AASHTO Domestic Scan Proposal Form



AASHTO Domestic Scan Proposal Form

AASHTO is soliciting topic proposals for a FY 2009 US Domestic Scan Program (NCHRP Panel 20-68A). Each selected scan topic will be investigated through site visits to three to six locations over a one or two week period, conducted by a group of eight to 12 transportation professionals with expertise in the selected topic area. Proposed topics should meet the following criteria:

• Address an important and timely need for information by transportation agencies;

• Be of interest to a broad national spectrum of people and agencies;

• Be complex and also “hands-on,” meaning they lend themselves particularly well to exploration through on-site visits; and

• Be sufficiently focused that the tour participants are able to investigate and understand key issues in the limited time available on the tour.

Proposals should be returned no later than November 9th, 2007.

|Proposal Contact Information |

| |

|Name: Eric Harm* |

|Title: Deputy Director, Division of Highways |

|Agency/AASHTO Committee: Illinois Department of Transportation |

|Address: 2300 S. Dirksen Pkwy, Springfield, Illinois 62764 |

|E-mail: eric.harm@ |

|Telephone number: 217.785.0888 |

| |

|Name: John Staton |

|Title: Supervising Engineer, Office of Materials |

|Agency/AASHTO: Michigan Department of Transportation |

|Address: PO Box 30049, Lansing, Michigan 48909 |

|E-mail: statonj@ |

|Telephone number: 517.322.5701 |

| |

|Name: Lisa Lukefahr |

|Title: Branch Manager Rigid Pavements and Concrete Materials Section |

|Agency/AASHTO Committee: Texas Department of Transportation |

|Address: Geer Highway Building, 125 E 11th St, Austin, Texas 78701 |

|E-mail: elukefa@dot.state.tx.us |

|Telephone number: 512.506.5858 |

| |

|*Note: This proposal is being submitted by the Illinois DOT as a joint submittal by the Illinois DOT, Michigan DOT and Texas DOT. |

|It is also supported by the following STA’s: |

|Indiana: Tommy Nantung |

|Iowa: Sandra Larson & Todd Hanson |

|Kansas: Dick McReynolds, Jennifer Distlehorst, Rodney Montney |

|Louisiana: John Eggers |

|Minnesota: Doug Schwartz |

|Missouri: Brett Trautmann |

|New York: Mike Brinkman |

|North Carolina: Wiley Jones |

|Ohio: Bryan Struble |

| |

|Date of submission: November 7, 2007 |

|Title of Proposed Scan |

|Domestic Technology Scan on Long-Life Concrete Pavements |

|Problem Statement (What topic is to be examined? What drives the need for the scan? Why now?) |

|In May of 2006, 15 members representing FHWA, AASHTO, academia, and the U.S. concrete pavement industry participated in an |

|international scan to identify promising technologies that may be applicable in the U.S. for increasing the performance and cost |

|effectiveness of concrete pavements. The scan was very beneficial and a number of promising initiatives were identified as |

|detailed in the attached Scan Technology Implementation Plan (STIP). With the increasing emphasis on identifying approaches to |

|designing, constructing, and maintaining concrete pavements that will provide very long life performance, perhaps 100 years, it is |

|proposed that a domestic scan also be initiated to build upon the international scan and identify those practices that will |

|consistently enable STA’s to incorporate into their systems those facilities that will double or triple the current performance |

|life of concrete pavements. |

|FHWA and STA’s are challenged by the following needs that this study will help address: |

|Pavement solutions that will result in reduced ownership costs |

|Need to provide roadways with reduced operational impacts to the public |

|Sustainability including reduced environmental, social, and economic impacts |

| |

|Scan Scope (What specific subject areas are to be examined? Which cities and states might be visited? Which |

|agencies/organizations (including specific departments or types of staff if applicable)? |

|Recommended Scan Topics |

|Material properties and concrete mix design requirements: This should include experience with recycled aggregates and the use of |

|supplemental cementitious materials (SCM’s). |

|Pavement design and specifications: In addition to the performance requirements of the pavement, foundation and drainage |

|components need to be identified so the performance of the entire pavement system is understood. |

|Construction requirements: This should include construction procedures, placement conditions, acceptance criteria, surface |

|characteristics, and ride requirements. |

|Performance experience: Winter maintenance practices, routine and unanticipated repairs, and pavement management history including|

|ride and service life analysis would be examined. |

|Sustainability: Identify practices used during the original construction and current approaches with specific emphasis on |

|aggregates, cement and SCM’s. |

| |

|Composite systems: Experience with concrete overlays to extend the performance life of concrete pavements as either a maintenance |

|or staged construction strategy. |

| |

|Potential cities and states to visit |

|Potential sites include California, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Texas. Other possible sites will|

|be named later as part of the SCAN development. |

| |

|Recommended Scan Members |

|FHWA (Office of Pavement Technology, Resource Center, Division Office) |

|SHA (Design, Material, Maintenance, Construction, Geotechnical, and Research ) |

|Industry (American Concrete Pavement Association, Portland Cement Association, contractors, and cement manufacturers) |

|Academia |

| |

|It is recommended that, at a minimum, several representatives from the international scan also participate in the domestic scan to |

|provide synergy between the efforts. |

|Scan Objectives (What key information is to be gained? What information is to be shared after the scan? Who would the audience |

|be for this information?) |

|Similar to the international scan, the objectives include: identify design philosophies, materials requirements, construction |

|procedures and maintenance strategies, including winter maintenance strategies for constructing and operating concrete pavements |

|with performance lives in the 50 to 100 year range. |

|Benefits Expected (Including potential impacts on current technology or procedures) |

|Being able to consistently build very long life concrete pavements would result in numerous benefits including: |

|Very attractive life cycle ownership costs. |

|Minimal traffic disruption over the life of the facility. |

|Greater operational safety to the traveling public. |

|Sustainability benefits from conservation of resources, reduced environmental impacts, and reduction in overall societal impacts. |

|Improved design, construction, and maintenance procedures to meet public expectations. |

Long-Life Concrete Pavements

STIP - Initial Recommendations for Implementation

Version 7, dated October 13, 2006

The long-life concrete pavement scan team tentatively identified the following items as having the greatest potential for implementation in the United States:

← Two-Lift Construction

▪ The STIP Team identified that this item needs to be pursued in combination with exposed aggregate surfaces for noise reduction and/or the use of recycled concrete for economics and environmental sensitivity.

← Design Features Catalog

← Construction of High-Quality Foundations

← Greater Attention to Mix Design Components

▪ The Shilstone concept for mix design is well known and available for use now. The STIP Team identified the use and components of cementitious materials in the mix as one of the new areas to the US.

← Geotextile Interlayer

← Exposed Aggregate Surfacings

▪ The STIP team recommended this to be one of the implementation items, with the caveat that additional testing really needs to be done before pushing implementation to insure that we are really getting a reduction in decibels that is practical on a cost basis.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Implementation Item: Two-Lift Construction.

Countries: Austria, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, and UK.

Background: The listed countries use two-lift construction to take advantage of constructing surfaces that have good safety and noise characteristics, to economize the use of aggregates, and to recycle reclaimed paving materials. Exposed aggregate surface for noise mitigation and enhancement of friction can be accommodated with two-lift construction. Two-lift construction can accommodate the use of different quality of aggregate to economize the mix. Virgin aggregate of different quality or reclaimed aggregate from concrete or asphalt pavements can be used to make the pavement less costly. The potential cost savings of this materials optimization approach are self-evident. While it would appear that the two-lift paving process is potentially more costly (which in some cases may require two separate batch plants) than the traditional one-lift process, many high-volume paving contractors in the US already have the necessary equipment to perform two-lift construction. The modern paving operation on many US projects involves two to three machines, placing, spreading, and finishing the concrete. Many concrete mix plant sites have two drum mixers to produce the high volume of concrete needed to pave a mile or more a day. Therefore, with some changes to the process, it is entirely feasible to implement two-lift construction in the US. Two-lift construction is not new to the US concrete paving industry. Two-lift paving was specified by many state DOTs in the past when wire-mesh-reinforced pavements were being constructed and mesh depressors were not allowed (1). In recent decades a number of states have experimented with two-lift construction to promote recycling and enhancing surface characteristics (2).

