Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway AdministrationSearch FHWAFeedback

Pavements

<< PreviousContentsNext >>

High Performance Concrete Pavements
Project Summary

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Background

Under Test and Evaluation Project 30 (TE-30), High Performance Concrete Pavement (HPCP), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is exploring the applicability of innovative portland cement concrete (PCC) pavement design and construction concepts in the United States. These innovative concepts, ranging from the use of trapezoidal cross sections to alternative dowel bar materials to fiber-reinforced concrete, all share the same TE-30 goal of providing long-lasting, economical PCC pavements that meet the specific performance requirements of their particular application.

The TE-30 program actually got its start in May 1992 when a team of State, industry, and Federal engineers participated in the U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways (US TECH) (FHWA 1992). During that visit, the tour participants were exposed to a wealth of information on concrete pavement materials, structural design, and construction that could benefit concrete pavements in the United States. Followup visits to Germany and Austria in October 1992 (Larson, Vanikar, and Forster 1993) provided additional information that was used to construct an experimental concrete pavement in the United States consisting of a German structural design (to provide long service life) and an Austrian exposed aggregate surface (to reduce tire / pavement noise). That pavement, a 1.6-km (1-mi) test section located in the northbound lanes of I-75 (Chrysler Freeway) in downtown Detroit, was constructed in 1993 (Weinfurter, Smiley, and Till 1994).

The success of the I-75 project in incorporating European design concepts that hold the promise of long-lasting, low maintenance concrete pavements spawned a great interest in pursuing similar projects. In 1994, both the FHWA and industry agreed to pursue this effort, effectively launching the TE-30 program. Broad functional or performance criteria were established so that participating State highway agencies (SHAs) could select the area considered appropriate for improving the performance of concrete pavements in their States.

Several innovation areas for the program were suggested:

  • Increasing the service life.
  • Decreasing construction time.
  • Lowering life-cycle costs.
  • Lowering maintenance costs.
  • Constructing ultra-smooth ride quality pavements.
  • Incorporating recycled or waste products while maintaining quality.
  • Utilizing innovative construction equipment or procedures.
  • Utilizing innovative quality initiatives.

Specific target projects were later added, including joint sealing alternatives, alternative load transfer devices, durable concrete mix designs, alternative surface finishing techniques, and more cost-effective use of paving materials (such as widened lanes, trapezoidal cross sections, and two-lift construction).

In each of these applications, emphasis is given to an integrated design approach in which site influences (traffic loading, climate, and subgrade), concrete mix design, structural design, joint details, and construction are considered together to develop the appropriate pavement design. Consequently, the term "high performance" does not necessarily refer to high strength concrete, but rather to any of the materials and mix design, structural design, or construction components of the pavement that are expected to contribute to the pavement's long-term performance.

Included Projects

The TE-30 Program has funded approximately 25 field projects since 1996. As previously noted, these projects were intended to test and evaluate innovative concrete pavement technology in "on-the-road" applications. A report (FHWA 2002) summarized the status of the projects initiated through December 2001; several topic-specific reports were also prepared based on the results of the original FHWA report (Hoerner and Smith 2002; Smith 2002).

Since the preparation of the original report, several additional field projects have been constructed and additional monitoring reports completed. Moreover, projects originally included in a similar FHWA test and evaluation project, Field Trials of Concrete Pavement Product and Process Technology, have been or are in the process of being constructed. The projects included in this report are those from the previous FHWA report (FHWA 2002) with an additional 14 projects included from the Field Trials of Concrete Pavement Product and Process Technology initiative.

The geographical distribution of the included projects is shown in Figure 1, and the projects are listed in Table 1. For each project, the table includes information on the design features evaluated, the year built, the type of concrete pavement (jointed plain concrete pavement [JPCP], jointed reinforced concrete pavement [JRCP], continuously reinforced concrete pavement [CRCP], precast post-tensioned concrete pavement (PPCP), or fiber-reinforced concrete pavement [FRCP]), and whether the project was funded as part of the TE-30 program. More detailed information on each project is provided in the relevant chapter and in Appendix A to this report.

Figure 1. Location of TE-30 and related projects.

Location of TE-30 and related projects. Markers on an outline map of the United States show the approximate location of projects within the following States: California, 1 project; Colorado, 2; Illinois, 4; Indiana, 1; Iowa, 7; Kansas, 2; Maryland, 1; Michigan, 1; Minnesota, 3; Mississippi, 1; Missouri, 1; New Hampshire, 1; Ohio, 4; Pennsylvania, 1; South Dakota, 1; Tennessee, 1; Virginia, 3; Washington, 1; West Virginia, 1; Wisconsin, 4.

Table 1. Listing of TE-30 and Related Projects
PROJECTTE-30?PAVEMENT TYPEDESIGN FEATURES EVALUATEDYEAR BUILT
California 1
I-10, El Monte
NoPPCPPrecast, post-tensioned concrete pavement2004
Colorado 1
SH 121, Wadsworth
NoUTWUltrathin whitetopping2001
Colorado 2
I-25, Loveland
NoJPCPPrecast concrete slabs for full-depth repairs2004
Illinois 1
I-55 SB, Williamsville
NoJRCPAlternative dowel bar materials1996
Illinois 2
IL 59, Naperville
YesJRCP
JPCP
Alternative dowel bar materials
Sealed/unsealed joints
Traffic counters
1997
Illinois 3
US 67 WB, Jacksonville
YesJPCPAlternative dowel bar materials
Sealed/unsealed joints
1999
Illinois 4
SR 2 NB, Dixon
NoJPCPAlternative dowel bar materials2000
Indiana 1
I-65 at SR 60, Clark County
YesJPCPFactors to reduce curling/warping2004
Iowa 1a
IA 5, Carlisle
YesJPCPPCC mixing times on PCC properties1996
Iowa 1b
US 30, Carroll
YesJPCPPCC mixing times on PCC properties1996
Iowa 2
US 65 Bypass, Des Moines
YesJPCPAlternative dowel bar materials
Alternative dowel bar spacings
1997
Iowa 3
US 151, Linn/Jones
YesJPCPFly-ash stabilization of PCC2001
Iowa 4
IA 330, Jasper, Story, and Marshall Counties
NoJPCPElliptical steel dowel bars2002
Iowa 5
Iowa 330, Melbourne
NoJPCPElliptical fiber-reinforced polymer dowel bars2002
Iowa 6
Various locations
NoVariousFly-ash stabilization of subgrade for PCC pavementsN/A
Iowa 7NoVariousTotal Environmental Management for Paving (TEMP)N/A
Kansas 1
K-96, Haven
YesJPCP
FRCP
Alternative dowel bar materials
Alternative PCC mix designs (including fiber PCC)
Joint sawing alternatives
Joint sealing alternatives
Surface texturing
Two-lift construction
1997
Kansas 2
Hutchinson
YesJPCPSmoothness monitoring of plastic concrete2001
Maryland 1
US 50, Salisbury Bypass
YesJPCP
FRCP
PCC mix design
Fiber PCC
2001
Michigan 1
I-75 NB, Detroit
NoJRCP
JPCP
Two-lift construction
Exposed aggregate
Thick foundation
1993
Michigan 2
M25, Port AustinI-675 Zilwaukee
NoJRCPAlternative dowel bar materials and spacing2003
Minnesota 1
I-35W, Richfield
YesJPCPAlternative dowel bars
PCC mix design
2000
Minnesota 2
Mn/ROAD Low Volume Road Facility, Albertville
YesJPCPAlternative dowel bar materials
Doweled/nondoweled joints
PCC mix design
2000
Minnesota 3
Mn/ROAD, Mainline Road Facility and US 169, Albertville
NoUTWApplication of ultrathin whitetopping1997
Mississippi 1
US 72, Corinth
YesResin-ModifiedAlternative PCC paving material
(resin-modified pavement)
2001
Missouri 1
I-29 SB, Rock Port
YesJPCP
FRCP
Fiber PCC
Slab thickness
Joint spacing
1998
New Hampshire 1YesN/AHPCP definitions
"Design Optimization" computer program
N/A
Ohio 1
US 50, Athens
YesJRCPPCC mix design (GGBFS)
Evaluation of HIPERPAV
1997-1998
Ohio 2
US 50, Athens
YesJRCPAlternative dowel bar materials1997
Ohio 3
US 50, Athens
YesJRCPSealed/unsealed joints1997-1998
Ohio 4
US 35, Jamestown
YesJPCPEvaluation of soil stiffness using nondestructive
testing devices
2001
Pennsylvania 1
SR 22, Murrysville
YesJPCPEvaluation of HIPERPAV2004
South Dakota 1
US 83, Pierre
YesJPCP
FRCP
PCC mix design
Joint spacing
Doweled/nondoweled joints
1996
Tennessee 1
I-65, Nashville
NoJPCPImplementation of performance-related specifications2004
Virginia 1
I-64, Newport News
YesJPCPPCC mix design1998-1999
Virginia 2
VA 288, Richmond
YesCRCPPCC mix design
Steel contents
2004
Virginia 3
US 29, Madison Heights
YesCRCPPCC mix design
Steel contents
2004
Washington 1
SR 395, Kennewick
NoJPCPPCC mix design for rapid construction2000
West Virginia 1
Corridor H, Route 219, Elkins
University Avenue, Routes 857 and 119, Morgantown
Route 9 between Martinsburg and Charlestown
NoJPCP
JPCP
CRCP
Alternative dowel bar materials, size, spacing
Alternative dowel bar materials and FRP moisture diffusion
FRP versus steel longitudinal reinforcing bars
2002
2002
2006?
Wisconsin 1
WI 29, Abbotsford
YesJPCPSurface texturing1997
Wisconsin 2
WI 29, Owen
YesJPCPAlternative dowel bar materials
Alternative dowel bar spacings
1997
Wisconsin 3
WI 29, Hatley
YesJPCPAlternative dowel bar materials
Alternative dowel bar spacings
Trapezoidal cross section
1997
Wisconsin 4
I-90, Tomah
YesJPCPAlternative dowel bar materials
PCC mix design
2002
FHWA 1NoUTWUltrathin whitetopping repair techniques1998-1999
Various States 1NoJPCPEvaluation of magnetic tomography for dowel bar location (MIT Scan-2)2003 +
CRCP = continuously reinforced concrete pavement; FRCP = fiber-reinforced concrete pavement; FRP = fiber-reinforced polymer; GGBFS = ground granulated blast furnace slag; JPCP = jointed plain concrete pavement; JRCP = jointed reinforced concrete pavement; PCC = portland cement concrete; PPCP = precast, post-tensioned concrete pavement

Purpose and Overview of Report

The previous FHWA report (FHWA 2002) provides the foundation for this report. The 24 projects described in that original report have been updated, where new information was available, and an additional 15 projects have been included in this report. Most of these newer projects have been constructed and, since the TE-30 program is ongoing, it is necessary to ascertain the status of those projects that have been constructed.

It is the purpose of this report to document the current status of the TE-30 projects and the Field Trials of Concrete Pavement Product and Process Technology sections as well. The authors have also attempted to describe anticipated results from the TE-30 program and to recommend relevant future research activities. Chapters 2 through 39 of this report summarize each individual project included to date, describing the goals of the project, the design features being evaluated, and any preliminary results or products.

Two appendixes are included in support of this report. Appendix A provides a summary table containing general design and construction information on each of the projects. Appendix B lists references relevant to each of the projects, organized by State.

References

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1992. Report on the 1992 U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways. FHWA-SA-93-012. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

---. March 2002. High Performance Concrete Pavements: Project Summary. FHWA-IF-02-026. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Hoerner, T. E., and K. D. Smith. 2002. High Performance Concrete Pavement: Pavement Texturing and Tire-Pavement Noise. FHWA-IF-02-020. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Larson, R. M., S. Vanikar, and S. Forster. 1993. U.S. Tour of European Concrete Highways (U.S. TECH), Follow-Up Tour of Germany and Austria - Summary Report. FHWA-SA-93-080. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Smith, K. D. 2002. High Performance Concrete Pavement: Alternative Dowel Bars for Load Transfer in Jointed Concrete Pavements. FHWA-IF-02-052. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Weinfurter, J. A., D. L. Smiley, and R. D. Till. 1994. Construction of European Concrete Pavement on Northbound I-75 - Detroit, Michigan. Research Report R-1333. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing.

<< PreviousContentsNext >>
 
Updated: 04/07/2011
 

FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration