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-RD-02-082
Date: August 2006

Highway Concrete Technology Development and Testing Volume I: Field Evaluation of SHRP C-202 Test Sites (Hpc)

PDF Version (2.62 MB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

FOREWORD

Distress in portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements can be caused by aggregate that is reactive to alkalies in the environment. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) monitored test sections of various treatments designed to mitigate this type of distress in PCC pavements that contained aggregates known to be reactive with alkalies. The pavement treatments were part of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP). The test sections were located in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Delaware. Three pavement sites had suffered some degree of distress due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR) prior to treatment, and one pavement was newly constructed with known reactive aggregates.

The test sections in all four States were monitored annually for 5 years, from 1994 through 1998. The monitoring was done by Long-Term Pavement Performance (LTPP) visual surveys, faulting measurements, relative humidity testing, petrographic examination, and compressive strength and elastic modulus testing. Falling Weight Deflectometer (FWD) testing was also performed at all four test sites. This report describes and quantifies the differences between test sections and the results of the various treatments used.

Gary L. Henderson
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 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 and manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-RD-02-082

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Strategic Highway Research Program

Highway Concrete Pavement Technology Development and Testing:
Volume I—Field Evaluation of Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP)
C-202 Test Sites (Alkali-Silica Reaction (ASR))

5. Report Date

 

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Paul Krauss—Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
Jagannath Mallela, Brian Aho—ERES Division of ARA, Inc.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc.
330 Pfingsten Road
Northbrook, IL 60062-2095
ERES Division of Applied
Research Associates, Inc.
505 W. University Avenue
Champaign, IL 61820-3915

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

 

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-94-C-00009

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Engineering and Highway Operations R&D
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA 22101-2296

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

 

14. Sponsoring Agency’s Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Monte Symons, P.E. This work was conducted under subcontract by Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. The authors are thankful for the generous help from the participating transportation departments of Nevada, California, New Mexico, and Delaware. The authors also wish to thank Mathew Sherman (formerly with WJE) for his assistance in collecting field data for this project and Mr. Leslie Titus-Glover (ERES) for his help during statistical analysis of nondestructive evaluation data.

16. Abstract

This study consists of continued field evaluations of treatments to four pavements suffering from distress due to alkali-silica reaction (ASR). One set of treatments was evaluated on existing pavements in Delaware, California, and Nevada that already showed ASR-related distress. Two of the existing pavements were located in relatively dry environments, while the third (in Delaware) was located in a moderately wet environment. The fourth site, in New Mexico, consisted of treatments on newly constructed pavements built with known reactive aggregates. At the Nevada site, the pavement was treated with methacrylate (HMM), silane, linseed oil, or lithium hydroxide. The Delaware site used only lithium hydroxide, while the California site used only methacrylate. The test sections in New Mexico consisted of pavement that contained admixtures as ASR inhibitors. There were two rates of addition of lithium hydroxide, a 25 percent replacement of cement with combinations of Class C and F fly ashes, and a high-range water reducer (HRWR). This evaluation showed that, unfortunately, none of the treatments were significantly beneficial to pavements with moderate to advanced ASR damage. The methacrylate sealer was effective when applied to a bridge deck and extended the pavement service life 3 to 5 years or more when applied in two to three coats. The results indicate that, regardless of the treatment, upward moisture migration from the subgrade to the bottom of the pavement is sufficient to support continued ASR even in dry desert climates. Preliminary results from the New Mexico test sites show that Class F ash, LOMAR (HRWA), or blended Class C and Class F ash may improve resistance to ASR distress. However, Class C ash can make deterioration much worse. Careful selection of the fly ash is necessary when attempting to mitigate known reactive aggregate. Continued monitoring of this test site is recommended.

17. Key Words

Concrete pavement, durability, compressive strength, rapid chloride permeability test, AC impedance test, life cycle cost

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

185

22. Price

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

SI* (Modern Metric) Conversion Factors


TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Summary of Results from Winnemucca, NV
     Summary of Pavement Condition by Section
     Joint Distress
     Severe Map Cracking at Joints
     Wheelpath and Centerline Rating
     Transverse Cracking
     Modulus and Strength Testing
     Relative Humidity Measurements
     Petrographic Studies
     Summary for Winnemucca, NV Test Site

3. Summary of Results from Newark, DE
     Summary of Pavement Section Condition
     Joint Distress and Travel Lane Observations
     Transverse Cracking
     Modulus and Strength Testing
     Relative Humidity Measurements
     Petrographic Examination
     Summary of Newark, DE Test Site

4. Summary of Test Results From Boron, CA
     Introduction
     Boron Overhead
          Pavement Sections
          Observations
          Status of Test Sections
     Map Cracking
     Joint Distress
     Wheelpath Distress
     Centerline Distress
     Elastic Modulus and Compressive Strength
     Relative Humidity Measurements
     Petrographic Examination
     Summary of Boron, CA Test Site

5. Summary of Test Results From Albuquerque, NM
     Condition of Pavement Sections
     Transverse Joint Spalling
     Map Cracking
     Modulus Testing of Cores
     Relative Humidity
     Petrographic Examination
     Summary of Lomas Boulevard, Albuquerque, NM, Test Site

6. Falling Weight Deflectometer Results
     Introduction
     Methodology
          Data Collection
          Data Assembly
     Performance Indicators and Their Significance
     FWD Data Analysis for the Nevada Site
          Subgrade k-value
          Do (Center Slab)
          EPCC (Center Slab)
          Do (Joint—Leave Side)
     FWD Data Analysis for the Delaware Site
          Subgrade k-value
          Do (Center Slab)
          Backcalculated Concrete Modulus, EPCC
          Do (Joint—Leave Side)
          LTE (Joint)
     FWD Data Analysis for the California Site
          Subgrade k-value
          Do (Center Slab)
          Backcalculated Concrete Modulus, EPCC
          Do (Joint—Leave Side)
          LTE (Joint)
     FWD Data Analysis for the New Mexico Site
          Subgrade k-value
          Do (Center Slab)
          Backcalculated EPCC (Center Slab)
          Do (Joint—Leave Side)
          LTE (Joint)
     Summary of FWD Testing

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

REFERENCES

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Overall view of Winnemucca, NV test site
Figure 2. Winnemucca, NV test section layout
Figure 3. Joint distress of high severity (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure 4. Joint distress of medium severity (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure 5. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1994)
Figure 6. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1995)
Figure 7. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1996)
Figure 8. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1997)
Figure 9. Joint distress for all sections of Winnemucca test site (1998)
Figure 10. Actual joint length of each severity level for each section (Winnemucca, NV, 1998)
Figure 11. Photograph showing widespread map cracking in shoulder area of Winnemucca test site
Figure 12. Close-up of map cracking with efflorescence (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure 13. Number of areas of severe map cracking in each section from 1995 through 1998 (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure 14. Total area of severe map cracking for each section for 1995 through 1998 (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure 15. Full-width transverse cracking in test section (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure 16. Transverse cracking with intersecting longitudinal crack (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure 17. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1994)
Figure 18. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1995)
Figure 19. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1996)
Figure 20. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1997)
Figure 21. Amount and severity of transverse cracking for all sections (Winnemucca, NV, 1998)
Figure 22. North and south views of the Newark, DE site
Figure 23. Typical longitudinal cracking (Newark, DE)
Figure 24. Typical longitudinal cracking and example of asphalt patching along joint between shoulder and travel lane (Newark, DE)
Figure 25. Area of each slab affected by map cracking over the 5 years of the study (Newark, DE)
Figure 26. Area of each slab affected by map cracking expressed as a percentage of the total section area (Newark, DE)
Figure 27. Asphalt concrete patching along transverse joint in travel lane (Newark, DE)
Figure 28. Asphalt patch in center of section in travel lane (Newark, DE)
Figure 29. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1994)
Figure 30. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1995)
Figure 31. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1996)
Figure 32. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1997)
Figure 33. Length and severity of joint distress for all test sections (Newark, DE, 1998)
Figure 34. Summary of transverse cracking in each section for the five inspections (Newark, DE)
Figure 35. Treated section on Boron overhead structure over State Route 58 looking east (Boron, CA)
Figure 36. Photograph showing part of Boron, CA, test site, M2, Station 250
Figure 37. Photograph showing part of Boron, CA, test site, M3, Station 160
Figure 38. Plan view of Boron, CA, test site
Figure 39. Example of high-severity map cracking (Boron, CA)
Figure 40. Close-up photograph showing typical map cracking (Boron, CA)
Figure 41. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1995)
Figure 42. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1996)
Figure 43. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1997)
Figure 44. Map cracking as a percentage for each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1998)
Figure 45. Photograph showing medium-severity joint distress (Boron, CA)
Figure 46. Photograph showing an example of high-severity joint distress (Boron, CA)
Figure 47. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1995)
Figure 48. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1996)
Figure 49. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1997)
Figure 50. Amount and severity of joint distress (Boron, CA, 1998)
Figure 51. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1995)
Figure 52. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1996)
Figure 53. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1997)
Figure 54. True length of joint spalls at each level of severity (Boron, CA, 1998)
Figure 55. New Mexico ASR test section layout—westbound approach slabs to Lomas Boulevard (State Route 352) bridge over I-25
Figure 56. Lomas Boulevard westbound structure over I-40 (Albuquerque, NM)
Figure 57. Photographs of all sections in Albuquerque, NM
Figure 58. Area of map cracking as a percentage of the total area (all sections, Albuquerque, NM)
Figure 59. Modulus of elasticity test results for cores in the dry condition (all sections, Albuquerque, NM)
Figure 60. Modulus of elasticity test results for cores in the saturated condition (all sections, Albuquerque, NM)
Figure 61. Falling Weight Deflectometer
Figure 62. Illustration of testing locations
Figure 63. Static k-values for Nevada test section
Figure 64. Nevada test site—Do from center slab
Figure 65. Nevada test site—EPCC from center slab
Figure 66. Nevada test site—Do from leave side; deflection LTE (wheelpath)
Figure 67. Average LTE values for the various treatment sections for the Nevada site
Figure 68. Average temperatures at time of joint testing for the Nevada site
Figure 69. Static k-values for the Delaware site
Figure 70. Delaware test site—Do from center slab test
Figure 71. Delaware test site—EPCC from center slab
Figure 72. Delaware test site—Do from leave side
Figure 73. Delaware test site—LTE
Figure 74. Average temperatures at time of joint testing for the Delaware site
Figure 75. Static k-value for California test section
Figure 76. California test site—Do from center slab
Figure 77. California test site—EPCC from center slab
Figure 78. California test site—Do from leave side
Figure 79. California test site—LTE
Figure 80. Static k-value for New Mexico test
Figure 81. New Mexico test site—Do from center slab
Figure 82. New Mexico test site—EPCC from center slab
Figure 83. New Mexico test site—Do from leave side
Figure 84. Temperature variation during FWD testing for the New Mexico site
Figure 85. New Mexico test site—LTE
Figure A1. Photographs of typical joint sections for each test section (Winnemucca, NV)
Figure B1. Photographs of typical area of each section (Newark, DE)
Figure C1. Photographs showing typical areas of each section (Boron, CA)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Inspection dates and conditions (Winnemucca, NV)
Table 2. Wheelpath and centerline ratings for 1995 and 1998; number of slabs with each rating (Winnemucca, NV)
Table 3. Number of transverse cracks per section
Table 4. Modulus of elasticity testing results for Winnemucca, NV (dry tested, x 106 psi)
Table 5. Modulus of elasticity testing results for Winnemucca, NV (wet tested, x 106 psi)
Table 6. Summary of average modulus data for Winnemucca, NV
Table 7. Compressive strength testing results for Winnemucca, NV
Table 8. Relative humidity measurements for Winnemucca, NV (December 1995)
Table 9. Relative humidity measurements for Winnemucca, NV (October 1997)
Table 10. Relative humidity measurements for Winnemucca, NV (October 1998)
Table 11. Summary of petrographic examinations for cores from Winnemucca, NV
Table 12. Summary of petrographic results (average 1997-1998) for cores from Winnemucca, NV
Table 13. Summary of Winnemucca, NV test sections
Table 14. Inspection dates and conditions
Table 15. Condition of Delaware test pavement sections in 1998
Table 16. Newark, DE, core modulus testing results (psi x 106, dry tested)
Table 17. Newark, DE, core modulus testing results (psi x 106, wet tested)
Table 18. Newark, DE, compressive strength results (psi)
Table 19. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1994)
Table 20. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1995)
Table 21. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1996)
Table 22. Relative humidity testing at Newark, DE (1997)
Table 23. Summary of petrographic findings for 1997 and 1998
Table 24. Wheelpath ratings for all sections, Boron, CA
Table 25. Centerline ratings for all sections, Boron, CA
Table 26. Modulus dry tested elastic modulus (psi x 106), Boron, CA
Table 27. Modulus wet tested elastic modulus (psi x 106), Boron, CA
Table 28. Compressive strength test results (Boron, CA)
Table 29. Relative humidity testing (1994)
Table 30. Relative humidity testing (1995)
Table 31. Relative humidity testing (1996)
Table 32. Relative humidity testing (1997)
Table 33. Relative humidity testing (1998)
Table 34. Summary of petrographic findings for 1997 and 1998, Boron, CA
Table 35. Test variables Lomas Boulevard, Albuquerque, NM
Table 36. Visual inspection notes for October 1, 1998 (Albuquerque, NM)
Table 37. Summary of transverse joint spalling (1998)
Table 38. Elastic modulus test results dry condition (psi x 106, average of 2 cores) Albuquerque, NM
Table 39. Elastic modulus test results wet condition (psi x 106, average of 2 cores), Albuquerque, NM
Table 40. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1994)
Table 41. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1995)
Table 42. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1996)
Table 43. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1997)
Table 44. Relative humidity testing, Albuquerque, NM (1998)
Table 45. Summary of petrographic examination of cores for 1998 (S = Shakespeare, G = Grevey)
Table 46. Summary of petrographic examination
Table 47. General cross section information
Table 48. Results of Delaware Duncan grouping
Table 49. Statistical analysis of California LTE
Table A1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section
Table A2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section L2
Table A3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section S2
Table A4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section M2
Table A5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section SA1
Table A6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section LO1
Table A7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control 2
Table A8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section S1
Table A9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section L1
Table A10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 1
Table A11. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—section M1
Table B1. Transverse joint observations of Route 72, Newark, DE (1998)
Table B2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 1
Table B3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 1
Table B4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 2
Table B5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 2
Table B6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 3
Table B7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 4
Table B8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 3
Table B9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—test section 4
Table B10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—control section 5
Table C1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—C1-boron
Table C2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—C2-boron
Table C3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—C3-boron
Table C4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—M1-boron
Table C5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—M2-boron
Table C6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—M3-boron
Table D1. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—1–1% LiOH
Table D2. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—2–0.5% LiOH
Table D3. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—3-Lomar
Table D4. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—4-class F fly ash
Table D5. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—5-class F fly ash
Table D6. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—6-control
Table D7. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—7-blended C&F
Table D8. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—8-class F
Table D9. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—9-control
Table D10. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—10–1% LiOH
Table D11. Summary of LTPP survey sheets for ASR investigation—11-class C ash

 


The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field offices across the United States. is a major agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a part of the U.S. Department of Transportation and is headquartered in Washington, D.C., with field offices across the United States. is a major agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). Provide leadership and technology for the delivery of long life pavements that meet our customers needs and are safe, cost effective, and can be effectively maintained. Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) R&T Web site portal, which provides access to or information about the Agency’s R&T program, projects, partnerships, publications, and results.
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration