4437’ .162 .378 -.464 .178
ND D .143° .162 .378 -.178 .464

 

 

 

 

Based on estimated marginal means

a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

b- An estimate of the modified population marginal mean (I).
C- An estimate of the modified population marginal mean (J).

111

Univariate Tests

Dependent Variable: ZNP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Si .
Contrast .631 1 .631 .782
Error 100.897 125 .807

.378

 

 

The F tests the effect of DRAINAGE CODE. This test is based on the linearly
independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.

Table 55 Effect of Base type on Faulting

Palrwlse Comparlsons

Dependent Variable: ZNP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean 95% Confidence Interval for
Difference Differencea
(I) NBASETY P (J) NBASETYP (I-J) Std. Error Sig.a Lower Bound Upper Bound
.00 1.00 .383“ .163 .020 .061 .705
1.00 .00 -.383"° .163 .020 -.705 -.061
Based on estimated marginal means
'- The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.
a. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.
b- An estimate of the modified population marginal mean (J).
C- An estimate of the modified population marginal mean (I).
Unlvarlate Tests
Dependent Variable: ZNP
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Si .
Contrast 4.462 1 4.462 5.528 .020
Error 100.897 125 .807

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The F tests the effect of NBASETYP. This test is based on the linearly
independent pairwise comparisons among the estimated marginal means.

112

 

 

 

 

 

o ,4.

2

E

'30 .2i

:3

2 0'0' Lane Width

3 3__

a ”’_H____,-—‘_ D

g :21“ ,,,,....-r'-"'"""" 12!
"4 " 14'

550 900

Flexural strength

Figure 67 Estimated Marginal means at all levels of flexural strength and lane width

From the statistical analysis, it can be inferred that sections with 8 in. PCC slab,
resting on a DGAB and with a 12 ft lane tend to exhibit more number of transverse
cracks than the other designs. Sections located in the wet zones with no drainage
provision and founded on a coarse subgrade show more number of pumping occurrences.
Sections located in the wet zones with no drainage provision and founded on a coarse
subgrade tend to exhibit higher faulting. The statistical analysis helped to validate the

results obtained from the engineering analysis.

113

CHAPTER 7
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERFORMANCE AND RESPONSE

This chapter presents the analysis of the response data and the relationship between the
performance and response data. The performance of the transverse and the longitudinal
joints was studied in terms of load transfer efficiency (LTE), edge support factor and void
potential. The midslab deflection data is also analyzed for consistency with time. The
relationship between LTE, void potential and edge support factor was also studied to

completely understand the performance of the sections.

FWD TESTING

The location of each of the FWD testing is as shown in Figure 68 below (9). The use of

the FWD testing done at various locations has been summarized in Table S6.

 

a
>

Direction of Traffic

0 12 ft or 14 ft

J4 J5

O O
J3/18<> J2/J7O 4

¢ N D
15 ft 15ft

 

Jl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 68 Deflection test location of the pavement slab

114

Table 56 Use of the FWD data (9)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lane No. Location tested Lane Width Use of the data
Used with J3 to
compute the D-ratio or
the edge support
J l Midslab 20822331“? ft and 14 factor
Used to analyze the
response of the PCC
layer
12 Comer For 12 ft wide Used to estimate void
sections only potential
Used with J 1 to
J3 Edge For 12 ft wide compute the D-ratio or
sections only the edge support
factor
For both 12 ft and 14 Used with J5 to
J4 Leave Slab ft sections compute LTE
5 Approach slab For both 12 ft andl4 Used with J4 to
ft sections compute LTE
J7 Corner For .14 ft wide Used to estimate void
sections only potential
Used with J l to
J8 Edge For 14 ft wide compute the D-ratio or
sections only the edge support
factor

 

VARIATION OF DEFLECTION DATA WITH TIME

Variation of the midslab deflection data (J 1) was analyzed using the deflections at

sensors 1 and 7 (at 0 and 60 in. from drop load, respectively) .The example calculations

shown are for the state of Michigan, MI (26). Figures 58 and 59 illustrate the midslab

deflection data with time for the sections with 12-ft lane and 14-ft lane respectively. The

midslab deflection data has been converted and expressed as a ratio with respect to the

deflections at the first data point in the data series. For example, within the 12 ft sections,

the average deflection at sensor 1 (or sensor 7) for any given section was expressed as a

ratio of the average deflection at sensor 1 (or sensor 7) for section 0213 at age 0. Hence

the first data point at sensors 1 and 7 are equal to 1. As expected, all the 11-in. sections in

115

 

general experienced lower deflections than 8—in. sections. Figure 69 shows that the
deflection ratios for 0215, 0219 and 0223 are close to 1. This means that the magnitudes
of deflections at the 11 in. sections are quite close to the deflections at the 8 in. section
(26-0214). Moreover, less variation in the deflection data was observed over time for
these ll-in. sections, regardless of thermal curling during the FWD tests. Among the six
8-in sections, less variation in the deflection data over time was observed only in the two
PATB sections. The variation in the deflection data in sections 26-0213, 26-0214, and 26-
0218 in the latest year indicates low structural capacity, which is supported by the
presence of transverse cracking in these sections. Although section 26~0215 has low
severity transverse cracking and the FWD testing was done under a positive thermal
gradient, less variation in the deflection data was observed in the section because of
higher slab thickness of 11 in. Variation in the deflection data in section 26-0217 could
be caused by thermal curling of the slab as the deflection test was conducted under high
positive thermal gradients. It can also be seen that, regardless of the thermal gradient, the
deflections at sensor 7 are quite consistent (since the ratio is close to 1.00) indicating a

uniform response of the subgrade with time.

116

 

Awflv E Em gamuuvm 05?; an?“ hOh 5 mafia .n Egan—0m a“ mflOmHOG—MOA— aw Obs-Mun”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So So So 8c 8.: 8.: 8o 83 8: 8d So 8c 8d 8: Be «do Bo 8a 8.0 So So So. 8.: So. 5.: 8.: Be SD 8.9 agohaamaoh
8:. 3.8 mm.“ mm: 32 2v 8mm mom” mg. 2.3 mag 2.2 0.2 3.2 go 3.1: «2 32 R3 n8 W: 3.2 2.; 9.2. mg 3: mama cm 8; Pinsficoaozfiuflsmsfi
3R 3mm an 3.0 8.3 3 88 8.2 “Mo. 8? mm a: #2 8mm 3: 82 9.2 m3 :3 9.8 2. ~62 Go. 3 2.3 3: 3R Qv Ram Pinofluaésmfih
EUR mmm 3 who 89 an «mm mm: 9.9 9.3 mm? 2.: X2 G E; 9.8 “SH 31m whom 2mm 9% 8.2 2.8 3 mg— 82 when an 33 onmaohafium
w ~ _ o m n v a _ o w n m fl 0 v m ~ 9 w n n g o n v m _ o §.E§§&.«o&<
38 RS 88 2m. 28 28 Ban—tom
q . a a 4 4 . a a a 4 a a J _ . a . 4 d a 9.0
1 No
0 . v.0 W
O O O .
o m H a e . 0
m u a mo 0
a n a w m n . N
L w r w $ m $12 a
w w w m .2 m
w o
. nu.
¢ w . E m
@309 osmuoaa©4 w m w . 3 S
@235 o: 883 © 0 M:

 

 

ow

 

ll7

as E 5 2.283 use 92 .8 N. e5 N 88:8 a 23.8%: E 2:3,.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

q 38 so a: so. sad as 83 23 23 N80. 3.0.3.0 Nae .q .333 N8..o.:.%.._§ a? a: NB: 5.9 a: 5.9 9 29.22582:
“N s: NNNN a: 3N 5N EN 3N : as s: 82 :N 93 a.“ as n; s... N: «N SN 3; as NM: NNNN a; N3. passageseiee
EN z «N No? N: EN 8: NNN 93 a: as 2 as E: New EN 22 as ..Nz “SN 22 as as 3 NE 2 am padsEaZg:
SN 2 N3 3 e: NNNN a: SNN 82 as as as NeNN :2 32 “SN 3.2 a 3 as 92 NE E as as 2: as paeefiem
N N N a a N N N z a N N N _ N N z N N N _ N N N N a o assaseoea
NNNN NNNN _ as as- . 2.8 . _i .38. 9%?
o . no
. e e a a m
0 O O O N 0 fl 0 U
n A i f L113 0.
n a m o a m o
a a e a a e a a m m
a a n a m m . 2 e
a u
m m.
m .2 m.
Nseeoetoaséa w w w m
@239 o: 883 © 0 . ON

 

 

Om

 

118

Figures B-67 through B-92 illustrate the variation in the deflection data for the other 13

states in the SPS-2 experiment. Table 57 below summarizes the observations from these

figures.

Table 57 Variation of deflection data with time in the SPS-2 sites

State Comments
AZ (4) o PCC
o The effect of thermal gradient on the ratio of deflections is
inconclusive. All the sections, except 0213 and 0214, have
less variability in the ratio of deflections irrespective of
their thermal gradients. The ratio of deflections for the 8
in. and the 11 in. sections are close to each other.
0 Subgrade
o Irrespective of the thermal gradient the ratio of deflections
at sensor 7 is close to 1.0, except in 0213 and 0214.

 

 

 

AR (5) o PCC
0 High variability in the ratio of deflections was observed in
the 8 in. sections (5-0214) than the 11 in. sections. The
ratio of deflections is close to l in the 11 in. sections. The
ratio of deflections is 3.0 in 2001, which might be because
of the presence of transverse cracking.
o Subgrade
0 Both the DGAB sections, 0214 and 0216, show variability
in the J l deflection data, which could be due to the low
stiffness of the DGAB. All the other sections have almost
constant deflections at sensor 7. The ratio of deflections at
sensor 7 is consistent with time and close to 1, indicating
that all sections showed the same deflections at sensor 7.
This indicates consistency in subgrade response.

 

CA (6) o PCC
o Variability in the ratio of deflections at sensor 1 was
observed in almost all the sections except for sections
0211 and 0212. This variability might be attributed to the
transverse cracking in these sections. Cracks of all
severities manifested, 2 years after the pavement was
opened to traffic. The effect of thermal gradient on the
deflections is inconclusive.
o Subgrade
o No significant variability in the deflections at sensor 7 was
observed in anLof the sections.

 

 

 

 

119

Table 57 (cont’d).

 

State

Comments

 

CO (8)

PCC

o Variability in the ratio of deflections was observed in

sections 0213 and 0214 (both 8 in. sections). The
variability might be attributed to the positive thermal
gradient.

Subgrade
0 Except for the sections 0213, 0214, and 0217 all the

other sections showed no significant variability in the
values of the ratio of deflections. The positive thermal
gradient in the section 0217 could be the reason for the
behavior.

 

DE (10)

PCC

Sections 0201, 0202, 0204, 0205 and 0210 showed
variability in the ratio of deflections at sensor 1. Low
stiffness of DGAB could be a cause for the behavior of
the 0201,0202 and 0204. The variations in the
deflection ratios in section 0205 can be due to the
transverse cracks in the section.

Subgrade
0 Sections 0201 and 0202 showed high variability in the

ratio of deflections at sensor 7. This could be due to
the fact that the sections are constructed on DGAB, are
8 in. thick and a positive thermal gradient. The other
sections showed less variability in the deflection
ratios.

 

 

IA (19)

 

PCC

Ratio of deflections was very low in the 11 in. sections
than in the 8 in. sections. The ratio of deflections is
decreasing with time for the 8 in. thick slab sections
0213 and 0214. This could be attributed to the
stiffness of the DGAB layers. The decrease in the ratio
for section 0217 could be due to the transverse cracks.
Also, this section was constructed 0.3” thinner than its
target thickness. High variability in ratio of deflections
at sensor 1 were observed in section 0221, which
could be because of the high positive thermal gradient
at the time of FWD testing.

Subgrade
o Subgrade response has been consistent with time.

 

120

 

Table 57 (cont’d).

 

State

Comments

 

KS (20)

o PCC

0 Ratio of deflections is low for 11 in. sections as the
deflections at the 8 in. section are high. However, the
ratio of deflections is constant for 11 in. sections.

0 Variability in sections 0201 and 0202 could be due to
the design of the sections (8 in. PCC slab), high
positive thermal gradient at the time of FWD testing,
and transverse cracks in these sections. Also these
sections did not meet the target thickness requirements.
The variability in the other sections could be due to the
positive thermal gradient at the time of FWD testing.

Subgrade

o No significant variability in the ratio of deflection data

at sensor 7 was observed in any of the sections.

 

NV (32)

PCC
o 0201 and 0202 have shown significant variability in the
ratio of deflections at sensor 1 which may be because
of the extensive cracking in these sections. Several
problems encountered during construction (refer to
table A-l in Appendix A) and high positive thermal
gradient also might have contributed to the variability.
Subgrade
o Fairly constant deflection ratios were observed at
sensor 7 for all the sections regardless of age and
temperature at the time of FWD testing.

 

 

NC (37)

 

PCC
o Variability in the ratio of the deflections was observed
in sections 0201,0202, 0205, and 0210. Variability in
sections 0201,0205 and 0210 could be due to the
transverse cracking in these sections. The slope failure
that occurred in 0210 (according to the construction
report) also might have contributed to the variability in
the deflections at sensor 1. Variability in 0202 could be
due to the positive thermal gradient at the time of FWD
testing.
Subgrade
o Slight variability in the ratio of deflections at sensor 7
were observed in sections 0202 and 0203

 

121

 

Table 57 (cont’d).

 

State

Comments

 

ND (38)

PCC
0

Sections 0213, 0214, 0217, and 0221 showed
variability in the ratio of deflections. The transverse
cracking and reflection cracking in the 0217 section
could be one of the reasons for the variability.
Variability in all these sections could also be due to
the positive thermal gradient, with the deflections
increasing with an increase in the thermal gradient.

Subgrade

O

Variability was observed only in sections 0213 and
0214 (8 in. sections resting on a DGAB layer), which
could be due to the low stiffness of the DGAB layers.
No significant variability was observed in the other
sections.

 

OH (39)

PCC

Sections 0201, 0202, 0205 and 0209 have shown
variability in the ratio of deflections at sensor 1.
Transverse cracking in 0202 and 0205 together with a
high positive thermal gradient could be the cause of
the variability in these sections. Very high positive
thermal gradients at the time of testing could be the
causes of variability in sections 0201 and 0209.

Subgrade

O

Variability in the ratio of deflections was found in the
same sections identified above.

 

 

WA (53)

 

PCC
0

Sections 0201, 0202, 0209, 0206, and 0210 have
shown variability in the ratio of deflection data. The
transverse cracking in 0201, 0202, 0206, and 0210
could be the reasons for variability in these sections.
Shrinkage cracks also manifested in section 0206.
Surface voids also occurred on the slabs and bleeding
occurred in the base and subbase courses.

Subgrade

0

Almost all sections showed consistency in the ratio of
the deflection data at sensor 7.

 

122

 

Table S7 (cont’d).

 

State Comments
WI (55) o PCC
0 Sections 0213, 0214, and 0222 have shown
inconsistency in the ratio of deflections. This could
be due to the 8 in. slab thickness. In 0213 and 0214
it may also be due to the DGAB layer and high
temperature gradients. Excessively high deflections
at sensor 1 in sections 0222 could be due to the
high positive thermal gradient
0 Subgrade
o The same sections identified above showed
variability in the ratio of deflections at sensor 7.

 

 

 

 

 

TRANSVERSE JOINT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Besides faulting, the performance of transverse joints is evaluated through the following
factors:

0 Load transfer efficiency and total deflection (or sum of deflections, SD)

0 Void potential

0 D-ratio or the Edge support factor

Load transfer efiiciency and Sum of deflections (SD)

The load transfer efficiency is defined as the ratio of the deflections of the unloaded slab

to the deflections of the loaded slab as shown below (9):

LTE=é6QL—X 100

L
As shown in Figure 68 and Table 56, the deflection data obtained from the J4 and 15
testing will be used to evaluate the performance of the transverse joint. The parameters of

interest in J4 and J5 are defined in Table 58 and Figure 71.

123

Table 58 Deflection parameters in J4 and J5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

J4 Loaded slab deflection: D1
Unloaded slab deflection: D3
J5 Loaded slab deflection: Dl
Unloaded slab deflection: D2
Direction Oftl‘lffi: Direction oftrafl'rc

 

 

’—

  

Approach slab my Approach slab

    

J4 Loaded J4 Unloaded 15 Unloaded )5 Loaded
(d1) (d3) (d2) (d1)
J4 testing of the slab JS testing of the slab

Figure 71 Definition of J4 and J5 tests

The performance of a joint is unsatisfactory under one of the following circumstances:

0 Problems under the approach slab: These problems can be identified by the
loaded deflection (d1) from J4 and unloaded deflection (d2) from JS. If the
magnitudes of these deflections are high, then it indicates that there is a possibility
of non-uniform support under the approach slab.

0 Problems under the leave slab: These problems can be identified by the unloaded
deflection (d3) from J4 and loaded deflection (d1) from J 5. If the magnitudes of
these deflections are high, then it indicates that there is a possibility of non-
uniform support under the leave slab.

Figure 73 through Figure 76 show the magnitudes of deflections for the loaded and the

unloaded slab at various locations for section 26-0214 in MI (26). Table 59 below shows

124

the deflections of the loaded and the unloaded slab at 18 ft (5.2 m) from the start of the

section.

Table 59 J4 and J5 deflections at 18 ft (5.2 m) in 26-0214 for the year 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approach Slab Leave Slab

J4 600 microns 450 microns
(24 mils) (18 mils)

J5 500 microns 650 microns
(20 mils) (26 mils)

 

 

High deflections on the loaded and the unloaded side of the joint on both the approach
and the leave side indicate a poor performance of the joint. Also, the faulting data
indicates that there is a faulting of 6mm at this location, indicating that the joint is

deteriorating with time.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SUM OF DEFLECTIONS (SD) AND LOAD
TRANSFER EFFICIENCY (LTE)

Realizing the importance of the magnitudes of deflections on either side of the joint, Guo
(2001) (10) suggested that the sum of deflections (SD) on the two sides of the joint be
used in transverse joint performance evaluation. Guo and Marsey (2001) found that the
SDs remain almost constant on both the sides of the joint although the corresponding
LTEs were found to be significantly different.

From Table 59 above, the sum of deflections can be calculated as:

Table 60 Sum of deflections at 18 ft (5.2 m) in 26-0214

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Approach Slab Leave Slab SD
J4 600 microns 450 microns 1050 microns
(24mils) (18 mils) (42 mils)
J5 500 microns 650 microns 1150 microns
(20 mils) (26 mils) (46 mils)

 

 

The SDs and the LTE values on both the sides of the joint are almost the same within a

given year. Not significant variations were found in the LTEs or the SD values for J4 and

125

15. The SDs on both the approach and the leave slab are almost constant at a given point
location.

Traditionally, the performance of transverse joints is evaluated based on the value of load
transfer efficiency (LTE), calculated through the ratio of the deflection of the unloaded
slab to the loaded slab during the deflection tests run at the approach slab (J4) and leave
slab (J5). Considering the example shown in Table 60 above, the LTE values at that

location are calculated as shown in Table 61 below:

Table 61 LTE at 18ft (5.2 m) in 26-0214

 

 

 

Approach Slab Leave Slab LTE
J4 d1 = 600 microns d3 = 450 microns
(24 mils) (18 mils) 450/600 - 75 %
J 5 d2 = 500 microns d1 = 650 microns 500/650 = 77 %
(20 mils) (26 mils)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even though the joint has an average LTE of 76%, the magnitudes of the individual
deflections, and hence the value of SD is significantly high. Also, the joint has a faulting
of 6mm. Hence even though the LTE value is good, the SD values indicate a poor
performing joint with a faulting of 6 mm. Hence, the LTE value alone does not
necessarily reflect the performance of the transverse joint. The magnitude of deflections
on both the loaded and unloaded sides of the joint should also be considered in addition
to the LTE value to evaluate the performance of the transverse joint. Table 62 below

shows another example from the state of AZ (4) at point location 180 ft (53.9 m)

126

Table 62 SDs and LTEs at 180 ft (53.9 m) in 4-0214

 

 

 

 

 

Approach Slab Leave Slab SD LTE
J4 d1 = 538 microns d3 = 458 microns 996 microns
(22 mils) ( 18 mils) (40 mils) 458/538 ‘ 85 %
J5 d2 = 460 microns d1 = 562 microns 1022 microns 460/562 = 82 %
( 23 mils) ( 18 mils) (41 mils)

 

 

 

 

 

Even though the average value of LTE is 83.5 %, the magnitudes of deflections and
hence the SD values are significantly high indicating the poor performance of the joint.
Hence SD needs to be used in conjunction with the LTE values to completely understand
the performance of the transverse joint.

An example of LTE and SD using MI ( 26) data

Consider the example of SPS-2 sections located in MI (26). It was observed that the LTE
values could be ranked from highest to lowest in the order of LCB, PATB to DGAB
sections, respectively. Sections 26—0213 and 26-0215 were found to have relatively low
LTE values (5 50%). As illustrated in Figure 72, the significant decrease in the LTE
values in sections 26-0213 and 26-0215 from about 90% in 1993 to less than 50% in
1998 could be explained by high deflections at the joints as there was no evidence of
thermal curling or high distress levels (only one high severity transverse crack was

observed).

127

LTE . percent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o 50 100 150 u 5;, 1;” 150
Point location. I Point bath, at
+llll5ll993 —l— lll29l1994+5f22l1995 +502ll997 +1lf311998 +llll9ll993 +121611994 +616fl995 +1103ll998 +8122l2002
Section 26-0213 Section 26-0214
100 f :__L_.__,;;LL._—-‘;-_.N 100 __,, j
80 “M i 80 -.Lfi :fi : §
60 ~ 6 E 60 '
4o . g 40 ‘
20 “W ..1 20 d
0 I I 0 i i
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
mum,- “mm"
+lll1611993 +6509” +lll10ll998 +llll7ll993 +1?JUI994 +505l1995 +119fl998 +10130001
Section 26-0215 Section 26-0216

Figure 72 LTE for DGAB sections in MI SPS-2 sites

As observed from section 26-0214, such high LTE values resulted from high deflections

(300 to 600 Elm) on the loaded and unloaded sides as illustrated in Figures 62 through 65,

indicating a poor performance of the joint. Note that transverse joints in section 26-0216

were found to have good performance, indicated by high LTE values (70 to 90%) along

with low deflections at the joints (< 200 pm). One explanation for this could be the

combination of ll-in. PCC slab, 14-ft lane, and 1.5-in. dowel bar for the section. A lower

LTE on the approach side of the joint at several point locations, especially at location

10.2 ft in section 26-0213, is caused by relatively high loaded deflection (about 1,500

pm) on the approach side of the joint. One explanation could be that faulting began on

the

approach side of the joint. Note that thermal gradient has a significant impact on the

128

deflection test results, also including LTE. Not only was a high positive thermal gradient
found to result in low void potential, but it was also found to result in high LTE due to
slab downward curling. The opposite trend was observed for negative thermal gradient.

To investigate the impact of base type on performance of the transverse joint, three
pavement sections with the same design except for the base type (sections 26-0215, 26-
0219, and 26-0223) were chosen for comparison as illustrated in Figure 77. It can be seen
that the values of LTE (J4) from the PATB and LCB sections are higher than those
observed from the DGAB section, while there was no significant difference among the
values of LTE (J5) observed from the three sections. However, since the magnitudes of
the deflections in these two sections were lower, it is clear that the transverse joints in the
LCB and PATB sections performed better than those in the DGAB section. As mentioned
before that the SD values are highly related to the curling of the slab, it is important to
eliminate the impact of thermal gradient to study the impact of base type on the
performance of the transverse joint. Hence, in this comparison, the deflections at

approximately zero thermal gradients were used.

129

38.3 .8598 ..8 38.3 .5598
52m 9:3. 2: «c 02.9. cacao—E. 2: :o gouge—hon on 959..“ .8“ as? 932 2... no 2% 62:3— 2: .5 25:8qu mp 2&3

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N8NRNB+ mam—8:: le mom—awlll vanaan .lfll mug—3:: |.O|. NooQNNNwlll ”09:22—le moo—33+ wag—ER. 1...! 23:2: _ IIOI
5.538— “...on— 3.55:... ...—o.—
oo. o: o: co. Om 8 8 ON 0 of o: ON. 2: am cc 3. 2 c
. . . . . o . l . . . . . o
. 8— v oo—
- 8a m 155%.} . 2: m
. 8m i can M.
. 8v - 2: m
8... - 2; m
80 y ooo w
8h N. o3.
8m cow
0
B
38.3 .5593 ..8 an: Sucén 5:93 ..8
£23.53 «5 mo “in cacao—N:— ofi :c agave—mun E. PEEK 8% 5.8.5.? 2: «o 2.6 .538. 2: .8 2:58:3— mr ensure
«comfifimlil moo—\m::+ woo—33+ 30:92 III 3252:191 NOONNNNEIII mam—RSZIXII mom—33+ woo—BR. + moo—5:210]
E .55an— _:_en_ E £333. .50.—
of 03 of co. on 8 av on o oo— o: o2 09— on co 3. cm 0
i 2: y es.
8N m in; . 08 m
u u
. 8m w . 8N m
. 8.. m . 8.. m
. 8“ m . 8n m
o8 m - 25 m
85 - co»
can so»

 

 

 

mega «.mmm :2 E magneto: “Eon 3335.: .5 2;. can: .3 “SEE— R. 9.53,.—

 

Amc Om :5 Om
mF<m+ moi—1.1 m<8+ E<nm+ §+ M§+
a £2.82 .5...— E 63.32 .5...—
_ _ . . . O

 

. com

58m .151; SN

9551111 mus—1‘1 m§1§1

“on!" ‘(IS
uonrur ‘qs

 

 

 

 

 

 

mH<m+ mun—1.1 £1

E .2532 .53— E .5532 «Sch

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o2 m2 2: mp on mm o o2 m2 2: ms 3 mm o
p _ _ F _ o p p . r r o
.8 1
m
row t
d
3
.8 u
3
u .
-. flow ... .
.l
2: cm—

 

 

 

131

moored ‘3‘“

Figures B-93 through B-105 illustrate the effect of base type on the transverse joint
performance for the other SPS-2 sites. Table 63 summarizes the effect of base type on

transverse joint performance for all the SPS-2 sites.

Table 63 Effect of base type on transverse joint performance for SPS-2 sites

 

State Comments
AZ (4) o LTE
0 Most of the joints in the PATB sections have the least
LTE among the base types at both J4 and J 5.
However, LTEs range from 60-90%

 

0 SD (J4) and SD (J 5) at the joints in all the base types
are close to each other and are not high. PATB
sections have the least SDs while the LCB sections
have the highest SDs.

Even though LTE values at both J4 and J5 are close to each other,
SDs for the LCB sections are relatively much higher.
AR (5) - LTE
o LCB sections have the least LTE at both J4 and J5
0 SD

0 SD (J4) and SD (15) at the joints in all the base types
are close to each other and are not high.

Low LTE and high SD at J4, and, low LTE and medium SD at J5 in
the LCB section may indicate problems in the approach side of the

 

 

joint
CA (6) o LTE
o LTE for all the three base types are close to each
other.
0 SD

0 SDs, in general, are ranked from high to low in the
order of PATB, DGAB and LCB sections.
Even though the LTE values are close to each other, the SD values at
the PATB joints are almost double to that of LCB sections. LTE and
SD values at J4 and J5 are close to each other.
CO (8) o LTE
o LTE for all the three base types are close to each
other.

 

0 SD
0 SDs at most of the PATB joints are highest.
Even though the LTE values are close to each other, the SD values at
the PATB joints higher than that those at the joints in the other
sections. LTE and SD values at J4 and J5 are close to each other.

 

 

 

 

132

Table 63 (cont’d).

 

State

Comments

 

DE (10)

o LTE
o LTE for all the three base types are quite close to each
other.
0 SD
0 SDs at most of the PATB joints is highest.
Even though the LTE values are close to each other, the SD values at
the PATB joints higher than that those at the joints in the other sections.
LTE and SD values at J4 and J5 are close to each other.

 

IA (19)

- LTE
o LTEs for the PATB sections are slightly lower than those
in the other base types.
0 SD
0 SDs at the DGAB joints are highest
Even though the SDs are relatively higher in the DGAB sections, the
LTE values are not significantly different from those of the other base
types. LTE and SD values at J4 and J5 are close to each other.

 

KS (20)

o LTE
0 Most of the DGAB joints have the least LTE at J4, while
most of the LCB joints have the least LTE at J5
0 SD
0 SD values for the DGAB joints are highest.
High SDs at J4 together with low LTEs at J4 may indicate problems at
the approach side of the joint. However, high LTE values at J5 are
observed inspite of the relatively high SDs at J5 in DGAB sections.

 

NV (32)

o LTE
0 Most of the joints in the LCB sections have the least
LTE
0 SD
0 PATB joints have the highest LTE
Joints in all the sections are performing reasonably well. LTE and SD
values at J4 and J5 are close to each other.

 

NC (37)

o LTE
o LTEs of most of the LCB joints are low
0 SD
0 LCB joints have the highest SD values.
The above observations indicate that the LCB joints have shown
relatively poor performance.

 

 

ND (38)

 

o LTE
0 Most of the LCB joints have the least LTE values
0 SD
0 Most of the LCB joints have the highest SD values
The above observations indicate that the LCB joints are performing
relatively worse than the other sections.

 

133

 

Table 63 (cont’d).

 

 

 

 

 

State Comments
OH (39) o LTE
o LTE values at all the joints in all the sections are close
to each other
0 SD
0 SD values at the DGAB joints are highest.
Even though the LTE values are close to each other, the SDs values
indicate that the LCB sections are the worst performing sections.
WA (53) o LTE
0 Most of the PATB joints have the least LTE values
0 SD
0 DGAB joints have relatively much higher SDs than the
other sections. The SD values for most of the DGAB
joints are more than 4 times than those of the other
sections.
Even though most of the DGAB sections have the highest LTE values,
the outstandingly high SD values indicate poorly performing joints.
WI (55) o LTE

 

o LTE values of the joints in all the base types are close
to each other
0 SD
0 SD values at the joints in all the base types are
reasonably low.
The above observations indicate that all the joints are performing
satisfactorily.

 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LTE, VOID POTENTIAL AND D-
RATIO

This section deals with evaluating the pavement sections in terms of the various response
parameters like load transfer efficiency (LTE), void potential (VP) and D-ratio. It was
deemed necessary to analyze these parameters together because the occurrence of one
parameter is affected by one or both of the other parameters.
The comer deflection data (J2 for 12-ft lanes and J7 for l4-ft lanes) is used in void
potential (VP) analysis to assess the potential loss of support near the slab comer. The

FWD loading is graphed with the peak deflection and the intercept of the line on the

134

 

deflection axis is noted. As suggested by Darter et a1 (11), a threshold value of 50 3m
has been used in the analysis. Note that the positive results from void potential analysis
do not necessarily ensure the presence of the voids, since the high comer deflections
could also occur due to thermal curling of the slab. We know that a positive thermal
gradient (slab surface is warmer than the bottom) will cause the slab to curl downward,
while a negative thermal gradient will cause the slab to curl upward, which could be
associated with the loss of support of the slab.

D-ratio is a measure of the performance of the lateral support, calculated through the ratio
of the peak deflection at the edge of the slab (J3 or J8) to the peak deflection at the center
of the slab (J 1) as shown below (9):

51(13 or J8)
51(J1)

 

D — ratio =

Consider the example of SPS-2 test sections located in MI (26). Figure 78 shows the
LTE, VP and D-ratio for 26-0213 using the latest year of FWD data available. The X-axis
shows the LTE (in the increasing order) at various point locations indicated below the
scale. The Y-axes represent the void potential and the D-ratio respectively. A horizontal

line is drawn at the threshold value for void potential (50 to 70 microns).

135

 

I Void potential 0 D-ratio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 550 3.5
8 500 . ' o , _ 3
8 450 - o
..:~ 350 ‘ 9 Q o
F 300 ~ 2 ‘3
5 a
g 250 “ s 1.5 ‘1‘
8. 2m 5 Q
U 150 ~ I 1
'8 100 i I ~ 0.5
> 50 _

O I I I - I I I. n - ‘—l_._‘l—. ” 0

”5.8 36.0 37.1 42.7 46.2 51.9 52.9 58.9 69.6 78.6
3 35.1 488 2.7 81.7 127.7 63.1 21.3 113.4 95.4 145.7 4

LTE
POINTLOCATION,m

Figure 78 LTE, VP and D-ratio in 26-0213 for the latest year

5 out of the 10 joints at which the FWD measurements were done have LTE values
>50%. The deflections on both the unloaded and the loaded side at these locations
(21.3m, 63.1m, 95.4m, 113.4m and 145.7m) are low as shown in Figure 79 through
Figure 82. Also none of the locations showed any potential for voids as the intercept on
the deflection axis is less than the threshold values. However, high D-ratios (>2) were
recorded at all these joints. High D-ratios at these locations are because of the high
deflections at the edges as shown in Figure 83 and Figure 84. Also, high deflections on

the edge could be attributed to the fact that the sections have an AC shoulder.

136

$88. 3 28.8 .8. a...“ .88... 2.. .3 82.88.. N» 2.8....

 

8888. 26..
8. 8. on o

_ _ o w
m

r 8. a...

9

- 98 m

- .8 m

U.

i ocv m

- 8m m.

. 8o 6.

O

f 8» w

8..

 

 

 

Gown... VD macéu ..8 Si 633:— 95 ..o 8:58:09 cm 0.59%

 

 

 

 

88882.58
8. 8. 8 o
. _ o w
r .8 m
- 84 m
. 86 m
- 8.. m.
- 82 .m
.. 82 w
- 8: w
82

3252....
m: 28.3 ...... 3% 3.52.... a... .8 22.8-ho: S 95w...—

 

 

 

 

Edouaofl .Eom
8. 8. 8 o

L _ o V
. 8. m.

B

- 8m 8..

G

- 98 m

-84 m.

- .8 m

- So m.

3

T con m

8..
.8828

.5 28.8 .8 8.2. 882:: 2.. 8 22.88.. 8 £8...

E dogwoo— ion
on . 8. an o

L —

 

o

\./.\.\./.\1././

 

roe.
iooN
icon
.09.
noon
r000
soon

 

 

cow

suororur ‘suonoouaq oBero/lv

137

 

800
700 r
600 r
500 -
‘“X)~ *Ig,.AV///*\\\Vg\flfd’,,*—’***-——ep——+*NL‘~*
300 r

200 4
100 ~

0 l i
0 50 100 150

 

 

 

Peak deflection at J 3/J 8, microns

Point Location, In
Figure 83 Peak deflection at the edge of the slab

 

300
250 ~
200 r
150 r
100 r

50 -

O I T
0 50 100 150

Point Location, In

 

 

 

Peak deflection at midslab, microns

Figure 84 Peak deflection at the center of the slab

Low LTEs at the joints (2.7m, 35.1m, 48.8m, 81.7m and 127.7m) are because of the
excessively high deflections on the loaded side of the joint as shown in Figure 79 through
Figure 82. Void potential was detected at 2.7m and 35.1m. Even though the joint had a
D-ratio of 1, the occurrence of voids at 2.7m could be because of the fact that the joint
experienced excessively high deflections on the loaded side of the joint and low LTEs as

shown in Figure 80 and Figure 82. Void potential at 35.1m could be due to the extremely

138

low load transfer efficiencies and high D-ratio (>2.00). High D-ratio at this location could
be because of the high edge deflections at the joints, which could be attributed to the
provision of an AC shoulder. However, void potential was not observed at the other three
locations. This could be because of the fact that even though the LTE values are low, the
magnitudes of deflections are very low. However high D-ratios at these locations could
be because of the high deflections at the edges.

Based on the deflection data available, void potential is also found in sections 26-
0214,26-0215, 26—0218 and 26-0222. It can be observed that out of the three base types,
the DGAB sections have a higher potential for voids followed by PATB and LCB. Void
potential was exhibited in 2 out of the 4 PATB sections. Effect of slab thermal curling
could explain the void potential in section 26-0223, but not for section 26-0222. This is
because the deflection test was done under a positive thermal gradient for section 26-
0222, while section 26-0223 experienced negative thermal gradient. The VP in section
26-0222 could be explained by the low LTE at the transverse joints, supported by the
design features of the sections. (8 in. thick and 1.25 in dowel diameter). Excessively low

LTEs (<50%) in sections 0215 and 0222 are because of the high deflections at the joints.

139

.8. E. ... 2.2.28 $8 .28 2.. .5. 2.2... ...:W .3 ....S mm as»...

E d880— .....om

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m5 m5
.3: wt. m8 “.3. ...... ...N .8: 28 98 ..8 .2 at. m8 ....x 3.: ...... .....N. 6N: ...... ..N
6.3 02 28 4.2 Nam 98 9:. 0.... 38 ...Nm 2... m8 .3 3... 26 3.. Es on. 8... 28
r . _ _ . . . . . . o _ . . . . . . . .
o . co . _ _, ,. ,, .5 A
m0 1 I W N I I I .. 08— m
- . d - . .38
a . com m ..u m- . o . W
... . u s m u . . . . . - .58 n.
n. . I . n... v- W
o m .- I . w. o u . . .
O O O O 0 I 000— M. W i O I 0 08V m.
N l O 3 I o.
O O O O I W. O i C I 8m W
ON 98. s 98..
82-0 9 E822. 30> I 88.9 0 3.5.0.. 30> I
NNN.. 28
.... 2.3.82 .....om E £2.80. .50..
m5 m5
. . . . . . . 9. SN 3.. N8 ...8 N8 N8. N8 3....
33 m8 ...... m .S .8. :N. 68 38 N8 2.... ..8 8.8 wt ER was a...»
...... 3.. ...2 EN 2. of ..N. 6....
o p . . 2 _ 0.0 O i. _ . . . . . . o A
- m, . - - 8. W
D.
_ I l 0.0% N l I x 00N .M
..u . . m ......o m - o a .. - o8 m
m. N, . - 98. m. n. v - o o - 8.. m
o o W. 0 I 0
. m - 6 6 - o8 m
m - . o . o - 08. w. a .
o I o O m o i I I I 1 08 w
v o.8N u N 8.. u

E .888. 8.0..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

88A. . .2222. .25 . 82A. 6 .83.... 96> -

28 «AN:

140

It was observed that DGAB sections were found to have relatively higher D-ratio than the
other sections, indicating that DGAB layers do not provide as good of a lateral support as
the other base types. One explanation could be that the DGAB layer is less stiff than LCB
and PATB, hence providing lesser shear transfer across the longitudinal joint than LCB

and PATB. Figure 86 illustrates the shear transfer across the longitudinal joint provided

/.

Tram: lane AC shoulder

by the base layer.

Iflgmdiml joint

 

 

 

 

Base Layer

 

Shear transfer
Embankment '1‘” l" h” h?"

 

Subgrade
Figure 86 Illustration of the shear transfer across the longitudinal joint

Within the DGAB sections, it can be observed that sections 26-0214 and 26-0215 have
relatively higher D-ratio than the other two sections. This could be explained through the
advantage of having the widened lane (14-ft lane) as compared to the standard lane (12-
ft). However, as can be seen from Figure 87 through Figure 90, the magnitude of
deflections in these sections are significantly different. For example, the D-ratio for
section 26-0214 at point location 123 ft (36.9 m), is computed as:

D-ratio = 800/140 = 5.17

141

In this case, the edge deflections are high indicating a poor performance of the lane—
shoulder joint.D-ratio for section 26-0214 at location 488.6 ft (146.6 m), in the latest
year, is 250/55 = 4.54.

Even though both the values of D-ratio are fairly close to each other, the magnitudes of
deflections that make up the D-ratio are significantly different. Hence, section 26-0214
should be considered to be performing worse than section 26-0215, since the magnitude
of deflections is high. Hence it is important that the magnitudes of deflections need to be
considered in conjunction with the D-ratio to assess the performance of the lateral
support.

High D-ratio was also observed in section 26-0218 despite the fact that this section is an
LCB section with a l4-ft lane. This is related to the cracking in the LCB layer during the
construction as a result of which the layer cannot provide the shear transfer, expected for
an LCB layer. In addition, it was observed that within the 12-ft DGAB sections, section
26-0214 (8-in.) had a higher D-ratio than section 26-0215 (1 1-in.), indicating that a wider

lane, a stiffer base layer and a thicker PCC slab provide a better lateral support condition.

142

mac

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

38.3 55m 2: he on? 2: .5 cocoa—how anon ca 0.5»:— .en in? on. no .859 2: «a 558:2. :3.— aw 0.5“...—
woozot: le 32%).. L11 3.2%. lII 826:: tel 325:: lxl moo—50+ 32g. In] moo—BS. lol
E 5883 as. E 5.83 .59.
cm. 8. on o 8. 8. 8 o
_’ . I . o . _ c
1 co.
- 8N fl ii on H
x 00m .mu . 8— w
- 8.. m. , cm. W
. 8n 0 3.
7 ooo m - 8N m
f r 005 . OWN
8m 8m
:8

33-3 in? a... .3 on? 2: ... 558:2. 6.3.— ww 8&5 .8 £2... 2... «o .528 2: ... 538:“... :3.— S 25E
88.3.. IT 89:2... lxI 8233 it 32.3. IT 325.... I9 «83$ 1.... ”8:2... IT was... +4853 1T m8..a.... I?

E... no G
Edouwooflfiom on 3.5m

 

 

ow. co. on o 02 8. 0m o
II _ — I o o

u On: . cm .1

- .
- 8m .m 8 .w
1 00* w. . Om— m.
- 8m m - 8N w
I O8 3 S

\ I 8N: 1 OWN

...l 8m 8m

 

 

 

 

 

 

143

CHAPTER 8
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The effects of climatic region, subgrade soil and traffic on the performance of
doweled jointed concrete pavement test sections incorporating different levels of
structural factors have been analyzed in this research. The data for this study are drawn
from the LTPP SPS-2 database. A summary of the influence of all these factors has been
prepared as shown in Table A-54. The table explains in detail the reasons for behavior of
test sections in each of the 14 states in SPS—2 experiment.

There is sufficient data in the SPS-2 experiment to study the effects of
construction features on the performance of JPCP sections. The performance and
response data have been obtained from the Release 16.0 database. The construction
reports provide information on construction and design features. They also include
“problems” encountered during the construction of the SPS pavement sections. Some
major problems like excessive shrinkage cracking in the LCB sections, problems with the
PCC mix design and deviations in the layer thicknesses are indicative of non-standard
construction practices. The various limitations identified in the experiment and the
database suggests that the data collection process needs to be consistent and care needs to
be taken in the construction of the LCB sections to prevent shrinkage cracks.

The AASHTO ’98 Supplemental Procedure for Concrete Pavement Thickness
Design has been used to theoretically verify if the sections can withstand the design
ESALS. It was found from this analysis that most of the 8 in. sections could not withstand
the design ESALS. In general, sections with 8 in. PCC slab and lane width of 12 ft

showed higher transverse cracking. It is too early to comment about the occurrence of

144

faulting because of insignificant magnitudes. Pavement sections with undrained dense-
graded aggregate bases or undrained lean concrete bases have so far shown more
distresses than sections with drained permeable asphalt-treated bases.

A “Performance Index” was developed to enable the comparison of sections
across different states without the need for age. The results obtained from the engineering
analysis have been validated by using various statistical methods like univariate and
multivariate analysis.

It was also found that the magnitudes of deflections on either side of the joints
needs to be used in conjunction with the load transfer efficiency (LTE) and edge support
factor to completely understand the behavior of the transverse and longitudinal joint. In
addition to the design and construction features, the effect of temperature is also an
important factor to be considered in assessing the loss of support and in joint performance
evaluation.

Since the SPS-2 test sections have been monitored from the traffic open date, the
SPS-2 database gives us a unique opportunity to record the initiation of distress. As the
sections get older, it is expected from the knowledge of the distresses that more load-
related and material-related distresses would be manifested. These aspects could thus be
analyzed in a few years from now, when most of the sections exhibit higher distress with
age. The SPS-2 experiment being first of its kind and analysis of its data to study the
effects of design and construction features is being done for the first time, the approach
suggested in this thesis could be of use for future researchers to understand the behavior

of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements.

145

Appendix A
Tables

146

Table A- 1 Construction deviations in the SPS-2 sites

 

State ID

Construction Issues

 

AZ (4)

0 Base and sub base
0 Very coarse mix in DGAB
0 Mat defects led to group patching and hand finishing in LCB
0 Transverse drains installed perpendicular
0 Insufficient Filter fabric around PATB mat
0 PCC construction
0 Hydraulic liquid leakage caused 20 min delay
0 Delay in homogeneous placement due to rolling of material

 

AR (5)

Three sections built on fills
Six sections constructed in ‘cut’ sections of original roadway
Dowel assembly replaced after the arrangement got disturbed

 

CA (6)

o LCB had developed cracks after placement because the curing
compound was not placed properly.

0 The sides of the PATB material were completely covered by the
overlaying PCC material and the cement paste rendering the PCC
almost ineffective.

 

CO (8)

o Subgrade
0 Six sections on cut and six sections of fill
0 Base and Subbase
o Pumping and rise in ground water table observed during heavy rains
o PATB constructed in trenching of DGAB
o PCC
0 Weather and equipment breakdown disrupted placement of slabs

 

 

DE (10)

 

o Subgrade
o Delayed beginning in construction due to wet weather
0 Subbase
0 Some DGAB removed during testing
0 Depressions in LCB due to tamping bars of paver
0 Serious shrinkage cracks observed
0 Spalling occurred while testing
0 PCC
0 Paving operations rescheduled due to wet weather and poor concrete

 

147

 

Table A-1 (cont’d).

 

State ID

Construction Issues

 

IA (19)

Construction delayed due to wet weather

Section 0222 shifted to new location after incorrect placement of dowel
bars

Cement content increased by 50 lbs in sections which did not achieve
target strength of 900 psi

1” of filter fabric removed to improve permeability

 

KS (20)

Construction delayed due to wet weather

Excess PATB was placed and removed

Existing granular subbase material and shoulder material retained
Subgrade was dried up prior to construction using Type C Fly Ash

 

MI (26)

0

Base and subbase
Embankment clay dried out and desiccation cracks appeared
Rutting developed from 0-15 to 04-15 near the inner wheel path and
0-02 to OHS in the outer wheel path of 0221
Transverse shrinkage cracks appeared in LCB soon after construction
Extra amount of water entered the pavement structure since this
section is located on superelevation, which drains toward the outside
shoulder.

PCC
Concreting delayed by a month in 0216

 

 

NV (32)

 

O

O
O

O

Subgrade
Existing AC layer, cement treated base, embankment, and DGAB
removed before construction of lime-stabilized subgrade
PCC
Section 0205 was removed after severe shrinkage cracking
Random block cracking observed in 0208 within 16 ft of inner edge
prior to PCC work
Section 0212 removed and repaved (using state standard mix design)
after severe cracking
Target 14-day strength changed to 475 and 750 psi
Most 750 psi mix was stiff and would tear during placement
To attain 750 psi strength the water-cement ratio was lowered to 0.3
High slump was adjusted by addition of water reducing agents and
lowering of water content
Flash set occurred prior to placement and finishing
Sections 0201 and 0209 had high variations in deflection during FWD
testing

 

148

 

Table A-1 (cont’d).

 

State ID

Construction Issues

 

NC (37)

Subgrade
0 Heavy rains caused problems for sections 0207 and 0204, which were
either lime-stabilized or aggregate stabilized
Base and subbase
o DGAB thickness was increased at the transition point of 0201 and
0209 as water entered through PATB layer
DGAB extended only to 2’ beyond pavement edge
1” dowel bars were used instead of 1.25” dowels
Non-uniform pavement structure across the lanes
Embankment at 0210 had a slope failure which may cause failure in
shoulder and driving lane
Construction joint present in 0204
o DGAB at 0201, near TRB instrumentation, was not compacted and
may thus lead to settlement

0000

O

 

ND (38)

Base and subbase

o LCB was hard to be placed

0 Forms were used to contain concrete with high proportion of fines,

from collapsing at edges

0 Mix was adjusted to avoid migration of water

0 PATB being very fluid was not rolled properly and it lost its shape
PCC

0 Reflection cracks appeared in section 0217

 

OH (39)

Two types of mixes were used-odd numbered sections are different
from even numbered sections

 

 

WA
(53)

 

Subgrade
0 Average moisture content was 5.8% below optimum
0 Construction traffic provided compaction effort
Base and subbase
Traffic during construction caused bleeding to surface
Tracking occurred in prime coat
Patching was done to the fabric of edge drains in 0209 and 0212
Initially contamination of rock occurred because fabric was short
High water reducing agent used in first 300’
PCC
0 Surface voids appeared immediately due to the mix being
unconsolidated
0 First 300’ had a uniform appearance
0 Shrinkage cracks appeared on 0206

00000

 

149

 

Table A- 2 Mix design summary for AZ (4) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description 550—psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 81 1.] lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash |00 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 ozjcu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 ozjcu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core), psi
l4-day 3570-4580 5870-6800 -
28-day 3780-4570 6330—7 100 -
365-day 5390-6970 6490-8270 -
Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 3400-3840 6100-6350 495-575
28-day 4330-4670 6460-6700 850-950
365-day 6050-62 10 7200-8 100 -
Split Tensile Strength (Core). psi
l4-day 370-530 530—640 -
28-day 365-490 480-645 -
365-day 605-735 553-670 -
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi
14-day 350-400 470-505 -
28-day 365-385 520-590 -
365-day 460-550 680-860 -
Flexural Strength. psi
l4-day 560-580 790-860 -
28-day 630-685 825-950 -
365-day 805-945 890-1085 -

150

Table A- 3 Mix design summary for AR (5) SPS-2 sites

 

 

Description 550—psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 ozjcu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd

 

Compressive Strength (CorC). Psi

l4-day
28-day No information about the age of testing the specimens is available
365-day

 

Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi

l4-day
28-day No information about the age of testing the specimens is available

365-day

 

Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi

l4-day
28-day No information about the age of testing the specimens is available
365-day

 

Split Tensile Strength (Fresh). Psi

14-day
28-day No information about the age of testing the specimens is available

365-day

 

Flexm‘al Strength, psi
14-day

28-day No information about the age of testing the specimens is available
365-day

151

Table A- 4 Mix design summary for CA (6) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

Description 550-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4—day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core). psi
l4-day 2570-31 80 5454-5520 -
28-day 2960-3930 4460-6090 -
365-day 3500-4490 4960-6310 -
Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 2340-3310 900-4530 -
28-day 3050-3690 1 340-5060 -
365-day 3370-5450 1670-6630 -
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
l4-day 119-444 466-617 -
28-day 326-409 374-606 -
365-day 224-401 501-608 -

 

Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi

l4-day
28-day
365-day

No data is available

 

Flexural Strength. psi

l4-day
28-day
365-day

No data is available

 

152

Table A- 5 Mix design summary for CO (8) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description 550-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day bean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 4O ozjcu.yd 5.5 ozjcu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core). psi
l4-day 2190-3380 4290-5390 850-1120
28-day 2280-3300 4670-7030 800-1450
365-day 1200-5580 7360-8390 1500-1920
Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi
14-day 2085-43 1 5 4070-6540 390-570
28-day 2460-4990 5800-68 10 500-660
365-day 3500-6430 7430-9000 870-1250
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
14-day 380-510 570-680 -
28-day 410-900 390-820 -
365-day 550-744 680-860 -
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi
l4—day 290-375 300-550 -
28-day 210-510 510—650 -
365-day 41 5-605 540-720 -
Flexural Strength, psi
l4-day 475-625 810-960 -
28-day 470-640 7080-950 -
365-day 620-710 840-1050 -

 

153

Table A- 6 Mix design summary for DE (10) SPS-2 sites

 

 

Description 550-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 ozlcu.yd

 

Compressive Strength (Core), psi

l4-day 3980-4710 3670-6410 -
28-day 3880-5050 4540-6020 -
365-day 4570-6820 5 1 10-8790 -

 

Compressive Strength (Fresh). psi

l4-day 3570-3920 4060-5730 -
28-day 3920-4370 4300-7250 -
365-day 4010-5920 4960-7920 -

 

Split Tensile Strength (Core). psi

l4-day 505-716 489-627 -
28-day 437-438 502-552 -
365-day 6 1 2-705 406-692 -

 

Split Tensile Strength (Fresh). psi

 

l4-day - 442-5 16 -
28-day - 46 1-5 1 8 -
365-day - 434-639 -
Flexural Strength, psi
l4-day 550-750 620—920 -
28-day 650-930 730-1 190 -
365-day 680-970 680—1 1 20 -

 

154

 

Table A- 7 Mix design summary for IA (19) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description SSO-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 ozjcu.yd 4O oz/cu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core), psi
l4-day 2560-3430 4930-5900 310-430
28-day 2860-3820 4810-6070 750-940
365-day 3050-5080 5050-7390 1000-1280
Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 2500-3080 5570-6620 310-340
28-day 3080-3930 6470-7450 600-620
365-day 4060-4580 7690-9530 1 1 10-1 130
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
l4-day 260-380 410-510
28-day 350-460 500-580
365-day 350-500 520—600
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 280-380 450-530 -
28-day 290-400 490-570 -
365-day 350-450 565-660 -
Flexural Strength. psi
14—day 440-500 700-790 -
28-day 520-590 720-770 -
365-day 520-590 770-930 -

 

155

Table A- 8 Mix design summary for KS (20) SPS-2 sites

 

 

Description 550-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.] lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oncu.yd 40 ozjcu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd

 

Compressive Strength (Core), psi

l4-day - - -
28-day - - -
365-day - - -

 

Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi

l4-day 3641-5074 5702-7387 586-729
28-day 4360-5859 6454-8613 901 -1022
365-day 5748-7352 6487- 10534 1232-1251

 

Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi

l4-day - - _
28-day - - -
365-day - - -

 

Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi

14-day 435-536 486-630 -
28-day 463-624 536-657 -
365-day 460-526 504-751 -

 

Flexural Strength, psi

l4-day 568-702 784-924 -
28-day 576-706 839-1035 -
365-day 667-752 816-1002 -

 

156

Table A- 9 Mix design summary for MI (26) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description 550-psi flexural strength at l4—day 900psi flexural strength at 14-day Lean Concrete
Mix Design
Cement 376 lbs 750 lbs 165 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1485 lbs (SSD) 1370 lbs (SSD) 1370 lbs (SSD)
Coarse Aggregate 1827 lbs (SSD) 1605 lbs (SSD) 1605 lbs (SSD)
Water 211 lbs 285 lbs 285 lbs
Air 1.0 ozjcwt 1.7 oz/cwt 1.7 oz/cwt
WRDA Concrete admixture 3.0 ozjcwt 3.0 oz/cwt 3.0 oz/cwt
Total 3899 lbs 4019 lbs 4010 lbs
Compressive Strength (Core), psi
l4-day 4000-5060 5990-6130 -
28-day 3265-5070 5610-6300 -
365-day 4790-7030 8660-9340 1030- 1470
Compressive Strength (Fresh). psi
l4-day 3870-4080 5890 580-700*
28-day 4120-4400 6400-6600 720-830
365-day 5020-5 690 8130-9370 740-1040
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
l4-day 480-5 14 526-645 -
28-day 370-530 470-645 -
365 -day 484-713 698-761 -
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi
14-day 390-415 505-525 -
28-day 345-460 490-570 -
365-day 345-5 13 398-464 -
Flexural Strength, psi
14-day 585-645 840-975 -
28-day 760-1040 980-1015 -
365-day 835-915 875-1000 -

 

"‘ indicates 7-day strength

157

Table A- 10 Mix design summary for NV (32) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description 550-psi flexural strength at 14-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 81 1.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 ozjcuyd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core), psi
14-day 2130-3420 3 l l 0-3570 430-670
28-day 2550-3770 4000-4350 570-820
365-day 4560-51 10 6740-8410 990-1510
Compressive Strength (Fresh). Psi
14-day 2600-4000 5390-6400 340-510
28-day 3200-4440 6380-6880 600-820
365-day 4200-6010 9410-9940 1260-1620
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
l4-day
28-day No data is available for testing
365-day
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 285-445 45 5-5 18 325-445
28-day 325-370 505-560 345-480
365-day 438-528 544-684 442-610
Flexural Strength, psi
l4-day 490-555 730-885 -
28-day 525-585 785-890 -
365-day 575-715 845-920 -

 

158

Table A- 11 Mix design summary for NC (37) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description SSO-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5 .5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core), psi
14-day 2250-4170 3435-6369 -
28-day 2884-4495 3478-6766 -
365-day 4990-7340 6070-10680 -
Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi
14-day 3880-4340 2967-6630 -
28-day 4590-5224 3770-7847 -
365-day 6840-7960 5590- 10050 -
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
14-day 270-450 522-634 -
28-day 357-496 541-660 -
365-day 429-794 600-761 -
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 326-41 3 446-5 50 -
28-day 473-497 510-575 -
365-day 543—675 550-744 -
Flexural Strength. psi
l4-day 650-736 - -
28-day 564-736 912-1075 -
365-day 824-972 1010-1065 -

 

159

Table A- 12 Mix design summary for ND (38) SPS-2 sites

 

 

Description 550-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oncu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 ozjcu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd

 

Compressive Strength (Core), psi

14-day
28-day No information is available for testing

365-day

 

Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi

l4-day
28-day No information is available for testing

365-day

 

Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi

l4-day 443-555 - -
28-day 487-506 - -
365-day 616-673 - -

 

Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi

14-day
28-day No information is available for testing

365-day

 

Flexural Strength, psi

l4-day
28-day No information is available for testing

365-day

 

160

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table A- 13 Mix design summary for OH (39) SPS-2 sites
Description 550-psi flexural strength at l4-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core). psi
l4-day 3942-6254 6494-7853 1048-1 105
28-day 4263-6342 4810-8165 1968-2215
365-day 6520-8710 8120-1 1350 1965-1995
Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 4665-5362 7029-7661 676-711
28-day 5234-6599 7491 -8179 1072-1 111
365-day 6500-8210 9310-10510 1420-1460
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
l4-day 353-407 387-686 -
28-day 382-580 413-705 -
365-day 523-775 517-676 -
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh), psi
14-day 333-399 387-686 -
28-day 162-452 413-705 -
365-day 524-612 490—804 -
Flexural Strength, psi
l4-day 645-749 438-713 -
28-day 702-880 784-890 -
365-day 850-945 930-955 -

 

Table A- 14 Mix design summary for WA (53) SPS-2 sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description 550—psi flexural strength at 14-day 900-psi flexural strength at l4-day Lean Concrete Base
Mix Design
Cement 400 lbs 811.1 lbs 234 lbs
Fly Ash 100 lbs - 50 lbs
Water 232 lbs 292 lbs 250 lbs
Fine Aggregate 1285 lbs 1207 lbs -
Coarse Aggregate 1939 lbs 1826 lbs 3345 lbs
Water reducer 25 oz/cu.yd 40 oz/cu.yd 5.5 oz/cu.yd
Air entraining admixture 2 oz/cu.yd - 3.5 oz/cu.yd
Compressive Strength (Core). psi
l4-day 2368-2970 5926-7158 587-963
28-day 3088-3613 6681-8078 783- 1 368
365-day 3890-5040 7660-8600 1370-1930
Compressive Strength (Fresh), psi
l4-day 5926-7 1 58 5906-665 1 290-930
28-day 6671 -8078 6685-7544 570-1820
365-day 7660-8600 5000-6340 1520-2800
Split Tensile Strength (Core), psi
14-day 405-475 732-798 -
28-day 418-527 738-844 -
365-day 511-691 895-728 -
Split Tensile Strength (Fresh). Psi
14-day 349-449 544-608 -
28-day 420-465 599-670 -
365-day 496-576 582-707 -
Flexural Strength, psi
l4-day 413-546 801-870 -
28-day 524-709 880-1041 -
365-day 597-772 738-880 -

 

162

Table A- 15 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for AZ (4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As-Design As-Built
S . Average PCC thickness, Base thickness, ESAL, PCC thickness, Base thickness, ESAL,
ection ID . . . . . . . . .
MR, psr in. in. million in. 1n. million
4-0213 633 8 6 1.2 7.9 5.9 1.1
4-0214 868 8 6 4.7 8.3 6.1 5.4
4-0215 633 11 6 4.4 11.3 6.1 5.1
4-0216 868 11 6 21.82 11.2 6.2 23.95
4-0217 633 8 6 1.05 8.1 6.1 1.07
4-0218 868 8 6 4.21 8.3 6.2 4.64
4-0219 633 11 6 3.47 10.8 6.2 3.13
4-0220 868 11 6 17.34 11.3 6.1 21.06
4-0221 633 8 4 1.1 8.2 4 1.25
4-0222 868 8 4 4.01 8.6 4.2 6.2
4-0223 633 11 4 4.41 11.1 3.6 4.8
4-0224 868 1 1 4 22.02 10.7 3.8 19.54
Table A- 16 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for CO (8)
As-Designed As-Built
PCC thickness, Base thickness, Average MR, PCC thickness, Base thickness,

Section ID in. in. psi ' ESALS in. in. ESALS
8-0213 8 6 630 0.98 8.7 5.9 1.55
8-0214 8 6 900 4.8 8.4 5.9 6.31
8-0215 11 6 630 6.3 11.4 6 7.96
8-0216 11 6 900 25.93 11.8 5.8 37.16
8-0217 8 6 630 1.1 8.6 6.3 1.56
8-0218 6 900 5.03 7.7 6.2 4.65
8-0219 1] 6 630 3.4 11.1 6.1 3.64
8-0220 ll 6 900 46.89 11.1 6.3 52.79
8-0221 8 4 630 0.95 8.3 4.1 1.21
8-0222 8 4 900 4.7 8.7 4 7.56
8-0223 11 4 630 4.31 11.8 4.7 6.53
8-0224 1 l 4 900 43.15 11.7 3.1 64.57

Table A- 17 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for DE (10)
As-Design As-Built

Section e MR, Width, PCC Base ESAL, PCC Base ESAL,

ID psi ft thickness, in. thickness, in. million thickness, in. thickness, in. million
10-0201 790 12 8 6 3.98 8.3 6.2 4.84
10-0202 960 14 8 6 15.01 8.8 6.5 25.06
10-0203 790 14 1 1 6 34.61 1 1.7 6.1 49.94
10-0204 960 12 11 6 58.92 11 6.3 59.2
10-0205 790 12 8 6 11.89 9.2 5.5 13.75
10-0206 960 14 8 6 44.84 8.9 6.1 56.49
10-0207 790 14 1 l 6 63.87 1 1.3 6.9 93.68
10-0208 960 12 11 6 108.72 12.1 6 223.95
10-0209 790 12 8 4 5.89 8.2 4.7 10.88
10-0210 960 14 8 4 22.23 8.3 3.8 20.64
10-0211 790 14 11 4 42.03 11.8 3.7 69.95
10-0212 960 12 11 4 71.53 12.4 3.7 193.57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

163

 

 

 

Table A- 18 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for IA (19)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As-Design As-Built

Section Average Lane PCC Base ESAL, PCC Base ESAL,

1D MR, psi Width, ft thickness, in. thickness, in. million thickness. in. thickness, in. million

19-0213 555 14 8 6 0.74 8.5 6.1 1.05

19-0214 745 12 8 6 2.03 8.4 6.3 2.69

19-0215 555 12 11 6 3.32 11.8 5.8 5.14

19-0216 745 14 l 1 6 20.09 11.6 5.9 27.99

19-0217 555 14 8 6 0.99 7.7 6.5 1.08

19-0218 745 12 8 6 2.71 8.2 6.4 3.32

19-0219 555 12 11 6 4.30 11.2 6.8 5.56

19-0220 745 14 l l 6 26.04 1 1.4 6.9 39.46

19-0221 555 14 8 4 0.52 9.4 3.6 1.09

19-0222 745 12 8 4 1.43 8.3 3.4 1.29

19-0223 555 12 11 4 2.88 11.7 3.6 4.73

19-0224 745 14 11 4 17.42 11.6 3.8 27.52

Table A- 19 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for KS (20)
As-Design As-Built
Section Average Lane PCC Base ESAL, PCC Base ESAL,
ID MR, psi Width, ft thickness, in. thickness, in. million thickness, in. thickness, in. million

20-0201 641 12 8 6 1.26 7.7 6.1 1.04

20-0202 937 14 8 6 1 1.46 7.4 5.9 7.76

20-0203 641 14 11 6 10.94 11.1 5.7 11.49

20-0204 937 12 1 1 6 44.92 11.3 5.5 52.25

20-0205 641 12 8 6 3.15 7.8 6 3.14

20-0206 937 14 8 6 28.64 7.9 6 28.52

20-0207 641 14 11 6 17.95 11.3 5.9 21.40

20—0208 937 12 1 1 6 73.71 11 6 73.71

20-0209 641 12 8 4 1.59 8.5 3.9 1.72

20-0210 937 14 8 4 14.50 8.3 3.7 12.81

20-0211 641 14 ll 4 11.97 11.1 4.2 13.77

20-0212 937 12 11 4 49.16 10.9 4.4 52.47

Table A- 20 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for MI (26)
As-Design As-Built
Lane PCC Base PCC Base
Average Width, thickness, thickness, thickness, thickness,

Section ID MR, psi ft in. in. ESALS in. in. ESALS
26-0213 900 14 8 6 16.94 8.6 6.1 16.94
26-0214 1000 12 8 6 12.85 8.9 5.8 22.48
26-0215 900 12 ll 6 45.43 1 1.2 6.2 50.67
26-0216 1000 14 ll 6 111.72 11.4 5.9 137.67
26-0217 900 14 8 6 36.63 8.5 6.2 42.96
26-0218 1000 12 8 6 40.67 7.1 6.9 135.39
26-0219 900 12 ll 6 87.11 10.9 6.3 87.71
26-0220 1000 14 11 6 214.24 11.1 5.8 218.43
26-0221 900 14 8 4 14.06 8.2 4.2 16.14
26-0222 1000 12 8 4 15.62 8.4 4.2 20.19
26-0223 900 12 l 1 4 54.61 1 l 4.1 54.93
26-0224 1000 14 ll 4 134.31 11.2 4.3 152.49

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

164

Table A- 21 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for NV (32)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As-Design As-Built
Section Average Lane PCC Base ESAL, PCC Base ESAL,
II) MR, psi Width, ft thickness, in. thickness, in. million thickness, in. thickness, in. million
32-0201 562 12 8 6 0.67 9.2 5.9 1.41
32-0202 839 14 8 6 6.76 8.2 5.8 7.65
32-0203 562 14 11 6 5.84 11.9 5.7 9.28
32-0204 839 12 11 6 26.53 11.8 6.2 40.32
32-0205 562 12 8 6 1.61 8.5 6.8 2.64
32-0206 839 14 6 16.91 7.8 6.6 24.46
32-0207 562 14 11 6 9.59 10.9 6.8 10.68
32-0208 839 12 6 43.53 11 7.5 60.58
32-0209 562 12 4 0.85 8.9 4 1.16
32-0210 839 14 8 4 8.56 10.1 3.7 20.53
32-0211 562 14 11 4 6.39 11.3 4.1 8.26
Table A- 22 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for NC (37)
As-Design As-Built
Section Average Lane PCC Base ESAL, PCC Base ESAL,
ID MR, psi Width, ft thickness, in. thickness, in. million thickness, in. thickness, in. million
37-0201 650 12 8 6 - 1.35 9 9.3 2.64
37-0202 1006 14 8 6 16.07 8.9 9 29.57
37-0203 650 14 11 6 11.69 11.2 5.6 12.92
37-0204 1006 12 11 6 63.03 11.2 5.4 69.46
37-0205 650 12 8 6 3.37 8 6.5 4.43
37-0206 1006 14 8 6 40.19 8.4 6.7 59.34
37-0207 650 14 11 6 19.18 11.6 5 .6 26.52
37-0208 1006 12 11 6 103.44 11.2 5.9 115.47
37-0209 650 12 8 4 1.70 8.6 5.6 7.09
37-0210 1006 14 8 4 20.35 9.1 5.3 67.28
37-0211 650 14 11 4 12.80 11.4 3.6 15.29
37-0212 1006 12 11 4 68.99 10.9 4.3 71.08
Table A- 23 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for ND (38)
As-Design As-Built
Section Average Lane PCC Base ESAL, PCC Base ESAL,
ID MR, psi Width, ft thickness, in. thickness, in. million thickness. in. thickness, in. million
38-0213 668 14 8 6 2.28 8.2 5.7 2.57
38-0214 945 12 8 6 8.02 7.9 6.2 7.55
38-0215 668 12 1 1 6 8.85 1 1 6.4 9.00
38-0216 945 14 11 6 69.61 1 1.2 6.1 77.51
38-0217 668 14 8 6 5.70 7.9 6.5 7.59
38-0218 945 12 8 6 20.04 7.9 6.6 28.40
38-0219 668 12 11 6 14.68 10.9 6.5 15.30
38-0220 945 14 1 l 6 l 14.24 10.9 6.7 124.38
38-0221 668 14 8 4 2.89 8. 1 4.4 4.03
38-0222 945 12 4 10.14 8.2 3.8 9.24
38-0223 668 12 4 9.79 1 1.1 4.1 10.90
38-0224 945 14 4 76.19 10.8 4 65.87

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

165

 

 

 

Table A- 24 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for OH (39)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As-Design As-Built
Average MR. Lane PCC thickness. Base thickness. ESAL. PCC thickness. Base ESAL,
Section ID psi Width. ft in. in. million in. thickness. in. million
39-0201 791 12 8 6 3.43 7.9 6.1 3.23
39-0202 837 14 8 6 6.69 8.3 5.8 8.05
39-0203 791 14 ll 6 29.81 10.9 6.2 28.33
39-0204 837 12 11 6 26.23 11.1 5.8 27.58
39-0205 791 12 8 6 8.58 8 6.2 9.54
39-0206 837 14 8 6 16.72 7.9 5.9 15.78
39-0207 791 14 11 6 48.92 11.1 6.3 55.37
39-0208 837 12 ll 6 43.04 11 6.3 45.74
39-0209 791 12 8 4 4.35 8.1 4 4.43
39-0210 837 14 8 4 8.47 8 4.1 9.15
39-0211 791 14 11 4 32.63 11.4 3.9 42.71
39-0212 837 12 11 4 28.71 10.6 4.4 24.93
Table A- 25 Comparison of ESALS using AASHTO ’98 for WA (53)
As-Design As-Built
Section Average Lane PCC Base ESAL, PCC Base ESAL,
ID MR, psi Width, ft thickness, in. thickness, in. million thickness, in. thickness, in. million
53-0201 617 12 8 6 1.05 8.2 5.7 1.18
53-0202 945 14 8 6 11.93 7.9 6.2 11.24
53—0203 617 14 11 6 9.12 11 6.4 9.17
53-0204 945 12 ll 6 46.78 11.2 6.1 52.08
53-0205 617 12 8 6 2.63 7.9 6.5 3.49
53-0206 945 14 8 6 29.82 7.9 6.6 42.26
53-0207 617 14 ll 6 3.91 10.9 6.5 15.59
53-0208 945 12 11 6 76.76 10.9 6.7 83.58
53-0209 617 12 8 4 1.33 8.1 4.4 1.85
53-0210 945 14 4 15.10 8.2 3.8 13.76
53-0211 617 14 4 9.98 11.1 4.1 11.10
53-0212 945 12 4 51.20 10.8 4 44.26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

166

 

 

Table A- 26 Occurrence of distresses in AZ (4)

D£RACK FAUUT

BREAKS DAMAGE

mm.
m.

MAP
CRACK DAMAGE

YEAR LC TC
H)

STATE SHRP

CODE

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

 

167

Table A- 27 Occurrence of distresses in AR (5)

MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER
”5“" LC TC CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMPING BREAKS DAMAGE Dame" FAULT

 

168

Table A- 28 Occurrence of distresses in CO (8)

MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER
1
CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PLMP'NG SCAUNG BREAKS DAMAGE ”CRACK FAULT

DCTC

 

169

Table A- 29 Occurrence of distresses in DE (10)

MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER
CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMPING SCALING BREAKS DAMAGE ”CRACK FAULT

LCTC

 

170

STATE SHRP
CODE. ID

YEAR

LC

Table A- 30 Occurrence of distresses in IA (19)

TC

MAP LONGJT,
CRACK DAMAGE

LONG. TRANS.
SPALL SPALL

171

PUMPING SCALING

CORNER TRANSIT .
BREAKS DAMAGE

D—CRAC K FAULT

 

. i ‘ -

 

Table A- 31 Occurrence of distresses in KS (20)

SHRP YEAR 11: TC MAP LONGJT LONG TRANS. PUMPING SCALING CORNER D-CRACK FAULT

ID CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL BREAKS DAMAGE

199

0202 l 999

 

172

Table A- 32 Occurrence of distresses in MI (26)

MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER
CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMPING SCALING BREAKS DAMAGE ”CRACK FAULT

LCTC

 

173

Table A- 33 Occurrence of distresses in NV (32)

MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER .
CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMHNG SCALING BREAKS DAMAGE

TC D-CRACK FAULT

 

174

Table A- 34 Occurrence of distresses in NC (37)

STATE SHRP YEAR DC It MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. PUMPING SCALING CORNER DvCRACK FAULT

CODE ID CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL BREAKS DAMAGE

 

175

Table A- 35 Occurrence of distresses in ND (38)

STATE SHRP MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER
CODE 1D YEAR LC m CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMPING SCALING BREAKS DAMAGE DCRACK FAULT

 

176

Table A- 36 Occurrence of distresses in OH (39)

STATE SHRP MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER
CODE 1D YEAR LC TC CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMPING BREAKS DAMAGE ”CRACK “U”

X
020 I
X

 

177

Table A- 37 Occurrence of distresses in WA (53)

WE MAP DONGJTSEAL LONG TRANS. CORNER
w Tc CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMPING SCALING BREAKS DAMAGE ”CRACK FAULT

 

178

Table A- 38 Occurrence of distresses in WI (55)

STATE SHRP MAP LONGJT LONG. TRANS. CORNER
CODE ID YEAR LC TC CRACK DAMAGE SPALL SPALL PUMPING SC BREAKS DAMAGE DcRACK FAULT

0213

 

179

.umzmxmu 3 3:58 .853; Outgebmm
69:33 OS .38 3 £3: 5 .93 Be 288% wfixe BEN ES 8 amuamhflwke mmfiEEMOE 2: ES 88.8KB v.28 Bowman .682

 

E

 

.95— :338: 05 «a 953% 1.5—5:95— ..8 :cfluamfiou .888 =Eo>O S. .< 035,—.

 

.93— 2333: 2: «a own—:3. gnu—3m ~53. 1:55:98. ._8 near—«9:8 .883 .7230 am -< 2:3.

180

fimamxmh 3 3:58 .4653: Buzuztobmm
2.258 2% .38 e an»: 5 .33 6.3 28.3% NEGRO ERAS ES 3 uwuawhfluke uwwaaewefi 65 ES 23%.: $8 $335. .682

 

as

 

.32 €9.32. 2: “a 9.3.5 as: me 5:85: .5. sour—353 .588 =§o>O av. .< 285.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E a. a: E a: a: a" a: a an I
as E
.. H

3 E: 3 a E a a: a an 5 2 5 S 5 8: § 8.. a a, g a: E a: E a a. a .....lo
a" =2 3 a a. S a 5 5. a_ 5 a E a: a 3 S S a S a. 3 a: S E g a. 5 a a. a 5 E3 M

a: 5 2 a: as am a 5 a; a E a: a a: as S a
2 5 as am a: a: 5 a § § a: a: § .2 a" a: E 5 a a: a: a“ a E 5 3 3 a. so .5 .3 a

§28§§28§§28§§28§2T in in in .= a .= E .___.:.= .w .= L73.”

2: g: e: a: LIVE 2.7.: =_= .5

z a z = z a z a a: § 9.8 13. EN
.= A .2 E A e.
0 .am . . 825.58;
a. maze

 

 

 

.95— xnokuo: 2: “a ”flu—Oahu mu:- ue 3.3 ..Ou near—«9:3 582a =auo>O S. ..< 93:.

181

86583 68 8:58 9658; 6o§=tecb6m
62826; 65 686 8 «8; 5 .33 68 2686\658 2682 8S 8 «62.38.88 86853365 6% 88 68.6.85 £66 86285. .682

 

 

.96— :838: 2: 8 wet—38 85853.8— 8 532 .8u Eaten—:8 .888 ..a8>0 3 .< 638,—.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 a: a" so so am am ac aa 2 § 3.. a“ a” a; a: a“ 3” as a... a” a“ 2 an Elem

E: a: E a: an so 5 E a" a: a” so a" a... a: a” .33
am 8: as am a: so 8 as 8 8° 8 a” a: a“ E J
:85 5
so a; an a; E a” as is H
am so a: an a: E a: E 3

am an a: 8 a; a; a” .35

8 $8 a: ms 382: 8 $8 a: ms 38 a: a a a a 2 A. E A .= a a .3 .= .w .= .w .= .A .= .A

A2 2 oz 2 A A; : e. : 2|_r a z r .2 z _ A. .5
z a z a z a z a a: a: $8 ..1..... EN

._ a L .M a E . 2

0 5m 0 . 58.—
343%

 

 

 

.08. 3.838: 85 8 «13.:— 8888 .8 H.585: ..8 .882—Eco .888 5:95 9. .< 053—.

182

86588 62 858.6 “638: 6O=SEOLD62

 

6282.2 6.: 63.6 8 83. 5 88w 6.8 28.3% 65 8 26:62 88 8 83.28.88 “685888 65 88 68.6.88 8:68 86833. .682

Eonzonzaezo

 

.98. x838: 05 8 £an 8.85.8.5 .8 83:8: ..8 near—.888 .885 .8886 3. ..< 936,—.

Engages—La

 

8.8. 3.838: 85 8 8988—. 2888 .53. 8838?: .8 8:85: .8u £882.88 888a =a8>0 me .< “...—an.

183

865863 68 8:58 .8583 6.3888862

 

63823 65 68.6 a .85. 5 88w 68 8.888.388 8:62 88 8 8865.88 “685.8888 68 88 68.6.85 £86 86865. .682

an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.. a: a: 8.. am .2 E 5 5 a: so a: z a. a: as a a 8 as a: a" a: a" E
.38 ..EB
E
a. E A A; a § .2 a: a“ a: a" is E
E 3 ”2 a 3 aa a" a: a: .33 as
5 a: 3 8 a: a a. a a .3 3.. § 5 a: E .2 a“ so an a
.2 so a: an so as a A; g a: 8 a. E .2 .53
ms 88 E: R: 9.8 BE 93 £8 E: as 88 E: B oz 9 a: a e. a .: .w .= a .: .w .= .w .: a .= .m
a: a: 229 e._n ELIE =__= 2 .2 =5
2 a 2 a z A. 2 _ a a: a: $8 5...... EN
.= . .= E A g . ..
.53 a»? £5.82
m. 525
8.8— 8.838: 85 8 Mpg—gm .8 8.8 ..8 nemtanficu .888 =a8>O 5. -< 838,—.
am 8.. 8 a; as am 3 a E 8 a: a: .5 S a .3 a." a: E a" a: a; an a: 8 E E
ago
8
5 E g 5 g a; a“ 2 a" a: a" .55 E
a: a 2 a. 5 so a" 8 E .53 8
8 so .2 5 as S A; a a 3 so a“ E a 3 a. a“ 8.9 E a
8 ea .2 am a: a: a 5 an a: a” a: E E :8
ms 88 as. 8 9.8 a: 8 8A a: as $8 a: e. e. a e. a a A .= .A _= .w .= A .= E .= A .= A
a Z a Z a : g _a z _ a z a z a .5
z a 2 a 2 a z a a: as 28 is. .3
.= . .= .w o e . ..
. Em . . 588..
39858;. $3352

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.96. x838: 85 8 88:68:88 mam—3m .8 83:8: 8.. 888.889 .888 8830 3. .< 28,—.

184

Table A- 49 State level comparisons for longitudinal joint sealant damage

ZONE SUKERADE STATED

 

Table A- 50 State level comparisons for longitudinal spalling

 

Table A- 51 State level comparisons for length of longitudinal cracks

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LENGTH OF LONGITUDINAL CRACKS
DRAINAGE BASE ma pocmcmss mummm IANEWIDTH
ZONE SUBGRADE sun-:11) 0' 'ND ‘ 061119 LCB PATB 8' 11- 5509.1 900p? ' 12 14~
c 10 006 7 194 0.00 7 2.971 0.09 0.19 111717 72.00 0.00 7 0.19 1.817
F 19 151 0.49 074 0.00 no 117 70190 7 70749 77151 067 ' 133
WP ‘ E T ’20 000 7 200 {10 034 000 2.00 000 160 040 1.00 ’ 040’
F 06 0.00 200 0.88 27.712 0.01 77 2.00 000 021 77 1.79 1.7977 021
SF 2; 020 1.20 7 707.05 7 265 031 1787 022 1.52 0.48 7 703 172
5 j: 7 000 7 2.00 70.00 300 7 0.00 200 0.00 7 0.00 72.00 ' 7 0.007 1.00 _
m : 0.00 72007 1.11 77 1729 70.00 77 2.00 000 130 7 _ 0.7707 0.70 7 1.907
= 31 0,13 1.27 030 250 0.20 2.00 000 1.00 020 1.00 020
1=+c 7 0.15 7 1.35 0.03 ' 2777 70217 2.00 000 195 005 7 0.05 195
DF he 32 7006 194 7 130 7159 011 1.55 045 7 099 71,01 77 7075 125’
c 53 0.00 07.00 70.00 300 0.00 1.00 0.00 0 00 7 7 72.00 0.00 7 7 7 2.00 ‘
DNF c 4 022 71.73 0.25 1,31 7 0347 _ 193 0.02 158 0.42 0.41 17597
c 6 000 2.00 0.00 300 000 0.04 196 004 1.96 2.00 0.00

 

185

Table A- 52 State level comparisons for number of transverse joint sealant damages

 

NUMBER OF TRANSVERSE JOINT SEALANT DAMAGES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAINAGE BASETYPE PccnncxNBs ‘ 1:151:09».me LANE WIDTH
ZONE SUBGRADE STATE“) D ND 7 DGAB 11:13 PATB ‘ 8" 11' ' 550p“ 900px 7‘7 12' 147
c 10 0.65 . 7135 7 098 77 1.04 770.98 77 1.06 7 70.94 7 1,05 7 709577777 10577 095
F 19 0.67 7 133 77 1.00 7 1.00 1.00 7 1.00 7 1.00 100 1.007 7 771.00 77 10077
WF 9 20 067 133 7 1.00 0.99 7 1.00 Q 100 71.00 101 099 1.00 7 7 1.00
F 26 0.66 1.34 1.00 77 1.00 7 1.00 7 100 7 771.00 1.00 1.00 7 1.00 71.00
F 33 7 0.67 7 1.33 1.00 7 1.00 77 71.00 77 1.00 100 100 1.00 _ 1.00 '7 1.007 4
F 39 067 7 1.33 1.00 1.00 7 1.00 7 100 100 100 1.00 1.00 7 71.007
W c 5 0.67 77 133 1.00 099 77 1.01 7 1.00 7_ 100 100 1.00 7 1.00 7 1.00
1: 37 0.67 133 1.00 1.00 7 1.00 7.7 100 __ 771.03 1007 7 1.007 77 771.01 7777 0.99
1=+c s 0.66 134 7 1.01 1.00 100 7_ 1.00 1.00 099 1.01 : 7 1.00 1.00
DF r+c 32 055 7 145 7 1.00 1,00 7 101 7 1.00 77 1.00 77 108 092 7 7 0.90 110
c 53 0.68 7‘ 132 77' 1.02 097 _ 1.02 7 098 _ 1.02 7 102 7098 7 77_ 1.02 '7 0.90
DNF c 4 067 7_ 1.33 101 099 1.00 ' 1.02 7 093 E 1.01 0.99 7 7 0.99 1.017 7
c 6 0.67 - 133 1.00 1.00 1,00 7 0.9 ~ 101 101 0.99 1 0.99 1.01
Table A- 53 State level comparisons number of transverse spalls
NUMBEROFTRANSVERSESPALLS
DRAINAGE BASETYPE 1 Pccnncmrss i ammmm ‘ IANEWIDTH
ZONE SUBGRADE STATE”) D ND . DGAB 7 [EB PATB f 8' 11' :7 550p“ . 9006a 7777712 , {4‘71
g c 10 030 77771.70 71.17 _ 138 77 0.45 ‘~ 71.7417 _ _059T 771.03 7777 77097777777770.47_7_153
F 197 0.6777777 13 7 7 0.42 77 157 1.01 7:137 777063 T 165 035 0.23 777717377
917 F 20 777 0.34 7 7 116 _ 0.08 ~ 1.65 7 1,27 7; 12577 0.75 7 076 1.24 7 1.51 0.49
1: 36 77 0.1377 77 1.89 __ 031 7 243 __ 0.26 100 7 1.00 77. 1197 _031 _7 _ 1.81 77 770.197
7: 7F 7 38__ 7 060 ' 1.40 133 0.77 090 7 1.57 043 074 1.26 083 1.17
g F 39 f. _ .. 'f' i.’ . _ . ', :1
W c 5 038 1.62 0.11 _ 232 057 0.37 7 1.13 0.45 155 7 0.49 7 1517
7 r . 37 0.667 134 143 _ 058 100 _ 099 7 101 037 1.63 71.33 0.62
r+c 7 3 066 77 134 0.43 1,57 7 100 ‘ 118 _ 0,32 086 114 ' 7149 7 0517
DF 7 1=+c 32 0.61 7 1,39 7 0.66 1.23 112 7 1,23 7 0.72 7' 089 1.11 124 7 70.767
c 53 0.00 77_ 72.00 0.00 3.00 7 000 7» 0.00 777 7.00 . 200 _ 0.00 7 0.007777_ 72.00 7
DNF c 4 0.67 7 1.373 a 0.49 1.50 7 1.01 7 122777 0.78 7 131 069 7 0.77 11377
c 6 A 086 , 1.14 129 0.43 129 1 029 1 171 086 1.14 1.43 ' 057

 

 

 

186

 

 

88.9 :2: a

E “828288 02¢ 2 2 .2288 8285
9289 a 20 8:82— 2 8288 :8 2 m> o

.822. 05

.8288 may?“
85 82:2
8ng 2:2
8288 95G o
.8288 20..—
05 2 3880
83 8225 o

 

 

 

 

 

8 228 28088 05 .8 88308 3862 .m> 8.82 .8388
82 mm :o mam 32 28 3. 8 KB 22: a 832.8 8088 202 o 88 83
80228 32 2: .swE 232 >28>8 "HZ? AS m<
2 0:: on 2:8 22:3 .8388: 22222 08 8: v8 808 88302 2 8280828
05 2 5282.3 8308 8088 959 o 8 mp. 28 3. :8 RE o 8820.28
.8088 282.2: 85 82:2 .mhq -m 2 8288
8:2: 830:... 8288 28:88.82 0 :82 05 08: 8288 mo..— . 83 8288
.mommaav 2838 :23. 6:288 :: 05 55 528>8 as o
2: 9 028 288888 on 222 8223 c 82828: 2 5:522? .8288 82820:
.8088 .3 02 85 8288 8808 8: 8288 082 “8328 28:72:28
88882 8:22 8: .2 :23 828% o $09 28 8288 ..w o 8288 :w 0 oz .
8288282 2 523 82 mo Hootm 0 8885.25
.2889 :2: a 28> :2 05 2
3 8228288 028 2 2 .2288 8285 .2288 8st: 20288.: 82822.
9288 a 8 8:88 2 8288 =a 2 A; o 8.323 8288 no: :23 .2828:
.82 830: .AS 332: 8288 =< 0 82:2 02 o
05 8 82288282 05 8 02. 8 2:8 .882 3028—8 8282 o>8 .82 Baku
82:2 .8888 83 8228 8 82m 0 2 8288 202 05 :8 RE o 8288 38 o 2508 LZQ A3 N<
. .3288 83 8:8 :80 2 808 888880 2.52 82m
8222. o: .mZQ 2 2 888 2: 82m o 8 828 :2 28 :w 05 w2m2:n 02 c 20858.:
.8288 :2 8282.8Q .8288 822:2 .QOQ
.8 88:8 05 8. 2:8 2898 888:8 85 8 802 8A. .8888 :8 8288 2 22
32 :8 8288 882800 .8288 83 882.58 22222 082 332% 888 28
8888b 8328 8088 202 :w 2.5 o 05 2 3:528», 80..— o 8288 ..w o 288: 82 o
2283880 5
2:02:80 08883 8.22880.— 28 :22 SON 38m

 

 

 

 

 

82m «-mA—m :8 8:88.. 28 08828.88 .8 8.588 2282588 22 528.. 8: .8 8:02.22 .8 2822.5 vmé 038,—.

187

 

.8088

 

 

 

 

:2 .85
8:18.: 8:2:
wEBofi 8:28
:8 as, 822:
@2288 883:3: 8&2: .8:
o. 26 3 2:8 882 5 8:38; mu: 23 95: :3 § 8:
8:38: .352 PE: mu: 8.8%
:8: 5:80:00 @858 02:: 2:8 05 8 :3: 2 mam 2 i=0 33.55 :5
8:288 m<OQ 05 .8 88528 33 523:2; :8: 882.0 3288
.9880 8885:. :. 330:8 38A: 888:9? 0922.58
830:8 8:2 h: :23 8:288 :w 3:0 8:: 8:288 m<OD 330:8 88.2 8:28m o
.m> 82:89:08: 89: :wE :5 m:288 m<OQ
28.—AH :wE .8228» 8585 03:8“: 2 338:: m>
.538? .952 PS:
:8: :288—.8: ~ a 2 8:88 8228» 85 8 :wE 2 mam 82:2 8:3:
88.85 9280: :5 8:288 :w 5:58? 2:: A...:288 mm— 5: OD
882538 8:3 8:38 means: a: 832:. :88 m2: ..w 038
0:: 2 on: o: 2:8 82:2 MERE bfifitg .9880 >90 .8 .92
.8880 8885;. :8: :2808: H a 8885; 2 8t 6::
330:8 8:2 .2 :23 8:288 :w 3:0 830:8 8:288 ..w 330:8 28$ wfiafism o
.m> 330:8 828.588
«:288 m<OQ ..w 9.88:: oz
.m> 2 3:88 8:288 8:288
D>a£ U—q—OU 38 MO mmoctmuw BO)— mrH.<nm .mOu— “mogwmfi 2w 0.: a: flop—U
32:22:? 8:: 8288 m0: 88388.:
:o:8:o: 2 _. @828 wfixofio 22822 :2 8:2 8: RE :0 28:82 :wi mZQ G: <0
.3888 was $2955 5:0 8:288 m0:—
0: .RZD 2 2 :288 0:: 82m 8:288 “8:88 85 2 80258: owS—ctfi
.8888 8885:. 2 5:522; 8830 2 0:: m0..—
u828 m0: 2 8:858: :283880 :28080 _ p. 8855:. 2 8880 0
228-5950 8
8:08:50 8:283— 3§88m an: :33 23S 85m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A9283 vm-< 03:9

188

 

.m> 323288

 

 

 

 

 

 

223% 32:05 0233: 8:288 95E
:5 82-: gm: .mS .2: a: mo: .95: as
.22 05 .8 58 5 .288... .2 as
2.8 528.5% 02 “a 8:832: :w 05 2 coinage m>
252:2 3 8 mam :3: .829 ”:5 8832
5:28; 3% :5 fig 2: 22
:ocooco: @828 022 2:8 8:288 mow— :ca 38 $295: 33:28
80:08 02 mo 228.588 .83 2. 2 b=EaE> 88 :5 58 632:8 28
.22: $2288 838:2 3308 :8 :5 .8320 8:08:89 :82: 33
4:2:me .2502 328: awe 88.58.88.58 @0305 8:288 :w m5; mmooxm— o
.38 583. 5 £325,
83 ~ _. 2 3:88 022 2:8
223% 3235 0228: :23
.228
RE 05 no :282858532
:0 828: 3% z 5 SEE;
a; 830% 28-2
@393 Ma.
OEm<< 2 @6883 3mm 8:268 m3 833
:28: Home“ 05 32: 8: m<OQ :w 05 2 b5 m>
2: 20:8 8: 2: 32 82.8w 80:08 8:288
.mowmfimw 22:8 “2% :5 m<OD 05 2 :3: 8: 23296-8: 05 2
w2xoflo =222w:2 05 2 26 mam c5 8:288 95$ .522: an? 322$
338w“ 2. :2: means: 2: a 32 on $5 .28 2288 .525 5 no
9:83:82 5:25:22 m0; 2 w2a§a c5 338:8
2 523 0:2 go 625 22: 3323 8288 ..w 8380 82988:. 33 28.3 o
note—58:90 9—
8:08:80 0838M 8.3—Ecru.— 23 :38: EON 35m

 

 

 

 

A9258 em.< 039—.

189

 

  

.20.:0 .0255 03:00:. 0
:0::: 0:0: 803 80: :0:00C0: 05 00 0.0.0
05 :0 w2.::0 .0255 3 :8:00 0:. :8
:0:08 2 0:0: :0:00...0: 05 2 :0:0::0>
@2520 855:2: :0 00:80:: 05

b. :0::0m::m w. 5023 09.02.00 5:30:50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m:0:08
30. 202:2 .28 ::0 38.28 0:258 :050
2 0:0: :0:00..:0: 05 2 :0:0.:0> :05 M2220: 52:05
.02: :0>0 0:0: 5:9: 0.28:0
8.50:0: 05 2 :0:0.5> 80. :0305: :0: 80:08 05 2030:
20:08 MEX: :w ::0 0:0:08 .... ..< m<OQ 022: :25:
0:0: .030: .2288 20:08 50:20:» ":3 68:2
:0. 0>0... 8:258 50.25 00 20:95 :0: 550 :05 36> m<OQ :05 598
m. w::.:0: :0 5520.: .030: :0 50:5 :0: .2280: 5:»... 0 0025:5000 :0 :2000.
52:05: 023:0 05 0:530: :0305: 0:0:08 m<OO m2n.:::n. 0. 5:08 25
2.2: :25: .:0:0>0.0 5:8 0 :0 :8000. 602890 0:03 mmhq 5:2... 002,: 0:20:50
0. :0:08 05 0020 055:8 ::0E0>0: 30. ::0 mam :mi :0: 20:08 20:55:
05 M2520 5:03 :0 2:020 2:5 05 0: 8:0:08 mow. 05 :0:0::0
0:: 5203:0000 003 38-8 2 w2..:::n. .... :0: :0>:8:0 9.020 5:03 :0
.:o:0:bw:00 803 0:0: :0:00:0: 8:08:05. 2:020 050m. 0
w2::: 8.020 800.220. muu. :0 05 2 :0:0.:0> 801. :0308 .mU‘.
8:000: 8.020 858:2... .0032: 38 8:258 .28 05 2 00.020
00.020 858:2... 30:0 :w :05 2050—5: ::0 EN 030.220
:0: E: 0:258 023 .v. ::0 v.25 .... 530. :0: 80:08 .... 0.38.28 858:2... o
3.5—5:00 8:083. 00:02:85.. :NWMHhaMH—U 0:08 Sfim

 

.202—00: um): 030,—.

 

 

.5
:020020000 0m..... 0»... 3000800:
::0 2050:» .0255 03:800.

2020.08 0:
:00. >02 :. 0000:.
::0 3:02.200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:0: 0.03
0:0: .08 :0 m<0n.
:0:00...0: 05 2 >:...00.:0> 2 :0580: 0:0. m2>.::
08:. :.:00 8:00: 93:. ..0 02: 05 ::0 5:205:
w2::: 22:05 .0255 05.800 :w... .2258 05 2 05:0...
.2258 805 2 9.00:0 0.0022: 8:00 >02
858:2... 0: 0:: 2. :.:00 0.8 -00: 05 :0:.3 02:0.

::0 mONo. .ONO E 8.00:0 858:2... 0. mat—30.. :3... 8.0.0 0 :0... o. No ...—7.3 AhvaZ
.85.. ..08 5:.3 0:0. .m. :0 2020.:002m
.030: :3. .0 :0082 8:00 .030: 2 >20 :0>:8n.0 A.> 0 ::0 000. ..w .200 .030:
... ..0 8: ::0 8020:: .0 02830:: 8:20.. :0 5.3 20:08 :8. .0 :00:2.
-00: 0: 0:: 0:. >02 w::_:0.: 2w... m0... 05 2 25 2 20:20:02 :8: 053
2.020 858:2... :2: ::0 8...... 30... 8.020 20:. .030: ...
2 :0580: 08:. :.:00 02. 523 .>:...00.:0> 0:0: 858:2... .008 ::0
0:0. 30. ::0 >:.00000 .2202... 30. 00:00.5: 90.822 .80..>: 800 ..0 2 88 20:08 :0.
22.0.. 000.8 05 0: 0:: :0305: 0.8 :0:::000 9.020 02030:: 8:00
00 2.22 0.8 2 9.020 858:2... ::0 88.88.58 858:2... 2.0: >>00...
.n.> :03028 20:08 00:00.5:
:0: 0:0 3.00 .0: E 82:20..
0...... 82.0.: 20:08 .... :0... 00:.
2.: 08:. 20:08 0:: :05 000.00.: 008 ::0 .08
.2258 0.0020520: 05 2 :0>:8:.0 m...<n. 05 2 805 5:005 :0308 :0530.
0:03 n.> 30. ::0 5.20:: :00. :000 0.23 m... 800. 20:08 ..w 80:0: 03 ::0

02:20. ::0 80.020 858:2... 05 0>0:. 20:08 .20:08 85808 50:0... ”.3 302,.
29: 832: 88 28:20 00.: 2.: 5 052 2820.8: 008 a:
-:0: 0 ::0 00a. .... :0 5.3 20:00m 0:0: 05 2 8.020 m::.00:0 0.02m
.0229 000 80808 8:808 8:02 :o .852 :02 0:088
90.2.2 ::0 000.:8 05 :0 8.020 05 2 >:..:.0.:0> .2258 0000.220
8:08:00 2 3:80: :0:0:::200 :308 08: ..0 2 80.020 05>8 :0:
2.2: :05:::00:0 82030:: 05>0m 0.8 ::0 88. .08 0.3.2me Q8 ::0 m08

:0502200 9.
0202200 00:008.. 00:02:80.... ::0 5.009 0:0N 33w

 

 

A5200: :94 0.00...

191

 

 

 

 

 

.8288 805
=« E m> 888888
82-: .3:
.8088
805 E 38 88288
2: E 832:? «0 8:8 .m> 8388
05 on 2:8 828% 8088 m<OQ .8 i=0 0 m3 3*“va
3:85 828: 2&2 .822. m<OQ 05 .8288 8:3:
a as, 350on 88 as. a “my: 32 23 ...8 Em . 332.3 523 25
88 E 888 8:88th 5:135; .Q .23 8088 ..w
.888 88 880:8 n 888 .8088
8888:; 8308 523 28 @2828 55:8 88 m<OQ 05 E 888288
82 .3 .23 8088 ..w 88 8: 88.88.58 0 208 83 828.6 203 8838a 02 o
.m> 888888
828% 3885
9288 28 88¢ .35
.8850
05 85 88>» win—Bron
2“ 86.. m8
.085. 82
z 833 mo 8:88 8.92
mined 05 80 808083
885:: 05 9 8c "3? $992
on 2:8 8288 933
2: E 823 E:
.888 352282 .8088 .8288 958
.3 8:838“ 8.8 E 8:88 m> o 2.: 2 82:8 :33 .888
:89 38 2:8 9:955 .822. mod 05 E .8583 8308 no 82 E 23.88
.58 E 888 «dm .3: 2:W 8min“ 33 o 8088 mod ..w 8.3. 958 05 mo
8888:; 8 8:80:88 .38 cozoocou 92828 . :8 808853 hunch—Eu o
88:8:8 war—:6 05 E 8.52:? 8308 2 Duo 8388 .28 2 8.888
8.38% 85 8.8.5 38 28 28.38.28 o 8.88 88383.“. 88.8 882.8% a
3:25.30 8.838% 8888.— :388855 2.: :32 onoN mafia

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ava—38 vméV 03:9

192

 

8:088
05 =a E m> 863888

9:06me 3885
03:88 93 833d .35

.mmmo E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

82.85% cm... 3028088 8888 m3 @375
.8 8:8on 05 on 2:8 mks“ ..w can 8888 m0..— .mco88 ..w
warm“: DE mo 2:: 05 «-2 05 E 8:88 a; 05 E 3808 88888
a .55 wow 0.: mo 2.28..» .NNNo E 8:080:06 83890 mat—.6
38.65 03:88 :wE :mE bozmmuoxm 83 wan—8m o 8:8an 02 a
.890 83 8::
05 =« E a; 8E3888
058-9 nwE b92588 .890 .88 E
can. .86an 38.55 328m 83 085 05 =w E 8888 .8888 388 owe—53m o
5:38? ..w as 5 8:030 “5 BE 332688....
8% 880:8 on. E 8:82 .950“ 93 m0; wEun .28 05
02:. 2:8 €083.38 30D 05 E mam nwi 05 E was—=3 9 26 8.88% ”E? 8035
wctac 8.28 owe—£28 .6 .mp4 8&5 o 86> 08me o
:88 a 83 9.88 8888; 88— 05 96: 85% mh<m 9.88 .0838 9
8888 .88 Z. 05 888:th $5803 @828
may?” 93 mu.— 2: E E 5:183? 830:8 38 830:8 883880
wan—2c 5323.: 8:500 25 88.88.88.58 8888 :w o war—3. 053% o
88ch 8.598% 888;?— 888880 can 58: 23N mum—hm

 

 

A9283 vmé. 035,—.

193

Appendix B
Figures

 

194

Q 5. 5 as; £285 $85.88 _ .m 288

8.33:: 853... 855

mum—Eats.» 8.5—£5 m<GD
9553

9.5.8
88 :8 R8 88 88 :8 88 Q8 88 a8 88 88 98 :8 28 n8 :8 88

 

 

 

     
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. in jfil n.m
VN .... . my .... H
u 88...... m 1 .8 w .2 ..m - n... L
. ....g ...... .. .. m. .8. W . u.
_ m. a. .... .... mm... 2 ._V - 8 m.
u
8,”, h .. an .... u an .... _. ... I On
,,. m . E “......J .. a. u: 8.. m
_ .E 8 8 . h ... m . E ...; H. My - 3 ...
w h .0 Ow 9.x ...8 _ _ ,. f u «so on
_ u m E— E _.
L... z: 2: 2: 1 «.9

 

 

 

 

I W:

 

 

l

 

8:388 :3 05 E 3:333.» 89535 00m 8:888 an 2: 5 DEA—8.3.» 895.35 00m
933.com a 889m
88 88 mg 88 £8 88 88 88 :8

    

 

 

“319ml

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

°ul ‘ssa

 

n
H
F.

T

o.

 

 

 

 

 

m“ B

 

195

A: N< a 8.32.5 8592:. 2. 2.8...

mum—Eat?» 805—35 9:?— EE mug 5:385? 805—92: MEG:
8:58 8.3.88

#8 m8 8 2a 2“ am an
EM ”5.
_. on

...r ...
‘I .'|l"||--'

Wm

 

 

pl

3"
..

 

 

.c k_.-uv'-_gs.:-1i.1:'
I
I
I
r-
L-
l
I
1
.1 Han: ‘mu-I -
T V
man“,
0

I
I

 

“39311.

in
r

 

'lll ‘ssa
gééLa-s.’
°m ‘ssa

   
 

- .f~ffav:::e’> '1‘“. )‘""E"‘

 

 

 

a

 

 

 

 

 

 

G 3 S

 

 

 

 

We #0 “6

 

£5508 :2 2: 5 5:33am.» mace—35 UUm 93:8 an an: E ham—Eat?» mum—50:: DUA—
3 screen a 3.5qu

:8 NS. 88 as 28 as 98 a8 98 :8 :8 m8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

. p
a...“ j .. find... .... ...... an: ,. MEI I O
5. .. m. .. 1 L
. .. . v _ ..y .w A a ..
._ .. u. u .. x ”.1 a u ..w a
q. . ... .. W... ...... W” m
_ .. .. .. .. . .8 a. W. . .. L
.. J.._ .- Od .... a“ ... ..., ...,._. ..... a m
. w .... W. m a .... 1 M .. ”I
. _. . - ...“ a r“ .2:
.. a ... _. .... E
$ ....m .... ..., a... w... 8 0.6 I” w
t. F, T Wu... ._._
u .5. “w M“ 6
o _. m
o

 

I
O

 

 

 

 

 

m” 3

 

196

a: 5 5 5:335 “85.929 3. ea»:—

bEaat? $65.85 93$ 35 now— b=Eata> “85.35 “:59
a £53“ an Eaton
fine :8 23 man man: BS 38 3n: n. «a A Go 33 oflo 38 38 «one

88

WE‘LL

o

111 ‘m

 

 

 

 

 

 

h. n mun mfi

 

 

 

S . S
2289. :2 2: 5 Esau? “859:“ com 98:8... m 2: E 5:52.? “85.2... com
983% . a 958m . .
as :8 88 88 88 88 w 98 g g mg g fin
m
a
m h
2
m
: m. m
a a
a

 

2

”PM

'III ‘88?

11! ‘ssamlom

197

a: co 5 5:535 $2.on E. 2:5

558:3.» macs—£5 93E can an:
again
an. E g S. g 28 £8 :8

 

 

 

 

 

22:8 a: 2: 5 55.322 “85.25 com
a 8.8%
«NS «NS 0N8 98 28 28

 

 

 

11! ‘ssamlom

"I! ‘SSW’PE‘LL

 

3.33.3 «85.25 :49:
Eula-om

ego mag «an 38 BS 33 3 8 mac

 

 

an a a.“ an

 

 

 

25:8“ an 2.. 5 3:53.? $.53... 8m

0': .L
'11! ‘ssauxaml

l
O

 

 

2

 

1!! ‘mmiom

198

 

 

  

a so“

2N:

..

4

 

.
w

E

hi

. ...
..
.... ...
.... 3.».

'4 3w ....“
.

88

 

38

 

’_'W_‘.. __—.JL1 L '
_‘ 7 ,.
a

.fl‘l‘.’

’-vt°n. . ~g...-Fr-

 

I
I
”i F.#

 

. L
'4

a: m: ... 5.3:» ”85.2.... m... 2a....

cone

.....—

in-

_-v

*'”.;-" ‘

 

4v?‘7;‘7;:;fl=f rw' as" 2': . ' —

‘ r7,1
. _....-__

F. x
0 i... 1'

$55.5 mum.53.... 5...... 23 no.

mono

 

 

 

25:93

 

 

 

v'l'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

q...
.... 2.. ... 5:53.? “85.9.... 8..
9 838m

 

 

 

 

O
—c

l
I-I
fi—t

am.

 

 

m.

aI‘LL

°ul ‘ssa

mm

'0! ‘ssau

.....aars, “85.9.... :5:

 

Imam.

 

°m ‘ssa

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n w 3 «6
2.3.8... .... 2.. 5 5:335 $5.3... 8..
98.8%

28 g 88 g

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...? ..I .. z... ....3 . ...
.1. .. ., l a .. I. 4
p. m w a... .... w. ...,
. . ! .... L «a
.... .fl wl "1 a“. . ..
.... .W . L w._ .1 ... fl
.... . .... .... . .
.... ”m . .... ... ... . .... 1 _ w
.. . _ __ .. _. . m.
... , .. . . m. I . O
_ ...u .. . . .... .. _ . .. ... 3
. .. m ., . .... . x.
m. . . .... . J. .
.. 3. .fl p . . u
. . .. ..M .... a. . 9
rl ...n I |'l fl. 1 I'I ' I|l "| | . w x
. . . . .... a .
. F... . y
..... . . ._ I.
2 _.
.... ,_ I
Q 3 .. .. Q m
_ w
No

 

 

 

o.

199

a: a: 5 mum—53...; $05—th oi ...—sur—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bfinwtg macs—9.5 PS:— US. mug 5:32.29» $05.25 m<wn
agate“ ago“
as 88 «as :8 88 28 as :8 88 mag 88 SS 28 “.8 :8 ms
E E ..
...... ....m ...m .... ...... L
.../2..., GM ’56... m m
: .... ...... m m
.....L. u u
o... .. .. m m
m. m.
E
no . m6 m
2.2.8. .... 0:.hwfimnaté .852... 8.. 2.2.8. .... 2.. ... 8.2.2.3 .852... R... 2
88 88 88 28 28 28 Benton
«9.. .«8 28 :8 ...8 28
o
L
m...
o a
‘ o.
m. a m.
a
w
a m.

 

88 m2 2 8222...: 2.5.2.... ...: 2..»...
8.2.2...> .852... at... ...... .53.

esgm
NE... :8 28 88 g 88 g 88

11! ‘ssouxom

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.8. .... 2.. ... 8.2.2.2. .852... 8..
a sauna
_ .8 M58 hQS 3 mac

‘ssamlom.

 

«.8

Easing.» $05—35 m<UD
983m
:8 ...8 88 38 88 88

.8.

 

 

 

 

 

98

 

2.3.98

88

.... 2.. ... 8....2...2 .85.2... 8..

a 5.30m

88

88

No.8

:Nb

11! ‘ssampm

11! ‘92me

201

Ga. 9. ... 22.3.2:; 3:22.... a... 2..»...

5:335.» 3505.35 Prafl EB mou—
a 8.82,.

was as NNNO as cg 28 88 28

“u! ‘ssamlom.

 

£5598 a: 2: E 5:53.: $05—35 00.—
852.25

é go 88 28 9.8 28

'u! 'ssamlom

 

hum—Eat? $65.85 mafia
Sign
38 98 88 .88 .28 28 :8 28

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.8. .... 2.. ... 22.322: 565.2... 8..
e 890w

«HS “‘8 END 28 38 28

 

1!! ‘SSW’PNJ.

11! ‘ssamlom

202

.8. >2 ... 8.2.2.8 8.5.2.... a... 2..»...
8.52.2 5.5.2... at... ...... .6.

5:33....» mans—£5 flatwa—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

esaom 983m
..8 8.8 88 88 88 88 88 88
L .. L
m” __. . N
a . _ o
W. .... .... W.
m m
.8 .. .. .S
m. .m.
1:
.52.... .... .... ... 82.3.2.5 5.5.2... 00.. .52.... .... .... 5 2.252.? .852... 00..
:8 was vane 38 mono 3g «Guo 88 none no Home
. . . . fl... .. . ... 3_._. . w ......i..._.... .. 3.... . ...... . 3.9.... .._.. O
_ .. .._ .. h _ ..

. .._... .. ... .m _.. . h
. m.

. OH 3. . ...... .. .... ...... a. .. w
m. ... . .m m.
n ... .. .. H
I! firm. .. . a .m.

.2 . 3

fl 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

203

:59 OZ 5 3:38:53 macs—93:. 3.: 0.53,:

8:32.29. 865.93. 955 2:. :04 5:33....» .8533. mafia
98:98 93:05

:8 28 88 88 88 88 88

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l .
. _ ...
3 _. 9.
ma . a
.. ..
. uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu .
N.
2.2.... .... .... ... 82......> 2.5.2... on... .52.... .... .... ... 8.52... ...5.2... 8..
as; 983
Q8 :8 g RNC g a 28 «he a 3 g
p . .. p L I... w . p .
_. .. . _ . _ . ...
. . .. .... . “, ...,
a .. .. . 8 ._
. _ ._ m
. ._. m m
. . a. W
. m _ _ 3 I. . I. m
.... 3 w _ 6
! u . a. m. m ..m.
M: O:

 

204

89 Q7. ... 5:53.... .8595 a... 2..»...

5:33....» .852... 9:... ...... no.
9 Suuom

3ND as g as 88 28 88 28

 

2.2.8. .... 2.. ... 3.53.3 A$229.... 8..
a 553m
ONNb 28 £8 98

 

11! ‘muxom.

'n! ‘muxom

5:33.... .852... .55:
n. 8.3

38 mg § _§ 28 28 38 28

 

 

 

 

 

22.8.. .... 2.. ... 9.3%.: $329.... 8..
a 8.80m
ammo KS 28 :8 38 28

 

'II! ‘ssammu

11! ‘muxom

205

an. no .. 3.2....» .8525 S... 2......
35...... .353... 36:

mum—Eat: 3505—03. Phafl 65. m0.—
9 8.80m

28 :8 28 8 mac 8 88 38

11! ‘muxom

 

 

 

 

 

.....8. .... 2.. ... ...........> .85.... on...
a 8.8.

E8 :8 88 8 8 .88

 

'u! ‘ssamlom

$8

:8 28

a Banana

8838888

58

 

 

 

 

 

S8

 

.....8. ... 2.. .. 5:5...» .85.... 8..

88

a. 8.8m

88

88

88

58

11! ‘mmlonu

m ‘ssmlom

206

.8. <3 .. 55...... .85.... ...... 2......

5.5.8....» .852... 35:
... 8.8m

88 38 88 88 58

...........> .85.... 9...... .... no.

a 528m 28

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

..8 :8 28 88 88 . h ‘ - m
_ a _. ......
... .... .Im . .. .. a ...
. , .. u ,
.._ m w._
.P. .
...... . » .u _. 7,
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu .... _
h p
2.233 z: 05 E 5:33.53 $05—35 DU.— mcomauom an 05 E 5:33.53 among—£5 003
9559.5 Bangom
28 88 8.8 88 88 88
E. V . L
a __ m...
. u 3
_ .. __ H.
r. .. .A :
K .. . m m
-...--- a .......i m
I N—
m. o.

 

 

 

 

 

 

X33“.

'1]: ‘ssau

3““

°m ‘ssa

207

88 ww— ..8 2.... 5.3 8.2.5 8.5.65.5. Si 9.5»...—

xauabu. Swan. hfiapomguofil kfiozmkoql
8.3.3..

 

 

NE EN EN mom mom bow wow mom com new mom 3m

mbmn¢mm~0

 

”[3813 OHOMIMJ. JO JOIIIIIIIIN

85 m5 ..8 2:: 5.3 9.2.5 omhu>mcauh mfim 258m

bagum Jam n. bagum 85.6.2 I €96. Bog l
qunoum
NE SN 3m mom mow SN mom mom gm mom 8m 8m

 

 

_
.
.
_
.

 

 

$213213 aszaAsuengo JaqumN

 

a: <— 5. «Eu 5...» .._qu 02055.9 3.: 9.59%

has.“ swam—u hfio>om§6o3I .nauoboukoul
Saginaw
vNN mmm mmm HNN CNN EN EN EN EN EN EN m3

0

 

l—I

 

 

 

m 6:
sum: 03.1mm 1 Jo .taqunw

Amy Mm< 58 2:5 5?» ado-who omho>m=ahh Vann— charm
hunt... awn.” .u but... .5..qu I have... m Soul

955qu
38 RS 88 GS 38 28 ..S :8 28 28 :3 28

_ _

 

 

 

qmo sum; 10 xaqumn

208

as no 5 as: a? 3.25 2,232.29 3.: 2:3,.—

huuobou swan. .Ofiobomfifluozl Egoukoal

83.3w
«an EN EN mom mom 8N wow new 3N mom NON SW

D

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl. . .. 1 N
... .. 0

fl : J, {Am
. ran

in”

IVl

..n

In

yam

um...

.am

2m.

69 DZ ..8 2:: .33 9.3.8 833528 afim 0.53%

.33»: (“an Afiobyufiflvogl hfiobougoql

8:55
vmm mmu NNN 3N 0mm 2N mum

SN 2N 3N in man

 

 

 

 

 

-£ a“
('1
”[3313 OHWI ’0 10mm

 

ANS >2 ..8 2:: :33 3229 magma—Eh. :NA— 9.59m

.35»: fimfl hfiobomgvozl hfiqbauBoql

Baa—now
awn :N 2N mow won 8N mom wow wow

5 . .... . .
I

new mom 8N

      

    

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o
..u E u ON
. 3
. 8
- 8
- 02
. 02
L . o:
. 9:
2:

upon cam; 10 19mm

:9 oz ..8 as. a? 9.8.5 «£35; a; 2:9,..—

.fiugou fiwflmfl hfiubumauozl xfiobamkroul

 

 

 

BEA—eon
NHN EN EN aoN wow wow wow WON vow new mom 3N
. . . . . . . . . . L . .1.. o
u N
. v
w m
r w
1 S
r N“
3

 

 

spun cam; 10 .mqumn

209

Number of transverse

I Low severity I Medium Severity D High Seventy
21

Number of transverse

cracks
09~r-

VI

LII

 

 

 

 

213 7
35 , , < u 21
3 g 2.5 ”‘ ~’”'—""”'*"'” *‘V
2:: i 1.5 4
5 i . 4g 0'
1996 2000 2001 2002 25 1996 2000 2001
You Yea:

I Low sevuity I Medium Severity '3 High Severity

 

 

 

 

 

u 35
g 30
“25‘
53:20
«”15
a 10
g 5
z 0 1996

2000

Year

2001

2002 5

I Low seventy I Medium Severity 5 E85 53‘"th

Figure B-22 Progression of transverse cracks in AR (5)

 

I Low severity I Medium Severity B High Severity

202

 

...
O

N

 

Number oftmwerse
cracks
h a. Q

 

 

2000

2002

200]
Year

I Low severity I Medium Severity '3 3gb Severity

Figure B-23 Progression of transverse cracks in CA (6)

210

3558 GO <0 5 9.229 8355.: no :cmmmouueum VN .m unsur—

h‘fioimswdm n honovowesflog I began .53 I

 

 

How
NOON SON OOON

O

NO

1O

9O

wO

_.

‘ NA

bONO
hauozmfimdm n bugowgqvog I buobomioq I
50>

NOON SON OOON O
N

v

m

O

OH

Ns

3

. 0H

38

sauna aszusuezl go 13qu

sane” asxeAsuexl JD .13qu

hierowamfi n bugomgauog I fiuotmkoq I

 

 
 

 

 

How
NOON SON OOON
O
. N
.. v
. u
. O
.OH
.NO
3
38
haugomsmfi u bugomgflufi I bugomkoq I
”a?
NOON SON OOON

 

 

«ONO

5510333 asxaAsuazl JO 13 gm};

n.O

n.”

i ON

sxovo assumes; ;o 19 spam N

211

a: «.— 5 .3qu omega—Eh. ..o :ofiuéuwoum ea .m 0.5!."—

 

 

 

 

 

 

hfigam swam D Elwin go: I man—gum :64 I cams—gum ANN D haflgom 303 I minim 30A 5
New»
Nona SR 88 .33 32
. . . O N N
- do 0 M.
n o m m.
. 3 m. u _ m. n.
s I
. 2 m m
r H m m
a
N..— a ‘ nN
mHNO 5280

85 an E $395 92323..» a: agar—wean mu -m 9.5“:—

 

hfiugam Swan D Minion $3.33 I inflow BOA

03H

 

 

 

 

J:
sateen
351311;“:le zaqumfl

 

 

212

 

2553 GS E E 33.5 853:3,4. no :Smmiuoan— «N .m 953%

.31—gum in D Managua—€042 I 31053394 E bimbamxwwm D hyigumémua I Ara—gum >54 E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

Maw? 30%
wag nag nag vag mag N mag .32 mag 32 mag
- . . b D m h - . n D W
- 4 m u no a.
D I 4 fl
... o o
. a n u I 2 u m.
x. z o l
u m S m I N 3. W
. ¢ m 1 Wm M
H 1 m n»
W 8 8
WM 9
EN
EN
AwNv H2 p: 399—0 O£o>m=flhF .uO flémmmflhwchnm ”N um— Ohn—Mmrfl AcNV mm :m mv—OGHQ 080>m=8hu «é flOmmehMOhA— RN .3 aha—uni
\nfigom AVE E 31053 53462 I hang-m 304 a bug} fix D bigom 55:33 I hfiubom 504 '
50> 30>
. wag . hag . nag L «02 . mag o Noam Sam mag .32 mag
., : , o
u ., . no n _
_ ., m a
A l m 3
~ 4 m w. v m
n” s z n
m m w
v 4 m u n
w .. m
7 y . ‘ : Wm

 

2a an

annual 30 xaqumn

213

89 n2 5 9.8.6 mica—52.4. ho asap—«Em mm .m 2:3..—

hfigam 43m D magma 304...” I inflow >64 I
”a?
Noam 4DDN Doom mmm4 baaH cmm4

 

-o In v M N -- 0
spam
aaumxlgo zaqumfl

h4m

CC 0 Z 5 8.229 35552.4. ho 568..”on an .m 9.53m

 

 

_H§.3:o>om ...Ez—U 3.3:: SE“; 2' 3:01: 304'—

 

 

 

 

uao>

8 a a 8 / / / / I

0 0 0 0 .0 .0 .0 6 6
80 /0 00 00 $6 $6 (6 9.0 0.6 N
, . , , , F , r , . , _ , r O m
- Na m
. o
1 v0 m
I 0.0 m
I w.o .-
I-
1 4 a
n
N; .3.
fl.

nan:

4.3.53

99 Oz 5 9395 8.55:3... he :23:ch an .m 0.52..—

 

 

:0?

r

ooo.

hoo—

 

 

 

 

 

none

~3C0>um 23:0 ::o>ou E_.__uu 2' :_._u>um 3°..-—

mua mamulgo ”qu

35:ch

GS E 5 3.8.5 33552.4. .3 339.33; an .m 95»:—

 

iiguw if D 55:; E382 I Eugen 33 IL?

 

§>

v3.

 

 

 

——

 

 

as

v N o ea c v N 0
83193.13 manual )0 .13qu

.—

4
1
2

ANS >2 5 843.5 ofio>mnauh me :8m8u2m em .m ensur—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

215

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

W J
EEK: .3: U 5:335:60: I 35:; 33 l
_Ibto>om :9: D 3:033 £3qu I bros... 33 I
53>
NQN _8~ g 56>
ooo— wae 82 82 82 59 82 82 *2 a
... , . N room Son coon 32 mom: coo.
, . I 5 m N
a , m m.
m: J
l M w
m u
n m
n u
... m
33 nose
Tibia nmED bcgomEEB—zl brain 33.1— bcu>om :mEU 5:33 82qu- bto>om 33:—
59>
08. EE 23>
. o NOON Sow Sow 02.. max: «52
L m
8 m. n
J J
on m. m:
9. L ...
on u u
8 m m
2.
S m m
m m
8 a M
8_ a.
Sn:
«one

 

 

 

Ammv <3 5 8.3.8 855:8.4. ma :fimmouuck— wm .m PEER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

sigmfim D bugging: I barging l butumfim D but.“ 25.: I arrays 5
any» a»
«com Son coon 034 mag 39 mag Sou 32 W
. . o . _ . o
f H m. . 4 m w.
- 2 .. -w ... u
a .
.. .m m m. . 3 m
I n N n. % r m M
u m m on w
1 Wm u mom
r v w
W».
wow
89 EC 5 9.05.5 3.5.6.3.; no 558395 mm -m “ring
34.35% a”: D Eflgam 55.03 I bigom 304 I bflgom 433 U bigom 59.603 I 34.—25m 304 l
30% Mach
3% 32 32 o N 88 32 $2 $2
..4 .. . I d m- _ .4 ..1..... n p p o N
. a a a _... ..L . 3 m.
. m m o... F .. . to
L a u m. ..o...
. n . .
r o m - No a. n.
h m . m o m
r w a. r... u n M
a
mom a." a

 

 

 

vow

216

6 m< . 83.8w 9:3 5 «:53. .52. an .m 2%:

 

$8838 1.? ASEQSIT Ascension 488:8.1;

 

 

 

 

 

 

8.8.3333.—
n-
I.
r m- m
m.
r N. Wu
9: 84 a: 8 8_ 8 8 9 8 Ah _- Um...
... 2... .. .2,
\ v. ,4 4 I o. ( m
.3. n . . . / . x- N
x x x T m
I v
n
Amv m< .. ...—858m £04 5 was—:8 .52. mm .m charm Amv m< . 28:98 m<0n E was—=8 ~53. hm .m 2&3
aooaaouil ASSESIT 88n§8|7 ASSESIOL 2813... 28+ 28+ 28+
3 .838; 3.9.. 8 .3933 «Son

 

1%.

 

 

a
9.— ..Nfl QM? n: 5.8— wdo odw 0.2. mNo m.mn WNQ «.3 0.2 2: m.—

3 {tad ails) _ éaafiflswf
.4 4

A
VT

8 8

.Q l« .2. +H

   

mm ‘Bumned lumf

 

 

fl

Tr '77
WVMN-On-n'm'rvn

 

Yl' III
nvm~~°7¢~9v~o

 

 

 

217

mm ‘80!“an myor

As N< . 8.368 as. 5 8:38 .52. 8 .m 2:3,.—

 

7883811. 8888+ 8888+ 88581;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.8.6333.—
8_ a: .8 8_ 8 8 8 8 o
n-
1 v
- n. W...
r N. w
, _- e
8%... .\\>/ “VJ? \wa/anr/ 54)! >93? .o W
I _ Go
, n
,m m
8 v
n
A: N< . 2:52; m3 5 82.5 .53 S .m 23E 3 N< . 2.88m 36: s 82.5 .53 a. .m 2:5 m
2
78888 ..xI 885.81.! 8828+ .8828I9L 78858le 8858+ 88.2811 8858i
3 62.83 .._-£— Egaauoa «:3.—
9: o: 8. 8. 8 8 9. 8 o 8. oz 2: 8_ 8 8 8 8 o

 

 

   

V?
—
f

 

“I
r V
f f
1 “AI m. I MI m-
7 m. N- m.
/ \ > _ / / . - ma / , ma
. wd. n ..x'. I 1 T n
m. l% amb> zbgg> u.
T|X XIXOXIvO-vOrXTX XIXIXIXIXIX X IXLXIXI XIXIXIXIX11 O u. , ‘8‘ XI x X+v0¢8u¥v O m
. an ad
mo ¢ .. _ s
1 — w 1 N m
m
T v
n

 

 

 

 

 

Gv <0 . 2.3.8... 9:.— 5 “5:5 2%.. mu .m 28E

 

@8858le 8858+ 8858+ 886881;

 

E .8283 2.3..
8. o: 8. 8_ 8 8 9 8 o

[XLXLXL-XLXLXLXLXY‘lXLXJXJXLXLXJX‘XJXJXJX‘OXJXJXJXJXJXOXJXCXIXCX‘XII O f
0
r g m
I.
B
I «o m...
“....
u
, 3 no

‘
, m

X X —
S

 

 

 

G: <0 - £8593 :04 E w:£=£ .53. 3a ..m v.5»?— Gv <0 . 28:93 m<0n 5 ans—=3 2:3. 9. .m 953."—

 

 

78838 Ix: 8888+ 8888+ 88.881;

 

~ 88.88 nxL~8~§8I¢L~8~§8 £8858 ITI—

 

 

 

5.391843.
3 .553 .50.— BL
_ _ _ 9.

of Q2 ON. 09 on De 9. ON C 8 9. ON 9: ca 8 8, o m._.
rllv XAX|XIXLXt X: XLXLXLXLXLXLXLXLXL XI XL XLXLXAXhXbXbXLvOXb X. XLXSXLXbXJXdy O W .. 1:44- r!.i,|..-.ir.ifiaslllfijfi f
._ m. x x Xux x f _. .OI.
j T g 11 u
_, J f n6. 1
w 8 m.
E Yvo ml Ix;x..x;x..x..x..x.. ..x Xxxxxilx; ...;X‘LXLXLXLX‘L XL ux: ..xL .04 c ml
J ..U. ...-.1.
V . 0.0 u . nd
8 u
_ no 3
W x r _ .b
_ i m
_ y n.—
8 fl _ a
1
r 1 » 1 1: ll -1., ..‘1 IiiigtiL, N._ tizéiiltzxr wd

 

 

 

 

 

219

a: an . 2.338 955 a 85:8 2%.. 3 .m 2:3,.—

 

788§8le 2858+ 2888+ 88gb

 

a 5:83 .5...—
8. o: 8_ 8_ 8 8 8 8 o

81<QZ<figeibixéw

a: m: u 83:8 no; 5 82:3 .53. S .m 288

 

unu ‘Sumneg auger

 

 

 

a: m: . 83:3 36: 5 ”5:3,. .53. s. -m 28:.

 

T8888olxl 8888ch 2888+ AS88881!—

 

 

Elel 88+ Sal-I :NIOL

 

E .5533 31(—
8. oz 8. 8. 8 8 9. 8 o

p;
z

9. .6233 2:0.—

 

 

wm ‘Bumned myor
mm ‘Bumnva IUEOI

 

. i: 4. We

v: TN

 

 

A
v

v

 

 

 

 

 

r I I 1 l v I
n V M N F‘ O "‘ N m V W

 

 

 

220

a: S .. 2.38% ES— 5 8.5.5 .52. 8 .m 28:.

 

 

 

 

figgg lxl 8888.8 + A8858 III @8838 lol
a 888.. .5...—
n-
v «1 m.
1 m- m.
N. d
g: o: 8. 8_ 8 8 8 8 Afi _. m.
3%, o m.
, _ mo
, N
, m m
, v
n
a: S .. 2.368 m3 5 82.5 .52. 8 .m 288 a: S . 2.288 35a 5 88:5 .53. a. -m 9583

@8328 III $8.828 IT Agvv—No + ANSNVENO [6|

8888 IT 8858 Icl 8888 III 8858 Iol
5.889338.—

 

E .8303 a: .5.—

 

 

 

unn ‘Summzd )0on

 

 

r I r Y I Y T
. I I I

 

 

 

IIYTY FIT
WVMN-O-rq'rfivv:

mm ‘Buplned lugOI

221

88 <3 5 2:598 mug 5 “5:28 .58 mm -m 2&8

33 <3 E 25593 E<m 5 wfixaah 2:3. em ..m manna

 

 

88888 353 lxl 88888 38%|...
88888 5:03. III @8338 853+

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

a .5884 33..

W W
1 <. m.
I M 1.9
N- mu
of a: 8. 8_ 8 8 9. 8 m _- mu
ilx *fifii¥*.x¢flx_fo.V.x:x.xnx. ..x.x A .xirxiNfll: o u.
N. a. 1 _ mo
1 N m

I m

r .v

m

 

 

88888 853+ 888:8 853+
88888 casual-l 88888 553+

 

88838 .533 le 88888 :28“; La!
88888 5:85 l-l 88888 .583 IQI

 

 

 

 

8 £333 «:6.—

 

 

of oi 08
III .l .l...!

 

_ ca: Ow cc ow om
.l .- .I 3.1.]- - .91
an» )N 4. fix,

88 SS 5 288m m5: 5 85.3,,— 38 Nm .8 28E

 

E .923qu .5...—

m- .1
1 # m.
, m- m ,

N- m

T m. oi oi oQ oo— 8 co 9. ca

o W. giiiiiigiiiiiéiignlif

_ no 1
8. N m T
r M x
fl v

n

 

 

 

I I
wvm~-°78¢#w

 

 

mm ‘fiumneg Inger

222

£3 E 5 “8:8“ 95:— 5 $2.3m .53. R .m 2&3

 

88mg cocoa le ASONXNS 530% Ill
§8§8 858 ...-I §o§~8 5:08 If.

 

 

 

 

 

Y
-.

5.623333.—
02 CE as Q: ow 8 CV ON 6

Wm-
r N- m;
1 2. m
, - rd
‘ , u _ e
s» ' § 3 W
x ’/ . ... u.
a a
nd m

 

 

 

m.—

Ammv =5 5 2.58m 35: .._ “5:2“ .53. mm .m 2:»:—
Ammv S» 5 2.283 avg 5 35:5. .53 em .m 25E

 

$8628 :288 lxl 88328 .853. If:
§8§8 .853 IT @858 833 ll

 

883930 :263 IXI. 39.328 accuomlil
Amngfimo 5:63 [OI 425828 canoe... +

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 533 .59..
8. oi as 8_ 8 8 8 8

O

 

 

I Y T I T I
WVMN~°T¢¢79

  

 

r 7

mm ‘Summzd myor
mm ‘Bumned Jugol'

[MN/SN®X$$ .>x.x.x.x.x x.x.

 

 

 

 

 

I 1 I ‘l T l I Y
WQMN-cvwmvw

 

223

 

 

 

 

 

 

IOO
(I)
*5 ..___r____
a? 80~ i
in— ————,___ ¢
0 f
o i
a 3
cu 60‘ j
> ,
m f T, — ‘ y
= r .
"4 l i
E 40~ 2
o I a:
‘- ca ”L i
g 20« Jr ‘
:2 ‘ E Subgrade code
% 0 =8: ‘ I
U D oarse
be -20- __4__ ——L-—
‘0 I
o
.40 r a Fine
N = 9 9 10 7
8 ll
PCC Thickness

Figure B-58 Hypothesis testing for PCC thickness on Transverse cracks by
Subgrade Type (DF)

 

10

84

 

95% Cl NP Number of transverse cracks

 

 

 

 

PCC Thickness

Figure B-59 Hypothesis testing for PCC thickan on Transverse cracks by
Subgrade Type (DNF)

(Note: All sections on DNF zone are constructed on a coarse subgrade)

224

 

 

 

 

95% CI NP Number of transverse cracks

 

 

 

:3 Subgrade Code
0 S G
—————Jb———— I
D Coarse
I
- l O C] Fine

 

PCC Thickness

Figure B-60 Hypothesis testing for PCC thickness on Transverse cracks by

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subgrade Type (WNF)
20
__f
10~
in
ca
0 __Bs_ %H__ SUBGRADE CODE
1
a.
z D C
5 __
°\° I
8 -1o . , g F
N- 4 4 8 a
0 ND
DRAINAGE CODE

Figure B-61 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on pumping by Subgrade
type (WNF)

225

 

2.0

1.o~ E .

j _ SUBGRADE CODE

>-—4 DH
0

 

Ln
[1
11

 

95% Cl NP
3

 

DRAINAGE CODE

Figure B-62 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on pumping by Subgrade

 

 

 

 

type (DF)
.06
.05-
.04«
.03<
.024
.01-
0.
z
5 0.00‘ —a—— -—e—
°\°
8 -.01 .
N O 16
0 ND

DRAINAGE CODE

Figure B-63 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on pumping by Subgrade
type (DNF)

(Note: All sections in DNF zone are constructed on a coarse subgrade)

226

 

 

SUBGRADE CODE

 

 

 

i“ DC

 

i
f
l
i ——- — I
I
I

i __-. I

0.0 —, F

 

 

95% Cl NP

 

D ND

DRAINAGE CODE

Figure B- 64 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on faulting by Subgrade type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(WNF)
.5
.44
__r__ -7.“
m __
d3
.3« g
m I
__ “7 ““E— SUBGRADE CODE
CL .2~ I
Z c: C
('3
as _.__ 1
3 .1 j D F
N 6 r 5 13 11
D ND
DRAINAGE CODE

Figure B- 65 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on faulting by Subgrade type
(DF)

227

 

 

 

0.0 ‘ ___J___

 

 

95% Cl NP

 

DRAINAGE CODE

Figure B- 66 Hypothesis testing for drainage condition on faulting by Subgrade type
(DNF?

(Note: All sections in the DNF zone are constructed on a coarse subgrade)

228

M
\v i " v . a'. I. t

 

 

 

 

C m< E 25:93 eé 2: 5 2.58:5 5.: 2:5

8.0. OOO NNOO O. vnOO O. OVOO MOOO 8.0. O. NNOO O. O. OVOO MMOO NwOO n86 BOO «smug gawk.

VON ON 5.2 H.Nn NON 0d 2» v.3 v.3 ONO ndfi «.3 «On QNN v.2 Ohm NAN QNN 0 won . 80300 05 “a 95H.
v.2” Won wdfi WAN hon v.0 EON «.3 9O ONm hON Mn Ynn OdN NAN vv MAN ANN 0 wow . 593:8 05 «a mach.
nén Own ONN 5AM nén Md ndv 3 Nd flan wNN EN“ NOM NOM VON Ode CNN Q: 0 won .983 oogm

SON 83 mag SON 83 2mg HOON 98m 023 SON 8% bag SON 83 O03 SON mad bag munch . “Samoan .«0 09‘

Own Onw own 000 com OOO Own Own Own OOO OOO OOO Own Own Own OOO 80 89 «mg .flwfiohm Ends—m

nNNO NNNO NNNO NNNO NNNO NNNO OHNO ONO 38 ”NO ONO ONO nNNO nHNO naNO ENO :NO :NO a 838m

p L h h P h b h n P h u b bl — — p 0.0

u I O I I n l 1 no

0—

m I 9
, om
. mm

W - Om

T «m

opus uogoopoa

' Q".

9058 03 b 883 “a I
x no.

@238 8 H .038 “a o

 

E. E5 ,, e1.,EEEEEEEEE O a

n
A

229

O :< E 83.8.». mi 2: 5 2.58:5 we .m 2:9...

.. LEV.

 

 

~06. 8.6 .86 No.0 no.6 8.0 nod 86 No.0 8.0 nod No.0. V0.0 8.9 V0.0 86 3.0 8.0 4530.5 3H.

mm oéN O.N~ Nv ad“ 0.N~ adv QMN n6." r28 «AN MA: nén de fiWa N6n WON hdm U o .95 05 MO 80305 05 «a Each.
ndn NéN w.NH VA? hda nN— wNv N ”A: On MN Ndn swan QVN Ndu mm NAN ndfi O o . 592:8 «a 95H.
Ndn WVN nun; 06v de ~.n.— ndv hon Oz: rson NON vd ".8 VNN WON o6...” QWN finu Do . Q53 oogm

o v a w v a o v a o v a O v n o v n flak . Hogan no 0:

VNNO fiNNo ONNO meo wfiNo nHNo e groom
“ P _ P L — L L _ _ . _ ooo
_
.
w
w m m I mto
I m m m m m M
_ m m m m m m
m m m m m m
_. m m W CA
I t m m m m
_
. W W
w i w;
I
.v .
Aflnofioovtogoma. .. ON
_ A853 8 a swam a . w
‘
El

 

 

 

 

ON

230

’8”
r51, ii! '3’?

A3 N< E £3593 £4; 05 he mnoflucfloa .3.»— «...—u:—

8.9 3° 3° 8... 3o 8... 8o 83 8o 86 no... 8.: 36 3° 33 86 83 S... 86 36 36 86 86 3... 36 So .883 98a
edn32Gaflzxazfla2::«Hazazaflaanousgsoefifiaa
E2Sfixznazanflsnxfiflzafia::ouazouedafifioafiga
E. n" on 8 on a S S R an 3 5 an 8 a «A S on an a z 3 S 8 a 3 03.9375...»
oanVHouanounc~oanv~oanv~opaohfioaotazoz
8aSnow».Snfin§§§§§8a§8n8n§§8a§8a8a8a§§§snagging;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was 5.8 88 :8 was as a groom
4 w 1 w ‘ ‘ ‘ 4 :6
m m fl “o
m m m m u m m
4 4 u H 4 .. H m m m
H p - r H 4
m m w M ... I ... 4 H 4 4 CA
4. F. L. w I I P
F m m m
a p 4 m
p p 4
F 2 a
a m.
a P m.
h u
A: m.
H Wm
H
._. on
A855 2: h 388 a 8:8qu
9658 8 g Bacon .3 958qu o
f1..-,-.-..-.li:-.i Wm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

231

 

A3 N< 5 £8598 “*3 2: a8 8.58—mon— chA— 0.53m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 u 3.8. a 83.6.9 .

 

 

 

N... .... 3.. n... v... .... v... n... 3.. .... 3.. 3..- .... S..- n... .... .... no. u... v... .... .... .... . ...... .... m... .... v... lac-.6 ......
..fi ..2 .... ...: .... a... a... «.2 a... .... n... ..3 a... 12 .... v.2 .... a." 3. ....n a... a... .... v.2 .... a... 5: ....— ..mn Qusgoaitos
t: v... ...~ 5... ...... .... .... ...... a... .... ...: S: a: ..fi .... ..2 ...: .._. .... .... ...: a... .... ....— ..3 .... 3a .... 3.. 0.3.5.8....3895a
...: .... N... .... ...: re... .... a... .... .... ....— ..S .... q: 3.. Sh .... ...... ... .... 5: 1... ...... ..2 ..3. .... .... S.— ..nn 0... .9... 8.!
an...a........—.........v.n....5.355§_3&<
... ... .... ... ... ... ... u. 5.5.... 1.3.:
.2. N... S a. a 8 m... 2 a. 3.. B .8...
T l 4 J 4. 4 a b. 4 4 4 w 4 . 4 w I1 4 . . oo
1 n o 2
m m m. m 4 m w 4 .4 m B
4 4 p H p m n m .. a m p
4 r m r m H ... m m m H
p > m m 4 r H 4 a 4 4 o—
r J P H
4 M w a. 4 P
... r h w m
2 m
on W
2
can”... 0 m
03 h .03.. I 6030qu
@239

 

G. 5 5 8...... ...: 2.. .8. 2.3385 Fm 2:3,.—

ncé mod 5...: 8.: mNcé $5.: «Na... 38.: 3:6 25.: MNaé 3.: 23:3...» Each.
hm“ bdN 3.3 améN 5.2 NafiN Sta nmém m¢.: aefiN aAN eéN 0 not ...—8.2. 05 an 350,—.

M6“ mm 9.:N aadN mask a;

5 8.3 .2: 2.3 8.... ma... 0 a... .535... 2.3. 95..

NéN v.5” ~N.MN 8.3 was Sfin abdN euém mwAN afiN wmfiN wcéN O «we . 9:08 soak—m

N c N c N c

N c N c N c «.58. .5893.— .. 39>

 

 

 

:Nc 3N: SN: 3N: 8N: Nch a £58m
» _ p _ h p p _ p o
4 Nd
.. vd
m m m 4 ed
m m I I . a
I m u w o m
I
m m m m ml- fl W.
T N; m
.. . m.
A822: 00 v N. .083. “a :ozuucoo I W I V ~
30:05. -o v ~ .85. .... 50:00:00 0 1 OJ

 

 

 

 

 

 

mg

233

 

 

G: <0 5 2.883 aNH 2: .8: agave—mon— Nbé— 9.sz

3.: ::.: ::.: m:.:.

N:.: N:.: ::.: ::.: 3.: n:.:. 3365..» :83.

 

 

 

Q3 fleN v.3 wén fiaN fl: mém EN «.3 can. 0 we: .83....— 2: 3 ..th
".5 Q3 v.3 N.:m N.—m mfifi N.Nm :.:m :.m~ N.:m U we: .59: ES 2: 3 95,—.
v.5 :.mm 3: EN mém mag mém Qmm hm“ mfiN U «0::—Boa. 8856
N c N c c N e c N a ”.58. 32:22. .... 23>
SN: 88 :3: 38 SN: SN: 5 5.59m
H _ N h b P _ o
I N:
1 to
m
m T .
m w m M w o c m
3
1 3 m.
u
.. m - ml. _ w
w w M ..
30525358833 :osoucuol m 1 NA
3235 :v _ 523 a 550:8 O

 

 

 

 

 

VA

234

as 8 5 28:8... c -3 2: .8. 23.8%: NS. 2:3..—

u 59» .325»!— :o 9:4
3m .2. 365.5 ...—3.;

 

 

 

hm :n :M :N on «a NM NM :N NM 3 Nu an :N :N an :N M6 an um NN :N an n— :N :6- Nu a.» :N 0.»- :—
uv um u: «N on v— N: .6 FN mm NN 3 NM NM 6N :n 0N 5.: :n on an an :N :N :N ad- 3 rd :N Nd- ”N
:m an 3. m: :N a: an an :N Nv :N NN an an :N :v n: z N: av :N on :N NN an :.N nN h.» :N :6- :N NN 0.4—30H. vulva—w
: a o n n u a w w n n u a a o n n n a a o n n u m n u n n
::: ::a ::0 ::o ::a ::a :mm :mm :0: :mm :mm :mm ::o ::a ::o ::0 ::a ::: :nm :mm :nm :0: :00 :mm ::0 ::a ::: ::o :mm :9» :nm
vNN: — NN: :NN: bu N: On N: Mn N: a Begum
» P P . h h L p p F b p p p r p _ p _ p L p o
m u
m m m
m m m m m m m m m m m m u m m m . g
m m m m m m
m _ m w m m m m w .
4 M H m H fl
1 m H H H

 

 

Among: :3 h

hog—Om a Gomuoouoa I

@235 o:

.838 3 "8:90:09 .

