2008 Survey of European Composite Pavements (2010)

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.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2010 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M REPORT S2-R21-RW-1 2008 Survey of European Composite Pavements DEREK TOMPKINS AND LEV KHAZANOVICH University of Minnesota MICHAEL I. DARTER Applied Research Associates, Inc. F IR ST FR U ITS Early outcomes of research

Subscriber Categories Highways Construction Materials Pavements F IR ST FR U ITS Early outcomes of research First Fruits are products that emerge from the early stages of SHRP 2 research projects. They may include case studies, annotated bibliographies, survey results, compilations of practices and technologies, and other information developed in support of the larger research objectives.

The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the na- tion. Developments in research and technology—such as ad- vanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this im- portant national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated re- sources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and tech- nology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission- oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to comple- ment existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four focus areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behav- ior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disrup- tions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce conges- tion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, envi- ronmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Ac- countable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the Na- tional Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of re- search contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-R21-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-12887-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2010925776 © 2010 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining writ- ten permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously pub- lished or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to reproduce mate- rial in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced ma- terial. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and pub- lication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as Web Documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scien- tific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Insti- tute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Neil F. Hawks, Director Ann M. Brach, Deputy Director Kizzy Anderson, Senior Program Assistant, Implementation, Publications, and Communications Stephen Andrle, Chief Program Officer, Capacity James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Ralph Hessian, Visiting Professional Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Robert Raab, International Coordinator Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Noreen Stevenson-Fenwick, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Chrystyne Talley, Financial Associate Charles Taylor, Special Consultant, Renewal Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Hans van Saan, Visiting Professional Pat Williams, Administrative Assistant Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications Specialist ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Associ- ation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by James W. Bryant, Jr., Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Renewal. The R21 delegation was hosted in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria by colleagues from the interna- tional pavement research community. Adrian van Leest of CROW Technology Platform in Ede, Netherlands, hosted the R21 delegation on May 6–10, 2008, to review several sections of PCC/PCC, the 10-year A12 motor- way with porous AC/CRCP, and, along with George Jurriaans of ECCRA, a large porous AC/CRCP construc- tion project on the motorway A73. Walter Fleischer and several staff of Heilit+Woerner GmbH in Munich, Germany, hosted the delegation on May 11–14, 2008, to review German research, German specifications, in- field PCC/PCC sections along the motorway A93, and construction techniques for PCC/PCC pavements on 21 km of the motorway A6. Hermann Sommer, formerly of VOZfi (Association of the Austrian Cement Indus- try Research Institute) in Vienna, Austria, and Stefan Krispel of VOZfi hosted the R21 delegates on May 15–16, 2008, to review PCC/PCC research and techniques and to visit PCC/PCC pavement sections along more than 100 km of the A1 motorway. Great appreciation is expressed to each of these individuals for hosting the R21 team in their countries. This required significant time and resources to plan the visits and to accompany the team, as well as to assist with the collection of data for the projects included in the R21 database. Without their assistance, this trip and all of the extremely valuable information gained from it would not have been possible.

F O R E W O R D James W. Bryant, Jr., PhD, PE, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer This report documents a survey of in-service composite pavement sites in the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria that was conducted in May 2008 to assess the design, construction, and performance of composite pavement systems. These pavement systems were deliber- ately designed and constructed as composite pavements and had been in service under heavy vehicle loading for 10 to 20 years. The survey focused on the field performance of two types of composite pavements: asphalt over concrete and two-lift, wet-on-wet concrete. The report also discusses other issues that should be considered in the design and construction of new composite pavement systems. The information gathered for this report was used in the design and development of a plan to test composite pavements under SHRP 2 Renewal Project R21: Composite Pavement Systems. The majority of composite pavements that exist in the United States came about as a result of normal pavement maintenance and rehabilitation. This is particularly the case with asphalt overlays on portland cement concrete (PCC) pavements. The use of a high-quality asphalt surface layer over newly placed PCC pavement is uncommon in most of the United States. Furthermore, there is limited experience in the United States in designing and con- structing two-lift, wet-on-wet concrete composite pavements. Two-lift concrete composite pavements use a relatively thin, high-quality concrete surface atop a thicker, less-expensive concrete layer. The lower concrete layer may include high proportions of recycled and other materials that are not desirable for use in the surface layer. Although the two-lift, wet-on- wet technique is rare in the United States, it has been used in pavement construction in Aus- tria and elsewhere. Many transportation agencies have performance data and models for conventional pave- ment systems (flexible and rigid), but the behavior of new composite pavement systems is not well understood. Models for the performance of these hybrid systems are needed for design, performance prediction, and life-cycle cost analysis. Guidance on specifications, construction techniques, and quality-management procedures are also needed by the trans- portation community. Under SHRP 2 Renewal Project R21, a research team led by Mike Darter of Applied Research Associates visited the Netherlands, Germany, and Austria to document the per- formance and construction techniques of in-service composite pavements. The review found that both types of composite pavements performed well under heavy traffic loading during the 10 to 20 years that they had been in service. Observations from this report were used to develop the field design, construction, testing, and evaluation plan for test pavement sections that will be constructed in 2010 at the MnROAD pavement test track in Minnesota. This report is a SHRP 2 First Fruits publication. It was developed in an early stage of the R21 project to support the project’s larger research objectives: determining the behavior of composite pavement systems and identifying critical material and performance parameters; developing and validating mechanistic–empirical performance models and design proce- dures consistent with the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide; and recommend- ing model specifications, construction guidelines, and quality-management procedures.

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 4 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 6 CHAPTER 2 Summary of Projects Visited 6 N279, Near Veghel, Netherlands 6 A6, Near Amberg, Germany 6 A93, Between Brannenburg and Kiefersfelden, Germany 6 A99, Near Ottobrunn, Germany 7 A1, Near Eugendorf, Austria 7 A1, Near Regau, Austria 8 A1, Near Vorchdorf, Austria 8 A1, Near Traun, Austria 8 A12, Near Utrecht, Netherlands 11 A73, Province of Limburg, Southern Netherlands 11 Reference 12 CHAPTER 3 Two-Layer Concrete Composite Pavement System 12 Two-Layer Exposed Aggregate Concrete 13 EAC Materials and Mix Design 13 Netherlands EAC 14 Germany EAC 14 Austria EAC 15 Construction of EAC and Two-Layer Concrete Pavement 15 Netherlands 15 Austria 16 Germany 16 Construction Case Study: A6, Near Amberg, Germany 21 Pavement Design and Condition Case Studies 21 N279, Near Veghel, Netherlands 23 A93, Between Brannenburg and Kiefersfelden, Germany 31 A99, Near Ottobrunn, Germany 31 A1, Near Eugendorf, Austria 33 A1, Near Regau, Austria 34 A1, Near Vorchdorf, Austria 35 A1, Near Traun, Austria 36 Success Factors for Two-Layer EAC Composite PCC Pavements 37 References 38 CHAPTER 4 Asphalt Surfaced Composite Pavement System 38 Netherlands Composite AC/CRCP Projects 39 A12 AC/CRCP Composite Project 39 A73 Porous AC/CRCP Composite Pavement Project

43 SMA/JPCP and SMA/CRCP, Germany 43 A11 Motorway SMA/JPCP, Near Berlin 44 B56 Highway SMA/CRCP 44 A93 Motorway SMA/JPCP, South of Munich 44 References 46 CHAPTER 5 Critical Observations Drawn from Field Survey in Europe 46 Potential Sections for R21 Composite Pavement Database 46 Summary of European Field Survey 46 Composite Concrete Sections 48 Composite Asphalt Sections 49 Recommendations for Construction of Experimental Composite Pavement Systems Under SHRP 2 Renewal Project R21 49 Reference