National Academies Press: OpenBook

Texturing of Concrete Pavements (2009)

Chapter: Chapter 2 - State of the Practice

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Introduction
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Texturing of Concrete Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14318.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Texturing of Concrete Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14318.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Texturing of Concrete Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14318.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Texturing of Concrete Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14318.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Texturing of Concrete Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14318.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Texturing of Concrete Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14318.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - State of the Practice." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Texturing of Concrete Pavements. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14318.
×
Page 13

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.

7This chapter summarizes the state of the practice with regard to concrete pavement surface texturing, as gleaned from the lit- erature reviews and interviews with experienced and knowl- edgeable individuals. The summary of current practices deals with the following items: • Surface properties most relevant to the selection of a texture type. • Methods used to measure or test the relevant surface properties. • Types of textures available for use. • Properties typically exhibited or possessed by individual texture types. Literature Review A literature search focused on information pertaining to concrete pavement texture, friction, noise, and other related surface characteristics was conducted. This search involved domestic and international sources available from public agen- cies, industry, academic institutions, and other organizations. Pertinent documents were reviewed (a synthesis of this information is provided in Appendix A which is available online). Key aspects of the synthesis are included in the state-of-the-practice summary presented in this chapter. State and Industry Interviews The literature search effort was supplemented with inter- views with several state highway agency (SHA) and industry representatives, and experts in the area of pavement surface characteristics. The interviews sought (1) information on SHA policies, practices, experiences (including past studies), and perspectives on pavement frictional properties, texture, and noise; and (2) insights and information from other pub- lic or private institutions engaged in these issues. Information was sought about in-service pavements suitable for inclusion in the field evaluations. Individuals from 18 highway agencies, 15 industry groups, and 13 international and related sources were interviewed. Interviewees included representatives of texture, friction, and noise measuring equipment manufacturers/vendors; noise testing facilities; friction and profile testing calibration cen- ters; paving contractor agencies; construction materials and equipment manufacturers, and tire manufacturers. The information obtained from the state and industry interviews was synthesized and is provided in Appendix B. Key aspects of this synthesis are included in the state-of-the- practice summary provided in this chapter. State-of-the-Practice Summary Pavement Surface Properties Pavement surface texture is made up of the deviations of the pavement surface from a true planar surface. These deviations occur at three distinct levels of scale, each of which is defined by the wavelength (λ) and peak-to-peak amplitude (A) of its components. The three levels of texture, as established by the Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC) (1987), are as follows: • Micro-texture (λ < 0.02 in. [0.5 mm], A = 0.04 to 20 mils [1 to 500 μm])—Surface roughness quality at the sub- visible/microscopic level. It is a function of the surface properties of the aggregate particles within the asphalt or concrete paving material. • Macro-texture (0.02 in. ≤ λ < 2 in. [0.5 mm ≤ λ < 50 mm], A = 0.005 to 0.8 in. [0.1 to 20 mm])—Surface roughness quality defined by the mixture properties (shape, size, and gradation of aggregate) of an asphalt paving material and the method of finishing/texturing (dragging, tining, grooving; depth, width, spacing and direction of channels/grooves) used on a concrete paving material. • Mega-texture (2 in. ≤ λ < 20 in. [50 mm ≤ λ < 500 mm], A = 0.005 to 2 in. [0.1 to 50 mm])—This type of texture is C H A P T E R 2 State of the Practice

8the texture which has wavelengths in the same order of size as the pavement–tire interface. It is largely defined by the distress, defects, or “waviness” on the pavement surface. Pavement surface texture influences many different pavement–tire interactions. Figure 2-1 shows the ranges of texture wavelengths affecting various vehicle–road inter- actions, including friction, interior and exterior noise, splash and spray, rolling resistance, and tire wear. As can be seen, micro-texture contributes significantly to surface friction on dry roads at all speeds and on wet roads at slower speeds, while macro-texture significantly influences surface friction on wet road surfaces with vehicles moving at higher speeds. Highway noise is affected by the macro-texture and mega- texture of a roadway, while splash/spray is affected primarily by macro-texture. Methods of Measuring Pavement Surface Properties Several types of equipment and procedures have been devel- oped and used over the years to measure pavement surface properties. Current standardized or widely accepted testing methods for measuring texture, friction, and noise include: • Texture – Sand Patch Method (SPM) (ASTM E 965) – Outflow Meter (OF Meter) (ASTM E 2380) – Circular Texture Meter (CT Meter) (ASTM E 2157) – High-speed Laser Profiler (ASTM E 1845) • Friction – Locked-wheel Friction Tester (ASTM E 274) – Dynamic Friction Tester (DF Tester) (ASTM E 1911) – British Pendulum Tester (BPT) (ASTM E 303) • Noise – Controlled pass-by (CPB) method (NF S 31 119-2) [ISO 5725) – Statistical pass-by (SPB) method (ISO 11819-1) – Close-proximity (CPX) method (ISO/DIS 11819-2) – Coast-by (CB) method (ISO/DIS 13325 and Directive 2001/43/EC) – Trailer coast-by (TCB) method (ISO/DIS 13325) – Acceleration pass-by (APB) method (ISO 362) – Sound intensity (SI)/On-Board Sound Intensity (OBSI) method (General Motors [GM] standard and AASHTO Provisional Standard TP076-08) – Interior vehicle method (Society of Automotive Engi- neers [SAE] J 1477) Brief descriptions and assessments of these methods are pro- vided in this chapter; more details are provided in Appendix A. Texture Measurement The SPM method, the OF Meter, and the CT Meter are texture measuring equipment requiring lane closures. Also, a recently developed line laser system named RoboTex (Robotic Texture), which gives three-dimensional texture readings, requires lane closure. The SPM (ASTM E 965) is a volumetric-based spot test method that assesses pavement surface macro-texture through 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 m Micro-texture Macro-texture Mega-texture Roughness/Unevenness Int. Noise Rolling Resistance Tire/Vehicle Texture Wavelength Note: Darker shading indicates more favorable effect of texture over this range. 0.00001 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 ft Tire Wear Ext. Noise Friction Splash/Spray Figure 2-1. Texture wavelength influence on pavement–tire interactions (adapted from Henry, 2000 and Sandberg and Ejsmont, 2002).

9the spreading of a known volume of glass beads in a circle onto a cleaned surface and the measurement of the diameter of the resulting circle. The volume divided by the area of the circle is reported as the mean texture depth (MTD). The OF Meter (ASTM E 2380) is a volumetric test method that measures the water drainage rate through surface texture and interior voids. It relates the hydroplaning potential of a surface to the escape time of water beneath a moving tire. The equipment consists of a cylinder with a rubber ring on the bottom and an open top. Sensors measure the time required for a known volume of water to pass under the seal or into the pavement. The measurement parameter, outflow time (OFT), defines the macro-texture; high OFTs indicate smooth macro- texture and low OFTs rough macro-texture. The CT Meter (ASTM E 2157) is a non-contact laser device that measures the surface profile along an 11.25-in. (286-mm) diameter circular path of the pavement surface at intervals of 0.034 in. (0.868 mm). The texture meter device rotates at 20 ft/min (6 m/min) and generates profile traces of the pave- ment surface, which are transmitted and stored on a portable computer. Two different macro-texture indices can be com- puted from these profiles—mean profile depth (MPD) and the root mean square deviation of the profile (RMS). The MPD, which is a two-dimensional estimate of the three-dimensional MTD (ASTM 2157), represents the average of the highest pro- file peaks occurring within eight individual segments constitut- ing the circle of measurement. The RMS is a statistical value, which offers a measure of how much the actual data (measured profile) deviates from a best-fit (modeled profile) of the data (Abe et al., 2000). High-speed methods for characterizing pavement surface texture typically are based on non-contact surface profiling techniques. An example of a non-contact profiler for use in characterizing pavement surface texture is the Road Surface Analyzer (ROSANV), developed by the FHWA. ROSANV is a portable, vehicle-mounted, automated system for measur- ing pavement texture at highway speeds along a linear path (FHWA, 2008). ROSANV incorporates a laser sensor mounted on the vehicle’s front bumper and the device can be operated at speeds of up to 70 mi/hr (113 km/hr). The system calcu- lates both MPD and estimated mean texture depth (EMTD), which is an estimate of MTD derived from MPD using a trans- formation equation. Automated profile measurement systems such as ROSANV provide a large quantity of texture data and enhance safety by eliminating the traffic control required for manually performed volumetric methods. Friction Testing The most common method for measuring pavement fric- tion in the United States is the ASTM E 274 using locked-wheel testing equipment supplied with either a ribbed (ASTM E 501) or smooth (ASTM E 524) test tire. This method, used for rou- tine network surveys and/or project-level testing, uses a friction index called the Friction Number (FN) to quantify the level of available friction under wetted conditions. The speed at which the test is performed (typically 40 mi/hr [64 km/hr]) and the type of test tire used (ribbed or smooth) further delin- eate the friction parameter (i.e., FN40R or FN40S represent friction values obtained at 40 mi/hr [64 km/hr] with ribbed or smooth tires, respectively). Friction measurement using a ribbed test tire does not ade- quately assess road macro-texture, because tire grooves allow for removal of water at the pavement–tire interface, eliminat- ing the need for good road macro-texture (Henry, 2000). Recent studies (PIARC, 1995) suggest the addition of lasers to measure macro-texture, and most new testers are now being ordered with texture lasers. This allows for measurements at speeds other than the standard 40 mi/hr (64 km/hr), with a way to adjust the measurement to 40 mi/hr (64 km/hr). Thus, measurements can be done at higher speeds on interstates and lower speeds in towns and at intersections, and then adjusted to a common speed of 40 mi/hr (64 km/hr). The DF Tester (ASTM E1911) allows measuring friction (expressed as DFT) as a function of speed over the range of 0 to 56 mi/hr (0 to 90 km/hr) (Flintsch et al., 2003). The DFT fric- tion parameter is accompanied by the speed at which the test is performed; hence, the typical speed of 12.5 mi/hr (20 km/hr) is designated as DFT12.5 or, more commonly, DFT(20). DFT(20) has been found to correlate well with BPN and is generally used as the reporting friction value (Henry, 2000). Noise Evaluation As described by Bernhard and Wayson (2005), noise is defined as unwanted sound and is typically expressed in terms of sound pressure level (SPL). The formula for SPL, which uses a logarithmic scale and is reported in decibels (dB), is as follows: where p = Sound pressure of concern, Pa pref = Standard reference pressure = 20 × 10−6 Pa SPL adjusted to the sensitivity of human hearing (i.e., atten- uation of low [<500 Hz] and high [>5,000 Hz] frequencies) is referred to as A-weighted sound (Bernhard and Wayson, 2005). The unit of measure is the A-weighted decibel or dB(A). The primary method for detailed evaluation of highway noise in the United States (and most of Europe) is the SPB method, which measures the maximum sound level (Lmax) for a mix of vehicles. The measurement is taken from the side of the road at a specified distance from the center of the travel lane SPL 10 p p Eq. 2-12 ref 2= × ( )log10

10 (typically, 50 ft [15 m] in the United States and 25 ft [7.5 m] in Europe) and at a specified height above the travel surface (5 ft [1.5 m] in the United States and 4 ft [1.2 m] in Europe). The SPB method provides noise values that are representative of a wide range of vehicles; however, it is somewhat costly and time-consuming and results in considerable variability with different vehicles using different roads. A similar method, the CPB method, offers the ability to com- pare roadside noise (Lmax) of different road sections directly using specific vehicle properties and speeds. Although a little less time-consuming than SPB, this method only provides the ability to compare the roadside noise properties from the vehicle(s) used in the evaluation; CPB may not well represent the overall roadside noise experienced by the neighboring com- munity. CPB was used in a study completed in 1999 (Kuemmel et al., 2000), because it provided direct comparison of roadside noise of road surfaces. The two most common methods of measuring near-field pavement–tire noise (i.e., noise at or very near the source) are the CPX and SI methods. The CPX method, which uses sound pressure microphones to measure average dB(A) at 0.3 to 1.6 ft (0.1 to 0.5 m) from a reference tire in an enclosed, sound- absorbing trailer, is relatively inexpensive, fast, and can be used to continuously document the noise characteristics (including variability) of long portions of highway. It has been used in Europe for many years, and a modified CPX noise trailer was used in recent years to evaluate noise on pavement sections in several states (Scofield, 2003; Hanson and James, 2004; Hanson, 2002). Correlations between sound pressure CPX values and roadside CPB levels have been noted as inconsistent (Chalupnik, 1996). The SI method was originally developed by GM and has been used in the United States since the 1990s for conducting pavement–tire noise evaluations. It uses microphones mounted next to the tire of the test vehicle and measures the rate of energy flow through a unit area, which when integrated over the area provides sound pressure. Because these microphone pairs are directional, they are not significantly affected by adja- cent tire and wind noise. NCHRP Report 630 (Donavan and Lodico, 2008) contains the SI test procedure that provided a basis for the AASHTO Provisional Standard TP076 for mea- surement of tire–pavement noise using the OBSI method (AASHTO TP076, 2008). Interior vehicle noise measurement entails the continuous measurement of noise inside the test vehicle as it travels along a road at a specified speed. The measurement location is at a point 2.25 ft (0.7 m) above the front passenger seat. The col- lected noise data for a given run are used to compute the equiv- alent sound pressure level (Leq), which is obtained by adding up all the sound energy during the measurement period and then dividing it by the measurement time (Rasmussen et al., 2007a). Interior vehicle noise is generally a much lower frequency than exterior noise, because the vehicle not only attenuates the high frequency noise, but amplifies the low frequency noise (Rasmussen et al., 2007a). Texturing Methods for Concrete Pavements The following methods are used in the United States and other countries for texturing new concrete pavements or retexturing existing concrete pavements: • Plastic brushing/brooming • Transverse and longitudinal dragging • Transverse and longitudinal tining • Transverse and longitudinal grooving • Longitudinal diamond grinding • Exposed Aggregate Concrete (EAC) surfacing • Porous concrete • Shot abrading In addition, in lieu of retexturing, other options have been used for enhancing the surface characteristics of concrete pave- ments, such as thin (≤1.5 in. [38 mm]) asphalt overlays, ultra- thin (0.375 to 0.75 in. [9.5 to 19.0 mm]) bonded wearing courses (i.e., NovaChip® proprietary treatment), and ultra-thin (0.12 to 0.25 in. [3.0 to 6.0 mm]) epoxied laminates (i.e., Italgrip® System proprietary treatment). FHWA Technical Advisory T5040.36 (Surface Texture for Asphalt and Concrete Pavements) (2005) contains recommen- dations for the applications of many of these textures. A sum- mary of the properties and performance characteristics of the above textures and their relative desirable rankings is provided below. Descriptions of the strengths and weaknesses of each method are given in Appendix A. Texture Properties and Performance Characteristics Each of the identified methods has properties and perfor- mance characteristics that make them more or less desirable for different paving applications. Table 2-1 summarizes the ranges of initial texture, friction, and noise properties reported for each method in the United States. Some examples of the texture depth produced as a result of different tine dimensions are provided in Table 2-2, based on measurements made on various in-service pavement sections (Kuemmel et al., 2000). Table 2-3 summarizes the strengths, weaknesses, and typical costs for each method based on the information available in the literature (Wittwer, 2004; Chandler et al., 2003; Billiard, 2004; Beeldens et al., 2004; Exline, 2004; APTech, 2001). Tentative Benefit Rankings Selecting the appropriate methods for PCC texturing in dif- ferent applications requires a balance of maintaining adequate

