Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home   |   Pavements Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-01-167
Date: April 2005

Structural Factors of Jointed Plain and Concrete Pavements: SPS-2 - Initial Evaluation and Analysis

Table of Contents | Next

FOREWORD

The Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) program Specific Pavement Studies 2 (SPS-2) experiment, Strategic Study of Structural Factors of Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JPCP), is one of the key components of the LTPP program. The main objective of this experiment is to determine the relative influence and long-term effectiveness of JPCP design features and site conditions on performance. This report documents the first comprehensive review and evaluation of the SPS-2 experiment as it exists today. The evaluation concludes that many important and useful findings and results can be obtained from the SPS-2 sites despite several limitations resulting from not constructing a few of the test sites and a few construction deviations that occurred. In addition, some materials and traffic data are missing from some sites or sections. These data are important to achieving the objectives of the experiment, and are now being sought from the SPS-2 sites.

Some interesting and important early trends have been identified that will be useful to the design and construction of JPCP, even though the oldest sections were no more than 7.5 years old at the time of this study. As time and traffic loadings accumulate at the SPS-2 sites, additional valuable performance data will be obtained. For example, the direct comparison of performance of designs with and without a permeable subdrainage layer is of intense interest to the State highway agencies. Future analyses of the performance data from the SPS-2 experiment will lead to new and important findings on the value of subdrainage, base type (treated and unbound), widened lanes, strength of concrete, subgrade soil, traffic level, and climate. These findings will lead to more reliable and cost-effective designs of JPCP.

This report will be of interest to highway agency engineers involved in design, construction, and management of the pavements as well as future researchers who will analyze the performance of the SPS-2 sections.

Paul Teng, Director
Office of Infrastructure Research and Development

Notice

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

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the 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.

 

1. Report No. FHWA-RD-01-167 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle
STRUCTURAL FACTORS OF JOINTED PLAIN CONCRETE PAVEMENTS: SPS-2—INITIAL EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS
5. Report Date
April 2005
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)
Y. Jane Jiang and Michael I. Darter
8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
ERES ConsultantsA Division of Applied Research Associates, Inc.9030 Red Branch Road, Suite 210Columbia, MD 21045
10. Work Unit No.
C6B

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-96-C-00003

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Engineering Research and Development
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Draft Final Report
October 1999 to February 2000
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes
Work was conducted as part of the LTPP Data Analysis Technical Support Contract.Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR): Cheryl Allen Richter, HRDI-13

16. Abstract
The SPS-2 experiment, Strategic Study of Structural Factors for Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JPCP), is one of the key components of the LTPP program. The main objective of this experiment is to determine the relative influence and long-term effectiveness of JPCP design features (including slab thickness, PCC flexural strength, base type and drainage, and slab width) and site conditions (traffic, subgrade type, climate) on performance. This report documents the first comprehensive review and evaluation of the SPS-2 experiment. Thirteen SPS-2 projects have been constructed with one additional site under construction. At each site, there are 12 core sections plus various numbers of supplemental sections.

The data availability and completeness for the SPS-2 experiment are good overall. A high percentage of the SPS-2 data are at level E—greater than 82 percent for all data types, and greater than 99 percent for many. However, a significant amount of data are still missing, especially traffic, distress and faulting surveys, and key materials testing data. These deficiencies need to be addressed before a comprehensive analysis of the SPS-2 experiment is conducted. Required experimental pavement design factors and site conditions were compared with the actual constructed values. Most SPS-2 sections follow the experiment design for the large majority of the design factors. When comparing designed versus constructed, eight SPS-2 projects can be characterized as good to excellent, four projects are considered poor to fair, and one new SPS-2 project does not yet have enough data in the IMS database to be evaluated.

The evaluation has shown that several problems may limit the results that can be obtained from the SPS-2 experiments if not rectified. Specifically, no SPS-2 projects were built on certain subgrade types and in some climates. Some SPS-2 sites had construction deviations, and significant materials data and traffic data are missing from other sites or sections. One site has excessive early cracking that will limit its usefulness. However, even though the SPS-2 sections are relatively young (oldest project is 7.5 years) and a large majority show no or little distress, some interesting and important early trends have already been identified that will be very useful to the design and construction of JPCP. As time and traffic loadings accumulate, much more valuable performance data will be obtained. The Federal Highway Administration is conducting a concerted effort to obtain missing data. Recommendations for future analyses are provided in the last chapter of this report. Valuable information will be obtained from this experiment if these studies are carried out.

17. Key Words
Design factors, experimental design, JPCP, LTPP, performance trends, SPS-2.
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
19. Security Classif. (of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif. (of this page)
Unclassified
21. No of Pages
203
22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed pages authorized


SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
STUDY OBJECTIVES
REPORT ORGANIZATION

2. EVALUATION OF THE SPS-2 EXPERIMENT
ORIGINAL SPS-2 EXPERIMENT DESIGN
CURRENT STATUS OF DESIGN FACTORIAL
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF MISSING EXPERIMENTAL SITES
STATE SUPPLEMENTAL SECTIONS

3. ASSEMENT OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND COMPLETENESS
LTPP DATA AVAILABILITY AND QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
PAVEMENT STRUCTURE DATA
CONSTRUCTION DATA
MATERIAL TESTING DATA
TRAFFIC DATA
CLIMATE DATA
MONITORING DATA
DYNAMIC LOAD-RESPONSE DATA
SUMMARY OF SPS-2 DATA AVAILABILITY AND COMPLETENESS ASSESSMENT

4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN VERSUS ACTUAL CONSIDERATIONCONSTRUCTION
CLIMATE
SUBGRADE
TRAFFIC
CONCRETE SLAB THICKNESS
PCC FLEXURAL STRENGTH
BASE LAYER
DRAINAGE (EDGE DRAINS)
LANE WIDTH
SUMMARY

5. SPS-2 PROJECT STATUS SUMMARIES
ARIZONA SPS-2
ARKANSAS SPS-2
COLORADO SPS-2
DELAWARE SPS-2
IOWA SPS-2
KANSAS SPS-2
MICHIGAN SPS-2
NEVADA SPS-2
NORTH CAROLINA SPS-2
NORTH DAKOTA SPS-2
OHIO SPS-2
WASHINGTON SPS-2
WISCONSIN SPS-2

6. INITIAL EVALUATION OF KEY PERFORMANCE TRENDS
JOINT FAULTING REVIEW AND EVALUATION
TRANSVERSE CRACKING REVIEW AND EVALUATION
LONGITUDINAL CRACKING REVIEW AND EVALUATION
PAVEMENT SMOOTHNESS REVIEW AND EVALUATION
SUMMARY

7. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SPS-2 EXPERIMENTAL SITE STATUS
DATA AVAILABILITY AND COMPLETENESS
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN VERSUS ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION
EARLY PERFORMANCE TRENDS
STATES' EXPECTATIONS FROM THE STATES FOR THE SPS-2 EXPERIMENT
CAN SPS-2 MEET EXPECTATIONS?
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SPS-2 EXPERIMENT
RECOMMENDED FUTURE ANALYSES FOR SPS-2 EXPERIMENT

APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF SPS-2 PROJECT NOMINATION AND CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES
PROJECT SELECTION CRITERIA
PREPARATION AND COMPACTION OF SUBGRAD
BASE LAYERS
PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
CONCRETE PAVEMENT REQUIREMENTS REQUIREMENTS
CONCRETE PAVEMENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS
TRANSITIONS
SECTION STATIONING
DEVIATIONS FROM GUIDELINES

APPENDIX B. SUMMARY OF SPS-2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION AND DEVIATION REPORTS
ARIZONA SPS-2: I-10 EASTBOUND, MARICOPA COUNTY
ARKANSAS SPS-2: I-30 WESTBOUND, HOT SPRINGS COUNTY
COLORADO SPS-2: I-76 U.S. 113 EASTBOUND, ADAMS COUNTY
DELAWARE SPS-2: U.S. 113I-10 SOUTHBOUND, ELLENDALE
IOWA SPS-2: U.S. 65 NORTHBOUND, POLK COUNTY
KANSAS SPS-2: I-70 WESTBOUND, DICKINSON COUNTY
MICHIGAN SPS-2: U.S. 23 NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND, MONROE COUNTY
NEVADA SPS-2: I-80 IN HUMBOLT AND LANDER COUNTIES
NORTH CAROLINA SPS-2: U.S. 52 SOUTHBOUND, DAVIDSON COUNTY
NORTH DAKOTA SPS-2: I-94 EASTBOUND, CASS COUNTY
OHIO SPS-2: U.S. 23 NORTHBOUND, DELAWARE COUNTY
WASHINGTON SPS-2: S.R. 395 NORTHBOUND, ADAMS COUNTY
WISCONSIN SPS-2: S.H. 29 WESTBOUND, MARATHON COUNTY

