Appendix A, Highway Concrete Technology Development and Testing Volume III: Field Evaluation of SHRP C-205 Test Sites (HPC),FHWA-RD-02-084 - Pavements - FHWA

FHWA > Engineering > Pavements > Research > Concrete > FHWA-RD-02-084 >Appendix A

Highway Concrete Technology Development and Testing, Volume III: Field Evaluation of SHRP C-205 Test Sites (High-Performance Concrete)

APPENDIX A

Distress survey maps representing the condition of the various patches are presented in figures 25 through 40 in this appendix. The circular dots on the maps indicate core locations. The patches in Arkansas, New York, and North Carolina did not show significant deterioration over time. Therefore, for these sections, distress maps are provided only for the years 1994 and 1998. On the other hand, sections in Illinois and Nebraska showed more pronounced deterioration over time. For these sites, distress maps are provided for all the years in which field surveys were conducted.

Figure 25. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-1 in North Carolina–1994.

Figure 26. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-1 in North Carolina–1998.

Figure 27. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-2 in North Carolina–1994.

Figure 28. Graph. Distress map for patch NC-2 in North Carolina–1998.

Figure 29. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-1 in Arkansas–1994.

Figure 30. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-1 in Arkansas–1995.

Figure 31. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-2 in Arkansas–1994.

Figure 32. Graph. Distress map for patch AR-2 in Arkansas–1995.

Figure 33. Graph. Distress map of section in New York–1994.

Figure 34. Graph. Distress map of section in New York–1998.

Figure 35. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1994.

Figure 36. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1995.

Figure 37 part 2. Description is the same as that for Distress maps in part 1.

Figure 37. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1996.

Figure 38. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1997.

figure 39 part 2. Description is the same as for Distress Maps 1

Figure 39. Graph. Distress maps for patches IL-1 and IL-2 in Illinois–1998.

Figure 40 part 2. Description for distress maps is the same as for part 1.

Figure 40. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1994.

Figurure 41 part 2. Description for distress maps is the same as for part 1.

Figure 41. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1995.

Figure 42 part 2. Description for distress maps is the same as for part 1.

Figure 42. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1996.

Comments: Located – 700 ft west of Breslav Creek Bridge.

No significant change in condition (1995).

No significant change in condition other than progress of surface cracks shown on the map (1996).

Increase in map cracking (1997).

figure 43 part 2. The description for these Distress Maps is the same as for part 1 of Figure 43

Figure 43. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1997.

figure 44 part 2. The description for this Distress map is the same as that for part 1

Figure 44. Graph. Distress maps for patches NE-1 and NE-2 in Nebraska–1998.

This page last modified on 08/15/06

United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration