High Performance Concrete Pavements
Project Summary

FHWA-IF-06-031
February 2006

PDF Version (2.5 mb)

Contents

• List of Figures
• List of Tables

• CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
  • Background
  • Included Projects
  • Purpose and Overview of Report
  • References
• CHAPTER 2. CALIFORNIA 1 (I-10, EL MONTE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 3. COLORADO 1 (S.H. 121, WADSWORTH, COLORADO)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Current Project Status, Results, and Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 4. COLORADO 2 (I-25, LOVELAND) AND MICHIGAN 2 (M25, PORT AUSTIN, AND I-675, ZILWAUKEE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
    • Michigan Concept
    • Colorado Concept
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 5. ILLINOIS 1 (I-55 SB, WILLIAMSVILLE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Interim Project Status, Results, and Findings
  • Current Observations (Gawedzinski 2004)
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 6. ILLINOIS 2 (ROUTE 59, NAPERVILLE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Interim Project Status, Results, and Findings
  • Current Observations (Gawedzinski 2004)
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 7. ILLINOIS 3 (US 67, JACKSONVILLE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Interim Project Status, Results, and Findings
  • Current Observations (Gawedzinski 2004)
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 8. ILLINOIS 4 (ROUTE 2, DIXON)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Interim Project Status, Results, and Findings
  • Current Observations (Gawedzinski 2004)
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 9. INDIANA 1 (I-65 AT SR-60, CLARK COUNTY)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • Reference
• CHAPTER 10. IOWA 1 (A AND B) (HIGHWAY 5, CARLISLE, AND US 30, CARROLL)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 11. IOWA 2 (US 65, DES MOINES)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Final Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 12. IOWA 3 (US 151, LYNN/JONES COUNTIES)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 13. IOWA 4 (IA 330, JASPER, STORY, AND MARSHALL COUNTIES)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 14. IOWA 5 (IOWA 330, MELBOURNE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • Reference
• CHAPTER 15. IOWA 6 (VARIOUS LOCATIONS)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • Reference
• CHAPTER 16. IOWA 7 AND MD 2 (IMPLEMENTATION OF TEMP)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 17. KANSAS 1 (HIGHWAY K-96, HAVEN)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
    • Construction Monitoring
    • Early Mix Property Data
    • Performance Monitoring
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
    • Cost Data
    • Early Performance Data
  • Interim Results/Findings
  • References
• CHAPTER 18. KANSAS 2 (HUTCHINSON)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 19. MARYLAND 1 (US 50, SALISBURY BYPASS)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Interim Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 20. MICHIGAN 1 (I-75, DETROIT)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
    • Section 1 - Michigan Standard Pavement
    • Section 2 - European Pavement
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Results/Findings
    • Initial Construction Findings
    • One-Year Performance Findings
    • Five-Year Performance Findings
    • Traffic
    • Pavement Distress
    • Roughness
    • Deflection Analysis
    • Surface Friction
    • Economic Analysis of Pavement Sections
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 21. MINNESOTA 1 (I-35W, RICHFIELD)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
    • Cement Paste Specification
    • Aggregate Specification
    • Pavement Thickness
    • Load Transfer
    • Cost
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 22. MINNESOTA 2 (MN/ROAD LOW-VOLUME ROAD FACILITY)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results and Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 23. MINNESOTA 3 (MN/ROAD, MAINLINE ROAD FACILITY, AND US 169, ALBERTVILLE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Current Project Status, Results and Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 24. MISSISSIPPI 1 (US 72, CORINTH)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
    • Construction Monitoring
    • Performance Monitoring
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 25. MISSOURI 1 (I-29, ROCK PORT)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Interim Results/Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 26. NEW HAMPSHIRE HPCP PROJECT
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Results/Findings
    • HPCP Definitions
    • Optimization Computer Program
    • Program Availability
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 27. OHIO 1, 2, AND 3 (US ROUTE 50, ATHENS)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
    • General Design Information
    • Project Layout Information
      • OH 1, Evaluation of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
      • OH 3, Evaluation of Joint Sealing Materials
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Results/Findings
    • OH 1, Evaluation of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
    • OH 2, Evaluation of Alternative Dowel Bars
    • OH 3, Evaluation of Joint Sealing Materials
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 28. OHIO 4 (US 35, JAMESTOWN)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • Reference
• CHAPTER 29. PENNSYLVANIA 1 (SR 22, MURRYSVILLE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Point of Contact
• CHAPTER 30. SOUTH DAKOTA 1 (US ROUTE 83, PIERRE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Interim Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 31. TENNESSEE 1 (I-65, NASHVILLE)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • Reference
• CHAPTER 32. VIRGINIA 1 (I-64, NEWPORT NEWS)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Project Status
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 33. VIRGINIA 2 (ROUTE 288, RICHMOND) AND VIRGINIA 3 (US 29, MADISON HEIGHTS)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Point of Contact
• CHAPTER 34. WASHINGTON 1 (SR 395, KENNEWICK)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
    • Public Relations and Traffic Management
    • Concrete Mixture Properties
    • Construction
  • Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • Reference
• CHAPTER 35. WEST VIRGINIA 1
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
    • GFRP Dowel Study
    • Moisture Diffusion Study
    • GFRP Rebars in CRCP Study
  • Project Design and Layout
    • GFRP Dowel Study
    • Moisture Diffusion Study
    • GFRP Rebars in CRCP Study
  • Current Project Status, Results, and Findings
    • Findings from GFRP Dowel Study
    • Findings from GFRP CRCP Study
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 36. WISCONSIN 1 (HIGHWAY 29, ABBOTSFORD)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
    • New Wisconsin Sections
    • Additional Analysis Sections
    • Additional Wisconsin Sections
    • Colorado Sections
    • Iowa Sections
    • Michigan Sections
    • Minnesota Sections
    • North Dakota Sections
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 37. WISCONSIN 2 (HIGHWAY 29, OWEN) AND WISCONSIN 3 (HIGHWAY 29, HATLEY)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
    • Wisconsin 2
    • Wisconsin 3
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
    • Construction Monitoring
    • Dowel Bar Location Study
    • FWD Testing
    • Distress Surveys
    • Ride Quality Surveys
  • Points of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 38. WISCONSIN 4 (I-90, TOMAH)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Points of Contact
  • Reference
• CHAPTER 39. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 1 (FHWA'S PAVEMENT TEST FACILITY, MCLEAN, VA)
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • State Monitoring Activities
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
  • Current Project Status, Results, and Findings
  • Point of Contact
  • References
• CHAPTER 40. VARIOUS STATES, MIT SCAN-2
  • Introduction
  • Study Objectives
  • Project Design and Layout
  • Preliminary Results/Findings
    • Literature Review Summary
    • Laboratory Testing Results
    • Field Testing Results
  • Point of Contact
  • Reference
• APPENDIX A. TE-30 PROJECT SUMMARY TABLE
• APPENDIX B. BIBLIOGRAPHIC LISTING OF PROJECT REFERENCES BY STATE
  • Colorado
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Maryland
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • New Hampshire
  • Ohio
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin

List of Figures

• Figure 1. Location of TE-30 and related projects.
• Figure 2. Location of CO 2 project.
• Figure 3. Precast panel design for Michigan.
• Figure 4. Precast panel installation in Colorado.
• Figure 5. Location of IL 1 project.
• Figure 6. Illinois DOT hinge joint design (IDOT 1989).
• Figure 7. Layout of IL 1 project.
• Figure 8. Load transfer efficiency on IL 1 (Gawedzinski 2000).
• Figure 9. Maximum joint deflections on IL 1 (Gawedzinski 2000).
• Figure 10. Load transfer efficiency vs. ESALs (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 11. Load transfer efficiency vs. pavement temperature (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 12. Location of IL 2 project.
• Figure 13. Layout of IL 2 project.
• Figure 14. Load transfer efficiency on IL 2 (Gawedzinski 2000).
• Figure 15. Maximum joint deflections on IL 2 (Gawedzinski 2000).
• Figure 16. Load transfer efficiency vs. ESALs for the right lane (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 17. Load transfer efficiency vs. ESALs for the center lane (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 18. Load transfer efficiency vs. ESALs for the left lane (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 19. Average load transfer efficiency vs. pavement temperature for all lanes (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 20. Location of IL 3 project.
• Figure 21. Layout of IL 3 project.
• Figure 22. Load transfer efficiency on IL 3 (Gawedzinski 2000).
• Figure 23. Maximum joint deflections on IL 3 (Gawedzinski 2000).
• Figure 24. Driving lane load transfer efficiency vs. ESALs (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 25. Passing lane load transfer efficiency vs. ESALs (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 26. Average load transfer efficiency vs. average pavement temperature (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 27. Location of IL 4 project.
• Figure 28. Driving lane load transfer efficiency vs. ESALs (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 29. Average load transfer efficiency vs. average pavement temperature (Gawedzinski 2004).
• Figure 30. Location of IN 1 project.
• Figure 31. Location of IA 1 projects.
• Figure 32. Location of IA 2 project.
• Figure 33. Layout of IA 2 project.
• Figure 34. Illustration of dowel bar spacing configurations on IA 2.
• Figure 35. Average load transfer efficiency for IA 2 project.
• Figure 36. Average faulting on IA 2 project.
• Figure 37. Joint opening trends on IA 2.
• Figure 38. Location of IA 3 project.
• Figure 39. Location of IA 4 project.
• Figure 40. Location of IA 5 project.
• Figure 41. Layout of dowel bars on IA 5 project.
• Figure 42. Location of strain gauges on elliptical FRP dowel bar.
• Figure 43. Location of KS 1 project.
• Figure 44. Photo of X-Flex™ load transfer devices.
• Figure 45. Layout of KS 1 project (Wojakowski 1998).
• Figure 46. Relative construction costs by section for KS 1.
• Figure 47. Comparison of Initial Profile Index of KS 1 test sections (Zero-Blanking Band).
• Figure 48. Joint load transfer efficiency on KS 1.
• Figure 49. Location of MD 1 project.
• Figure 50. Location of MI 1 project.
• Figure 51. Layout of MI 1 project.
• Figure 52. Cross section for Michigan standard pavement (Smiley 1995).
• Figure 53. Cross section for European pavement (Smiley 1995).
• Figure 54. Variable dowel spacings used on European pavement section (Weinfurter, Smiley, and Till 1994).
• Figure 55. Cumulative total traffic volumes for MI 1 test sections (Buch, Lyles, and Becker 2000).
• Figure 56. Computed IRI values for MI 1 test sections (Buch, Lyles, and Becker 2000).
• Figure 57. Computed friction numbers for MI 1 test sections (Buch, Lyles, and Becker 2000).
• Figure 58. Location of MN 1 project.
• Figure 59. Location of MN 2 project.
• Figure 60. Approximate location of new LVR test sections at Mn/Road facility.
• Figure 61. Layout of test sections 52 and 53 for MN 2 project.
• Figure 62. Load transfer efficiency of joints with different types of dowel bars for MN 2 project.
• Figure 63. Differential deflections across joints with different types of dowel bars for MN 2 project.
• Figure 64. Transverse profile of unrestrained slab in Cell 53 for MN 2 project (Vandenbossche 2003).
• Figure 65. Diagonal profile of unrestrained slab in Cell 53 for MN 2 project (Vandenbossche 2003).
• Figure 66. Diagonal profile of restrained slab in Cell 52 for MN 2 project (Vandenbossche 2003).
• Figure 67. Location of MN 3 project.
• Figure 68. Location of MS 1 project.
• Figure 69. Layout of test sections at the intersection of US 72 and Hinton Street, South Parkway, and Liddon Lake Road.
• Figure 70. Layout of test sections at the intersection of US 72 and Cass Street.
• Figure 71. Relative unit costs of the test sections.
• Figure 72. Location of MO 1 project.
• Figure 73. Layout of MO 1 test sections (MoDOT 2000).
• Figure 74. Relative cost of MO 1 test sections (MoDOT 2000).
• Figure 75. Transverse cracking on MO 1 test sections (MoDOT 2000).
• Figure 76. Transverse and longitudinal cracking on MO 1 test sections (Chojnacki 2004).
• Figure 77. Transverse cracking on MO 1 test sections.
• Figure 78. Location of OH 1, 2, and 3 projects.
• Figure 79. Layout of experimental projects on Ohio US 50.
• Figure 80. Layout of dowel test sections on Ohio US 50 project.
• Figure 81. Dowel instrumentation layout for Ohio US 50 project (Sargand 2000).
• Figure 82. Joint channel configurations used in sealant study on Ohio US 50 project (Hawkins, Ioannides, and Minkarah 2000).
• Figure 83. Location of OH 4 project.
• Figure 84. Location of PA 1 project.
• Figure 85. Location of SD 1 project.
• Figure 86. Layout of SD 1 test sections (Ramakrishnan and Tolmare 1998).
• Figure 87. Summary of flexural strength tests for SD 1 (Ramakrishnan and Tolmare 1998).
• Figure 88. Load transfer efficiencies for SD 1 sections.
• Figure 89. Location of VA 1 project.
• Figure 90. Layout of VA 1 test sections (Ozyildirim 2000).
• Figure 91. Location of VA 2 and VA 3 projects.
• Figure 92. Location of WA 1 project.
• Figure 93. Strength-time relationship developed for WA 1 project.
• Figure 94. Contractor's critical path method schedule for WA 1 project.
• Figure 95. Breakdown of time consumed by each construction activity on WA 1 project.
• Figure 96. Location of WI 1 project.
• Figure 97. Surface friction of WI 1 test sections (Kuemmel et al. 2000).
• Figure 98. Relative noise rankings of pavement surface texturings (Kuemmel et al. 2000).
• Figure 99. Location of WI 2 and WI 3 projects.
• Figure 100. Alternative dowel bar layouts used on WI 2.
• Figure 101. Approximate layout of WI 2 test sections.
• Figure 102. Variable cross section used on WI 3.
• Figure 103. Approximate layout of WI 3 monitoring sections.
• Figure 104. Transverse joint load transfer for outermost wheelpath on WI 2 (Crovetti 1999).
• Figure 105. Transverse joint load transfer for outermost wheelpath on WI 3 (Crovetti 1999).
• Figure 106. Average IRI values in the outer traffic lanes of WI 2 and WI 3 pavement sections (Crovetti and Bischoff 2001).
• Figure 107. Location of WI 4 project.
• Figure 108. Stainless steel dowels and basket on WI 4 (Kemp 2004).
• Figure 109. Layout of test sections and instrumentation for FHWA 1 project (FHWA 2004).
• Figure 110. Close-up view of MIT Scan-2.
• Figure 111. Example sectional contour map (tomography) of electro-magnetic signal detected by MIT Scan-2: a) severely distorted basket with bars pulled out; b) properly placed dowel basket.

List of Tables

• Table 1. Listing of TE-30 and Related Projects
• Table 2. Summary of CO 1 Project Test Sections
• Table 3. Ranges of Edge Stresses Measured Under an 18-Kip Single-Axle Load on the CO 1 Project Test Sections
• Table 4. Traffic Data for IL 1 (September 1996 to September 1999) (Gawedzinski 2000)
• Table 5. Cumulative ESALs as of the Day of Falling Weight Deflectometer Testing (Gawedzinski 2004)
• Table 6. Gradation of Porous Granular Embankment Subgrade Crushed Stone Material
• Table 7. Experimental Design Matrix for IL 2
• Table 8. Traffic Data for IL 2 (September 25, 1997 to January 31, 2000) (Gawedzinski 2000)
• Table 9. Traffic Data for IL 2 (September 25, 1997 to June 16, 2003) (Gawedzinski 2004)
• Table 10. Experimental Design Matrix for IL 3
• Table 11. Current Traffic for Driving and Passing Lanes (Gawedzinski 2004)
• Table 12. Data Collection Date and Cumulative ESALs (Gawedzinski 2004)
• Table 13. Summary of Proposed Instrumentation (Nantung 2004)
• Table 14. Experimental Design Matrix for IA 1
• Table 15. Tests Conducted at IA 1 Test Sites
• Table 16. Experimental Design Matrix for IA 2
• Table 17. Simplified Experimental Design Matrix for KS 1
• Table 18. Summary of Early Mix Properties of KS 1 Test Sections (Wojakowski 1998)
• Table 19. Summary of Construction Cost Data for KS 1 (Wojakowski 1998)
• Table 20. Summary of Early Performance Data for KS 1 Project (KDOT 1998; KDOT 1999)
• Table 21. Summary of 2002 Performance Data for KS 1 Project (KDOT 2002)
• Table 22. Summary of 2003 Performance Data for KS 1 Project (KDOT 2003)
• Table 23. Mixture Properties of Concrete Used on MD 1
• Table 24. Fiber Characteristics for MD 2
• Table 25. Comparison of Specified Concrete Properties on MI 1 Project (Weinfurter, Smiley, and Till 1994)
• Table 26. Summary of Deflection Testing Results for MI 1 Sections (Buch, Lyles, and Becker 2000)
• Table 27. Experimental Design Matrix for MN 1 Project
• Table 28. Summary of Design Features for MN 2 Test Sections
• Table 29. Sensor Types and Quantities for Test Sections 32, 52, and 53
• Table 30. Summary of US 169 Whitetopping Test Sections for MN 3 Project
• Table 31. Summary of Mn/Road Whitetopping Test Sections for MN 3 Project
• Table 32. Flexural Strengths for US 169 on the MN 3 Project
• Table 33. Compressive Strengths for US 169 on the MN 3 Project
• Table 34. Compressive Strengths for I-94 on the MN 3 Project
• Table 35. Elastic Moduli for I-94 on the MN 3 Project
• Table 36. Poisson's Ratio for I-94 on the MN 3 Project
• Table 37(a). International Roughness Index (IRI) Measured on the MS 1 Test Sections (mm/km)
• Table 37(b). Profile Index Measured on the MS 1 Test Sections (in./mi)
• Table 37(c). Friction Numbers Measured on the MS 1 Test Sections
• Table 37(d). Rutting Measured in the MS 1 HMA Test Section (in.)
• Table 38. Experimental Design Matrix for MO 1
• Table 39. Summary of Design Characteristics for HPCP Classifications (Goodspeed 1999)
• Table 40. Comparison of Actual Base and Subbase Gradations Used on Ohio US 50 Project
• Table 41. Concrete Pavement Mix Design Used on Ohio US 50 Project
• Table 42. Sealant Materials Used in Joint Sealant Study on Ohio US 50 Project (Hawkins, Ioannides, and Minkarah 2000)
• Table 43. Summary of Sealant Costs on Ohio US 50 Project (Ioannides et al. 1999)
• Table 44. Stiffness and Modulus Sample Results from OH 4 Testing
• Table 45. Design Features for the PA 1 Project
• Table 46. Design Features of SD 1 Test Sections (Ramakrishnan and Tolmare 1998)
• Table 47. Experimental Design Matrix for SD 1
• Table 48. NMFRCP Mix Design Used in SD 1 Project (Ramakrishnan and Tolmare 1998)
• Table 49. Summary of Past Concrete Pavement Projects in Tennessee
• Table 50. Concrete Mix Designs Used in VA 1 Project (Ozyildirim 2000)
• Table 51. Summary of Concrete Properties Measured on VA 1 Project (Ozyildirim 2000).
• Table 52. Concrete Mix Design Used on WA 1 Project
• Table 53. Characteristics of Concrete Used on WA 1
• Table 54. Experimental Design Matrix for WI 2
• Table 55. Experimental Design Matrix for WI 3
• Table 56. Summary of Dowel Bar Location Study Results From WI 2 (Crovetti 1999)
• Table 57. Summary of FWD Test Results for WI 2 and WI 3 Projects (Crovetti 1999).
• Table 58. Test Section Design Parameters for FHWA 1 Project (CTL 2001)
• Table 59. Performance of UTW Test Sections (CTL 2001; FHWA 2004)

Disclaimer

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein only because they are considered essential to the object of this document.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Units of Measure

This document follows the conventions of the reporting States in their use of English units or the International System of Units.

Acknowledgments

Many individuals contributed to the development of this report by willingly providing research reports, work plans, internal memos, and other documentation on their TE-30 projects. The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for providing that assistance:

• Ahmad Ardani, Colorado DOT
• Mark Gawedzinski, Illinois DOT
• David Lippert, Illinois DOT
• Tommy Nantung, Indiana DOT
• Jim Cable, Iowa State University
• Mark Dunn, Iowa DOT
• John Wojakowski, Kansas DOT
• Dimitrios Goulias, University of Maryland
• David Smiley, Michigan DOT
• Tom Hines, Michigan DOT
• Dave Rettner, Minnesota DOT
• Curt Turgeon, Minnesota DOT
• Tom Burnham, Minnesota DOT
• Randy Battey, Mississippi DOT
• Tim Chojnacki, Missouri DOT
• Charles Goodspeed, University of New Hampshire
• Shad Sargand, Ohio University
• Anastasios Ioannides, University of Cincinnati
• Roger Green, Ohio DOT
• V. Ramakrishnan, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology
• Daniel Strand, South Dakota DOT
• Dave Huft, South Dakota DOT
• Dan Johnston, South Dakota DOT
• Celik Ozyildirim, Virginia Transportation Research Council
• David Kuemmel, Marquette University
• Jim Crovetti, Marquette University
• Debbie Bischoff, Wisconsin DOT
• Peter Kemp, Wisconsin DOT

More Information

• High Performance Concrete Pavements: Technical Summary
• Pavement Publications

Contact

Sam Tyson
Office of Asset Management, Pavement, and Construction
202-366-1326
E-mail Sam