Significant Findings from Full-Scale Accelerated Pavement Testing (2004)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

122 APPENDIX A Survey Questionnaire NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Project 20-5, Synthesis Topic 32-04 SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS FROM FULL-SCALE/ACCELERATED PAVEMENT TESTING QUESTIONNAIRE Purpose of this Survey This is a survey to collect information on issues pertaining to full-scale/accelerated pavement testing (APT). In this regard, APT is defined as the application of a wheel loading, close to or above the legal load limit(s) to a prototype or actual, layered, structural pavement system. The objective of the survey is to collect significant findings from various experimental activities to assess the application of APT in research and practice and to address actual and potential benefits to the U.S. pavement community. A questionnaire is set out for completion online. This is preferable. To do so return to the Internet site and access the electronic version. Alternatively, you can complete and mail this downloaded version to one of the addresses provided below. The information you supply will provide valuable input to the development of a summary report on this important topic. Please provide the name of the person completing this questionnaire or someone else who may be contacted to obtain any needed follow-up information, below: Name: Title: Agency: Street Address: City/State/Zip: Country: Telephone: Fax: E-mail:

123 Please complete and return this questionnaire and any supporting documents you can provide, such as copies of papers, proceedings or reports by June 30, 2001 to Amy Epps, Ph.D. 503F CE/TTI Bldg. 3136 TAMU College Station, TX 77843-3136 USA or Fred Hugo, P.E., D.Eng. Ph.D. University of Stellenbosch Department of Civil Engineering Banghoek Street Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa In lieu of sending hard copies of supporting documents by mail, it would be appreciated if you could provide access to electronic files. Should you have any questions, please contact: Dr. Epps at +1 (979) 862 1750 (t), (979) 845 0278 (f) or Dr. Hugo at +27 (21) 808 4364 (t), +27 (21) 808 4361 (f), or e-mail them at: a-epps@tamu.edu or fhugo@sunvax.sun.ac.za Preface to Questionnaire During the international APT conference in Reno, Nevada, in October 1999, it was apparent that a primary goal of APT world wide was ultimately to improve the performance and economics of pavements. This was being done by focusing on APT programs on all aspects of pavement engineering; from design to maintenance and management of constructed pavements, as well as rehabilitation of distressed pavements. To achieve this goal, various tools for monitoring pavement response and various APT trafficking devices have been used. While these aspects are important, the purpose of this questionnaire is to gather information on ATP findings. Given the extent of APT research and application around the world, the focus of the survey will therefore be on a number of categories of information that were identified in preliminary surveys as being major factors that impact on the stated goal namely • Structural Composition • Loading and Environment • Materials and Tests • Modeling • Construction • Rehabilitation • Maintenance Figure A1 gives an outline of the apparent interrelationship between these elements. This was used as a framework for exploring the vast volume of knowledge from APT programs. A survey of this nature cannot and does not attempt to address each of the above listed items in detail. However, in order to optimize the procedure, the questionnaire has been structured to solicit responses at three levels. The first level (green) should not require too much time to complete, and the answers should be readily available. The second level (blue) will require more time and effort, while the third level (red) is probably best suited for those APT users that have intensive programs with detailed information readily available. Respondents are kindly requested to provide as much information as they are able to.

124 Response Tool Trafficking Device Structural Capacity Functional Service Structural Composition Traffic Loading Climatic Impact Loading and Environment Material Laboratory/Field Engineering Laboratory/Field Material and Tests Performance Prediction Remaining Life Modeling Improve Performance and Economics of Pavements PRS Conventional procedures Warranties PropertiesProperties Implementation through Construction, Rehabilitation and Maintenance FIGURE A1 Framework for exploring knowledge generated by APT programs. 1. MANAGEMENT 1.1 Nature of your APT program (check as many as apply). National research program Academic research program State research program Partnership with others in private sector If other, please specify. 1.2 Implementation of your APT is geared towards (check as many as apply): Evaluation/validation of pavement structural composition Evaluation/validation of loading environment (traffic/climate) Evaluation/validation of materials and tests Evaluation/validation of performance models Evaluation/validation of construction techniques Evaluation/validation of rehabilitation strategies 1.3 Type of APT application (check as many as apply). Field Laboratory Fixed-site In-service pavements Test roads Specially constructed 1.4 Type of APT device/system. Number of Axles Single Multiple Linear Unidirectional Bidirectional

125 Circular Elliptical Trucks Other If other, please specify. 1.5 Number of pavement sections tested: 1–5 6–10 11–20 21–50 >50 1.6 Typical duration of APT tests in months: 1–3 4–6 7–11 12–24 >24 1.7 Estimated capital cost of APT facility and equipment: <$1 M $1–2 M $2–5 M >$5 M 1.8 Yearly APT budget: <$0.1 M $0.1–0.2 M $0.2–0.4 M $0.4–0.8 M $0.8–1.6 M >$1.6 M 1.9 Breakdown of budget: Operational <10% 10–20% 20–30% >30% Maintenance <10% 10–20% Staff <10% 10–20% 20–30% >30% 1.10 Average (typical) operational cost/test: <$0.5 M $0.5–1 M $1–1.5 M >$1.5 M 1.11 Number of direct APT personnel: Professional <5 >5 Technical <5 5–10 >10 Administrative <5 >5 1.12 Overall estimated savings/benefits in monetary terms: <$100 k $100–200 k $200–500 k $0.5–1 M $1–2 M >$2 M 1.13 Benefit/cost (B/C) ratio of APT programs: <1:1 10:1 1:1 15:1 2:1 20:1 5:1 >20:1 Please briefly outline the process used to determine B/C ratio. 1.14 Benefits of APT (check as many as apply). None Improved performance modeling Improved structural design procedures Improved pavement management Improved material design procedures Better understanding of variability Use of new or innovative materials Warranty contracts Development of performance-related specifications Weather databases Material databases Evaluation/validation of Superpave Other

126 If other, please specify. Motivate answer in less than 50 words per item. 2. STRUCTURAL COMPOSITION 2.1 What was the purpose of the structural compositions used in your APT program? Structural performance Functional performance 2.2 Indicate which pavement layers were evaluated/validated in the structural performance tests. Layer/ Material Seal Sand Clay Granular Cement Stabilized Asphalt Concrete Composite/ Recycled Ultrathin White-topping Surface Base Subbase Subgrade 2.3 Distress criterion evaluated for seals. Ravelling (abrasion) Bleeding Other Aggregate loss (loss of bond) Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.4 Distress criterion evaluated for pavements with clay/sand material. Collapsing Freeze/thaw Swelling Permanent deformation Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.5 Distress criterion evaluated for pavements with granular materials. Permanent deformation Shear failure Frost/thaw damage Other Not applicable If other, please specify.

127 2.6 Distress criterion evaluated for pavements with stabilized or cemented materials. Cracking Carbonation Crushing Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.7 Distress criterion evaluated for pavements with asphaltic materials. Rutting Moisture damage/stripping Fatigue Aging Low temperature cracking Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.8 Distress criterion evaluated for pavements with concrete. Cracking Fatigue Stress ratio Curling and warping Joint failure Load transfer failure Faulting Spalling Punchouts Steel rupture Erosion of subbase Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.9 Distress criterion evaluated for pavements with composite materials. Rutting Fatigue Cracking Debonding Slippage Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.10 Which aspects of functional performance were addressed? Safety User costs Environment Roughness Not applicable Other If other, please specify.

128 2.11 Which safety aspects were addressed in your APT program? Rutting Punchouts Skid resistance Delamination Roughness Spalling Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.12 Which environmental aspects were addressed in your APT program? Noise Dust pollution Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 2.13 List significant APT findings related to pavement structural composition. 3. LOADING AND ENVIRONMENT 3.1 To which of the following load characteristics has APT performance been related (check all that apply)? Applied wheel load Channelized/wandering Tire pressure Speed Tire type Rest periods Contact stress Overloading Load configuration Roughness/PSI Suspension system Other Vehicle/pavement dynamics If other, please specify. 3.2 To which of the following environment/weather data has APT performance been related (check all that apply)? Air temperature Water table Pavement temperature Drainage Rainfall Depth to bedrock Relative humidity Other Aging If other, please specify.

129 3.3 Which of the following environment/weather conditions are directly controlled (check all that apply)? Air temperature Subgrade moisture Pavement temperature Aging Relative humidity Other If other, please specify. 3.4 APT Test temperature used (check all that apply). Hot (>40°C) (>104°F) Cold (<10°C) (<50°F) Moderate (>10°C < 40°C) (>50°F < 104°F) Freezing (<5°C) (<41°F) 3.5 List significant APT findings related to loading environment. 4. MATERIALS AND TESTS 4.1 APT has led to an improved characterization of (check all that apply). Granular materials Whitetopping Stabilized/cemented materials Geofabrics Asphalt (hot mix) Reinforcement Asphalt (cold mix) Concrete Concrete Other If other, please specify. 4.2 Which of the following asphaltic materials have been tested? Surface Base Continuously graded Open graded Semi-gap graded Gap graded Large stone mixes SMA Porous asphalt RAP Gussasphalt Sand asphalt 4.3 Which of the following material properties have been related to APT performance? Stiffness Binder content Poisson’s ratio Film thickness Density Moisture content Gradation Visco-elastic properties Atterberg limits Aging index Volumetric properties Other

130 If other, please specify. 4.4 Laboratory tests used in conjunction with APT. Wheel trafficking tests: Other performance related tests: PTF Direct tensile tests (strength or fatigue) MMLS3 Indirect tensile tests (strength or fatigue) French Rut Tester Bending beam fatigue Hamburg Tester Cantilever fatigue tests Asphalt Pavement Analyzer Semi-circular bending test Other wheel tracking Triaxial testing Dynamic creep Static creep Other performance related tests Laboratory tests used in conjunction with APT (cont.) SST: Laboratory compaction: Volumetric shear test Marshall Repeated shear test at constant height Modified Marshall (Hugo) Simple shear test at constant height Gyratory Repeated shear test at constant stress Roller Uniaxial strain test Other compaction tests: Shear frequency sweep test at constant height Short- or long-term aging Asphalt binder tests: Permeability Penetration, softening point, ductility Basic aggregate tests: Dynamic shear rheometer Unconfined compressive strength Bending beam rheometer California bearing ratio Rotational viscometer Seismic measurements Sliding plate rheometer Other asphalt binder tests Other If other, please specify. 4.5 Which of the following concrete materials/structures were tested with APT? JCP CRCP Pre- stressed Block Pavers Other None (continue with Question 4.8) Ordinary portland cement concrete High alumina cement concrete Blast furnace cement concrete Polymer-modified concrete Fiber-reinforced concrete Other If other, please specify.

131 4.6 Which of the following properties have been related to APT performance of concrete pavements? Tensile strength Flexural strength Compressive strength Stiffness modulus Other If other, please specify. 4.7 Which laboratory tests were used in conjunction with APT of concrete pavements? Direct tensile strength tests Direct tensile fatigue tests Cylinder compression tests Field core strength tests Split tensile strength tests Split tensile fatigue tests Cube compression tests Other If other, please specify. 4.8 Which field tests were used in conjunction with APT? Scaled wheel trafficking (MMLS3) Seismic measurements Penetration tests (DCP) Ground penetrating radar Density/moisture measurements FWD Benkelman Beam Permeability Rolling Dynamic Deflectometer In situ concrete strength Plate load tests Relative concrete joint movement Other If other, please specify. 4.9 List significant APT findings related to materials and tests. 5. MODELING 5.1 Which aspect of modeling have you studied using APT (check all that apply)? Stress/strain modeling Back-calculation of modulus Deflection modeling Load equivalency Deformation modeling Pavement serviceability Fatigue modeling Other If other, please specify.

132 5.2 Which instrumentation have you used to gather modeling data? Strain gauges Displacement gauges Pressure cells Subgrade moisture sensors Load cells Other If other, please specify. 5.3 Which models have you been using with your APT studies? None Elasto-plastic analysis Elastic layer analysis Finite-element analysis Visco-elastic analysis Other If other, please specify. Please provide specifics of models developed from APT tests. 5.4 List significant APT findings related to modeling. 6. CONSTRUCTION/REHABILITATION 6.1 Which aspects of pavement engineering have you studied to enhance construction and rehabilitation through APT (check all that apply)? Unconventional materials Gradients Joints Slippage Buried pipes Road marking Durability Traffic accommodation Compaction Patching Reinforcement Risk management Preventative maintenance QA/QC Surface texture Surface tolerance Surface drainage Subsurface drainage Other If other, please specify.

133 6.2 APT has aided in the development of construction specifications and contracts with regards to Performance-related specifications Pay factors Warranties Risk management Other Not applicable If other, please specify. 6.3 List significant APT findings related to construction. 6.4 List significant APT findings related to rehabilitation. 7. REFERENCES It is assumed that active APT programs have extensive databases and bibliographies related to their research. It is with this in mind that respondents are requested to provide references pertaining to each of the listed items below that have been published in recognized journals or proceedings. Information on reports will also be useful. This feedback will enable specific information to be accessed beyond the scope that was possible to extract through the general questionnaire. 7.1 Please include a list of your published references that pertain to APT. Link your references to each of the listed related fields. Alternatively, you may insert your references as a single list in the box provided at the end of this section. You can of course expand the size of the boxes to suit your requirements. Management Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher Structural composition Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher Loading environment Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher Materials and tests Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher Modeling Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher

134 Construction Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher Rehabilitation Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher List of references pertaining to APT in general Ref. Number Author(s) Date Title Journal/Proceeding/Report Publisher THANK YOU FOR THE EFFORT YOU PUT IN TO COMPLETE THE QUESTIONNAIRE. WE APPRECIATE IT! Please send your response to one of the two optional addresses on the front page of the questionnaire if you are not submitting the electronic version via the Internet. In the same vein, all other material that you have prepared and are able to send should also go to one of the same addresses on the front page. If you have any questions, please call either Dr. Fred Hugo or Dr. Amy Epps or send an e-mail or fax.