Strategy: The Scanning Team implementation will consist of the following:

• Develop several cost comparisons of the costs and benefits of using 2-lift construction

• Form a Technical Working group composed of contractor and DOT representatives from several states (potentially Oklahoma, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Georgia) to examine the benefits of two-lift and plan for demonstration projects where it can be shown to be an economic benefit.

• Prepare a 5-8 slide presentation of the two-lift concept and potential benefits to present at the CPTP technical ETG meeting in October 2006. (Tom Cackler)

• Present the two-layer construction technology at meetings and conferences of AASHTO, FHWA, ACPA, TRB, and other concrete-related organizations scheduled in 2006 and 2007.

• Present articles and papers to various trade and engineering journals.

• Prepare draft specification based on sample project specifications provided to the Scanning Team for states to consider in their projects and to be used in the demonstration projects. .

• Develop a construction technology plan for contractors based on information provided to the Scanning Team from the countries practicing two-layer construction.

• Pennsylvania is drafting up a Highways for Life Proposal which includes 2- lift construction. Solicit additional funding to assist with demonstration projects for 2008/2009. Conduct workshops/open-houses in association with the projects. Invite AASHTO States, FHWA, ACPA, and AGC association members to attend.

• Partner with the National Concrete Pavement Technology Center at Iowa State University to promote surfaces that are safe and reduce noise.

• Partner with the Recycled Materials Resource Center at the University of New Hampshire to promote the use of reclaimed paving materials as aggregate in concrete pavement. Develop specifications for the use of reclaimed aggregates and their appropriate use.

Scan Team Lead: Rob Rasmussen, Andy Gisi, Tom Cackler, Suneel Vanikar

Lead Organization: FHWA providing technical working group leadership in this area. ISU and FHWA, in the upcoming Surface Characteristics Pooled Fund, can help and evaluate this effort IF the surface includes innovative noise solutions.

Deliverables:

• Various presentations, articles, and papers.

• Project Planning Guide and Draft Specifications.

• Descriptions, photos, and specifications posted or linked from FHWA website, to display the variety of projects and methods employed in two-lift construction.

• Candidate projects solicited through FHWA program funding

• Workshops to showcase the demonstration projects.

Timeframe: FHWA website update: November 2006.

Draft specifications and construction technology plan: February 2007.

Pilot projects and workshops: Construction season of 2007 and 2008.

Funds Required: $50,000 for preparation of draft specifications on recycled concrete mix procedures for the bottom lift and construction technology transfer. Up to $15,000 to assist state construction engineers who are planning potential projects to attend 2007/2008 workshops. Additional $15,000 for each of three host states to offset the cost of conducting the workshops.

References:

1) Reassessing Two-Lift Paving, Jim Cable, CTRE, ISU

2) Two-Lift Portland Cement Concrete Pavement to Meet Public Need, DTF61-01-X-00042(Project 8), James K. Cable, Daniel P. Frentress, CTRE, ISU.

3) FHWA reports on recycling and costs

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Implementation Item: Design Features Matrix/Catalog

Countries: Austria, Germany, and Belgium

Background:

Pavement design catalogs have been successfully used worldwide for many years. In the USA, with the development of the AASHO Road Test facility and the AASHTO “user-friendly” empirical pavement design procedure, the design of concrete (rigid) pavement has traditionally been done on a project-by-project basis. The AASHTO design procedure has served the US pavement engineering community relatively well for about 50 years. However, with the increasing difficulty of predicting traffic factors, and the variability of traffic volume, loading and axle configurations, the value of designing on a project-by-project basis may be questionable. Also, changes and new developments in material have created a need for a design procedure with the flexibility to consider the mechanical properties and responses of the pavement structure. This need is being filled with the development of the Mechanistic-Empirical Design Guide (MEPDG), which allows robust analysis of pavement structures on a fundamental (mechanistic) basis. However, it is also recognized that the MEPDG is more complex and will be more difficult to operate, requiring further specialization if used for “project-specific design.”

The European countries visited and listed above have routinely used a design catalog to select pavement thicknesses and some other pavement features. The design features and thicknesses in the countries’ catalogs reflect their long-term experience with their own materials, climate, and traffic levels. These experiences are validated through analysis by expert teams using mechanistic principles, which is the heart of the process by which the catalog designs are defined and refined about every five years. The expert teams employ laboratory testing, and field observations to validate the cross-sections included in the design catalogs. The catalog design method is a simpler procedure for selecting an initial pavement structure.

The countries using design catalogs to recognize that simply extrapolating empirical trends is not reliable and often leads to overdesign of concrete pavement sections as the traffic volumes increase. The countries also recognize that there are savings realized by not trying to predict traffic levels at a level of precision necessary to support a “specific project design.” Traffic categories are defined within the catalog to a level of precision consider reasonable for traffic prediction means and acceptable to define levels for various pavement classifications.

Maximum concrete slab thicknesses are a common feature of the design catalogs being used in Europe. The maximum slab thicknesses appear to be thinner than those designed in the US for similar traffic levels and in many cases heavier trucks, indicating that the U.S. processes indeed lead to over-design of pavement thickness.

The use of a catalog for selection of pavement thicknesses and other pavement design features offers obvious advantages in consistency and simplicity, compared to our present practice of custom design of individual pavements using mechanistic-empirical and/or empirical design procedures. Catalog design is not itself a design procedure but rather a medium for achieving consistent pavement design equivalence and communicating design feature recommendations consistently to engineers, contractors, researchers and government personnel. The quickest form of implementation of catalog design is simply to incorporate the standard designs that an agency has already been using and with which the agency has had good, consistent, long-term performance. A design features matrix is another part of the catalog concept that can identify different features (i.e. permeable bases) and providing information on such things as cost, performance, constructability of the feature to allow an Agency to make an informed decision related to including the design feature in their particular design. Checking the catalog recommendations using mechanistic-empirical design procedures also provides increased confidence in the structural adequacy of the designs being used, and allows equivalent sections to be defined based on alternatives or new materials that are outside the agency’s direct experience.

Strategy: The Scanning Team implementation will consist of the following:

• Review previous recommendations from 1992 scan and the work done by Mike Darter for NCHRP 1-32. Current well-developed M-E Design software and principles may be the difference now. Include design thickness of foundations.

• Prepare NCHRP synthesis request to gather standard drawings and guidelines currently used by States and Europe in design of concrete pavements. The guidelines will be available for states to consider in their pavement design standards.

• Present the design features catalog concept at meetings and conferences of AASHTO, FHWA, ACPA, TRB, and other concrete-related organizations scheduled in 2006 and 2007.

• Partner with FHWA, NCHRP and AASHTO joint task force on pavements to suggest complementing the future M-E pavement design procedures with pavement design catalogs.

• Work in conjunction with other LLCP scan implementation teams to incorporate their recommendations in the design catalog guidelines.

Scan Team Lead: Angel Correa , Gerald Voight, Jim Duit, Dan Dawood

Lead Organization: Joint Technical Committee on Pavements will take the lead in developing a NCHRP synthesis request. The ACPA already maintains a resource of all the State concrete pavement practices on their website, this would also be a good location for the information from the synthesis study.

Deliverables:

• Various presentations, articles, and papers.

• Guidelines for the development of Pavement Design Catalog

Timeframe: FHWA website update: November 2006

Draft Pavement Design Catalog guidelines: February 2007

Funds Required: Synthesis to be requested through NCHRP by the Joint Technical Committee on pavements.

References:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Implementation Item: Construction of High-Quality Foundations

Countries: Belgium, Austria and Germany

Background:

The unbound granular materials used for concrete pavement subbases in Europe are generally better-quality materials (better-graded, better-draining although not open-graded, and with lower fines content) than the materials typically used as select fill and granular subbase in the United States. Aggregate standards were mentioned in all the countries and European standard EN 13242 and RVS 8S.05.11 appear to be universally used. A closer look at the aggregate standards in place in the U.S. and a comparison to the European standard may provide some insights into improving foundations in the US.

Recycled concrete that was not put back into the pavement itself was commonly used in the base material. It appeared that it was also fractionated and consciously part of the grading, instead of as an afterthought or as a way to simply dispose of the in-place material. Cement treated bases were also in wide use in several countries, with an asphalt or geotextile interlayer as a separator. In addition, it was noted that intelligent compaction is used in Austria and Germany. In conjunction with intelligent compaction, Germany noted using the plate load test for quality assurance of the sensors on the compaction equipment.

FHWA has produced a report entitled "Strategic Plan for Intelligent Compaction." The Plan proposes a five-year study of Intelligent Compaction (IC) to develop draft AASHTO construction QC specifications and assist in the implementation of the technology. The Plan suggests, among other things, that a coordinated effort by roller manufacturers and government agencies be undertaken to use IC technology on various construction projects at locations around the country. Transportation Pooled Fund (TPF) Project Number TPF-5(128) - "Accelerated Implementation of Intelligent Compaction Technology for Embankment Subgrade Soils, Aggregate Base and Asphalt Pavement Material" has been cleared by the FHWA with twelve states participating, including GA, IA, IN, KS, MD, MN, MS, ND, NY, PA, TX, and VA. This is a three-year study of the use of IC technology for all pavement materials. Intelligent compaction has been noted as a possible implementation item in a previous International Scan, “Innovative Technology for Accelerated Construction of Bridge and Embankment Foundations in Europe” and as a recurring finding and recommendation in the ACTT III report.

After the 1992 U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways the plate load test used in Belgium and Germany was brought back to the US and experimented with by FHWA and others. It did not gain wide acceptance, possibly due to the specialized equipment and heavy load required. On the 2006 tour it was interesting to note that the plate load test was still utilized in Germany, but now more for a quality assurance tool to complement intelligent compaction.

As the use of intelligent compaction (IC) grows in the US, and the reduction in the volume of quality assurance tests needed because of IC, the plate load test may find a more palatable audience. Furthermore, the Iowa State University research team has the unique capability to perform tests using a University-owned Freightliner M2 106 tow vehicle (used also to pull a mobile geotechnical laboratory trailer) as a load reaction. The in situ tests are most commonly performed by other researchers using a loaded dump truck, which can be expensive and time-consuming. This combination of factors may require a new look at the feasibility of the plate load test in construction control of quality foundations.

Strategy: The Scanning Team implementation will consist of the following:

• Present the IC technology at meetings and conferences of AASHTO, FHWA, ACPA, TRB, and other concrete related organizations scheduled in 2006 and 2007.

• Present articles and papers to various trade and engineering journals.

• Working with Iowa State, introduce the Load Plate Test to States involved in the IC Pooled-Fund.

• Review select States aggregate quality requirements and AASHTO Standards with the European Standards. Review CTB standards and components used in Europe. Make any recommendations to AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials TS 1b for improvements.

• Partner with the IC Pooled-Fund Consortium to solicit additional pooled-fund members and to solicit demonstration projects for 2007/2008. Conduct workshops in association with the projects. Invite AASHTO States, FHWA, ACPA, and AGC association members to attend.

Scan Team Lead: Georgene Geary, Suneel Vanikar, Tom Cackler

Lead Organization: ISU and the Center. FHWA as the lead on the plate load test.

Deliverables:

• Various presentations, articles, and papers.

• Possible revisions to AASHTO specifications: M6-03, M-43-05, M-80-87

• Partner with IC Pooled-Fund Project for development of IC QC/QA specifications for aggregate base.

• Pilot projects using IC, plate load test and CTB.

• White paper on the feasibility of Plate Load Testing in conjunction with IC.

Timeframe: Revisions to specifications February 2007.

White paper on the feasibility of Plate Load Testing. August 2007

. Partner with IC Pooled-Fund. Now through August 2009

Funds Required: $25,000 for comparison of European standards to AASHTO standards and select state standards. Develop a continuation to the existing NCHRP X-XX or add to the existing project a plan for experimental testing and preparation of a white paper on the plate load test.

References:

1) NCHRP Project X-XX Intelligent compaction on….

2) “Innovative Technology for Accelerated Construction of Bridge and Embankment Foundations in Europe”, FHWA-PL-03-014, September 2003

3) “ACTT III, Transition to Tomorrow”, FHWA-IF-06-028, January 2006

4) NCHRP 1-30 Report

5) Corp of Engineers or Arlington Road Test report on comparison of 12 inch plate load test to 30 inch

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Implementation Item: Greater Attention to Mix Design Components

Countries: Germany, Austria, Belgium

Background:

One key to long-lasting concrete pavements in Europe appears to be the greater attention to cement properties and concrete mixture properties than is paid in the United States. The mixtures produce strong, dense, and durable concrete – despite the more widespread presence of reactive aggregates in western Europe than in the US. The Shilstone concept for mix design is well known and available for use now in the US. The flexural strengths noted in the top half of the two-lift design was 7 MPA, much higher than what is used in the U.S. The STIP Team identified the use and components of cementitious materials in the mix as one of the areas that could pose a benefit to the US, especially the interchangeable nature of their cements and the ternary mixes used in Austria and Belgium.

Strategy: The Scanning Team implementation will consist of the following:

• Capture mix design requirements from Germany, Austria and Belgium, concentrating on strength, cement properties and other areas that appear to be different than the U.S. (Steve Kosmatka & Shiraz Tayabi) Incorporate a discussion of this into the upcoming Mix Design Forum of the CP Road Map

• Include assessment of what has been done in the U.S.

• Include a discussion of conducting mix design evaluations.

Scan Team Lead: Steve Kosmatka, Peter Deem, Shiraz Tayabi

Lead Organization: FHWA and CP Road Map Mix Design Team.

Deliverables:

• Integrate European experience into the ‘Mix Design Analysis Procedures’ manual

• Develop best practices on mix proportioning for concrete pavements, creating a “Design and Control of Concrete Pavement mixes” document

Timeframe: .

Funds Required: Part of CP Road Map

References:

“Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 14th Edition”, Portland Cement Association

TPF-5(066) -Title: Material and Construction Optimization for Prevention of Premature Pavement Distress in PCC Pavements

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Implementation Item: Geotextile Interlayer

Countries: Germany

Background:

In Germany, when cement-treated bases are used, a key detail may well be the use of a geotextile interlayer to prevent the concrete slab from bonding to the cement-treated base. This geotextile material is thicker than the materials that have been used for layer separation purposes in the US. It is sufficiently porous that mortar from the fresh concrete permeates into the geotextile, which provides a good mechanical bond of the geotextile to the concrete layer, while achieving separation from the base layer. With the increasing price of asphalt this geotextile may provide a suitable alternate to the asphalt interlayer used in many States. Seven material suppliers have been located and the material specifications that are used in Europe have been identified. (The requirements for fabrics under concrete pavements are given in German specifications ZTV Beton-StB 01.)

