hma longitudinal joint construction evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
HMA Longitudinal Joint
Construction Evaluation
Research Seminar Eddie Johnson & John Garrity
December 15, 2015
![Page 2: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
The Weak Link
![Page 3: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Longitudinal Joints
About 4% (280 miles) of all the bituminous roads rated in
2015 have Medium and/or High Severity Longitudinal Joint
Distress.
The problem is worse than this because the current pavement
vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver
wander.
About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had
either Medium and/or High Severity Longitudinal Joint
distress when the vans field of view was wider.
![Page 4: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Medium and High Severity
Longitudinal Joint Distress
![Page 5: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
High Severity Longitudinal Joint Distress
![Page 6: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
High Severity Longitudinal Joint Distress
![Page 7: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Current Initiative
Longitudinal Joint Improvement
– Industry tasked with providing a potential
improvement to joint construction method.
Industry responded with “Maryland”
method of joint construction.
![Page 8: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Maryland Joint Construction Method
![Page 9: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Longitudinal joints constructed adjacent to the existing HMA pavements overlap the existing pavement by 1” to 1.5” and be about ¼” higher.
![Page 10: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
HOT COLD
Excess Material 1 to 1.5 Inches
Overlap
![Page 11: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
First Roller Pass
Roller
First Pass
Hot Cold
Approx. 6” Overlap
![Page 12: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Roller
First Pass
Hot Cold
6 to 12 Inches
Creates a Confined
Edge & Raised Area Second Pass
Second Pass
Roller
First Pass
Hot Cold
First Roller Pass
1” to
1.5” Inches
Remaining
Uncompacted +
![Page 13: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
TH 100 Joint Overlap
![Page 14: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Crushed Aggregate of Overlap
![Page 15: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Coring & Permeability Testing
![Page 16: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Permeability: Midlane versus
Treated Maryland Joints (2014)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 100 200 300 400
Pe
rce
nt
of
Dat
a
Coefficient of Field Permeability, 10-5 cm/s
Joint with Adhesive
Joint with Tack
Midlane
Took very little data for Adhesive and Tack
![Page 17: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Permeability: Top Lift Locations
(2014)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 200 400 600 800
Pe
rce
nt
of
Dat
a
Coefficient of Field Permeability, 10-5 cm/s
Joint
Tangent
Midlane
Standard Joint
![Page 18: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Permeability: Top Lift Locations
(2015)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 200 400 600 800 1000
Pe
rce
nt
of
Dat
a
Coefficient of Permeability, 10-5 cm/s
Standard Joint andTangents
Confined
Joint
Midlane
Unconfined
![Page 19: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
2015 Data; m=90.4 s=3.5
![Page 20: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
Level 3; m=91.6 s=3.8 Level 4; m=89.0 s=2.7
![Page 21: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
Standard; m=89.5 s=4.1 Maryland; m=91.4 s=2.9
![Page 22: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
Mat Confined Joint Unconfined
![Page 23: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
Mat: Maryland Mat: Standard
![Page 24: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
Confined: Maryland Confined: Standard
![Page 25: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
Joint Center: Maryland Joint Center: Standard
![Page 26: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Density: 2015 Projects
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
80 85 90 95 100
No
rmal
Pro
bab
lity
Dis
trib
uti
on
% Maximum Core Density
Unconfined: Maryland Unconfined: Standard
![Page 27: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Density Averages: 2015 Projects
848586878889909192939495969798
Standard Maryland
% M
axim
um
Co
re D
en
sity
Construction Type
Mat
Unconfined
Joint Center
Confined
![Page 28: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Core Density of Maryland Joint
(2014)
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
98
1 2 3 4 5 6
% G
mm
Core Set, Top Lift of Wear Mix
Midlane
Tangent
Joint
![Page 29: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Summary
Maryland Joint Method:
– Appears to be less permeable than standard
practice.
– Indicates better longitudinal joint density
Expectations – Better Performance
![Page 30: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Designing for Improved LJ’s
Specifying 9.5mm (-1/2”) mix on final surface.
Utilizing echelon paving when practical.
Including longitudinal joint density
requirement.
Mill and fill one lane at a time so both joints
are confined.
![Page 31: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Density is Driven By…..
Good Mix Design
Adequate Density
Proper Lift Thickness
![Page 32: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Longitudinal Joint Enhancements
Joint Adhesives
Fogging of longitudinal joint after
construction.
![Page 33: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Current Specification Considerations
Modify Level 4 and Level 5 mixes to 60
gyrations.
– Would require contractor to add 0.1-0.2 more
asphalt binder in mixture. And, should improve
ability to densify those mixes.
» Concern…..potential for rutting??
![Page 34: HMA Longitudinal Joint Construction Evaluation...vans do not always see the centerline joint due to driver wander. About 9% (606 miles) of bituminous roads rated in 2010 had either](https://reader034.vdocuments.mx/reader034/viewer/2022051908/5ffad8ca18822a6ff22a3be8/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Thank You