The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 44-62

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 44... ... 44 Deflection Data Processing The following data items were extracted from the LTPP database for use in the deflection analysis of the SPS-1 and SPS-2 test sections: • Testing date and time, • Test location (position on pavement) , • Applied loads, • Deflection sensor configurations, • Peak deflection data, and • Air and pavement surface temperature measurements. Read the entire page →
From page 45... ... of the nearly 1,400 SPS-1 deflection testing dates and all of the nearly 1,100 SPS-2 deflection testing dates. These regression equations were used with the extracted deflection data to assign an AC or PCC middepth temperature to every deflection basin measured. Read the entire page →
From page 46... ... Backcalculated Effective Pavement Thickness by Experimental Design Test Section State 0101 0102 0103 0104 0105 0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116 0117 0118 0119 0120 0121 0122 0123 0124 AL 9.1 6.9 10.6 20.8 8.0 20.8 7.2 12.0 15.2 11.8 12.5 17.5 DE 9.1 9.0 14.6 22.7 10.1 20.9 8.1 14.1 18.3 16.5 18.9 24.4 FL 11.2 10.7 13.4 21.7 9.4 18.8 8.2 15.2 21.5 13.5 14.6 22.5 IA 8.9 7.4 9.3 24.8 6.6 21.7 5.3 11.0 12.2 9.0 9.4 20.7 KS 12.5 10.1 10.0 18.0 7.8 16.9 6.8 13.0 14.6 13.2 16.6 22.0 NV 10.2 7.5 7.5 17.4 6.7 16.1 7.0 12.0 14.4 11.5 24.1 14.3 NM 8.5 8.3 8.0 11.6 6.1 9.6 7.9 11.6 12.8 8.1 8.1 10.1 OH 7.7 5.9 7.8 18.3 6.7 16.1 5.7 12.2 13.8 9.8 13.0 17.6 AZ 7.2 12.1 19.0 19.5 16.0 15.7 12.3 10.8 13.4 12.5 20.4 26.9 AR 6.9 10.7 16.7 19.2 12.1 15.3 12.1 10.1 11.5 10.9 17.7 20.3 LA 8.6 14.0 16.5 18.0 13.5 12.3 14.9 12.2 14.3 11.1 16.4 21.2 MI 19.2 18.0 13.4 14.2 8.4 10.7 22.6 28.3 MT 4.8 9.0 23.3 25.8 18.2 20.9 16.0 11.6 13.7 14.6 25.9 33.0 NE 5.0 6.5 9.1 12.2 8.3 10.9 8.1 8.2 9.4 7.8 13.4 15.9 OK 7.1 14.3 24.7 21.9 16.8 17.3 16.1 13.1 13.1 17.3 25.7 31.0 TX 9.8 15.9 19.2 19.6 13.4 16.6 15.4 14.8 15.9 13.1 20.6 27.0 VA 5.3 9.5 21.7 24.2 14.5 16.2 14.5 10.8 12.3 14.9 22.9 27.7 WI 7.7 9.8 14.0 10.9 12.0 11.4 9.1 8.4 11.7 8.7 17.3 20.1 Average (in.) 9.6 8.2 10.1 19.4 7.7 17.6 7.0 12.6 15.4 11.7 14.6 18.6 6.9 11.3 18.3 18.9 13.8 15.1 13.2 10.8 12.6 12.3 20.3 25.1 AC design thickness (in.) Read the entire page →
From page 47... ... 02 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 AL DE FL IA KS NV NM OH State Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in ch es ) 0101 undrained DGA 0110 drained ATB/PATB Figure 70. Read the entire page →
From page 48... ... AZ AR LA MI MT NE OK TX VA WI State 0113 undrained DGA 0122 drained ATB/PATB 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in ch es ) Figure 72. Read the entire page →
From page 49... ... AL DE FL IA KS NV NM OH State 0103 undrained ATB 0105 undrained ATB/DGA 0107 drained PATB/AGG 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in ch es ) Figure 74. Read the entire page →
From page 50... ... AZ AR LA MI MT NE OK TX VA WI State 0115 undrained ATB 0117 undrained ATB/DGA 0119 drained PATB/AGG 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in ch es ) Figure 76. Read the entire page →