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Test section details for a full factorial SPS-2 experiment located at two sites (01 to 12 and 13 to 24)
2 Geographic distribution of the constructed SPS-2 projects
3 LTPP data collection and data movement flowchart
4 Frequency distribution of the mean PCC slab thickness for SPS-2 203-mm cells
5 Frequency distribution of the mean PCC slab thickness for SPS-2 279-mm cells
6 Frequency distribution of the 14-day modulus of rupture for SPS-2 3.8-MPa cells
7 Frequency distribution of the 14-day modulus of rupture for SPS-2 6.2-MPa cells
8 Time-series plot of modulus of rupture for SPS projects in Arizona, Arkansas, and Colorado
9 Time-series plot of modulus of rupture for SPS projects in Delaware, Iowa, and Kansas
10 Time-series plot of modulus of rupture for SPS projects in Nevada, Ohio, and Washington
11 Frequency distribution of the 1-year modulus of rupture for 3.8-MPa cells
12 Frequency distribution of the 1-year modulus of rupture for 6.2-MPa cells
13 Distribution of the mean joint faulting values for SPS-2 sections (total 155 sections)
14 Mean edge joint faulting for different categories
15 Sample faulting time history plot-heavily trafficked Michigan SPS-2 sections by base types
16 Distribution of the transverse cracking for SPS-2 sections (total 155 sections)
17 SPS-2 mean percentage of slabs cracked transversely for different categories
18 Sample time history plot for transverse cracking, Michigan SPS-2 project
19 Distribution of the longitudinal cracking for SPS-2 sections (total 155 sections)
20 SPS-2 mean total longitudinal cracking for different categories
21 Sample time history plot for longitudinal cracking-heavily trafficked Michigan SPS-2 project
22 Distribution of the initial IRI for SPS-2 sections (total 155 sections, mean = 1.30 m/km)
23 SPS-2 mean initial IRI for different site conditions and design features
24 Distribution of the IRI for SPS-2 sections (January 2000) (total 155 sections)
25 Recommended future analyses for SPS-2-Site-by-site analysis of SPS-2 projects to gain understanding of performance of individual test sections (initial stage)
26 Recommended future analyses for SPS-2 experiment-study of the effect of the experimental factors on rigid pavement performance
27 Recommended future analyses for SPS-2 experiment-determination of the optimum pavement design features
28 Recommended future analyses for SPS-2 experiment -quantify the relationships between as-designed and as-built concrete slab thickness and strength
29 Recommended future analyses for SPS-2 experiment-calibration and validation of the pavement transfer functions
30 Recommended future analyses for SPS-2 experiment -mechanistic analyses of JPCP
31 Recommended future analyses for SPS-2 experiment -cost/benefit analyses of JPCP

LIST OF TABLES

1 Original SPS-2 experiment design
2 SPS-2 experiment design-project site factorial
3 SPS-2 projects constructed in relation to the project site factorial (note missing cells)
4 List of constructed SPS-2 core and supplemental sections
5 Current status of SPS-2 experiment
6 List of the conducted SPS-2 State supplemental sections and designs
7 SPS-2 site general information and report availability
8 SPS-2 site location information
9 SPS-2 site significant dates and age as of August 1999
10 Data availability and QC levels for key pavement layer data
11 Data availability for lane width, drainage, and shoulder data for SPS-2 sections
12 Data availability assessment and QC levels for SPS-2 key construction data
13 Data availability assessment and QC levels for other SPS-2 construction data
14 SPS-2 materials sampling and testing plan for subgrade and bases
15 SPS-2 materials sampling and testing plan for the PCC surface
16 Data availability assessment for key PCC material testing tables
17 Traffic monitoring data availability assessment for SPS-2 experiment
18 SPS-2 climate information availability
19 Testing frequencies for SPS-2 monitoring data collection
20 Summary of the number of the surveys for longitudinal profile data collection
21 Summary of the number of the surveys for deflection data collection
22 Summary of the number of the surveys for faulting data collection
23 Summary of the number of the surveys for manual and photographic distress data collection
24 Summary of the number of the surveys for friction data collection
25 Data availability assessment for SPS-2 dynamic load response data
26 Summary of the SPS-2 data availability and completeness for key data types
27 Summary of the SPS-2 data availability and completeness assessment for traffic, climate, and monitoring data types
28 Summary of the SPS-2 experimental designed versus as-constructed sites, annual precipitation
29 Summary of the SPS-2 designed versus constructed sites, annual freezing index
30 Comparison of the SPS-2 designed versus constructed values for subgrade types
31 Comparison of the designed versus actual values for annual traffic
32 Designed versus mean constructed SPS-2 PCC slab thickness, mm
33 Designed versus mean constructed SPS-2 PCC slab flexural strength, MPa
34 Summary statistics and t-test results for flexural strength data from all SPS-2 sites
35 Designed versus mean constructed base thickness, mm
36 Designed versus mean constructed lane width, m
37 Designed versus constructed data summary for SPS-2 experiment
38 Designed versus constructed SPS-2 PCC
39 Arizona SPS-2 project summary
40 Arkansas SPS-2 project summary
41 Colorado SPS-2 project summary
42 Delaware SPS-2 project summary
43 Iowa SPS-2 project summary
44 Kansas SPS-2 project summary
45 Michigan SPS-2 project summary
46 Nevada SPS-2 project summary
47 North Carolina SPS-2 project summary
48 North Dakota SPS-2 project summary
49 Ohio SPS-2 project summary
50 Washington SPS-2 project summary
51 Wisconsin SPS-2 project summary
52 SPS-2 sections with noticeable distress
53 Gradation table
54 Geotextile material properties
55 Gradation table
56 Course aggregate requirements
57 Arizona test section pavement designs
58 Colorado test section pavement design
59 Delaware test section pavement designs
60 Iowa test section pavement design
61 Iowa test section thickness variations
62 Kansas test section pavement design
63 Kansas test section PCC thicknesses
64 Michigan test section pavement design
65 North Carolina test section pavement design
66 North Dakota test section pavement designs
67 Ohio test section pavement designs
68 Washington test section pavement design
69 Wisconsin test section pavement designs

 

Table of Contents | Next

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration