The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 2-25

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 2... ... 2CHAPTER 2 EFFECTS OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ON ASPHALT PAVEMENTS DESCRIPTION OF LTPP EXPERIMENT SPS-1 The SPS-1 experiment (Strategic Study of Structural Factors for Flexible Pavements) was designed to assess the influence of the following factors on the performance of asphalt concrete pavements: • Asphalt concrete thickness, • Base type, • Base thickness, • Subdrainage, • Climate, • Subgrade, and • Truck traffic level. Read the entire page →
From page 3... ... 3The need for subsurface drainage can be quantified with respect to a design rainfall, that is, one of a given magnitude, duration, and frequency. For example, a 1-year, 1-hour rainfall is an amount of rainfall that at a particular location lasts 1 hour and occurs, on average, once a year. Read the entire page →
From page 4... ... 4Figure 1. SPS-1 sites. Read the entire page →
From page 5... ... ESALs were calculated for the years in which axle load distribution data were available, using: (1) the number of axles reported in each load range in the distribution and (2) Read the entire page →
From page 6... ... ESALs to each of the selected measurement dates, for each site with data available, are provided in Appendix A The age of each SPS-1 site and the accumulated flexible pavement ESALs for each site with traffic data available, as of the latest date of condition measurements available for this study, are shown in Table 9. Read the entire page →
From page 7... ... 7SPS-1 Site Nearest Weather Station State State Code Latitude (degrees) Longitude (degrees) Read the entire page →
From page 8... ... 8(c) Subdrains with outlets were placed and could have been located but were not marked for inspection, or (d) Read the entire page →
From page 9... ... • Michigan 0115, 0117, and 0118 -- Design plans show no outlets planned for the first two of these sections; they show one outlet planned for the third section, but the station is not indicated. No as-built records are available to confirm whether or not these outlets are present. Read the entire page →
From page 10... ... • Michigan 0119, 0120, 0122, and 0124 -- Design plans show that three outlets were planned in each of these sections. No as-built records are available to confirm whether or not these outlets are present. Read the entire page →
From page 11... ... rial described as being present did not seem sufficient to block the flow of water, a "good" rating was assigned. In Table 12, a question mark alone in a cell indicates that no rating can be assigned because no laterals were inspected within the test section. Read the entire page →
From page 12... ... 12 SHRP ID State Problem or Deviation 010100 AL Mechanical problem with paver; construction joint placed in section 0111. Deformations occurred on top of the PATB1. Read the entire page →
From page 13... ... 13 • 0118 versus 0120: 4-inch asphalt concrete over 12-inch base The test sections on 16-inch-thick base (numbered 0109, 0112, 0121, and 0124) are not directly useful in this analysis of the effects of drainage on pavement performance, since all of these sections were designed to have drains, and there are no corresponding undrained designs in the experiment. Read the entire page →
From page 14... ... 14 • Those lacking measurement data for one or both of the test sections (denoted by -- - in Tables 13 through 21) Read the entire page →
From page 15... ... a year earlier, a month earlier, or even a day earlier. Physical reasons why IRI might decrease from one testing date to the next. Read the entire page →
From page 16... ... 16 IRI Difference in IRI AGG ATB/PATB Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0101 0110 AL 01 0.086 0.002 5.37 G1 0.084 0.084 DE 10 0.010 -0.055 3.49 G 0.065 0.065 FL 12 -0.071 -0.004 3.62 P2 -0.067 -0.067 IA 19 0.636 0.576 6.29 ? Read the entire page →
From page 17... ... 17 IRI ATB ATB/PATB Difference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0103 0107 AL 01 0.033 0.306 5.18 G1 -0.273 -0.273 DE 10 0.009 0.093 3.49 G -0.084 -0.084 FL 12 0.009 -0.004 3.62 P12 0.013 0.013 IA 19 0.544 -- -3 6.29 X4 KS 20 0.619 0.152 4.27 ? Read the entire page →
From page 18... ... 18 IRI ATB/AGG PATB/AGG Difference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0105 0107 AL 01 0.023 0.306 5.18 G1 -0.283 -0.283 DE 10 0.040 0.093 3.49 G -0.053 -0.053 FL 12 0.007 -0.004 3.62 P2 0.011 0.011 IA 19 0.538 -- -3 6.29 X4 KS 20 1.167 0.152 4.27 ? Read the entire page →
From page 19... ... 19 IRI AGG ATB/PATB Difference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0101 0110 AL 01 2 -1 6.11 G1 3 3 DE 10 -- -2 2 3.68 -- - FL 12 -- - -- - -- - -- - IA 19 0 -1 4.88 ? Read the entire page →
From page 20... ... 20 Base Type ATB PATB/AGG D ifference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0103 0107 AL 01 3 7 6.11 G1 -4 -4 DE 10 3 2 3.68 G 1 1 FL 12 -- - -- -2 -- - -- - IA 19 -2 -- - 4.88 X3 KS 20 3 -8 6.36 ? Read the entire page →
From page 21... ... 21 Base Type ATB/AGG PATB/AGG Difference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0105 0107 AL 01 4 7 6.11 G1 -3 -3 DE 10 5 2 3.68 G 3 3 FL 12 -- -2 -- - -- - -- - IA 19 2 -- - 4.88 X3 KS 20 21 -8 6.36 ? Read the entire page →
From page 22... ... 22 Base Type AGG ATB/PATB Difference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0101 0110 AL 01 8 9 7.21 G1 -1 -1 DE 10 0 0 4.50 G 0 0 FL 12 -- -2 -- - -- - -- - IA 19 19 12 7.70 ? Read the entire page →
From page 23... ... 23 Base Type ATB PATB/AGG Difference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0103 0107 AL 01 11 9 7.21 G1 2 2 DE 10 0 0 4.50 G 0 0 FL 12 -- -2 -- - -- - -- - IA 19 11 16 7.70 X3 KS 20 18 0 3.40 ? Read the entire page →
From page 24... ... 24 Base Type ATB/AGG ATB/PATB Difference Drained N Y Age, years Drainage functioning All Good Poor Site 0105 0107 AL 01 25 9 7.21 G1 16 16 DE 10 0 0 4.50 G 0 0 FL 12 -- -2 -- - -- - -- - IA 19 27 16 7.70 X3 KS 20 30 0 3.40 ? Read the entire page →
From page 25... ... 25 Table 18 shows the comparisons of undrained dense asphalttreated base over dense-graded aggregate (ATB/AGG) versus drained permeable asphalt-treated base over aggregate (PATB/ AGG) Read the entire page →

From page 2...

... 2CHAPTER 2 EFFECTS OF SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE ON ASPHALT PAVEMENTS DESCRIPTION OF LTPP EXPERIMENT SPS-1 The SPS-1 experiment (Strategic Study of Structural Factors for Flexible Pavements) was designed to assess the influence of the following factors on the performance of asphalt concrete pavements: • Asphalt concrete thickness, • Base type, • Base thickness, • Subdrainage, • Climate, • Subgrade, and • Truck traffic level.