 

 

u n.—

 

m:.: n:.: N:.: ::.: ::.: ::.: v:.: v:.: u:.: N:.: N:.: N:.: n:.: b:.: ::.: n:.: ::.: ::.: ::.: ::.: ::.: ::.: n:.: m:.: N:.: v:.: ::.: N:.: ::.: N:.: N:.: N:.: «Io-9P5 EH.
:— O .._—382— 05 «I 559:.
2 o. .5532... 2.. ... nigh

onu uomalpa

235

as co 5 2.3.8.. #2 2: ...... 2.88:5 E .m 25E

N:.: ::.: ::.: ::.: v:.: v:.: 3.: ::.: ::.: ::.: N:.: v:.: ::.: v:.: «0.: ::.: ::.: ::.: ::.: n:.: ::.: n:.: a... h:.: no: u:.: ::.: N:.: ::.: ::.: N:.: v:.: «lo-3.3 EH.

an «N N: :N :n b v» :N N: VN h b on 0N. :M a —N e

um an on NN an a :9 :N mm mN h :— UM 6N mN mN m— 3 Nn bN Va 0

vn av an on 5 cu Nm an av :N :— Va 5v N» ”N :N m— nN mm u: on 0 VM = 5N : QN mm on 0 an
m

a n o n n n a a o n n a a a 0 n n a o a o n u o n n u o m n
MNN: NNN: an N: :n N: :— N: v— N:

NMQNONnNou: :Nn-m—:—n:m—

:Nuu:NN-h~hmMnmu

2 one—€233.33:

2 Panacea-gags:

5 uni-8.83.."

— sundae—96.303.
8.88m

:.:

. Nd

. v.0

.. o:

 

A358 08 b .033 @ I
7235 8 F 32.5» © 0

on" uomonaa

. w;

 

236

a: .5 ... 83.8. .. .... ... 2.2.8.8.. 3... 8.8....

8... ...... 8... 3...- 8... 8.: 3... .3... 2.... 8... 8... ...... 3... S... no... 8... ...... ....e- 8... 2.... 2.... 8... 3... 2.... .585 as»...
a. an .... ..o. N. S ... ... m. an S ... u. an 8 e. 3 23 8 ... ea 3 3 u. o»... .33.... 2.3.9.8..
o. 3 m... an. .... m.” 8 .. a. a. .... ... a. mu 3. a. Z 5... .n S ..N 8 S a. 0»... 5.8.5.... 2.2.3....
... 8 «... ....n. o. .v ...... ... S n... on a. Na 3 S ... 3 ....u 3. o. 8 S N. o. cageéfia 98:5
n n . e m ... . e n ... . e ... ... . e n ... . e n ... . e was. 45:82... .9 on...
can on» Sn Sn 8.. 8. 8.. 8.. Sn on... on» an... 8.. 8.. 8.. 8. can Sn Sm em... 8.. 8.. 8.. 8a .... 598.5 .839...

. . 8 ... 2 SS 38 82 33 B 3.83

. .1,

_ _ F F r _ b _ _ h p — p F _ p p L — p — p _ 0.0

T

Nd
1 Yo

I

m
m .
m m :0

MW

:6

m
m

H4
H4

H4
H4
:14

I

l

o;

D—O-‘H
HH

H—n-qa
H—4
0—0—4
1

NA

0931 “0939930

VA

It-O-d
l

_ - o.
A855 0: V n .88.. a cocoa—$0 .. W .

A85... 8 . .838 ... .858.qu . u m .

- 1-..--..,-..-I.-...t!i£-1, 1:: 5-, 2r ON

 

 

237

 

35 m:— 5 ...—.333 a: .N: 5 23.8qu 3...: «.._—mm..—

 

 

....... 2.... 8... 8...- ...... 8... ...... 8... 8... 8.. 8.. 8... 8.8 2... 8... 8... 3... ...... ...... 8... 8... .....o 8...- 8... 8... 8.. .5895 98h
...... ..8 ...... ..8 a... 0.8 8... ...8 m6. ...... «.8 ...8 88 .... «.8 a...” ...... .... 58 08 ....u .....n ...8 .... S. ... 08.. gaafiafip
...... «:8 5... 8.8 b... man a... «...... ...... a... Q: «.8 men v.3 v.8 «.8. a. 8.. 28 0.2.. ....8 ......a «8 ..u. .....v a..." 08.. 6.863383;
... ...... .... ..8 a... «.8 ...: .....n a... ...... «.8 28 n8 «.3 «.8 ..8 «.... ...... 28 ...... h...” .....~ 8 ...... v.3 ....n 08.18.88.me
... n . .. m n N . .. n ... . .. m n . .. n ... . .. m a ~ . o pinion—3.3::
..8 ...: ....a ...: ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ....a 8. ....a 8. ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ...... ...: ....o 8. ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 .... .5895 ...—.5...
«.8 28 ".8 88 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 2.8 2.8 38 2.8 88 ...8 ...8 ...8 88 98.88
_ r r . . . _ p r r p L p _ _ p _ _ _ p 2 _ _ 0.0
- a...
- ...o
m m
m m m m .
m . . m . . . m
m w W m m w m . w . m .. m
M W . . . . m . ... m
H a .
. . w . . m.
- a.
. .
. .88...
8. 532.8... 8.50on . .
.85... r o _
o. ..Omfimaaoaoocen . fi
- - - - - - w.—

 

238

......

.... S ... 28:8. .. .... ... 2.2.8.8.. E... 8.8....

 

 

8...- 8... 8...- 8.... 8... 8... ...... 2.... ...... ...... 8... ...... 8... 8.. ...... 8... 2..... 8... 8... 8...- 8...- 28......» 2......
«.... ...... ...... ..v. ...... ....~ 8... .8. ...N. v.8 ...... .... 2.... m... ...... ...... ... a. ..... 2... .... 0. 88.8.. 2..... ....8...
...... ...... .. 2.... N... 88 .... a... ...n. ....n ...... ...... .2. ...... .... 8.... 3.. 5.. 8... a... ..u. 0.8.2.2... 0582......
3. .8 ...N. 3. ... ...... ...N. «.8 a... N8 ..8 ..n. .... 8 ...... a... ..... N... ...... ...... a... 0.2.5.. 88......
u......mnebmnenmnebmebmesofiofl.
...... ...... ...... ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ...... ..8 ...... ...... ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ...... ...... ...... ..8 ..8 ..8 2.3.6.8.... 8.8.8...
...8 £8 £8 88 88 88 .88 ..«8 88.. 88 ...8 ...8 :8 ...8 ...8 8.8 8.8 ...8 «..8 «.8 ....8 9.8.8....

_ . _ _ b _ h _ p _ _ p h L . _ _ _ — - o

.1 - ....

.

.

w m w m - ....
m m
m a
. W . . . . . . . . -... m
m o
. . m
. . . . W . .
. . . . .
. w . . -.
. . H
- ...
. .
1 - 3 - l - z- - - - 1 i 1 .-- )1 «1? a: 1-11 1.3-::- 1 -1 I- -15}- - VH

 

 

239

 

85 <— E 85:08 a: .N: E 85:00:09 wb-m 0.53.:

n:.: N:.:- m:.: ::.: ::.: v:.: u:.: n:.: h:.: ::.: n:.: u:.: N:.: ::.: N:.:- n:.: m:.: n:.: ::.: n:.: ::0—:95 30H.

N6: «.2 ...— N.mu 9.: 06¢ mu 9N: n.0N NS" «.mu N.Nu ON 9...: v.3 N.:N 06— 9.: rd.— hfiu O. .._—:8:: 05 «I .53.“.

«.3 :.m— —.:N «.3 N6— bdu ”.3 ndn de bu :— v.” m.:N N.»— :.= 0.:N bu WN— a...— NRn U . 5:063:— 05 «a hunch.
:N 82 QVN Q: 5.: N.MN a6— bén NS» 64% Why 5.»..— h.:n min «in NAN th fia— N6— m.:N U . Sack. cosh—um

h ... .. .- n .. n m . .. .- .. . .. .. ... .. .. ... 8...-9...»...
..8 ..8 ..8 ...8 ...... 8.. ..8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ...... ...... ...... ...8 ..8 ..8 ..8 ...... ...... ...: 8.5.9.2... 38.2...
88 88 88 88 88 88 88 ...8 ...8 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 88 v.8 ...8 ...8 8.8.88

N .N.:
L w W . . . . m
V . w . w W W .... m

 

HH
fi-H

 

- NA

240

as mm 5 25:8... 8 -8 a. 82.8%: E .m 2:3...

e- o- h... a... a... m... u... a... 6... .- . h... N... m... m... n... N... a... . o- o. v... .... .- .- n... N... N... o- v... u... N... N... '02 tab.

«.KN ..N— VON m... mdn min N..N ..uN N.vn ... m..— ...N ”Am— th .N uh. «mm— on ...u .4. N56 nfiu a... and .N «Hun mug. mfi— .N 2... n.0N NW. 0.: Urga‘loh
néN «.2 a... N6» ”.3 ”.2 th u.NN .4.» .N.. 2 NM 0.2 QVN n... «k. N..— n... v..— ..un 00.. 0.: v6. ...6 ad— mdn Ni 06— de v.2 QON mi— ..N— 0.0. Javiioa'gu
nfiN Nu rm «6. NKN ndN Yum ..NN ..nv m... «.2 a... Q:

«.3 man «.8 8 «.8 8 «.3 «.o «.3 13 «d «.8 8 «.8 «.8 «.8 «.8 «.3 8.8 «.8 0.8.9:; 08:5
abn«_e.nn—..«nn—eosnuoahnnuoahm_oplonioaop-Soo:
3. 8. S. 8. S. 2: 88 88 88 88 88 3. .2 2.. 3. 8. 8. 3» :8 Sn .8 on» so. .8 o: 3. 8. 8. 8n .8 S». on». 88 3.435.513»:—

NuN. NuNe NuNe N—Ne NuNe NuNe .eNe ..Ne .eNe aeNe .92. EN. .eN. EN. EN. EN. .eN. meN. meN. neN. Am.Ne nONe v.N. IN. IN. VON. 3N. 3N. —.N. ~.Ne ~.N. u.N. ueN. a 300m

..No

H—C
r—o—d
H—4
r—H
J.
O
0W mm

W W W

 

 

.x.

241

88 mm 5 82.8. ... .2 5 8.58:5 8 .m 958.8

0... .- M... .- .- .- N... .- .... N... a... N... a... n... o .-
«N 0.: 5.: NM v... ..n— N... avg. VN n... .
bdN —.n— 93 min v... ..z 9... N6 N..N flan

N... . .- a... n... a... N... a... .- n... u... n... v... n... . 3030.5 30h.

v.— ..bN WN— o..— «N .9. ..Nu NdN afi— udu a... QQN MK.— ..on .nfi n..— .Jn v.3 uJN .... Una-......enoancgh
0.. v.2 ...N .6— v..N odN N1. 2 ...N ..2 0.: h..n de h..— u... on... n..— an 1n— v.NN Mn... 0: .82—0. Ciel-auto.
m... 3 FAN «nun 2k. 0.: 9.». a... m... an v..~ ndu ”MN ..2 u..N ..nN N... 0.2 mdN 5.: uAN Q: N.Nn m..— ...N «a: MN.— ..an v6— v.oN 0.3 0301.th vocab—m

. b n n n o a h n n u . a h n n u . a h n n 0 n n a . o h n u 50.» .303-0).... 9:

.0. .mm .mm .nn .nn .nn ... ... ... ... ... 0.. on. on. .mn .mn .nn 0mm ... ... ... .0. can .0. an. en. .m0 .0. ... ... ... «angina—..—

=N. =N. SN. 3N. 3N. :N. SN. 3 N. ..N. 3N. .uN. .nN. h.N. h.N. «EN. EN. h.N. b.N. 3N. ..N. ..N. ..N. neN. neN. n.N. n.N. M.N. N.N. N.N. N.N. NON. agave

.No

242

.vo
WWW

m
H4
PH
"4
i-O-C

 

H—l
b—{>—4
H
HH
f—tH

 

CM. OZ 5 8838. a .3 5 8:58:99 5 .m 9.53m

.... 8.. .- . «... 8.. «... .... «... «... 8.. 8.. .... .... e- 8.. 3.. 8.. .. 8.. 8.. 8.. «... 8.. 33...... ......

«..« ..8 ....8 ...« «.«« «.8 ...«« «« «..« 8.. «.8 «.8 «.8 «fl. ..«« «.3 «« «.8 «.2 .« «« «.8 .« «..« o... £82333...
..3 ..8 ..8 .« ...« 8 ...« ...... «.3 8.. .... v.8 «.«« 8.. «.5 «.8 ...« ..8 ..8 «.8 «« ..8 «.3 t: o... .593—least...
..8. «.8 «.8 ...« «.«« 8 «.2 ..8 SK «.8 .8 ...«« «.8 1: ..«« ...« «.8 «.8 «.8 ..«« ....« v... «.8 ..«« 0.....an .85.

83 a... ..8 38 83 «.8 ..8 ..8 8.« .... .... ...8 8.« «.8 .... 38 8.« .2. 38 38 33 .... .... ...8 :88... .89»...

.8 .8 .8 .8 8. 8. ... 8. on. .«n .«n .8 8. 8. ... ... .8 .8 .8 .8 S. 8. ... ... 16.53155...
:8 :8 :8 =8 88 88 88 88 38 S8 88 ..8 ..8 88 88 ..8 «.8 «.8 «.8 «.8 «.8 88 88 88 8.38.

H r—i
y,—
0”" “MPG

b—r—c
H—4
H—

N."

P—H
r—+—4
r—f—iH—i
F—+-—‘
H—4
Iv—H
D—-.-—‘
P—H
h—O—d
v

k . .._

 

243

a... m... .... N... n... n... .- m...

N.NN v. 0... 0....
....N m... ...N ..h.
a... ...N ...N ...N
...N a... 0... v...
... ... ... ...
N.N. N.N. N.N. N.N.

m... n...

...N v... n4. 0... ...N ......
Nn ...N ..nn v..N YVN v...
m... ...N o... FKN «...N ...N
...N .... a... D... n... v...
on. .mn .nn .nn .nn .nn

..N. ..N. ..N. ..N.

LI!
ll nl:

. I?!

A5 92 5 22.8. a .8 5 2.88:5 8 .m 9:8,.

v... m... .- n... n... 0... 0. v... .
...N a... ...N ..h. n... N... ...N 0... ...N ”N.

h... v...

8N. ...N ..h. ...N ...N ...N v... .N N..N ....
...N .... 0... v... ...N .... 0... v... ...N ....

..N. ..N. ..N. ..N. ..N. ..N. 8N. 3N. OON. nON.

v... v... .- v... v... n... n... v...
v... 3 .... h... D... n... NdN N.N.
.... .. .... v... .N NN .... .... .... ...N h... ...N ...... .... ..VN N...
...QN ...N ...N ...N ...N ...N ...N ....

9... v... N..N ...N ...N .... a... b...
:.....nm.nmenm.mn.............nn.nm.nm.nn.nnonn

3N. 3N. 3N. 3N. ..N. ..N. ..N.

z... «... x... .... lea-.33....

...« ...: .... 0.8.59.3...73
«« ..«« .... o... 5.815.833...
«« «.2 «.8 0.8 is... 8......

.... .... v.8 plan...- Iona»...

on. on. on. ...—3.8.5...
88 38 88 ..8 =8 ..8 9.38.

 

 

 

1nd
m
..WW ... m
i it: .2. .1 . T1;
: 1. : :M L w
w : .. .._.
1 W w:
W
...... :..fil W.N

244

$9 :2 5 2.2.8. a .8 5 23:88.5 «m .m 2:3...

.... b... n... .... .... .... ....- ....- 5... Q... .... .... N.... v... n... .... ...... a... .....- .... m... n... o... ....- 8.0.63 .._—.9...

bdN ..NN ...N on... n...N ...N a... b... ...N ...NN N..N 9... N..N .....N NN be.» QVN N.NN ..h. E... ...N N.NN ...N h... Duo. gone-flung...
..mN ...N NN nvi ..VN ...N v. M..m ..hN véN .. 9... ...N N... vN ... ..NN FGN 0... 5 ..Nn N.NN ...N n... One. 5.0.6.:— 0539-3...
wN ..nm v.hN av... ...N o.NN ...N. No... 9... ...mn 9... 60.. N.NN N.NN N..N v... ...N v... 5... ... ...N ...N ...N M... Owe—.530... 02.5w

...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... #0.. 50h ...—0509.... one.

.0. .mm .9. .nm ... ... ... ... en. en. .mm .00 ... ... ... ... .nn .nm .9. .mn ... ... ... ... .2- .afiuhm ...-ENS...

MNN. NNN. MNN. MNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. NNN. ..N. ..N. ..N. ..N. m.N. N.Ne m.N. ..N. m.N. A...N. ...N. n.N. ...N. v.N. v.N. ...N. afleusm

 

 

m _ p _ h — — — — p P — p F — — —L h p p — — p o

;

j

. -3
m M .

mm m m m w m m w m w m

.8. mm m m m w m w _ m

_ m m

_ w m w m m m
u

i m -2 w

7

i

__ -«

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

245

 

£3 :z 5 28:8... : .8 5 888:8 8 .m 2:2...

m... a... «.... n... 0... h... N... .... N.... 9... h... .....- .... m... .... .... 0... h... n... .....- N...- v... m... ....- .60....“ 930..

m.nN th ...N N... N..N ...N a. v... mN ...N ...N v... N.NN ...N a... no... ....N N..N h... an.» VN NN ...N :...v 0.0. 5.805.030...
....N ...N N.VN an... N... ...NN .... a... ...N ...N ...N de ...N N..N n... 6N6 ...N h..N n... . N.NN NJN ..NN ..n 0.0.. €06.33 053g...
th a... ...n .... ...... N6. ...NN .... N.NN ...N 0...» NN.v ...N n... .. moi 9.3 N..N ...N «am N..N ...N ...N 3.. Uwsfiafifi 00....«5

...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... v... ...N a... m... 9... ...N a... n... v... ...N a... n... v... 50% .._—030»!— ..e 0&4

... ... ... ... .mm .mm .mm .mm ... ... ... ... .0. .mn .mm .mm ... ... ... ... own .00 en... en. .2. gnu—ohm E0...

..NN. VNN. ..NN. VNN. .NN. .NN. .NN. .NN. .NN. .NN. .NN. .NN. ...N. ...N. ...N. ...N. ..N. 3N. ..N. ..N. 2N. n.N. N.Ne N.Ne Duncan-om

 

PH
i—O—O—l
F04
i-H—l
m
PH
#04004
H—1
I
°°.
O
own comma

 

246

 

as >2 5 2.2.8“ a .3 5 23.8%; mm .m 2&5

3...... «5......» fish
a; o 9.. .3825 «a a as:
o as. .5933. 05 8 as:
3.3 0 won ...—59 38.5
:3 50» .3080»!— uo 0:
8a .2. .5055 Fang—h
N..N: a Hen—00m

 

 

566.6 006.6 n06.6 656.6 6M6.6 NW6.6 ~66- mN6.6 6N6.6 5'66 M666 6N6.6 6,-6.6 566.6 N066 606.6 bM6.6
VVHN 6M 5.6 V6.6N n.6N Vu6.N 66.6u v.” FKN NN.6N M066 N—.QN Ohm.” 6N.6N bN 60.6w VQ.VN
NQKN 66.6w 6N.6n N.NN n.6N MVO.M and: ”gnu nNfiN 66.66 n4. Nm.mN N06.” 6.Nn ”N.NN 0n.nfi N6.6N his
M6.MM nmfim n06— mud? m.NM 6m 66$.— mdéu ...—.NM vvfin dhéd NYNN fine—.— 066? mm N-6n ”.66
N66N 666N 066n N66N 666N @66u b66u 666.— N66N 666N 966u h66u 666u N66N 666N ‘66— #66“
6mm 6mm 6mm 666 666 666 666 666 6mm 6mm 6mm 666 666 6mm 6mm 6mm 666
u .— N6 .— u N6 u .— N6 6— N6 6w N6 6n N6 6d N6 6.— N6 h6N6 b6N6 h6N6 66N6 06N6 M6N6 n6N6 M6N6 N6N6
r . . o
'
- m o
m m n
m m m
m u v o
m m m m
m
m m m m
m m m . w o
m m m y m o
6 W JH _

 

0931 00900930

247

89 >2 5 22.8. c .2 5 83.8%: 3 -m ear.—

0595 :5... mac... mned has... «3.: mac... 669.. owed one... 2..: mneé vned vac... 00.0 .2... no... 63.: 62.... «N6..- ‘ue‘ Quad 0:0.-0.5 EH.

an main 3.» gang man.” and” min 06.6 mbdfl néu ”an.” bdN m~o6 hwfin 59.00 nuan— 5006 vaN :..ON 53.: main 05nd U 601 .3382 05 «I 30,—.
”Mn no...» 3.0 and.— had mflvn NJ» wand and» bod.“ no.» 64» was.» 3an 66.3 .66— ab" N..N on n2." 3.6» 60.3 0 60‘ in..—3.3.! 05 an 530.—
hmév mdn ~96 ”...N 2 Na adv 0.3 3...: 2...: an 3 mad” win ndn main NW: nndu ad» 6N4» hmné an «6" U 60‘ .gh 00555
NeeN ecefl «a: no: 093 Mean 623 can as.“ 690M no: «.63 066— N66" ooeN he: uaou N23 623 we: haau O66— 50.» ...-0305A ac 0:

can own awn .30 6mm :66 066 2.6 enn can own enn com 6:. 666 0.9 :90 6mm 6mm 0mm emn own .2— gm E0;
2K: 239 66$. ach 63.6 23: men: ”9.: 2..”: was: none neNe mane vouo vane 3N6 vane none «0&6 wen: neNo gene a 330m

 

_ m m T n6
W. m m m m m m m
m M m m w r L g G
0 m m W . m m , W m m m H w
w m m m W m . 2 m.

 

248

A69 :0 E 233on a .Nw E $568609 b6 .6 0.5M:—

 

 

06.6 06.6 #66 66.6 N6.6 6 6 06.6 #6.6 no.6 h6.6 '6.6 “6.6- u6.6 06.6 06.6 V6.6 n6.6 66.6 06.6 n6.6- 6- 464% 33 Eh.
M.Mu NKN Mb.” Nu 6N N.0N ”v.0 N.6N N.NN 0.N.— 0.0a M.MN 6.0N N4- 0.6d N.bn 0.6“ 0.0a ”6.6 0.0N b.0N 0‘0 (\zsu 0'850333 EH.
ofin b.6n 0n.v 6.65 6.6N $.0N 6.30 Q'N 9.NN 06m 0.6N ”N 6.0N 06.6 Wan N.Nn b.6N N6" n.6u WON 0.6N 0 <93 0606 .5636! 059. 650,—.
~.NN ~60 010 9N 5.60 0.0N 06.0 60 6.MN Viv N.0N 6N 0.0N 0u.6 —.6N N.NN n.0N u.hu 06— 6.NM v.0N 0b.? (64% Duo—— .30.”. ooluH—m
~66N 666— 666— u66N 666a h66~ 666— ~66N 666a 566— u66N 666m 666‘ 066.“ ~66N 666a 666a 066~ ~66N 666m 666‘ 666u 066g 50% Jan—0:666 06¢
666 666 666 600 600 600 600 666 666 666 600 600 600 600 666 666 666 666 600 600 600 600 600 '2— .3w EOE
”N6 NuN6 ”N6 66N6 66N6 66N6 66N6 66N6 66N6 66N6 06N6 06N6 06N6 06N6 V6N6 3N6 V6N6 V6N6 ~6N6 ~6N6 ~6N6 ~6N6 ~6N6 aflogom
r p _ _ _ L _ _ _ . _ _ p _ . _ . _ _ _ _ r O
I 0.6
0 ~
I I W.H
« o G
a I m
o I I I o 0
I o o o I N W
I I I I I n
. O I w
. o . 1 nd 0
I o
O O O I m
o
o
I o I o I On

..x;t.b.t..,~...,
1,. ....

xx....1..1......x

til { 2.913)....ifiv43 é... 13,1‘2i

., : : .51.. 3:... L2?! ...,12; .. 3:3.19? 8|: '4: fit-:... 9.9!...5'41355 :.....33
...

.. .
I... '41.}. ......z.

7.4.) ... .. ...t‘. a. v 4.

 

...v....£...... V

249

N6.6 66.6
6.6— N.NN
6.6g n.0N
6.66 646
~66N 666—
6mm 6mm
«6N6 uuN6

u6.6
QB
Ned
Nnfi
baa“
6mm
3 N6

.9

66.6 56.6
66.6.. N.NN
66.6 ”SN
6N." 6.6M
~66N oaau
666 66a
66 N6 3N6

as no 5 2.3.8. a .2 5 2.58%: a» .m 2:»...—

6.6.6
6N.6
66.6
663
666
6— N6

n6.6
13
n..— N
6.6N
«66N
6mm
b6N6

~66-
WMN
N.NN
WAN
666—
660
h6N6

N6.6
N..N n
vdu
6...—
566"
600
b6N6

u6.6 V6.6
6.6— QVN
6.6m 6.6N
5.6“ 6.6»
u66N 666w
666 666
66N6 66N6

N66
66.6
.N6
6
666—
666
66N6

 

66.6 V6.6 n66
6.: afiN 66.6
b.6N 0.66 6.6“
6.6N 6.66 5.:
~66N 666m baa"
6mm 660 600
M6N6 N6N6 M6N6

1:1:EE1 ----.ililfifziL. m

S... 323.5 95H

5 o a... ...—.52. .5 8 .33.
2k. 0 a... .593...— o... ... 95H
3.." o a... .95... 8.5a

:..: a: :2 a...» .._—25.2. ... .3.

5.6.6 66.6
N.” «.mN
6.06 bin
b.NN 6.6”
666 666
N6N6 N6N6

So .... .355 755...—
SS 8 .335

o

I I I I
°Q ‘0. “I C‘!
o o o o

I
(\I —t
.—i
can uomolpa

 

250

83 <3 3 2.2.8.. a .2 5 8.58:5 .3 .m 2:5

 

 

v.66 N66 .No.6 666.6 36.6 «6.6. 66.6- 6- 666.. No.6 666.6 n6..- «66.6 o. 666.. N6... 36.. 606.6 666.6 :... 0.6.6 3.6.6 666.. :... 666.. NO... NO... '66.. 606.6 26.6 i 9h
«N.NN 6N— n6.2 :...N 06.: hJN bné— ho.”— Nhfiu 6.: I..6N «6.3 3.1: 2 mg. nudN 6.: ud— 66dn N.= QQN 6.0.: “b.6— 616— m... 0N 6.6.: 2.: :.6- 60.6— Uggaa'tfln
anNN N6N— v.: 6h.NN ”0.: :.o— nnnfi 5.: 66.6N WN— 2..Nn 69.: N..NN de— 2.6.0 NndN was 0.6— N6.MN 06.: rain 50.: n.6- und— On ...NN 66”. 60.n- vofi— 0N: Ugdia‘th
m6.vN no.3 und— No.vn 9N4- hH- F6”. find— 6n.6N 6.: 66.: av...— h—‘n N6.”— mvd— 6N.nn n6— QvN v0.0N «.2 :.mN NNON QmN no.6— ..o— badN 3!. 6.: 6h.vN 3.: 0606.th 0.0-E
—66N 096— 6..— be: 0.0— —66N 006— 660— §— moo- —66N 6:6 a: beam 06.— -06N 66." 666— hoon 066— .66N 66.— 6.: he: 06.— .66N 666— 606— 6.66- 066— 9.05%..004
660 66. 66. 660 66. on» on» com 6mm 6mm .60 6.. 66. 66. 660 on» 666 Ohm 660 on» 66. 66. 666 6: 666 on» 666 666 666 66» {gig
N6N6 Nu N6 N6N6 N—N6 N6N6 ooNo 8N6 3N6 8N6 OONO ”ON. 66N6 8N6 8N6 DON. 06N6 no: 8N6 no: 06N6 VON. 3N6 ...N. 3N6 IN. «.N- noNo u6N6 ~6N6 uoNo 8.8006
F [F L! .— P p F n p n b p p F b b 6 P b h P h L _ h 6 o
- 6o
. ...o
m m
w m . m m . 9o
. we
I W m w I W I W I W I m w
W W I m H H d
m . W I I H . w
w

. .. ::.:. r I ......) ;

. 3.10.5

. S
I:

1 6.—

 

251

83 <3 5 2.2.8. a .3 5 823:5 8 .m pang—

 

 

 

6666 666.6 666.6 6- 666.. N6..- 6- 26.. 666.6 ”6.6 666.6 ”6.6 6N6.6 6- 36.. n6..- 6n... 66a" 66... 6.... u.... 666.6 666.6 6N6.6 666.6 666.6 666.6 :... 666.6 igh
MN.6N 66.5 66.: and" 66.. 6.6" N..— 6.2 6n.6~ 66.. an.6N «6.: 6.6g nN.6u 66.6 andN 66.6. "6.6" a..." 60. 6 an.” 66.: 66.6N 66.: 66.6N nu 66.6N 66.6— 66.6 Urgnua‘toh
66.6N 66.nu NNNN 66.6w 6—.6— vain 666.6 ”N.”- 66.MN n.6— N6.6N ”6.0— 66.6— Man 66.6 66.6N N66. 66.6— 66.6N 616 664: 62a 66.6N NYGu 6646 mafia 16" 6.6g 61. 0.06.9686: 05"?!
64. ntnn 616M 66.6— 6u.—~ 66.NN 66.6" 66.6N 6H6" 66.nu 6N: 66.6w 66.~N —6.6— «6.2 66.nN QNN 66.6w 66.6N an.” «.m— ufléu 6N6. 6.6a 66.66 66.nfl N.Nfi a..." 66.6— 0.06 [—50.6 096E
«66" 6.: 666— 66.— 666. n66~ .66— 666. 666— 6... ~66N 66.— 666u 666— 666u «66N 666a 666a 666— 666. 6.6a 6.6- 666— 666— no." 666a 666g 6..— Eu .._-0» ills-:65
6mm 6mm .60 666 660 66. 666 666 666 666 666 606 .66 6mm .66 666 666 666 666 66. 606 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 66. lily—.63
«an. :N6 =~6 :N6 nun. 6—N6 .uN6 .nN6 6n". 6am. 66N6 66~6 66N. 66N. 66N6 66R. 66M. 66N6 66N6 66N6 n6N6 n6N6 66N6 M6N6 N6N6 N6N6 N6N6 N6N6 N6N6 8.6908
F r L b r h h h r h P b p P P P .6 L L, — P P 6 ~ — b F p o
. We
a
m m m
m m m m m
m w m m m
m w m m w m
H M m m H H H 4 H W — a
m w m m m . H m H . _ m m
m m -2 w
w M W W o
* - N
Fa

252

 

$3 E 5 2:58.. a .2 5 82.8%: a -m 2E..—

66.6 66.6 N666 666.6 666.6 6N6.6 66.6- 6- 666.6 666.6 666.6 666.6 666.6 666.6 666.6 666.6
66.66 66.6— 6.6N 6.66 N666 an.” 66.6— 66.6N 66.6— $.66 66.6N ”.NN 6.6 66.66 66.6N 66.66
66.6N 66.NN 6.6N 6N-6N N.6— 66.” 66.66 66.66 66.6N 66.6N 66.6N 6.6N 66.6 NN.6~ 66.6N 66.6—
N.6N 66.66 66.6N 6N.66 66.6N 66.66 N66— N6.6u 6.6N 6.6N N6.6N 66.6N 6.6" 66.66 66.66 6.66

2...... 2..... .58....» as:

«:3 o 9.. .383 95 ... 9...
9...... 3.3 o 9.. .5332. a... ... .._
~23 8.2 0 won .._—5... 835m
6666 59» ...—2:02:— 66 064
.a6.anrnzam_uh=korn

66.6N

 

 

 

omu uomalpq

N66N 666N 666a N66N 666N 6666 N66N 666N 666w N66N 666N 666a N66N 666N 6666 N66N 666N
666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666 666
MNN6 MNN6 6NN6 NNN6 NNN6 NNN6 6uN6 6~N6 66N6 6uN6 6—N6 66N6 6nN6 6uN6 6—N6 6~N6 6~N6 6—N6 3665906
m h — p p h n h _ 6 _ h _ 6 r p _ L o
W
- 2
W m m
. m U
W m m m m w
W m m W m m m m w H
_W m m
W m m - 2
W
W
W W w - N
W
W
W M - 3
L m

253

 

2v 5 5 2388 a .3 5 888:5 2 .m 9:.me

 

 

2..... S... 3.... 2..... 2..... 2e... 22. ..- 2.... Se... 2..... 2..... 8°... 2.... Se... 2...... 83 2..... use...» as:

2.2 2.2 2.2 2.: 2.2 2.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 :..2 3:2 2.: 2.2 «.2 2.2 8.2 2.2 9...: o»... ...—3.2. 23.2.52.
:.....— 22 2.3 2.2 3.2 2.2 2.2 8.2 3.: 2.2 8.2 :.2 3.3 2.2 8.2 8.: 2.2 2.2 09.. .5333. 95395.6
...2 :..2 2.3 2.2 2...... 2.2 «.2 3.2 2..: ...2 «.2 ”.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 o»... .95... 88.5
82 82 22 32 82 2.: 82 2.2 2: 82 2.2 2.: 82 32 2: 32 82 23 a...» .5382... .3
e2 8. 2: e2 e2 :2 8a 8a 2: e2 e2 e2 e2 :3 8. e2 :2 e2 2. .5303 ...—Eon.
2.8 22 22 22. 28 28 28 28 23 :8 :8 :8 :8 28 28 28 28 23 88:82

_— r _ _ F L| _ p — o

W n u a I

W I I I U I U U I .

W m u u u u u m m m u m o

W m m m m m w

W a m H 6

W m a H

. m G

W m.

W - m 6 w.

W m w

W w.

W . m o

W

W W - nu

 

254

 

A66 66? 3:55.65.— :6 06.3 82— .66 68.666 66 .m «.5666

6.6.4.6 II¢II 60..— + m<8 +

E .5632 266.—
66 _ 66 _ om _ 66. 66 66 66 66 6

 

. 6.6—
. 6.66
. 6.6m
- 6.66
- 6.66
. 6.66
r 6.66
6.66

 

 

 

 

m._.<6 Ilsl 601. + m<OD +

a acmug— «£63
9: o: o: 2: 8 S 8 8 o
_ . _ . . _ _ od

. S;
. 92:
£32
6 2.2
. 3.2
. c.8m
. 2.2
39.

 

 

 

 

 

(Sf) 31']

(91') (IS

66—

66—

652.6 Ilal. 68 + 6(00 +

a .868... .52
c2 8. 8 8 8 8

p h n »

 

 

 

6.6

. 6.6—
. 6.66
. 6.66
- 6.66
. 6.66
. 6.66
. 6.66
r 6.66

 

 

66—

66—

6.636 '4' 60..— + 64.8 +

a .5682 .5...—
ofi 2: 8 8 9. 8

p P h 6 6 6

6.66

 

 

 

9o
. 9%

. 68.
. 2.2
. 682
. 2.2
. 32
f 32
68..

 

 

6.666

(91') 3.1.1

(71') (IS

255

 

 

66 $7 Bags—...... .8 2S 82 a. .85 a .6 2..»;

E<m+ m8+ m<OQ+

8.66632 .56.—
62 mm. 66— n 6 66 m6 6

 

 

 

 

6,526+ 68+ 38+

:..-5636— .566

66— 666 666 66 66 66 6
_ r 6 6 6 O

 

 

 

 

($0311

($008

FEE + 60..— + m<8 +

8.2532 «56.6
6m _ mi 66_ 66 66 mm 6

 

 

 

g

M6666 + 68 III m<OQ +

:..—3636— .566
62 mm. 66_ 2. on 66

.66

6

.66

(7031.1

66
66
66—

 

 

O

(71' )(IS

 

 

256

36 5. 855862. .3 2:. 82 .... .866 2 -6 2:6..—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EELT meal-I 956+ 55+ 8.7-I 356+
3.66633 .56.— 366632 «56.6
8. o: 2: 2: 8 8 9. om o 8_ o: as 8_ 8 8 9. on o
6 6 6 L7 6 6 6 o r 6 P 6! P 6 6 o
- 66 - 66
T 9. m. . 9. m
a 3
; 8 m x 8 M
.. Ow r 06
66_ 66—
m6<6+ mow—Ill m<00+ m6<6+ mUx—III m<OQ+
5.66633 656.6 :..—3332 .36.—
oo_ o: 02 8. 8 8 8 8 o of o: as 2: 8 8 ow 8 o
6 _ _ 6 o L 6 6 h 6 . h o
a as . 8_
IIIIIIIIl~\l\IIO/nl\c a con I’llll‘? . com
1 COM fl 7 86 w
r 8.6 m j 86 m
- 8m - Sn
. 006 . 606
666 666

 

 

 

 

 

 

257

 

68 8 u 08255.6 .5 25 82 6.. .85 8 .m 2.3.6

 

BEL-I mogul! Eon—IL

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3939255
oi OS 86 cm 8 av an o
6 6 6 6 6 6 c
j 8
r 9.
. 8
H _ W 8
86
WEEICI 84+ each
5.63382 .5...—
oE cm. 86 3 cc 3 cm o
% 6 _ 6 6 6 6 o
6 8.
6 8N s

\l‘l’ m

 

 

 

Tail-I 84+ 38+

 

5.8932 .5?—
o! cQ 86 cm 8 3. on c

 

 

 

:6

 

 

95:. + m0..— + m<OQ +

 

5.36.82 «:3.—

cv- ON. 86 cm 8 av cm a

(VI' )311

 

 

 

 

 

258

 

8: ME I gonna—3.6.62. no 2:» 8.3 we «8.56 S .66 Bang

m6<m+ m8+ 28+

3 53.8... .52.

86 Q2 em. 8. ow 8 3 On Q

 

 

{SAG

. 0.0—
Y 0.8
6 0.3
r 0.3.

0.9.
% 0.8

0.06
fi 93

 

 

8.56 + m8 I'l. m<OQ +

a .35... is.

86 09— ON_ 86 0w 8 3. ON c

9.86

 

 

 

 

(Sf) 31’!

955+ 904+ n<8+

lie—«8339a
8. o: o~_ 8. on 8 3. o...

 

 

o
a
(in 3.1.1

 

 

m6<m + gin-I n<8+

5.5.8332.
8. o: 8. 8_ 8 8 3 8

 

 

 

 

259

 

 

a: S. 3566:8626 6:. 26.66 826 6.. 68.6666 .666 .66 26.6666

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

66,636+ 663+ 628+ 6665+ 663+ 628+
66. .6688... 6.66.... a .6638... 6.66....
86 o: 86 86 8 8 8 on o 86 86 86 86 8 8 8 8 o
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O 6 6 6 6 P 6 6 o
8 , 8
8 m 8
. 8 m r 8
6665+ 663+ 3.8+ 6665+ 663+ 9659+
E .6338... .59.— E .8333 .59.—
86 o: 86 86 8 8 8 8 o 86 86 662 86 8 8 8 8 66
6 6 6 6 6 O 6 6 6 6 6 r 6 c
, 8
, 86
, 86 s
, SN 0
.662 m
\x ,l‘ .. 68m
686
686.

 

 

 

 

 

 

cmv

 

(71') 31.1

260

 

as 86.. 8666666668626 68 2666 3.66.6 6.. 686666 8 .66 26666666

6.6.6.8363:
86 86 86 86 8 8 9. 8

 

 

 

9

8

EL r

 

 

m6<m Ill m8 Iil m<8 IQI

... .6638... 6666.6

:2 Q: 86 86 cm 8 av om o

 

1+{l11f

 

é-

6.\\\//xl,-

gag?

 

 

8
(91‘) 3.1.1

8

0

§

(91‘) as

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1..-£8.63..—
Q; 86 86 8 8 av am 0
6 P 6 6 6 6 6 D

. om

- 9

. 8

I 8

86

Build! moqlul 9668+
666.66.668.63...—
ofl 9.6 86 86 8 8 ow om o

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o

I on
. 86
- 662
l; .. 8N
.. own
Y: ' 8m
. Rm
- 8v
- o?
8».

 

(tr) 3m

(tr) as

261

 

 

66.9 oz: 36:66:68,626 68 2666 826 .666 68666.6 2: -66 9666366

m6.<n6 l«| mox— + m<OQ IOI

 

 

 

 

 

 

E66353:— 66666666
of 9: o~6 86 cm co ow om o
6 6 6 6 6 6 F o
1 cm
x 9.
r co
«Q cm _ "Gk/Id 4 < /<
66.6.6666 |<| moalll m<0n6l9l
5.686.826.6696
of 03 02 86 3 co ow on o
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o
I 86
4. ¢ udnafllfi afl 1? IL 1 SN
- 8m
1 86.
- 8m
a com.

 

 

 

(Sf) 3.1.1

(51') (IS

m.6.<66 |.| m“: Ill m<0n6 +

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.636632 66666666
om: o: 86 86 cm 8 ow on o
m
D
0
m6<66lfl 6604+ m<0n6|6|
8.636632 656666
86 9.6 86 86 cm co 3. om o

6 6 6 6 6 6| 6 o
. - 86
ard§aflflfldhufi r 8N
- com
Y 86.
- can
r 80
86.

 

 

 

(91') (IS

262

of

 

6666.6 6676.. 866.666.66.666... .3 266. 826 66. 686666 6666 .66 26.666

m6.<n6 + m0; III m<OQ IOI

666.662.3666 6.66066

3. 6 ON 6 2: on cc 9. an o

 

 

 

_ _ . _ _ 6 6 od
‘ cdn
‘ adv
. cdc

 

(51") 3.1.1

66.8
. , 66.86

 

 

9cm 6

m6<66 + M604 + m<0n6 +

666.666.6632 266966

of o: om— 86 cm 00 av cm 0

6 6f 6 6 6

 

 

6 . od

.. cdn

. 9266
a adm—
T adon
odnm
6. 6669”
Odmm
98¢

 

 

@696

(51') as

oo—

mh<m+ QUAIII m<OQ+

8.6626396 .66—o6—

cc 6 on. 86 cm co ov ea c

 

 

 

6 _ 6 6 6 6 6 ed

x odn
r 66.3
1 66.8

(91') 31.1

66.8

 

I c.8—

 

 

oo—

adm—

m6<66+ m016+ m<OQ+

666.662.3666 .6669.—

c: on 6 86 em cc 9. an o

 

 

 

6 . 6 6 6 6 6 od

1 Odn

r c.8—
T 6662
: cdcn
cdmn
1 c.8n
0.9mm
6.86.

('1') (IS

 

 

063.

263

68 >2: 8662:8626 6:6 2666 82 6c 6886 S6 -66 2866

m.6.<.6 ICI m8 III m<0n6 IOI 96.65 ICI mug + £8 IOI

E 5268666 6.66.6.6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E 6.566396 666696
006 o: om 6 006 Ow o0 ov ON o oo— 03 ON— oo— ow 8 ow on c
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o
- O— r O—
- 8 - 8
V cm I on
T CV n1 I O?
r Om m v on
x 00 m l 8
,I 8 . 8
6 8 - 8
86 oo—
m6<66+ 86+ 6286+ BELT 6606+ 8066+
E 666666632 66666666 E 6.66532 6.66066
86 86 86 86 8 8 8 8 o 86 86 86 86 8 8 8 8 o
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 O 6 6 6 6 I 6 . C
8 , 8
, 86 6 86
, 86 s . 86
- 8 a , o8
, 8N m - 8N
- o8 - o8
, 08 - 668
, o8 . 68
05.

 

 

 

(if) ELL”!

(71‘) (IS

264

686 665 . 86.36.68.626 68 25 82 .6. .85 86 .m 286,.—

mP<m + MB III @468 IOI

 

 

 

 

:— .2583 «So.—
86 o: 86 86 em 8 9. ON o
95$ ICI m3 III m<OQ .lOl
E .2532 «So.—
CE

03 c~6 oo— ow co 9. ON o

 

 

{AWN/lav

6

T

a

 

 

8
(91‘) am

you

86

86
SN

86.

oo—

mh<m Iil m8 III a8 IOI

6.6.5.6823...—
86 86 86 8 8 8 8

 

 

3.

-ON

8
(91') 3.1.1

yaw

 

 

oo—

EELT 8.7... 38+
8.66.66.82.58
9: 86 86 8 8 8 8

k

86

 

 

’/ All;

9:
:3
.8m
8v 0
Teen

S

(71')

.86.
.93

 

 

265

 

33 S667 3635.68.63 no 265 8626 .6: 68.5— 2: .m 95w?—

mh<m Ilr m8 III m<OQ +

E £26306 «5:.—
oo6 o: 02 86 on cc ow on o

 

-om

,ov

 

 

 

mh<m|§| m3+ $600+

666.663.8336...
86 86 86 86 8 8 8 8 o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

68o.
, 82
886

(SD 3.1.1

(51') (IS

mh<m IT mug III m<8 IOI

666.668.3336...
86 86 86 86 8 8 8 8 o

 

 

 

 

 

mhtdlarl mUx—lIl m<8+

 

 

 

8.666.386.6666...
02 ofi GE 86 cm 00 ov on o
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 o
_
, ooo
T 8w
, ooo.
I 086
83

 

 

 

(71') 31.1

(if) (IS

266

 

Ammv El 3.85.68.62— 65 26.5 3.3 .6: «outm— mcfi .m «.._—wr—

EEICI moan-I 6209+ 985+ 85+ 568+

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E .5582 369.6 E .5530. 6:696
86 86 86 86 8 8 8 8 c 86 86 86 86 8 8 8 8 o
6 h p h 6 h 6 o 6 P h h 6 p L o
1 ON ‘ ON
3 1
I Q? m u
m n
- 8 m , 8 w
”hum-paw. um_ m _ ,8. ,8
86 86
mh<n6+ mUAlII m<OQ+
526+ 816+ 350+
5.3382650.—
Eéouaue :-
_ 3a of 3: ON_ 86 cm 8 ow cm o
of ov— cm_ 86 cm o0 ow ON C 6 . 6 6 6 r L o
6, b P r P 6 6 c
I an
1 en

§
(51') as

T cm—

'I I‘ ‘3,
T 8N

 

 

 

 

 

 

own

 

(71') (IS

267

LIST OF REFERENCES

8.

9.

Federal Highway Administration. (2003). “Long term pavement performance.”
Washington, DC, USA, http://www.tfltrcgov/pavement/ltpp/gpshtm

Federal Highway Administration. (2003). “Long term pavement performance
Release 16.0 database.” Washington, DC, USA, http://www.datapavc.com
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (1998).
“Supplement to the guide for design of pavement structures.” Washington, DC,
USA

Soil and Materials Engineering, Inc. (1995). “SPS-2 construction report 260200.”
North Central Region LTPP, Minnesota, MN, USA

John.S.Miller , William.Y.Bellinger (2003), “Distress Identification Manual for
the Long Term Pavement Performance Program”, FHW A RD-O3-031, US
Department of Transportation.

Foundation for Pavement Preservation (2003), “Pavement Preservation 2: State of
the Practice”, FHWA

R.B.Templeman, “Class Notes for 811‘ 465”, Michigan State University, April
2003

R.Lyman Ott and Michael Longnecker, “An Introduction to Statistical Methods &
Data Analysis”, Fifth Edition, 2002.

Shiraz D.Tayabji, Erland O.Lukanen, “Non destructive testing of Pavements and
Backcalculation of Moduli”, Third Volume, ASTM STP 1375

10. Edward H.Guo, “Back Estimation of slab curling and joint stiffness”, 7th

International Conference on Concrete Pavements, International Society for
Concrete Pavements

ll. Darter, M.I., K.T.Hall, and C.Kuo, “Support under Portland Cement Concrete

Pavements”, NCHRP Report 372. TRB, National Research Council, 1995.

268