Strategy: The Scanning Team implementation will consist of the following:

• Compare the geotextile material properties to material we have in the States

• Identify a source of material for the geotextile

• Develop Technical Working Group to identify the minimum steps in an experimental plan. This should include slip plane testing, joint testing, and mid-slab deflection among others.

• Develop pilot projects using the geotextile in lieu of an asphalt interlayer

Scan Team Lead: Jim Duit, Gerald Voight, Georgene Geary, Tom Cackler

Lead Organization: American Concrete Pavement Association

Deliverables:

• Various presentations, articles, and papers.

• Draft Specifications for material and placement

• Demonstration projects

• Workshops to showcase the demonstration projects.

Timeframe: .

Funds Required:

References: German specifications ZTV Beton-StB 01

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Implementation Item: Exposed Aggregate Surfacing

Countries: Germany, Austria

Background:

The public’s concern with environmental issues is evident in densely populated, traffic-congested western Europe. The solution to concrete pavement noise that is most popular in Europe is exposed aggregate surfacing, in which exceptionally high-quality, durable aggregates are used in the top course of the concrete slab, and a process of set retardation and abrasion is used to produce an exposed aggregate surface with good low-noise properties. Exposed aggregate is also touted as a benefit for other characteristics, including friction and durability.

At one location in Austria (A2 Sudest-Tangente Knoten Vosendorf), the team noted how exceptionally quiet the 6 lane motorway was when we were on the shoulder during the site visit. The Austrians did not have any measurements for the roadway that we could directly compare to, but all the scan members experienced the difference.

Strategy: The Scanning Team implementation will consist of the following:

• Do site specific testing in Austria to compare to the growing data we have for different types of surface finishes in the US. Testing would consist of noise and texture measurements.

• Identify benefits and relative costs of exposed aggregate surfacing to make a comparison of the cost/decibel of this process.

• If the noise levels are economically better than existing solutions the Team noted that we have to go back and look at the 1993 Michigan exposed aggregate test project and identify what the Europeans do differently than was done on that project, as that may be the key to exposed aggregate surfacings in the US.

Scan Team Lead: Rob Rasmussen with help from Ted Ferragut and Gerald Voigt

Lead Organization: ISU will take the lead to obtain the information in Europe. If this technology proves worthy of demos, this would be absorbed into Two-Layer Paving.

Deliverables:

• Comparison of noise and texture

• Future deliverables are dependant on the results of the testing.

Timeframe: Testing of the A2 -October 2006.

Funds Required:

References:

.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix 1.

Team Findings (Total list)

1. Catalog concept

2. 2 layer construction

3. Exposed aggregate as an option to reduce noise

4. Recycled concrete and asphalt being used in the slab

5. Maximum practical thickness concept

6. Geotextile under concrete

7. Blended cements, slag up to 25% with good performance

8. Drainage strips under transverse joints and slab repair (Austria)

9. German design for JPC (Asphalt interlayer underneath the concrete slab, drainage outside the shoulder)

10. Noise issue (politics)

11. Intelligent compaction, plate load testing

12. Drainage without use of a permeable layer

13. Strobe lights – was recommended in previous Scan

14. What is Long Life concrete?

15. MIT scan for process control or QA

16. Concrete mix design- paying more attention to

17. Precast for slab repair

18. Soil stabilization with cement kiln dust

19. Better base/subgrade design

20. Polished stone value testing

21. Partial protective coating of tie bars (middle coated)

22. Jointless joint (Netherlands)

23. Expand use of cement treated base

24. 40-50 yr life cycle design in PPPs

25. Pavement Management Systems- including concrete pavements

26. CRCP with 60 degree skew

27. Standardization of the discount rate for US LCCA

28. Pore water testing for ASR

29. Spacing and size of tie and dowel bars

30. Best Value Contracting instead of low bid (ie EIC)

31. Positive marketing, success stories need to be shared

32. Strip seal?

33. Check sawing requirements/specs for Austria (very clean joints)

34. Consistent section and materials across the mainline and shoulders

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download