results of the six- and twelve-month evaluations of the ...€¦ · bixby, oklahoma, with...
TRANSCRIPT
-
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No.
TX-95/2908-lF
4. Title and Subtitle
RESULTS OF THE SIX- AND TWELVE-MONTH EVALUATIONS OF THE TEXAS SUPPLEMENTAL MAINTENANCE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH PROGRAM (SMERP) SITES
7. Author(s)
Thomas J. Freeman, P.E.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Texas Transportation Institute The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Texas Department of Transportation Research and Technology Transfer Office P. 0. Box 5080 Austin, Texas 78763-5080
15. Supplementsry Notes
Technical Report Documentation Page
3. Recipient's Catslog No.
5. Report Date
December 1994
6. Performing Organization Code
8. Performing Organization Report No.
Research Report 2908-lF
10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
11. Contract or Grant No.
Study No. 7-2908
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final: October 1, 1994 to August 31, 1994
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Research performed in cooperation with the Texas Department of Transportation. Research Study Title: Re-Inspection of the SMERP Sites
16. Abstract
The SMERP (Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness Research Program) study was designed to study the types of maintenance treatments typically used in Texas. Six maintenance treatments and a control section were applied at twenty test locations throughout the state. Treatments included: asphalt rubber chip seal, polymer modified emulsion chip seal, latex modified asphalt chip seal, asphalt chip seal, and a micro-surfacing treatment. Researchers re-inspected the sites approximately six and twelve months after construction. The data was entered into ASCII files and is in the same format as the output from the SHRP NIMS (National Information Management System) data base. This report presents the preliminary analysis of the change in levels of distress.
17. Key Words
Maintenance Effectiveness, Chip Seal, AC, Asphalt Rubber, Latex, CRS-2P, Emulsion, Slurry, Micro-Surfacing, SMERP
18. Distribution Ststement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through NTIS: National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, Virginia 22161
19. Security Classif.(of this report)
Unclassified 20. Security Classif.(of this page)
Unclassified 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
108
_Form DuT Jf 17uu.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
-
RESULTS OF THE SIX- AND TWELVE- MONTH EVALUATIONS OF THE TEXAS SUPPLEMENTAL MAINTENANCE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH
PROGRAM (SMERP) SITES
by
Thomas J. Freeman, P .E. Engineering Research Associate,
Texas Transportation Institute
Research Report 2908-1 F Research Study Number 7-2908
Research Study Title: Results of the Six and Twelve Month Evaluation of the Texas Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness Research Program (SMERP) Sites
Sponsored by Texas Department of Transportation
December 1994
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE The Texas A&M University System College Station, Texas 77843-3135
-
IMPLEMENTATION STATE1\1ENT
This report describes the continued data collection for the Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness Research Program (SMERP) test sections constructed by Keystone Services, Inc., of Bixby, Oklahoma, with International Surfacing, Inc., as a subcontractor, for the Texas Department of Transportation. The data collected and described herein can be used by the districts in Texas to document the performance of these maintenance treatments and to determine whether the maintenance treatments described in this study are performing as expected. The results of this and continued studies of the SMERP treatments could provide data for the Texas pavement management system.
v
-
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the author who is responsible for the opinions, findings, and conclusions presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Additionally, this report is not intended for construction, bidding, or permit purposes. Thomas J. Freeman was the Principal Investigator for the project.
Vll
-
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special thanks is given to Elias Rmeili, Larry Buttler, James Brown, and James Sassin of TxDOT for their assistant in the development and construction of the SMERP experiment.
vm
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ............................................................. x
List of Tables ............................................................... x
Summary ................................................................. xv
Chapter 1 Background and Objectives ........................................... 1
Background .......................................................... 1
Objectives ........................................................... 2
Experiment Design ..................................................... 2
Layout, Marking, and Signing Test Sections .................................. 6
Pre-Construction Condition Surveys ....................................... 8
Chapter 2 Construction and Post Construction Distress Surveys ....................... 11
Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Post-Construction Condition Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Output File Formats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Chapter 3 Results and Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Preliminary Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Site Problems ........................................................ 29
Future Work ........................................................ 29
References ................................................................ 30
Appendix: Results of Distress Data Collection ..................................... 31
IX
-
LIST OF TABLES
1 Preliminary Analysis of SMERP Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi
2 Test Sites, Locations, and Section Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3 Site Numbering Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Preliminary Analysis of SMERP Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Locations of SMERP Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Typical SMERP Site Layout .................................................. 7
3 Completed SHRP LTPP Condition Survey Form ................................... 9
4 Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Alligator Cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 Effect of Treatments on Average Area of Alligator Cracking for Sites With Alligator Cracking 18
6 Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Bleeding ............................. 19
7 Effect of Treatments on Average Area of Bleeding for Sites With Bleeding .............. 20
8 Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Block Cracking ....................... 21
9 Effect of Treatments on Average Area of Block Cracking for Sites With Block Cracking .... 22
10 Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking ...... 23
11 Effect of Treatments on Average Length of Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for
Sites With Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking .................................. 24
12 Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheel paths . . . . 25
13 Average Length of Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Sites With
Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
14 Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Ravelling ............................ 27
15 Effect of Treatments on Average Area of Ravelling for Sites With Ravelling ............. 28
A-1 Alligator Cracking for Site AOl ............................................... 33
A-2 Bleeding for Site AOl ....................................................... 33
A-3 Block Cracking for Site AOl ................................................. 34
A-4 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site AOl ................................ 34
A-5 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site AOl .............................. 35
x
-
A-6 Ravelling for Site AOl ...................................................... 35
A-7 Alligator Cracking for Site BO 1 ............................................... 36
A-8 Bleeding for Site BOl ....................................................... 36
A-9 Block Cracking for Site BO 1 ................................................. 37
A-10 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site BOl ................................ 37
A-11 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site BOl .............................. 38
A-12 Ravelling for Site BOl ...................................................... 38
A-13 Alligator Cracking for Site C04 ............................................... 39
A-14 Bleeding for Site C04 ....................................................... 39
A-15 Block Cracking for Site C04 ................................................. 40
A-16 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site C04 ................................ 40
A-17 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site C04 .............................. 41
A-18 Ravelling for Site C04 ............... , ...................................... 41
A-19 Alligator Cracking for Site D04 ............................................... 42
A-20 Bleeding for Site D04 ....................................................... 42
A-21 Block Cracking for Site D04 ................................................. 43
A-22 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site D04 ................................ 43
A-23 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site D04 .............................. 44
A-24 Ravelling for Site D04 ...................................................... 44
A-25 Alligator Cracking for Site E06 ............................................... 45
A-26 Bleeding for Site E06 ....................................................... 45
A-27 Block Cracking for Site E06 ................................................. 46
A-28 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site E06 ................................ 46
A-29 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site E06 .............................. 47
A-30 Ravelling for Site E06 ...................................................... 47
A-31 Alligator Cracking for Site F06 ............................................... 48
A-32 Bleeding for Site F06 ....................................................... 48
A-33 Block Cracking for Site F06 .................................................. 49
A-34 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site F06 ................................ 49
Xl
-
A-35 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site F06 .............................. 50
A-36 Ravelling for Site F06 ...................................................... 50
A-37 Alligator Cracking for Site G08 ............................................... 51
A-38 Bleeding for Site G08 ....................................................... 51
A-39 Block Cracking for Site G08 ................................................. 52
A-40 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site G08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A-41 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site G08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A-42 Ravelling for Site G08 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A-43 Alligator Cracking for Site H08 ............................................... 54
A-44 Bleeding for Site H08 ....................................................... 54
A-45 Block Cracking for Site H08 ................................................. 55
A-46 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site H08 ................................ 55
A-47 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site H08 .............................. 56
A-48 Ravelling for Site H08 ...................................................... 56
A-49 Alligator Cracking for Site I09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
A-50 Bleeding for Site I09 ....................................................... 57
A-51 Block Cracking for Site I09 .................................................. 58
A-52 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site I09 ................................. 58
A-53 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site I09 ............................... 59
A-54 Ravelling for Site I09 ....................................................... 59
A-55 Alligator Cracking for Site no . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 A-56 Bleeding for Site no ........................................................ 60 A-57 Block Cracking for Site no .................................................. 61 A-58 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site no ................................. 61 A-59 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site no ............................... 62 A-60 Ravelling for Site n 0 ....................................................... 62 A-61 Alligator Cracking for Site K13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
A-62 Bleeding for Site K13 ....................................................... 63
A-63 Block Cracking for Site K13 ................................................. 64
Xll
-
A-64 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site K13 ................................ 64
A-6S Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site K13 .............................. 6S
A-66 Ravelling for Site K13 ...................................................... 6S
A-67 Alligator Cracking for Site Ll3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A-68 Bleeding for Site Ll3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
A-69 Block Cracking for Site L13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A-70 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site Ll3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A-71 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site L13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
A-72 Ravelling for Site L13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
A-73 Alligator Cracking for Site Ml S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
A-74 Bleeding for Site MIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
A-7S Block Cracking for Site MIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A-76 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site MIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
A-77 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site MIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7I
A-78 Ravelling for Site MIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7I
A-79 Alligator Cracking for Site NI S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A-80 Bleeding for Site NI S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
A-8 I Block Cracking for Site NI S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A-82 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site NIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
A-83 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site NIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A-84 Ravelling for Site NIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A-8S Alligator Cracking for Site OI 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7S
A-86 Bleeding for Site OI 7. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7S
A-87 Block Cracking for Site 017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A-88 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site 0 I 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A-89 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheel paths for Site 0 I 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
A-90 Ravelling for Site 0 I 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
A-9I Alligator Cracking for Site PI9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
A-92 Bleeding for Site Pl9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
xm
-
A-93 Block Cracking for Site P 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
A-94 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site P19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
A-95 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site P19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
A-96 Ravelling for Site P19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
A-97 Alligator Cracking for Site Q 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
A-98 Bleeding for Site Q 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
A-99 Block Cracking for Site Q 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A-100 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site Q19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
A-101 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site Q19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
A-102 Ravelling for Site Q19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
A-103 Alligator Cracking for Site R20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
A-104 Bleeding for Site R20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
A-105 Block Cracking for Site R20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
A-106 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site R20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
A-107 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site R20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
A-108 Ravelling for Site R20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
A-109 Alligator Cracking for Site S23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
A-110 Bleeding for Site S23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
A-111 Block Cracking for Site S23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
A-112 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site S23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
A-113 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site S23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
A-114 Ravelling for Site S23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
A-115 Alligator Cracking for Site T23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A-116 Bleeding for Site T23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
A-117 Block Cracking for Site T23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
A-118 Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site T23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
A-119 Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site T23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
A-120 Ravelling for Site T23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
XlV
-
SUMMARY
The Administration at the Texas Department of Transportation decided in 1990 to develop
and construct test sites of various preventive maintenance treatments currently used in Texas. The
primary objectives for the research are to establish the cost effectiveness of typical and promising
maintenance treatments used in Texas in prolonging the life of asphalt pavements, to determine the
optimum time and preventive maintenance strategies to prolong pavement life, and to demonstrate
positive rates of return on preventive maintenance funds.
1. Twelve Districts participated in the study. The Districts were: Paris (1 ), Amarillo ( 4), Odessa (6), Abilene (8), Waco (9), Tyler (10), Yoakum (13), San Antonio (15), (17), Atlanta (19), Beaumont (20), and Brownwood (23).
2. Twenty sites were constructed. Each site included a total of seven 700 foot (213.4 m) sections. The sections were micro-surfacing, fog seal, a control section, and four seal coat types: asphalt rubber, latex modified, polymer modified, and conventional. Two sites did not have a fog seal or a control section.
3. The contractor was Keystone Services, Inc., with International Surfacing, Inc., as a subcontractor. State forces constructed the fog seal sections. Overall, the project was completed with a TxDOT rating of "Good."
4. Construction of the test sections began April 5, 1993, and was completed July 14, 1993.
5. The sections were inspected approximately six and twelve months after construction. The sites will be re-inspected once per year until failure to accomplish the objectives.
Considerable construction data was collected in order to determine the quality of treatment.
The data collected can be used by the districts in Texas to see if they should be collecting any
additional data and by researchers studying the effectiveness of the SMERP treatments. Research
report TX-93/1981-lF, "Development and Construction of the Texas Supplemental Maintenance
Effectiveness Research Program (SMERP) Experiment," contains additional details on the
construction sequence, data collection during construction, materials used, and other information
pertinent to the construction of the test sites.
To date, one site ( 48Q 19, site 17 in Panola county west of Carthage) has failed and been
taken out of service. The entire roadway section is to be rehabilitated due to structural failure. The
xv
-
-------------------------------------
Fog Seal and Control Section at one other site (48G08, site 7 in Taylor County southeast of Abilene)
have been lost due to maintenance forces placing a chip seal on top of these sections. A contributing
factor may have been that this site did not have the test section signs installed.
With only two post-construction inspections (six months and twelve months), it is too early
to establish the performance of the treatments. The phenomena of development or initiation of
distress will need to be separated from those sections where the quantity of an existing distress is
increasing. Another complicating factor is that the six month inspection was done during the cold
season. The purpose of performing this early distress survey was to gather data in case of an early
failure of a treatment and to establish a baseline performance for the treatments. However, a lesson
learned during the SHRP SPS-3 analysis is that there may be a seasonal factor to the results of
distress surveys. If more distress surveys could be performed during various seasons, this effect of
this factor could be determined.
With the preceding cautions it appears, in general, that as of approximately twelve months
after construction, the treatments (except for the Fog and Control sections) have had a positive
impact on reducing the occurrence of distresses. Table 1 lists the trends for each distress type and
treatment. It must be noted that this information is very preliminary and future analysis may
contradict these trends.
Table 1. Preliminary Analysis of SMERP Sites
(*) Long and Alligator Block Trans Long WP (*) Cracking Bleeding Cracking Cracking Cracking Ravelling
Rubber Reduced Increased Reduced Reduced Reduced Increased
Micro Reduced Reduced Reduced Mixed Increased Reduced
Emulsion Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced
Latex Reduced Increased Reduced Reduced Reduced Mixed
AC Mixed Increased Reduced Reduced Reduced Mixed
Fog Reduced Increased Increased Reduced Mixed Increased
Control Mixed Increased Increased Reduced Increased Increased
(*) - Few sites affected, trends questionable.
XVI
-
----------------------------------~
CHAPTER 1. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
BACKGROUND
Now that most of the new road construction in the United States is complete, the major
emphasis has switched to maintaining those roads. In an effort to improve the information on the
performance of maintenance treatments, the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP)
implemented research on the effectiveness of maintenance treatments. SHRP is gathering field
performance data from pavement test sections spread over the various climatic regions of the United
States. However, the SHRP data is not applicable to all pavement preventive maintenance treatments
currently used in Texas.
The SHRP (Strategic Highway Research Program) H-101 Maintenance Effectiveness program
studied the effects of selected preventive maintenance treatments (Ref. 1). Texas is in the SHRP
Southern region. The SHRP Southern region has test sites throughout Texas, as far north as
Tennessee, and as far east as Florida. The SHRP research required that the contractor use the same
asphalt and aggregate at each site constructed within the specific SHRP region. In addition, the SHRP
research studied the following maintenance treatments only: emulsified asphalt chip seal, crack seal,
slurry seal, and a thin overlay. When SHRP personnel were looking for SHRP sites on which to build
the Asphalt Maintenance Cost Effectiveness Study, Specific Pavement Study-3 (SPS-3), they offered
to State Highway Agencies the option to build supplemental test sections adjoining the SPS-3 sections
under the agreement that SHRP would monitor all test sections constructed. Interest was expressed
by several Texas Districts after the SHRP offer. However, a combination of limited funding in the
individual district's maintenance allocation and lack of consensus on which treatments to place resulted
in a decision by the Administration to adjust the state's overall preventive maintenance program and
develop a comprehensive preventive maintenance experiment.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) spends approximately $450 million per year
on its overall maintenance program and approximately $150 million per year on its Preventive
Maintenance Program. The Texas Department of Transportation introduced the Texas Preventive
Maintenance Research Program at the annual District SHRP Coordinators meeting in October 1990.
The name of this program was later changed to SMERP (Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness
Research Program). One million dollars was allocated to the experiment to build test sections of
1
-
preventive maintenance treatments of interest to Texas but not considered in the SHRP national
experiment.
The SMERP study was designed to more closely study the types of maintenance treatments
typically used in Texas, and it allowed the contractor to use local materials if desired. The treatments
constructed in the SMERP study were asphalt rubber chip seal, polymer modified emulsion chip seal,
latex modified asphalt chip seal, asphalt chip seal, and a micro-surfacing treatment. All treatments were
placed on test sections that were 700 feet (213.4 m) long. Both lanes were treated and, where they
existed, the shoulders were also treated. Shoulders were not treated under the SHRP SPS-3 study.
A fog seal section was constructed by state forces and a control section was established on which no
treatment was placed. In general, the SMERP contractor did not use local materials at each site but
did use local sources of asphalt and aggregate where available.
OBJECTIVES
The goal for the SMERP Experiment is to establish the cost effectiveness of typical and
promising maintenance treatments used in Texas in prolonging the life of asphalt pavements.
Factors contributing to increased maintenance effectiveness and optimum pavement life-cycle
cost are maintenance planning, spending, and performance monitoring. TxDOT will be able to address
these factors by using the pavement management system and the data collected from the SHRP SPS-3
and SMERP studies. By combining the data and analysis of both programs, the department will be
assured optimal planning strategies in selecting preventive maintenance treatments. Once again, the
primary objective is to determine optimum preventive maintenance strategies that prolong pavement
life and to demonstrate positive rates of return on preventive maintenance funds.
EXPERIMENT DESIGN
It was decided that the experiment design should incorporate factors considered to be key
variables in the analysis and that the basic design matrix should be similar to the one developed for the
SHRP study. At that point, it was decided to fill the matrix with candidate projects that fit the
following criteria.
2
-
A Performance Regions West, East, South, NorthWest, and Central.
B. Pavement Condition Good and Fair.
C. Traffic Low and high.
After reviewing all of the sites submitted, the goal of filling all of the above criteria could not
be met. However, the performance regions criteria were met. Not all of the pavement condition and
traffic criteria were met, but the sites were typical candidates to receive preventive maintenance
treatments. The final list of sites is shown in Table 2, and the geographical distribution of the sites is
shown in Figure 1.
The sites where the SMERP sites were to be constructed were identified by the districts that
offered to participate in the study and accepted by the TxDOT Design Division. The districts marked
the beginning and end of each treatment and provided signs along the roadway to indicate each of the
SMERP treatments.
3
-
Table 2. Test Sites, Locations, and Section Numbers
REF MARKER LOCATION SITE PROJ NO. DIST ROAD COUNTY FROM TO FROM TO NUMBER
I I SH 11 Grayson 600+0.00 600+0.80 2.8 mi S. ofFM 637 0.76 mi S. 48AOI
2 I SH 19 Hopkins 246+0.00 246+0.76 Sulphur Springs City Limits 0.76 mi S. 48801
3 4 us 385 Deaf Smith 116+0.00 116+1.00 FM 1412 FM 1062 48C04
4 4 FM 1061 Potter 102+0.00 104+0.00 0.75 mi E. ofFM 2381 2.0miE. 48D04
5 6 FM 181 Ector 326+0.00 336+0.50 Andrews County Line Near SH 158 48E06
6 6 SH349 Maitin 288+0.00 302+1.85 Neai·FM 87 Dawson Co. 48F06
7 8 SH36 Taylor 296+7.00 302+3.00 Abilene Citv Limits Callahan Co. 48G08
8 8 us 84 Scurry 407+1.74 404+4.00 Snyder City Limits us 180 48H08
9 9 FM933 McLennan 356+1.367 358+0.161 FM 3051 0.8miS. 48109
~ 10 10 SH 135 Smith 302+1.962 304+1.752 0.26 mi NE of SH 64 0.79 mi NE 48JIO
11 13 SH 35 Calhoun 602+0.00 606+0.26 Jackson Co. Line FM 1593 48K13
12 13 SH71 Fayette 644+0.283 648+0.310 Baylor Creek FM955 48Ll3
13 15 SH46 Bandera 472+0.442 468+0.042 Kendall Co. Line SH 16 48Ml5
14 15 FM484 Comal 462+0.041 464+0.988 FM32 FM306 48Nl5
15 17 us 190 Milam 628+0.685 628+1.485 1.9 mi S. of US 77 0.8 mi S. 48017
16 19 SH49 Titus 700+1.l l I 700+1.774 1.1 mi W. of Morris Co. Morris Co. 48P19
17 19 SH315 Panola 738+0.709 738+1.37 1.4 mi W. of SH 149 0.3 mi W. of SH 149 48Ql9
18 20 FM 105 Jasper 424+0.000 424+1.500 US96 1.5 mi S. 48R20
19 23 US67 Brown 558+0.54 558+1.47 Blanket Creek Bridge 1.0 mi N. 48S23
20 23 US377 McCulloch 472+1.908 474+0.836 1.0 mi N. ofFM 2996 S. FM2996 48T23
-
NORTHWEST
DENOTES COUNTY WITH TEST SECTION
CENTRAL
Figure 1. Locations of SMERP Sites
5
-
LAYOUT, MARKING, AND SIGNING TEST SECTIONS
Figure 2 shows the typical layout of test sections within each site. All sections are grouped
together unless there is a change in pavement structure, traffic, or condition. The monitoring section
will be 500 feet (152.4 m) long and only in the designated lane. However, visual distress data has been
collected on all lanes, and the evaluation may include both lanes.
To alert the public to the existence of a test site, a sign was installed alongside the test section
6 feet (1.8 m) to the right of the shoulder and 200 feet (61.0 m) before the first test section. This sign
reads "TEST SITE NEXT 1 :MILE. 11 Signs identifying the specific treatment type were installed near
the right-of-way line at the beginning of each section. Each sign listed SMERP, the test section
number, treatment type, and section number. At the one site where these signs were not installed, the
fog seal and control section were chip sealed and have been removed from the experiment.
White, non-reflectorized traffic buttons were placed on the edge of the shoulder at the
beginning of every section and at every 100 feet (30.5 m). Ifa site did not have a shoulder, buttons
were not installed.
A white paint stripe (3-4 inches wide [0.076 m - 0.102 m]) was placed at the beginning and end
of each treatment across the treatment lane. A white stripe (3-4 inches wide [0.076 m - 0.-102 m]) was
also placed at the beginning and end of the monitoring section across the treatment lane. The stripe
at the end of a treatment was used for the beginning of the next treatment if the two treatments were
adjacent.
White crosses were painted at the beginning and end of the monitoring section and at every 100
feet (30.5 m) within the monitoring section. The station numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) were painted
to the right of the crosses to aid in location for distress surveys and other data collection efforts.
6
-
"fj
ao· c:: ""! ~
!""
~ "O ;;· ::..
-..J C'1
~ M
~ C'1 ;:,: ~
t-i ~
"< 0 c:: -
Asphalt Micro- Latex Asphalt ~ Fog Control Rubber Surfacing CRS-2P Modified Cement Seal Section
~ [!/(~~~PfPY~~~
Cl_
Asphalt Rubber
Non-Test Lane Shoulder Non-Test Lane
Test Lane Test Lane Shoulder
-
The section number was painted to the right of the white stripe at the beginning of the
monitoring test section (the numbers and letters were about 5 inches high [0.127 m]). The section
numbering scheme of the SMERP sections is similar to the SHRP scheme. The numbering of a site
consists of four parts. The first two digits (48) represent the state code for Texas. The next character
is the site number expressed alphabetically (i.e., A is site 1, Bis site 2, C is site 3, etc.). The next two
digits signify the TxDOT district where the site is located. The final character is the site type. Table
3 lists the site types and their appropriate description.
Table 3. Site Numbering Description
Example: 48AO lH
H- Asphalt Rubber Test Lane R- Asphalt Rubber Non-Test Lane M- Micro-Surfacing Test Lane I - Micro-Surfacing Non-Test Lane E- CRS-2P Test Lane U- CRS-2P Non-Test Lane L- Latex Modified Test Lane T- Latex Modified Non-Test Lane C- Straight AC Test Lane 0- Straight AC Non-Test Lane F- Fog Seal Test Lane G- Fog Seal Non-Test Lane X- Control Section Test Lane N- Control Section Non-Test Lane
PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION SURVEYS
Prior to construction of the SMERP treatments, a manual condition survey and an automated
distress survey using the Automated Road Analyzer (ARAN) (video image analysis) were conducted.
The ARAN data has not yet been analyzed, but provides an excellent historical video log of the
pavement prior to construction. In the initial survey, only the test lane was surveyed. Future manual
distress surveys will be conducted on both lanes of the test sections. The manual survey was conducted
in accordance with the procedures set up for a SHRP LTPP distress survey (Ref 3.). In addition to
measuring the number and quantity of each distress at each severity level, a crack map showing the
location of each distress was also produced. An example of a completed form is shown in Figure 3.
The distress data from the manual surveys were summarized and entered into a spreadsheet.
The data were also placed in an ASCII file in a format that is compatible with the output from the
SHRP LTPP database.
8
-
T g'
1
DA TE 03/0'3/Cf J State Assigned ID 4$017 H
State Code
SHRP Sectlon ID ----
O' 10' 20' 30' 40' 50' 5m1--~-~-~----'-~-~-~~-'--~-~-~-'-~-~-~___,~~-~-~~ . . . . . . .
••• 0 •••• 1 ••• 1 •••• • •••
. . . . ... • ......... · .... -....•............ · .... ·. . . . . . . . . ··:···. : .. ...... :. ···:· ... : .. . .. 15' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... · ...... - . , ..... - .... · ... ' ... ~ . 4m . . ···.····1···1····.··· . . . . . . . . . ···:···1····.····.····:···r···,····.····.····.··· •··•·,···
. . . . . . . . : : . . . . : : : : I : : .. ·:· .. ·:· ... : ... ~ ... ·:· .. ·:· ... : ... : ... ·: ... ·:· .. -~ ... '. ... ~- .. ·: ... -~ .. -~ ... ;· .. ·:· .. ·:· -. -~ -.. ~- .. ·:· .. ·:· . ·:· ... ~- .. ~- .. ·:· ---r ... '." -. ~ .
. :.---.~~~,-_.:·~v·:-~~A.~~-. ~-"-i--~~~~~···i····: .... :.~ 10·
···•·•• :•••.••~•••I.••••·••:••.:•.•:••I•• :•[••:••I•• : ..• :(•·:••I•• :•••.••.:••I•• :•.·:•.:.•I•.•••••··••:• 3m
2m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ··
-
CHAPTER 2. CONSTRUCTION AND POST CONSTRUCTION
DISTRESS SURVEYS
CONSTRUCTION
Twelve Districts participated in the study. The Districts were: Paris (1), Amarillo (4), Odessa
(6), Abilene (8), Waco (9), Tyler (10), Yoakum (13), San Antonio (15), Atlanta (19), Beaumont (20),
and Brownwood (23). A total of twenty sites were constructed. Each site included a total of seven
700 foot (213.4 m) sections. The sections were micro-surfacing, fog seal, a control section, and four
seal coat types asphalt rubber, latex modified, polymer modified, and conventional. Two sites did not
have a fog seal or a control section.
After preparation of the plans, specifications, and special provisions, bid documents were
distributed to interested parties. Upon receipt and opening of the bids, Keystone Services, Bixby,
Oklahoma, was selected as the prime contractor to perform the work.
Construction of the SMERP project started April 5, 1993, and was completed July 14, 1993.
The contractor was Keystone Services, Inc. (KS), and the subcontractor was International Surfacing,
Inc. (ISI). KS constructed the micro-surfacing and three chip seals sections: polymer modified, latex
modified, and conventional. ISI constructed the asphalt rubber chip seal section. Overall, the project
was completed with a TxDOT rating of "Good. 11 The fog seal sections were constructed by the local
districts. No treatment was applied to the control section. This treatment will explain the "do nothing"
approach.
Construction began on SH 35, Yoakum District, and began moving north because of rainy
weather. The contractor constructed all five test sections within each site before moving to the next
site. The contractor provided all materials and equipment to construct all sections and provided traffic
control throughout construction.
Prior to beginning construction at each site, the contractor would meet with the design division
personnel and the local district to review all construction details. After the meeting, the construction
of the site was turned over to the local inspector and the site was constructed according to the normal
construction procedures of the local District.
The contractor would always begin work on the non-test lane and shoulder. The traffic was
then switched to the treated lane and the test lane and shoulder were then treated. The reason behind
11
-
treating the non-test lane first was to make sure everything was working properly by the time the test
section was constructed. It usually took two days to construct the five treatments on both lanes and
shoulders within a site. Usually three sections were treated the first day and the other two sections
were treated the next day. Sometimes the contractor was able to construct four treatments the first
day.
The following are the average target rates for the individual materials. The actual rate used for
the sites in that district was provided by the local district. Target rates were modified in the field as
necessary to ensure a high quality treatment.
TARGET APPLICATION RATES
Asphalt Rubber Polymer Modified Emulsion Asphalt Cement With Latex Straight Asphalt Cement Combined Micro-Surfacing Lightweight Grade 4 Precoat Grade 4 Precoat Grade 3
1.8 - 2.7 l/m2
1.4 - 1.8 l/m2
1.4 - 1.8 l/m2
1.4 - 1.8 l/m2
13.6 Kg/m2
6.5 Kg/m2
11.4 - 12.5 Kg/m2
12.5 - 16.3 Kg/m2
(.40 - .60 Gal/SY) (.30 - .40 Gal/SY) (.30 - .40 Gal/SY) (.30 - .40 Gal/SY) (25 Lbs/SY) (12 Lbs/SY) (21 - 23 Lbs/SY) (23 - 30 Lbs/SY)
After completing the Asphalt Rubber chip seal test section, construction of the chip seal with
viscosity graded asphalt cement binder (Asphalt Cement) was begun. The previously described
sequence of operations was followed for the Asphalt Cement chip seal section. The next treatment
completed was the chip seal with polymer modified cationic rapid set emulsified asphalt cement (CRS-
2P) chip seal test section. After completing both sides of the CRS-2P emulsified asphalt chip seal,
construction was usually halted until the next day. Prior to leaving the site, all chip seal sections except
for the CRS-2P emulsified asphalt chip seal section were swept to remove loose rock. The emulsion
test section was usually swept the next day.
Operation the next day typically began with the above construction sequence being performed
on the chip seal with the Latex Modified asphalt cement binder (Latex Modified). After completing
the Latex Modified chip seal, the Micro-Surfacing treatment was begun.
12
-
POST-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION SURVEYS
Two post-construction distress surveys have now been performed. These were conducted
manually in accordance with the procedures set up for a SHRP LTPP distress survey (Ref 3. ). In
addition to measuring the number and quantity of each distress at each severity level, a crack map
showing the location of each distress was also produced. An example of a completed form was shown
in Figure 3. These surveys were conducted approximately six months and twelve months after
construction. In addition to the distress surveys, a video tape recording of the condition of each site
was made by either walking through the section or by video taping from a car being driven down the
lane or shoulder on higher traffic or reduced visibility sites.
The distress data from the manual surveys were summarized and entered into a spreadsheet.
The data were also placed in an ASCII file in a format that is compatible with the output from the
SHRP LTPP databas.e.
OUTPUT FILE FORMATS
The data collected were entered into a Quattro ProR spreadsheet for the purpose of properly
formatting the data. The data is contained in ASCII files formatted into the SHRP LTPP SPS-3
compatible format. Data could not be entered directly into the SHRP L TPP data base because neither
TTI nor TxDOT has access to the SHRP L TPP data base. Therefore, the format used to output data
from the SHRP National Information Management System (NIMS) into ASCII files was selected (Ref
3). The data can then be easily combined with the SPS-3 data for analysis.
The data files follow the data sheets quite closely and since the data sheets include a longer
description of the data item, it is advisable to have both the data sheets and this file format available
during analysis.
13
-
CHAPTER 3. RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK
PRELIMINARY RESULTS
Although it is too early to determine the effectiveness of each of the treatments, the general
trends of the data and an analysis of the construction process can be accomplished. Some early results
regarding the application process were shown in the research report TX-93/1981-lF "Development
and Construction of the Texas Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness Research Program (SMERP)
Experiment." Actual application rates were shown and compared to the target rates for the treatments.
In general, with the exception of the Asphalt Rubber, the percent difference between proposed
application and actual application rates were quite small. The previous report discussed possible
complications in the application of the asphalt rubber.
With only two post-construction inspections (six months and twelve months), it is too early to
establish the performance of the treatments. The phenomena of development or initiation of distress
will need to be separated from those sections where the quantity of an existing distress is increasing.
Another complicating factor is that the six month inspection was done during the cold season. The
purpose of performing this early distress survey was to gather data in case of an early failure of a
treatment and to establish a baseline performance for the treatments. However, a lesson learned during
the SHRP SPS-3 analysis is that there may be a seasonal factor to the results of distress surveys. If
more distress surveys could be performed during various seasons, this effect of this factor could be
determined.
With the preceding cautions it appears, in general, that as of approximately twelve months after
construction, the treatments (except for the Fog and Control sections) have had a positive impact on
reducing the occurrence of distresses. Table 4 lists the trends for each distress type and treatment.
Figures 4 - 15 illustrate the number of sites and average area, or length, of distress measured during
the pre-construction, six month, and twelve month survey that was used to develop Table 4.
It must be noted that this information presented here is very preliminary and future analysis may
contradict these trends. No attempt has been made to include the severity of the distress in the
analysis. While the analysis of progression of distress from low to high is very important, there is not
yet enough data to support this type of analysis.
The distresses from the SHRP distress manual have been combined to produce the following
15
-
six distress types: alligator (or fatigue) cracking, bleeding (or flushing), block cracking, longitudinal
and transverse cracking (many SHRP distresses combined), longitudinal cracking in the wheelpaths,
and ravelling. Other distresses did not occur often enough to warrant inclusion. These included edge
cracking, patching, reflection cracking, shoving, potholes, polished aggregate, lane-to-shoulder-
dropoff, and water bleeding and pumping. Rutting is included in another file and is not expected to
have a short term impact.
Table 4. Preliminary Analysis of SMERP Sites
(*) Long and Alligator Block Trans Long WP (*) Cracking Bleeding Cracking Cracking Cracking Ravelling
Rubber Reduced Increased Reduced Reduced Reduced Increased
Micro Reduced Reduced Reduced Mixed Increased Reduced
Emulsion Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced Reduced
Latex Reduced Increased Reduced Reduced Reduced Mixed
AC Mixed Increased Reduced Reduced Reduced Mixed
Fog Reduced Increased Increased Reduced Mixed Increased
Control Mixed Increased Increased Reduced Increased Increased
(*) - Few sites affected, trends questionable.
16
-
,..... -....)
"' Q) .., ·-en '+--0 I.. Q) .c E ::::s z
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
--Rubber -a-Micro .. ,,.,.{!.. Emulsion
"" X'-" Latex ----AC --•-·Fog .......... Control
·-·--·-~- __;.__·.:.:-;~--,.,..,..;..--~--- - - ----
- ..... .a - ... - - .. --.....
0 ' """""'"'l)c.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.W.·.·W·.·.·.·.·.·.·.-.·.·W.·.•.W·.·.·.•.•.•.•.•.•.•W·.·.W.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.W·.·.·W.•.·.·.•.-.•.•.•.•.W.·.·W·.·.··Q
Pre Const 6 Months 12 Months
Inspection Number
Figure 4. Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites with Alligator Cracking
-
........ 00
-u. Cl) -C') c: ·-~ (.) ns s...
(.) s... 0
'+-' ns C') ·---
-
20
18
16 :;:;.::::·:;;:::·:::
·,.:.:;-. ·,:-::-::-:.::·:;:)( ::::·:. ::::·:·:=·:-:;·:-:-:
-:;:-: .-..::·:-:::::·:.Y;.
~-;--;, ·;y:.:::·:-::·:·:::;
"' 14 Cl> ~Y.'' ..... ·-CJ) 12 ..... 0
10 I-' I.. \0 Cl>
:·:·.· .·:·:·:·.·.···:·:·: ·:·:·:· ;.::: •. ;.·>:·:·:-·:·:····
~~ .;.;.;:·:·:·::::~·~·:·'"'.::::-:-:-::·:·:·:·:·
~ :::-:· ... ,.,.,.,,.,.d ~
-•. ---~- -~--~ -~--~- -~-- -· -- --.c 8 E :::s z 6
4~ Rubber ·:·:·:·:·:·X< Latex
2
--m-- Micro ., A Emulsion
->Jl.-AC --• -·Fog
"""""foO Control II
0
Pre Const 6 Months 12 Months
Inspection Number
Figure 6. Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites with Bleeding
-
N 0
4000
U::- 3500 Cl) -g> 3000 ---~ -- - - .......... .-· --... - -+- - - -""""'. - - - --.. ·-"'C (1) 2500 (1) -m
'+- 2000 0 ns (1)
'""" 1500 1000 '""" (1) > 500
-
20 -~Rubber
18 -1- I -m-Micro :·:·:·:-:-:·A:· Emulsion
16 + :
-
tv tv
7000
6000
~ (.)
0 5000 --CO LL \to- en 0 - 4000 ~ C>
(1) ·= "- ~ 3000 "-~ (.)
2000 "-(1) > tJ• Emulsion
''" »,., Latex
---AC ··•··Fog """"'° Control
.-.,;,.
... ~
./ .......... ....._....~
6 Months
Inspection Number
~ ~
~
Figure 9. Effect of Treatments on Average Area of Block Cracking for Sites With Block Cracking
~
12 Months
-
N VJ
20
18
16
ti) 14 Q) .... ·-en 12 ..... 0
10 a.. Q) .c 8 E :l z 6
4
2
0
Pre Const
-...-Rubber -m-Micro , .. ,.,.,,.. Emulsion '''" x,, Latex ----AC --• -·Fog ........,. Control
;,,-;,;;,;,---...... . ...,_ __ --·-~- .......... -- --
6 Months
-:-;:.· a:. .;.-q ":·:·:·:-::·:·:·:· :f?.;~ :~;~·:·:·::·; .:::::·
Inspection Number
.,. .... - .... - .. - .......... - ..
;:::: .. :·:-:-:-·-:···· .;:::::·:·:··
~ .. .::;.: :::::- ;:;:.; %:. :?...: «·.
12 Months
Figure 10. Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites for Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking
-
N .j::..
"C c: ns -ns -C: LL ·- CJ) "C -~ tn ·- c: tn ·-c: ~ 0 (.)
..J E ~ (.) .c: (1)
500
450
400
350
300
250 ........... ........... 200
+' "' tn S-c: (1) (1) >
~~------~--~ ~ -- ----------~ ~ __ ._...~ .. -------- -- ....... --·""
..J "' c: (1) ns tn i-ns I-'-(1)
~
150
100
50
0
Pre Const
.• ;.• •.
6 Months
Inspection Number
Figure 11. Average Length of Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Sites With Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking
·:-::·:·:·:·:·:
-+-Rubber
---im-Micro
·=···=A· Emulsion
,." x=-,, Latex
---*-AC
··•··Fog
.....,.. Control
''"'· "" ,.,:; .,.: . .,;:;-=·=·=·=·=i::::
~->. :f:!:· ·:"·:·:·:·:·:·:-:·
12 Months
-
N Vi
20
18
16
t/I 14 Cl,) .... ·-"' 12 .... "=: ... ,,, .. 0
10 ., ..
Cl,)
.c 8 E ::::s z 6
·=:: .. ,:: ... ,,,,
~:· -.*"-4
2
0
Pre Const
- ........... ...
~: . .::__, ":"'::::·:::'·
.. ,.,"':·::::,ti-=·:·:· """""=·: .. :·:·: """ .......... .
6 Months
Inspection Number
---+--Rubber --M-- Micro ;.,.,.,.,.,.~.,. Emu Is ion
•» >«"' Latex ~AC
··•-·Fog ~ Control
..............
;;-:·:· *:. {«· .:-:--..
Figure 12. Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths
12 Months
-
N 0\
°' c 500 ·-.:i.::: 0 ~ ....
(..) -~ u. c ..J ·- -
"'C "' .a .c ·- '+-' °' ~ c c. o-..J ~ 't- .c 0 3: £ °'.c c '+-' c
..J ·-
°' ~ ....
~
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Pre Const
···:·:·.:
·:·.:·:·.·
- - ........
·'.-'.; . ..:·:·::.::.::.
:·:;.; ··=:·4'·=··:·:·: ·:·:·: :·:·:·:-:-:-::·:·:·:
6 Months
Inspection Number
·:·:·:·:·:·:-:::::::
...,..~Rubber
--m- Micro =·=·=·=·=·t.= Emulsion
>
-
tv -...l
20
18
16
ti) 14 Cl) ~ ·-en 12 ..... 0
10 I.. Cl) .c 8 E ::s z 6
4 I ___.-
:-:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:· :·:-:·
2 r:: ........ .,..;,:_- --
0
Pre Const
.... -Rubber ---Micro =·=·===·=A= Emulsion ,,,. ~.,, Latex
-*-AC ··•··Fog .......... Control
'*"'"" ~~ '1Jw ~ ;: .::..M _:.." .. .:. _:"7 = ~-::: .. _,,; • ·, - .. ----. --.. - - . --. -.. --. ---·- .. -.. - ..... -.. -. -.
6 Months
Inspection Number
Figure 14. Effect of Treatments on Number of Sites With Ravelling
·:·:·:·:·:·.· ... :
12 Months
-
N 00
-u. Cl) -C> c: ·---Q) > ('CS
0::: '+-0 ('CS Q) I.. ('CS I.. Q)
~
2500
2000
1500
1000
...... -Rubber
-m-Micro =·=A Emulsion
"'' x'-" Latex
-----AC · -•··Fog """""" Control
~
'"~.~ ··-:-;
~:-0::·;:-
k·::
~
·::-:: ~:-:
500 :::·:·:·:·:-:····· ::·:·.
0
Pre Const
...- -- -..-. ' -- ...- _... ~+""""""'
~ ~
:;:::: .. ;.;.:·:·:·:·:·:·:· 1;.,., ..... . ·:~:·:::··
%-;: ...... .-;-
;·;:-;
'''=?< : -=·=·;" -:-:-:- -:--..-;; *-==~
6 Months
Inspection Number
, ,
:·:-:·: ·:·.:. :·::·:·:·
·:·:·: ·,·,·-=:·:·:·
;.:-:-: :.:-=~ .-:·:·: ;.:-:-: ~::.-;: ~:::;> ;-:;:-: w..:
12 Months
Figure 15. Effect of Treatments on Average Area of Ravelling for Sites With Ravelling
-
Appendix A contains the results of the site inspections on a site by site basis.
SITE PROBLEMS
To date, one site (48Ql9, site 17 in Panola county west of Carthage) has failed and been
taken out of service. The entire roadway section is to be rehabilitated due to structural failure. The
Fog Seal and Control Section at one other site (48G08, site 7 in Taylor county southeast of Abilene)
have been lost due to maintenance forces placing a chip seal on top of these sections. A contributing
factor may have been that this site did not have the test section signs installed.
FUTURE WORK
Since the treatments have been constructed, the next stages will be to monitor the
performance of the sections and to continue the analysis of that performance. It has been proposed
that a distress survey be performed on a yearly basis. This data should be recorded in the SHRP
compatible format. If possible, the frequency of inspection should be increased. The short term
nature of this maintenance research project suggests that the data should be taken as often as possible.
This will allow us to determine a seasonal correction for distress and will improve the predictive
nature of the experiment.
Additional data collection will include inspecting all of the test sections using the ARAN.
Non-destructive deflection testing will be performed one year after construction and then every two
years. All of the sections will be monitored until failure.
The data analysis should begin after the next cycle of distress surveys. If these treatments
behave similarly to the SHRP H-101 test sections, distress will remain relatively minimal until at least
eighteen months after construction. However, due to the condition of some of the test sections prior
to construction, the S.l\1ERP test sections may exhibit some early distress including bleeding, rutting,
and on one or two sections, alligator cracking. Future analysis will determine the effectiveness of
each treatment based on the different conditions at each site. The analysis of the cost-effectiveness
should begin when adequate data is available. To date, no attempt has been made to include the
severity of the distress in the analysis. While the analysis of progression of distress from low to high
is very important, there is not yet enough data to support this type of analysis. However the data will
exist in the near future, and this task should be undertaken. This task will be made easier if the
distress surveys are conducted twice per year.
29
-
REFERENCES
1. Smith, R. E., T. J. Freeman, and 0. Pendleton, "H-101 Pavement Maintenance Effectiveness," Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, 1993.
2. "Distress Identification Manual for the Long-Term Pavement Performance Project," Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, SHRP-P-338, 1993.
3. "Data Base Structure Reference Manual," Strategic Highway Research Program, National Research Council, 1993.
4. Freeman, T. J., and E. Rmeili, "Development and Construction of the Texas Supplemental Maintenance Effectiveness Research Program (SMERP) Experiment," TxDOT, May 1994.
30
-
APPENDIX
Results of Distress Data Collection
31
-
Ill Ill e ..... Ill c ~
Ill Ill e ..... Ill
c ~
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
-... A01H -A01M
-6-A01E
'"'-X'"'A01L
-lll-A01C
• • • A01F
-+· A01X
" y ... ----+ 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-1. Alligator Cracking for Site AOl
Construction
31-May-93
- - -,,,.)Co,._., ""'· ,.,,,,
....... ·~·····. . .: .. ··
.. . -
-A01M """"6-A01E "''·>
-
VI VI e .... VI
c ~ 0
VI VI
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0% .......
30.0%
20.0% . -10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
Construction
... .. . .. ,...., . ... ... 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
• .. A01H
-A01M
-t.-A01E
"""X""'A01L
-A01C
• • • A01F
05-Jul-94
Figure A-3. Block Cracking for Site AOl
Construction
• .. A01H
-A01M
-6-A01E
.... ~ .. ··A01L
-llE-A01C
• • • A01F
~- A01X e a.0% ]! c ~ 6.0%
4.0%
........... ¥ .. _...... D ... -- >< ... ,.,...._'.I',,_~ ... _,, ....... & .., - ..... ,.. ,. .,....,.:l•,,...•..,•~ .. u.: ~ : : "' "' .,. ., .... - ., ,.. "' a .., .., • ""' "" ..,. -. ""'+ ~ ....... - ......
2.0% ---- - _ ... _ . . ····~·· ---0.0% ...... • ..... 20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-4. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site AO 1
34
-
Cl) Cl)
~ ..... Cl)
i:5 ~ 0
Cl) Cl)
~ ..... Cl)
i:5 ~ 0
Construction
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
• .. A01H
-A01M
--A01E
,, .... ~·"·A01L
-A01C
• • • A01F
--+• A01X
- - . .. . . - - - . - - " - -- - - ,,,.,.., :i ...... -:-...... _ ....... ~-""• ...... ....0... • ... - ........ -......... "' ,.. -.rr> .... :& - ...... 0.0% +----...:...:..;;.:.;ii.,;....-...;....;...;;...;;.;;~-----..li.oO-... ________ ~
20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-5. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site AOl
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-6. Ravelling for Site AOl
35
• .. A01H
-A01M
--A01E
····~····A01L
-A01C
• • • A01F
-+· A01X
05-Jul-94
-
Construction 100.0%
- .. B01H 90.0% -so1M
--B01E 80.0%
""··l< ..... ·B01L
70.0% -so1c
• • • B01F Ill 60.0%
--+· B01X Ill e:! - 50.0% .!!? c ~ 0 40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-7. Alligator Cracking for Site BOl
Construction 100.0%
- .. B01H -so1M 90.0%
80.0% ...... -B01E """-?
-
IJI IJI !!:? .. IJI
c ~ 0
IJI IJI !!:? .. . !!! c ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
.. 0.0%
20-Feb-93 - -
Construction
-.. B01H -B01M
......,e.-B01E
""K'"·B01L
--!l!--B01C
• • • B01F
--t- • B01X
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-9. Block Cracking for Site BOl
Construction
-.. B01H -B01M
-t.-B01E
.... K .... B01L
--!l!--B01C
• • • B01F
-+· B01X
-31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-10. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site BOl
37
-
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
Cl) Cl)
~ 8.0% ... • !!? c ~ "
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
Cl) Cl)
~ ... 30.0% .!!? c ~ "
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
• .. B01H
-B01M
--B01E
wo•1( "'801L
-B01C
• • • B01F
-+· B01X
05-Jul-94
Figure A-11. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-12. Ravelling for Site BOl
38
• .. B01H
-B01M
--B01E
.... ~····B01L
-B01C
• • • B01F
-+· B01X
05-Jul-94
-
Construction 100.0% -.. C04H 90.0% -C04M
-6-C04E 80.0%
.,,,-te~·c04L
70.0% -C04C
• • • C04F Ill 60.0% Ill -+· C04X e - 50.0% .!!! c '#. 40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% -20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-13. Alligator Cracking for Site C04
Construction 100.0%
• .. C04H
90.0% -C04M
80.0% """"6-CQ4E
"''·K"''C04l 70.0%
-C04C
Ill 60.0% Ill ·•·C04F e - 50.0% .!!! c ~ 0 40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% ...... - ... - - ... - .. '!8 ..
20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-14. Bleeding for Site C04
39
-
en en e ... en i5 ~ 0
en en e ... en i5 ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
Construction ... C04H -C04M
--C04E
.,,,-M.,,·C04L
-ll-C04C
• •·C04F
-+• C04X
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-15. Block Cracking for Site C04
Construction
. - ..._. ...... -. .._ -
• .. C04H
-C04M
--ti.-C04E
·· .. K··· C04L
-ll-C04C
• • • C04F
-+· C04X
'-+-·------------·+ 4.0% : .... · - . -- .... - - - - - - . - .. ...... ___ _
-- . -. -- --2.0%
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-16. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site C04
40
-
(/) (/)
~ -.!!? c ~ 0
(/) (/)
~ -(/) i:5 ~ 0
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% .
20-Feb-93
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Construction .... C04H -C04M
--C04E
.,,,-K.,,·C04L
-C04C
• • • C04F
-+· C04X
-31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-17. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths
Construction
•.,. C04H
-C04M
--C04E
.... IC··· C04L
-C04C
• • • C04F
-+• C04X
_______ .. 0.0% -H------------------.......... -..... -------------l
20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-18. Ravelling for Site C04
41
-
tJI tJI ~ .... tJI
i:3 ~ 0
tJI tJI ~ ....
.!:!? 0 ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
... - -0.0% 20-Feb-93
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
.. -60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
- .. D04H -D04M
--D04E
"'"·l
-
Cl) Cl)
~ ..... Cl)
0 ~ 0
Cl) Cl)
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
~ 8.0% ti 0 ~ 6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
)( •..... ······.· ........
Construction
-.. 004H -004M
.......&.-D04E
.,,,-l
-
Ill Ill
~ -Ill c ~
Ill VI ~ -Ill c ~ 0
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% ~·· 20-Feb-93
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
• .. 004H
-CXJ4M
-6-CXJ4E
w.•~w. CXJ4L
-004C
• • • 004F
-+• 004X
05-Jul-94
Figure A-23. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths
Construction
• .. 004H
-CXJ4M
--CXJ4E
····IC··· CXJ4L -004C
-•·D04F
-+• 004X
0.0% -H-----... --------------------------1 20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-24. Ravelling for Site D04
44
-
(/) (/) e +J (/)
0 ~ 0
(/) (/)
e +J
.!!? c ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction ... E06H -E06M
""""6-EOOE
...... IC'" E06L
-E06C
• • • E06F
-+· E06X
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-25. Alligator Cracking for Site E06
Construction
• .. E06H -E06M --6 - E06E .... IC ... E06L
-E06C • • • E06F -+· E06X
- " 50.0%
.. .. . ~ ............ -... flt : .................... .. fl"
-N ' -40.0%
- • '!"" .. .. .. .. 30.0%
20.0%
10.0% , 0.0%
20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-26. Bleeding for Site E06
45
-
(/) (/)
~ ... .!!? c ~ 0
(/) (/)
~ ... (/)
c ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction .... E06H -E06M
........e.-EOOE
····~ .. ··EOOL
-E06C
• • • E06F
-+· E06X
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-27. Block Cracking for Site E06
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
• ... E06H
-E06M
'"'"'"°"-EOOE
'""'·" ., .. , E06L
-E06C
• • • E06F
-+• E06X
05-Jul-94
Figure A-28. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site E06
46
-
Cl) Cl) e ... • !!? c ~ 0
Cl) Cl) e ...
.!!? c ~
Construction
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
• ... E06H
-E06M
--1>-E06E
····tc .... E06L
-E06C
• • • E06F
-+· E06X
05-Jul-94
Figure A-29. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site E06
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
-0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
47
-... E06H -E06M
--E06E
····>< ···E06L
-E06C
·•·E06F
--+· E06X
27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
-
(/) (/)
I!:! -(/) c '#.
(/) (/)
I!:! -(/) c ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
-0.0% 20-Feb-93
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction ... F06H -F06M
""""lll-F06E
····K····F06L
-F06C
·•·F06F
-+· F06X
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-31. Alligator Cracking for Site F06
Construction
.. ..... ..
...
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-32. Bleeding for Site F06
48
• .- F06H
-F06M
-6-F06E
···->< ···F06L
-ll--F06C
·•·F06F
-+· F06X
... ..
05-Jul-94
-
(/) (/)
!!! -(/) c ~ 0
(/) (/)
!!! -(/) c ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0% l\
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction ... F06H -F06M
--6-F06E
····'>
-
(I) (I)
~ ..... (I)
c :::!;! 0
(I) (I)
~ ..... (I)
c :::!;! 0
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
X·., .
0.0% 20-Feb-93
..... ., •• , •• ,J'
Construction
•
·~· .. 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
-.. F06H -F06M
'"""""6-F06E
····~····F06L
-F06C
. • • F06F -- F06X
27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Figure A-35. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site F06
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
. I , .
' ,
I. ,
, , , I
J, I ¥ ,
, , /,'
, , , ,
1.: ,,
,. t' ,,.
,. _/
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-36. Ravelling for Site F06
50
, '
I .• , . ' I
I
I , . , I .
... F06H -F06M
--F06E
.... >< ••• F06L
-F06C
• • • F06F
--+· F06X
05-Jul-94
-
Ill Ill e -.!!? 0 ~ 0
Ill Ill e -.!!? 0 ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
-0.0% 20-Feb-93
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
- ... G08H -GOBM
--GOBE
.... l
-
(/) (/)
e ... (/)
i3 ~ C>
(/) (/)
e ... (/)
i3 ~ C>
100.0%
90.0%
S0.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
-... GOSH -GOSM
""""A-GOSE
····IC .. ·GOSL
-Gose
• • • GOSF
-+• GOSX
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-39. Block Cracking for Site G08
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
•.., GOSH
-GOSM
--GOSE
m.-l(m GOSL
-GOSC
" • • GOOF
-+· GOSX
05-Jul-94
Figure A-40. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site G08
52
-
(/) (/)
e -.!!? c ~ 0
Cl) Cl)
~ ... Cl)
c cf!.
Construction
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0% ... ~- . " -... ... - It - - . 0.0%
20-Feb-93 31-May-93
- "
-.. G08H -GOBM
-t.-GOBE
w-.)(w·GOBL
-lf-GOBC
- • • GOBF --t· GOBX
--· ... -..Y!':r -08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-41. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site G08
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
~
0.0%
20-Feb-93
Construction
31-May-93 OS-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-42. Ravelling for Site G08
53
-... GOSH -GOSM
--GOSE
"'·"l< .,,, GOSL
-Gase
• • • GOSF
-+~ GOSX
05-Jul-94
-
Cl) Cl)
~ ... Cl)
c ~ Cl
100.0%
90.0%
S0.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
-0.0%
20-Feb-93
Construction
- .. HOSH -HOSM
.......i.-HOSE
W•"•X""·HOSL
-Hose
·•-HOSF
-+- HOSX
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-43. Alligator Cracking for Site HOS
Construction 100.0%-.--.lr-----,.-_-.-.-.-.-.-.~.~.,,....,,..~.,....,...~~---~-~----.-.-~~-~.-=o.-llA!---. - .. - /
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
...... ··
/ ,x / _.,, .
I_,,·· ,
_.,.: I
,., _..// ; " .......... /;
.... / .... ·· / ;
,..-. • .. HOSH -HOSM )f
...••• -
/ ;/ ./ '/
/ , ;/ / , ,,. /
- ,If ; / ; /
/ " ,.,. ,/ "/
'/ ./" ,,.,.
--1>-HOSE """·X""'HOSL
-HOSC ·•·HOSF
-+• HOSX
./p:;...-.-:/-
0.0% +-------------------..... !::.....-+-------+--------1 20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-44. Bleeding for Site HOS
54
-
(/) (/)
~ -.!!? c ~ 0
Construction 100.0% -,.------------------------------~
90.0%
S0.0%
70.0% \
' ' 60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
20-Feb-93
.. . . • .. HOSH -HOSM
-t. - HOSE .. "l< ··· HOSL
-Hose - • - HOSF
-+· HOSX
31-May-93 OS-Sep-93
. . . ': .. - . - - - - . -· ... -... -.. '·
'+
17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-45. Block Cracking for Site H08
Construction
- . . ..
31-May-93
. . .
OS-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
• .. HOSH
-HOSM
.....i.-HOSE
unl(m HOSL
-Hose
·•·HOSF
-+· HOSX
05-Jul-94
Figure A-46. Longitudinal and Transverse Cracking for Site H08
55
-
Cl) Cl)
f!:! -.!!! c '#.
Cl) Cl)
f!:! -.!!! c ~ 0
Construction
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
S.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
•.., HOSH
-HOSM
......il.-HOBE
~»
-
VI VI !!:! -.!!! c ~ 0
VI VI !!:! -VI i:5 ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
20-Feb-93
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
20-Feb-93
Construction .... 109H -109M
"""'"6-J09E
""·"X"'·I09L
-109C
• • • 109F
......... 109X
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-49. Alligator Cracking for Site 109
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
• ... 109H
-109M
-~100E
un}(m 109L
-ill-109C
• • • 109F
--+· 109X
--.. -. ..
27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Figure A-50. Bleeding for Site 109
57
-
I/) I/)
~ ... I/)
c ~ 0
I/) I/)
~ ... • !!? c ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
-.. 109H -109M
""""'"6-109E
"'···X"'·I09L
-lll-109C
• " • 109F
-+· 109X
-31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-51. Block Cracking for Site 109
Construction
.: -. -_ -_: -_: ·.....:. : ~ ~ : :
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
27-Mar-94
• .. 109H
-109M
......a.-109E
·······1
-
(I) (I) e -(I) i5 ~ Cl
(I) (I) e -(I) i5 ~ Cl
Construction
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
• .. 109H
-109M
....-o6-!09E
""···X...,·109L
-W-109C
• • • 109F
--+· 109X
05-Jul-94
Figure A-53. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site I09
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
..... 0.0% 20-Feb-93
, / ,
, --
Construction
""' ' , ' , ' / ' , ' , '-.,,
/ ' • ,
' ; / ' ' ; ,
./ , ,.
) ' ,
/ ·' , , .
/ . . , , , . . . . . . -- --•·' - ---- - - - - -31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-54. Ravelling for Site I09
59
-... 109H -109M
-A-!09E
-.-.·.·X"'!09L
-W-109C
- • • 109F --+- 109X
' ' .......
' '
).. , ; .. . ,
;
- -- .. 05-Jul-94
-
en en e -en Ci ~ 0
en en e -.~ c ~ 0
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction -.. J10H -J10M
-A-J10E
····X ···J10L
-lf-J10C
• • • J10F
-+· J10X
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-55. Alligator Cracking for Site JlO
Construction
.. .. .. - --- -- ........ .... ,_.... ....... - y.,
• .. J10H
-J10M
-ll-J10E
'-"'-1< """J10L
-lf-J10C
• • • J10F
-+· J10X
...
- .. - ·+ 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-56. Bleeding for Site Jl 0
60
-
Construction 100.0% -.. J10H
90.0% -J10M
-6-J10E 80.0%
""IC"' J10L
70.0% --llf--J10C
• • - J10F (/I 60.0% (/I -+· J10X
e - 50.0% (/I c ~ 0 40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0% 20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Date Inspected
Figure A-57. Block Cracking for Site no
Construction
-.. J10H 14.0%
-J10M
-.6-J10E 12.0%
...... ··l
-
(/) (/)
e! -(/) Ci ~ 0
(/) (/)
e! -(/) Ci ~ 0
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
~
0.0% 20-Feb-93
Construction
31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
-.. J10H -J10M
....,.._J10E
""·I< ...... J10L
-W-J10C
.... - J10F
-+· J10X
27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Figure A-59. Longitudinal Cracking in the Wheelpaths for Site JlO
Construction 60.0% -r--------,------------------=====
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
.. 10.0%
• .. J10H
-J10M
----4-J10E
........ l
-
(I) (I)
2:! -(I) c ~ 0
Cl) Cl)
2:! -(I) c ~ 0
Construction 100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
~ 0.0%
20-Feb-93 31-May-93 08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93
Date Inspected
- .. K13H -K13M
.......i.~K13E
----x ,,. K13L
-t1-K13C
• • • K13F
-+· K13X
27-Mar-94 05-Jul-94
Figure A-61. Alligator Cracking for Site K13
Construction 100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0% I
10.0% , I
I
0.0%
20-Feb-93 31-May-93
.....................
I
,
............... ,. .......
08-Sep-93 17-Dec-93 27-Mar-94
Da