From page 51... ... Despite the design AC surface thickness, total base thickness, and all other experimental factors being equal for each set of test sections compared in those four figures, in nearly every case it is the pavements with dense-graded asphalttreated base that have the greatest backcalculated effective pavement thickness. In every case, the pavement section with drained permeable asphalt-treated base over aggregate (PATB/AGG, Group D) Read the entire page →
From page 52... ... Backcalculated Effective Pavement Thickness by Experimental Design Test Section State 0101 0102 0103 0104 0105 0106 0107 0108 0109 0110 0111 0112 0113 0114 0115 0116 0117 0118 0119 0120 0121 0122 0123 0124 AL 12.3 6.4 17.0 26.0 11.8 25.4 7.0 22.4 19.6 20.4 20.7 26.8 DE 7.9 8.5 9.5 16.2 7.7 15.2 6.3 10.5 14.8 11.5 13.5 16.5 FL 11.9 11.6 15.0 22.8 10.4 21.6 9.8 16.5 21.5 16.7 17.7 21.2 IA 14.7 10.7 17.8 26.1 11.9 24.9 14.5 14.9 22.4 22.8 22.9 33.4 KS 7.8 7.9 7.6 16.0 5.7 13.7 5.5 10.6 11.7 11.7 11.9 15.7 NV 13.0 7.8 15.6 29.1 14.5 24.7 8.9 19.7 21.6 20.1 22.2 29.7 NM 11.8 8.8 13.9 19.6 9.4 20.9 10.7 16.2 17.7 14.7 14.7 18.5 OH 7.5 5.5 9.1 14.9 4.7 12.8 0.0 10.4 13.5 12.6 13.7 19.1 AZ 6.5 13.3 19.6 21.4 17.1 16.3 12.9 10.1 12.8 13.3 18.7 26.2 AR 9.9 13.2 16.3 25.2 12.6 17.8 15.4 12.8 13.6 19.9 29.0 31.8 LA 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 MI 0.0 0.0 17.8 22.7 14.4 8.2 5.3 8.3 25.5 31.5 8.8 0.0 MT 2.9 9.8 13.8 12.8 11.2 12.1 11.2 8.9 10.7 8.2 13.9 18.3 NE 6.4 8.2 7.6 10.6 7.0 8.8 8.3 7.8 10.2 7.0 12.7 15.5 OK 5.9 12.2 14.9 13.4 9.6 12.2 13.5 11.9 11.8 15.1 21.1 24.1 TX 9.7 14.3 20.6 22.0 16.0 16.8 12.4 12.9 14.6 16.2 22.1 25.7 VA 5.7 13.2 13.8 16.3 13.7 14.6 13.5 9.9 12.1 13.0 19.5 21.3 WI 8.3 14.4 20.1 22.4 15.5 20.5 12.5 11.6 13.9 16.6 24.0 29.5 Average (in.) 10.9 8.4 13.2 21.3 9.5 19.9 7.8 15.2 17.8 16.3 17.2 22.6 5.5 9.9 14.5 16.7 11.7 12.7 10.5 9.4 12.5 14.1 17.0 19.2 AC design thickness (in.) Read the entire page →
From page 53... ... Analysis of SPS-2 Concrete Pavement Deflections Effective Thickness of SPS-2 PCC Pavement Structures A two-layer analysis procedure was used to determine the inplace k value of the subgrade and the elastic modulus of the pavement structure (all layers combined) above the subgrade, using deflections measured at load levels nearest to 9,000 lb and normalized to 9,000 lb. Read the entire page →
From page 54... ... Backcalculated Effective Pavement Thickness by Experimental Design Test Section State 0201 0202 0203 0204 0205 0206 0207 0208 0209 0210 0211 0212 0213 0214 0215 0216 0217 0218 0219 0220 0221 0222 0223 0224 CA 15.2 16.2 17.0 17.4 20.7 15.2 19.6 23.1 13.2 13.9 13.6 15.2 DE 16.1 17.1 18.4 18.1 19.1 24.4 23.0 21.7 15.3 14.9 16.9 16.7 KS 15.0 15.9 17.7 18.5 27.4 21.5 28.5 23.9 15.5 14.8 17.7 16.4 NV 13.8 7.6 14.3 16.5 21.7 17.7 21.4 23.3 11.5 11.1 12.7 NC 19.1 18.9 17.3 19.0 23.9 21.5 23.4 22.8 15.2 15.0 15.1 16.2 OH 15.4 15.5 16.8 19.3 15.9 17.0 16.1 17.2 13.8 13.5 15.2 16.6 WA 14.4 15.1 16.2 16.5 18.0 16.0 18.6 16.2 12.5 12.9 14.1 14.1 AZ 14.9 16.7 16.9 18.0 20.5 20.8 16.7 17.8 14.6 13.6 15.6 17.0 AR 22.4 20.1 20.8 22.0 22.0 22.2 22.0 23.4 15.2 14.2 15.3 17.7 CO 13.7 13.4 16.4 18.5 16.4 15.1 19.9 16.6 12.1 14.4 14.7 15.1 IA 15.9 14.9 17.3 18.0 21.4 18.7 20.4 21.1 12.1 24.3 15.1 16.8 MI 15.0 15.1 17.4 17.4 20.7 17.3 21.1 16.7 14.0 14.3 16.1 15.9 ND 16.9 18.5 18.6 19.4 27.8 21.0 24.5 19.8 15.0 14.9 16.5 17.1 WI 16.3 16.9 15.7 18.5 24.1 22.2 22.1 27.0 13.0 14.2 14.6 15.7 Average (in.) 15.6 15.2 16.8 17.9 21.0 19.1 21.5 21.2 13.9 13.7 15.0 15.9 16.4 16.5 17.6 18.8 21.8 19.6 21.0 20.3 13.7 15.7 15.4 16.5 Design PCC slab thickness (in.) Read the entire page →
From page 55... ... PCC slab thickness, the design PCC flexural strength, and the lane width for each of the 24 test section designs. Eight sets of three test sections apiece can be used to compare the backcalculated effective pavement thicknesses in the undrained Group A (AGG) Read the entire page →
From page 56... ... 05 10 15 20 25 30 CA DE KS NV NC OH WA State Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in .) 0202 undrained DGA 0206 undrained LCB 0210 drained PATB Figure 80. Read the entire page →
From page 57... ... 05 10 15 20 25 30 CA DE KS NV NC OH WA State Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in .) 0204 undrained DGA 0208 undrained LCB 0212 drained PATB Figure 82. Read the entire page →
From page 58... ... AZ AR CO IA MI ND WI 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 State Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in .) 0214 undrained DGA 0218 undrained LCB 0222 drained PATB Figure 84. Read the entire page →
From page 59... ... 59 AZ AR CO IA MI ND WI 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 State Eq ui va le nt th ic kn es s (in .) 0216 undrained DGA 0220 undrained LCB 0224 drained PATB Figure 86. Read the entire page →
From page 60... ... 60 -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Midslab temperature, deg F Le av e (J5 ) Read the entire page →
From page 61... ... 61 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Cu m ul at iv e pe rc en t f re qu en cy PCC/AGG PCC/LCB PCC/PATB 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 Midslab temperature, deg F Figure 88. Cumulative frequency distributions of temperatures corresponding to SPS-2 load transfer measurements. Read the entire page →
From page 62... ... 62 PCC/AGG PCC/LCB PCC/PATB 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 70% 60% 80% 90% 100% Last year leave load transfer (J5) Cu m ul at iv e pe rc en t f re qu en cy Figure 90. Read the entire page →

From page 44...

... 44 Deflection Data Processing The following data items were extracted from the LTPP database for use in the deflection analysis of the SPS-1 and SPS-2 test sections: • Testing date and time, • Test location (position on pavement) , • Applied loads, • Deflection sensor configurations, • Peak deflection data, and • Air and pavement surface temperature measurements.