11 Table 2-1. Texture, friction, and noise ranges. Texture Type Avg. Groove Depth, mm Avg. Texture Depth (MPD) No. Sections Tested/Evaluated 1.4 0.54 5 1.7 0.51 2 Transverse Tine, Uniform Spacing 1.9 0.46 5 2.1 0.64 5 2.2 0.54 2 Transverse Tine, Variable Spacing 1.9 0.38 2 2.2 0.82 3 Longitudinal Tine Design Groove Spacing, in. 0.5 0.75 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.50 0.75 1.00 – 0.62 2 1 in. = 25.4 mm Table 2-2. Texture depths observed for different groove spacings and depths. short- and long-term wet-weather friction levels, minimiz- ing pavement–tire noise, maintaining road durability, and minimizing construction and maintenance costs. The infor- mation gathered and analyzed provided a sufficient basis for developing tentative rankings according to these categories. The texture method benefit rankings shown in Table 2-4 were determined based on a subjective assessment of the available information. Each paving project includes specific demands for levels of friction, noise, cost, and constructability. Low-speed rural or industrial projects in a dry climate with no curves and inter- sections will demand less noise reduction and less friction than an urban, high-speed throughway that includes several curves and intersections and bisects a residential community. Cost restrictions for the latter may also be less stringent. Aggregate costs may also affect the texturing option chosen. Therefore, the individual category rankings will need to be considered in selecting the optimum texturing methods for each project. It is unlikely that one surface texturing method will always be the best choice in any highway agency (FHWA, 1996a). Highway Agency Texturing Policies and Practices The highway agencies interviewed in this study reported various policies and practices regarding texturing of new con- crete pavements. The texturing methods for high-speed (>40 to 45 mi/hr [64 to 72 km/hr]) pavements are summarized in Table 2-5. Although responses were provided by only 16 states, the general indication is that transverse tining using various patterns and dimensions is currently the most common form of texturing; only a few agencies use longitudinal tin- ing. Several European agencies use one- or two-layer EAC surfaces for new concrete construction. (Additional infor- mation on highway agency texturing policies and practices is provided in Appendix B which is available online.) Texture Range Friction Range Noise Range Method MTD, mm MPD, mm FN40R FN40S CPX, dB(A) CPB Lmax, dB(A) Transverse tine (0.75 in.) 0.53 to 1.1 0.50 to 0.52 41.0 to 56.0 30.6 to 34.4 100.4 to 104.8 83.0 to 84.0 Transverse tine (0.5 in.) 0.35 to 1.00 54.0 to 71.0 37.6 to 62.0 81.9 to 83.0 Transverse tine (variable) 1.14 0.42 to 1.02 50.0 to 69.5 81.0 to 87.3 Transverse groove 1.07 48.0 to 58.0 84.1 to 84.6 Transverse drag 0.76 22.0 to 46.0 Longitudinal tine 1.22 36.0 to 76.6 96.6 to 103.5 79.0 to 85.0 Longitudinal groove 1.14 48.0 to 55.0 99.4 to 103.8 80.9 Longitudinal grind 0.30 to 1.20 35.0 to 51.0 29.9 to 46.8 95.5 to 102.5 81.2 Longitudinal burlap drag 101.4 to 101.5 Longitudinal turf drag 0.53 to 1.00 23.0 to 55.6 20.0 to 38.0 97.4 to 98.6 83.7 Longitudinal plastic brush 48.0 to 52.0 23.0 to 24.0 101.8 to 102.2 EAC 0.9 to 1.1 35.0 to 42.0 Shot abraded PCC 1.2 to 2.0 34.3 to 46.2 84.3 Porous PCC Ultra-thin epoxied laminate 1.4 79.8 Ultra-thin bonded wearing course 0.97 to 1.98 26.0 to 27.0 95.0 to 99.0 1 in. = 25.4 mm

12 Method Strengths Weaknesses Longitudinal burlap drag Automated, simple construction Good noise properties Moderate initial friction and early friction loss Longitudinal turf drag Lower noise, high friction Simple construction and early cure application Long-term friction not well defined Aggregate and mortar strength are critical Longitudinal plastic brush/broom Automated or manual application Good noise properties May not maintain texture, friction, and safety properties Transverse drag Small positive surface water drainage flow Slow and expensive operation Transverse tine (0.75 in.) Durable high friction Automated or manual construction Very high noise and tonal whine Variable depending on weather and operator No positive surface drainage when longitudinal slope is less than cross-slope Transverse tine (0.5 in.) Durable high friction Automated or manual construction High noise and some tonal whine Variable depending on weather and operator No positive surface drainage when longitudinal slope is less than cross-slope Transverse tine (variable) Durable high friction, automated or manual No tonal whine if properly designed/constructed High noise Variable depending on weather and operator No positive surface drainage when longitudinal slope is less than cross-slope Transverse tine (skewed variable) Durable high friction, automated or manual No tonal whine if properly designed/constructed High noise Additional effort required to construct No positive surface drainage when longitudinal slope is less than cross-slope Longitudinal tine High friction, lower noise and no tonal whine Automated construction required Some annoyance or perceived handling problems may be experienced by motorcyclists or drivers of light vehicles, however safety not impacted No positive surface drainage channels Longitudinal groove Provides retrofit macro-texture to old roads Minimal traffic interruption or worker exposure Some annoyance or perceived handling problems may be experienced by motorcyclists or drivers of light vehicles, however safety not impacted No positive surface drainage channels Longitudinal grind High friction, low noise, low worker exposure Increased smoothness Friction decreases rapidly on polish susceptible coarse aggregate with heavy traffic. Transverse groove Provides retrofit macro-texture to old roads Minimal traffic interruption or worker exposure Slow and expensive operation Initial Cost1, $/yd2 0.10 to 0.15 0.10 to 0.15 0.10 to 0.15 N/A 0.10 to 0.15 0.10 to 0.15 0.10 to 0.15 0.10 to 0.15 (unless joints avoided) 0.10 to 0.15 1.25 to 3.00 1.00 to 5.45 4.00 to 8.20 EAC Good noise and friction properties Long-term noise and friction stable Special equipment and methods are required Contractor experience is critical to performance Shotblasted PCC Provides retrofit macro-texture to old roads Minimal traffic interruption or worker exposure Limited improvement in noise properties Porous PCC Very good noise, high friction, low splash/spray Mostly experimental designs Noise reduction reduces with void filling Thin HMA Overlay2 (1.0 to 1.5 in.) Very good noise properties Generally good friction Vertical clearance decreased Splash/spray an issue, particularly for finer mixes Ultra-thin epoxied laminate Good friction No clearance issues Extremely expensive Ultra-thin bonded wearing course Good noise, high friction, low splash/spray Fast application, improved smoothness Vertical clearance slightly decreased 2.50 to 5.00 1.50 to 2.00 10.00 to 11.35 2.50 to 4.50 16.50 to 20.00 2.50 to 5.00 1 For concrete textures, unit costs represent only the cost of the texturing activity (or in the case of porous PCC, the added cost of producing and placing a porous mixture). For the three asphalt textures, the unit costs are representative of the specific material and its placement. 2 Assumes existing pavement is in generally good condition and needs minimal pre-overlay repairs. 1 in. = 25.4 mm 1 yd2 = 0.84 m2 Table 2-3. Constructability, design, and cost comparison for various surface textures.

13 Method Transverse tine (0.75-in spacing) Transverse tine (0.5-in. spacing) Transverse tine (variable spacing) Transverse groove Transverse drag Longitudinal tine Longitudinal groove Longitudinal grind Longitudinal burlap drag Longitudinal turf drag Longitudinal plastic brush EAC Shotblasted PCC Porous PCC Ultra-thin epoxied laminate Ultra-thin bonded wearing course Friction 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 4 2 3 2 1 1 1 2 Exterior Noise 8 6 7 7 6 4 5 3 3 3 3 3 7 1 2 2 Cost 1 1 1 4 – 1 3 3 1 1 1 3 2 5 6 3 Constructability 2 2 2 3 2 1 3 3 1 1 1 4 3 4 3 3 1 = Best/highest ranking Table 2-4. Tentative texture method benefit rankings. Highway Agency Texturing Method Optional Texturing Methods Tran Tine (13 to 25 mm variable) w/ Burlap Drag Long Tine (19 mm) w/ Burlap Drag Burlap Drag (mountains), Long Groove Long Tine (19 mm) Tran Tine (13 to 25 mm variable) w/ Burlap Drag Tran Tine (19 mm) w/ Long Turf Drag Tran Tine (17 to 54 mm variable) w/ Long Turf Drag Tran Tine (variable) w/ Long Turf Drag or Burlap Drag Tran Tine (19 mm) w/ Long Turf Drag or Burlap Drag Long Tine (19 mm), Tran Tine (9.5 to 41 mm) Long Tine (19 mm) w/ Burlap Drag or Long Turf Drag Tran Tine (13 mm slightly variable) Long Turf Drag (≥ 1 mm MTD) Any method (≥ 0.7 mm MTD) Tran Tine (13 mm), Long Tine (13 mm), Long Grind Tran Tine (13 to 19 mm variable) w/ Burlap Drag Tran Tine (13 to 71 mm variable) w/ Long Turf Drag Tran Tine (15 to 54 mm variable) Tran Tine (25 mm) w/ Long Turf Drag Tran Tine (15 to 54 mm variable) w/ Long Turf Drag EAC (2 layer) EAC (1 layer) Long Tine, Long Grind Burlap Drag (MTD 0.4 to 0.6 mm) Long Groove EAC (1 layer) Long Tine-Sinusoid (25 to 30 mm) (MTD 0.6 to 0.9 mm) EAC Long Grind States Countries Alabama California Colorado Florida Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Michigan Minnesota Missouri North Carolina North Dakota Pennsylvania Texas Wisconsin Austria Belgium Germany Japan Netherlands Spain Sweden United Kingdom EAC 1 in. = 25.4 mm Table 2-5. Highway agency texturing practices for new concrete pavements.

Next: Chapter 3 - Evaluation of Existing Texture Test Sections »
Texturing of Concrete Pavements Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 634: Texturing of Concrete Pavements explores a recommended process for determining the type of concrete pavement texture that may be used for a specific highway project. The process considers the effects of texture type on friction and noise characteristics.

Appendixes A through F contained in the research agency’s final report are available online. The appendixes provide detailed information on the literature review, test results, and data analysis, as well as a sample specification for texture.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!