FOREWORD

Partial-depth spall repair on portland cement concrete pavements is a commonly performed

highway maintenance operation. The Strategic Highway Research Program's (SHRP) H-106

partial-depth spall repair study was part ofthe most extensive pavement maintenance experiment

ever conducted. The information derived from this study will contribute greatly toward

advancing the state ofthe practice ofspall repair on portland cement concrete pavements.

This report provides information to pavement engineers and maintenance personnel on the results

ofthe H-106 partial-depth spall repair experiment. It presents the performance and costeffectiveness of various spall repair materials and procedures for repairing spalls on portland

cement concrete pavements.

This report will be of interest to anyone concerned with the maintenance and rehabilitation of

portland cement concrete pavements.

7il!:r~,7/Y)~

{~a 1Teng, P.E.{f

Director

Office ofInfrastru e

Research and Development

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe Department of Transportation in the

interest ofinformation exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its

contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and

manufacturers' names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the

object ofthe document.
1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No.

Technical Report Documentation Page

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

FHWA-RD-99-153

4. Title and Subtitle

LTPP PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE MATERIALS:

PCC PARTIAL-DEPTH SPALL REPAIR EXPERIMENT, FINAL REPORT

5. Report Date

October 1999

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

T.P. Wilson, K.L. Smith, and A.R. Romine

8. Performing Organization Report No.

1-=-~=~-------------------1

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

ERES Consultants

A Division ofApplied Research Associates, Inc.

505 W. University Avenue

Champaign,IL 61820-3915

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office ofInfrastructure Research and Development

Federal Highway Administration

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-93-C-00051

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer's Technical Representative (COTR): Shahed Rowshan, HRDI

Project Consultants: Charlie Smyth

16. Abstract

The Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) H-106 maintenance experiment and the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA) Long-Term Monitoring (LTM) of Pavement Maintenance Materials Test Sites project studied the repair of partialdepth spalls in concrete pavements. The purpose of partial-depth spall repair is to restore a pavement's structural integrity,

improve its ride quality, and extend its serviceable life.

Highway agencies spend a large amount oftime and money annually performing partial-depth spall repairs, both as temporary

and permanent fixes. Frequently, the repairs are not made as efficiently as desired or do not perform as long as intended. The

primary consequences are added disruption to traffic, more exposure of patching crews to traffic, and additional maintenance

expenditures. The purpose of this study, then, was to address the merits and deficiencies of current spall repair materials,

designs, and practices. The study evaluated the relative performance of selected patching materials, as well as the effect of

selected repair methods. The study also examined repair material properties and tests that correlate well with field performance.

This report documents the entire portland cement concrete (PCC) partial-depth spall repair study, including the installation 000

unique repair types (i.e., combinations of patching material and patching method) at 4 different test sites, the laboratory testing

of experimental repair materials, and the 7-year performance monitoring of the various partial-depth repairs. It also discusses

the results of comprehensive statistical analyses conducted on material performance and laboratory testing data. The results ofa

detailed cost-effectiveness analysis are also presented.

17. Key Words

Concrete pavement, pavement maintenance, partialdepth spalls, spall repair, patching materials,

bituminous patch, cementitious patch, performance,

service life, cost-effectiveness

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the

public through the National Technical Information

Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

19. Security Classlf. (of this report) 20. Security Classlf. (of this page) 21. No of Pages 22. Price

Unclassified Unclassified 115

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
• I •

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimel8rs mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in

It feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet It

yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA AREA .

in' square inches 645.2 square millimeters mml mml square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

ftI square feet 0.093 square meters m2 m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ftI

yrJ- square yards 0.836 square meters ml ml square meters 1.195 square yards yfP

ae aaes 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

mil square miles 2.59 square kilometers kml km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME VOLUME

floz fluidounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluidounces fI oz

gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal

It' cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 35.71 cubic feet ft3

...... III yeP cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards ycfl ......

NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000 I shall be shown in m3•

MASS MASS

oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz

Ib pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.202 pounds Ib

T short tons (2000 Ib) 0.907 megagmms Mg Mg megagrams 1.103 short tons (2000 Ib) T

(or "metric ton") (or Or) (or .r) (or ·metric ton·)

TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact)

of Fahrenheit 5(F-32)19 Celcius DC DC Celcius 1.8C +32 Fahrenheit of

temperature or (F-32)11.8 temperature temperature temperature

ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux Ix Ix lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc

fI foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cdlml cdlm2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fI

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

Ibf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce Ibf

Ibflin' poundfor09 per 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 POUndfor09 per Ibflin2

square inch square inch

• SI is the symbol for the Intemational System of Units. Appropriate (Revised September 1993)

rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380.

......
TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ......•...•.........•....•................... ·1

Objectives 1

Scope 2

Project Overview 2

Test Site Characteristics 4

2. TEST SITE INSTALLATIONS 11

Test Site Arrangements 11

Installation Process 13

Documentation 28

Productivity and Cost Data 28

Comments 32

3. MATERIAL TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Laboratory Tests Performed 41

Laboratory Test Results 42

4. FIELD PERFORMANCE 47

Performance Data Collection ......•...................................... 47

Summary of Overall Performance Data 48

Summary of Site-Specific Field Performance Data 51

5. DATA ANALYSIS 61

Statistical Methodology 61

Survival Analysis 62

Laboratory Test-Field Performance Correlation Analysis 65

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 65

6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71

Findings 71

Recommendations 73

REFERENCES •......•......•......................•........... 75

APPENDIX A. TEST SITE LAyOUTS 77

APPENDIX B. INSTALLATION DATA 83

APPENDIX C. MATERIAL TESTING DATA 91

APPENDIX D. FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA 107

111
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Spall repair test site locations and climate regions 3

2. Pennsylvania test site location ' 7

3. Utah test site location 7

4. South Carolina test site location 8

5. Arizona test site location 9

6. Layout of a typical test section 13

7. Carbide-tipped, cold-milling machine 15

8. Corners of patch being removed after milling 16

9. Waterblasting equipment with mobile robot 16

10. Joint bond-breaker installed at patch edges 18

11. Type lIT PCC mobile drum mixer 19

12. Application of epoxy bonding agent 20

13. Troweling/finishing of Type ITI PCC patch 20

14. Placement of Percol FL 23

15. Mixing of MC-64 24

16. Compaction ofUPM repair 25

17. Patch area for milling operation 33

18. Compressive strengths of spall repair materials 43

19. 28-day slant-shear bond strengths of spall repair materials 43

20. 28-day center-point bond strengths of spall repair materials 44

21. Percentage of surviving patches by test site 49

22. Percentage ofsurviving patches by concrete-removal procedure 49

23. Percentage ofsurviving patches by material 50

24. Spall repair survival at South Carolina test site 53

25. Spall repair survival at Arizona test site ' 55

26. Spall repair survival at Pennsylvania test site 57

27. Spall repair survival at Utah test site 59

B-1. Patch preparation form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

B-2. Spall repair installation form 85

C-1. Gradation for spray-injected mix (South Carolina) 105

IV
LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of number and types ofrepairs placed for H-106 spall repair experiment 5

2. Test site characteristics 6

3. Summary of spall repair installation schedule 12

4. Manufacturers' representatives present at test site 12

5. Typical equipment used for the five patch preparation procedures 26

6. Typical mixing and placement equipment and supplies 27

7. Time required for placement of spall repairs 29

8. Labor requirementsfor the various spall repair procedures 30

9. Labor requirements for the various spall repair materials 30

10. Spall repair material cost 31

11. Summary of laboratory test results of cementitious and polymer materials 44

12. Summary oflaboratory test results of bituminous materials 45

13. Spall repair test site evaluation schedule 48

14. Summary ofrepair survival at time oflast test site inspection 52

15. Spall repair survival groupings for Utah test site 62

16. Spall repair survival groupings for Pennsylvania test site 63

17. Spall repair survival groupings for South Carolina test site 63

18. Spall repair survival groupings for Arizona test site 64

19. Assumed costs for partial-depth spall repair operations 66

20. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for South Carolina test site 67

21. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for Pennsylvania test site 68

22. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for Arizona test site 69

23. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for Utah test site 70

A-I. Test section layout for Arizona replicate 1 (dry-nonfreeze) 78

A-2. Test section layout for Arizona replicate 2 (dry-nonfreeze) 78

A-3. Test section layout for Pennsylvania replicate 1 (wet-freeze) 79

A-4. Test section layout for Pennsylvania replicate 2 (wet-freeze) 80

A-5. Test section layout for South Carolina replicate 1 (wet-nonfreeze) 81

A-6. Test section layout for South Carolina replicate 2 (wet-nonfreeze) 81

A-7. Test section layout for Utah replicate 1 (dry-freeze) 82

A-8. Test section layout for Utah replicate 2 (dry-freeze) 82

B-1. Selected summary installation data for Arizona (dry-nonfreeze) 86

B-2. Selected summary installation data for Pennsylvania (wet-freeze) 87

B-3. Selected summary installation data for South Carolina (wet-nonfreeze) 88

B-4. Selected summary installation data for Utah (dry-freeze) 89

B-5. Material and procedure codes 90

C-1. Mix proportions (Smith et aI., 1991) 93

C-2. Initial set results 94

C-3. Compressive strength test results, ASTM C 109, ASTM C 39 94

C-4. Static modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio test results, ASTM C 469 95

C-5. Flexural strength test results, ASTM C 78 (24 hours) 95

C-6. Flexural strength test results, ASTM C 78 (28 days) 96

C-7. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (dry condition, 24 hours) 96

C-8. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (dry condition, 28 days) 97

v
LIST OF TABLES (continued)

C-9. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (wet condition, 24 hours) 97

C-lO. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (wet condition, 28 days) 98

C-ll. Center-point bond strength test results, CALTRANS (dry condition, 24 hours) 98

C-12. Center-point bond strength test results, CALTRANS (dry condition, 28 days) 99

C-13. Center-point bond strength test results, CALTRANS (wet condition, 24 hours) 99

C-14. Center-point bond strength test results, CALTRANS (wet condition, 28 days) 100

C-15. Freeze-thaw test results, ASTM C 666 100

C-16. Wear-resistance test results, CALTRANS T 550 101

C-17. Thermal compatibility test results, ASTM C 884 101

C-18. Length-change test results, ASTM C 157 102

C-19. Summary oflaboratory testing for UPM (South Carolina and Arizona) 103

C-20. Summary oflaboratory testing for UPM (Utah) 103

C-21. Summary oflaboratory testing for spray-injected mix (South Carolina) 104

VI
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Objectives

Spalling is a common distress in jointed concrete pavements that decreases pavement

serviceability and, ifleft unrepaired, can become hazardous to highway users. It is defined as the

cracking, breaking, chipping, or fraying of concrete slab edges at joints and cracks, and is the

result of high compressive stresses that develop in the concrete when joints or cracks cannot

properly close due to the presence ofincompressible materials.

The depth of spalling in a concrete slab can vary from a few millimeters (i.e., sliver spalls) to

the full depth ofthe slab. Once initiated, spalls tend to grow or propagate under repeated thermal

stresses and traffic loadings. For safety purposes, most spalls are treated before they extend

below the top third of the slab. Repairs of this nature are commonly referred to as partial-depth

spall repairs.

Highway maintenance crews spend a large amount of time and money annually performing

partial-depth spall repairs, both as temporary and as permanent fixes. The ability to place patches

quickly and to the level of permanence required for a given project can reduce the amount oftime

that crews are exposed to traffic (by decreasing the amount of time spent repatching the same

areas) and can increase the serviceability of the highway.

To examine the merits and deficiencies of current spall repair materials and practices, the

Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

consecutively sponsored one ofthe most extensive partial-depth patching investigations ever

undertaken. In the spring and summer of 1991, four partial-depth spall repair test sites were

installed throughout the United States under the SHRP H-106 project (Innovative Materials

Development and Testing) using various materials and installation methods under a range of

climatic conditions. Periodic performance evaluations ofthe many experimental patches placed

were conducted until the completion of the project in March 1993. Believing that additional.

information could be obtained from the four test sites, the FHWA authorized a follow-up project

(Long-Term Monitoring [LTM] of Pavement Maintenance Materials Test Sites) starting in

October 1993, which provided for continued annual test site evaluations through 1997.

The primary aim of the combined H-106/LTM study was to determine the most effective and

economical materials and procedures for placing quality, long-lasting partial-depth patches in

jointed concrete pavements. A secondary objective of the study was to identify any performancerelated material tests that would enhance the material selection process and provide a better

guarantee of patch performance.

1
Scope

This report presents a summary of all aspects ofthe partial-depth spall repair experiment of

the H-106/LTM study, including test site installation, materials testing, field performance, and

data analysis. Chapter 2 details the installation process, including test site aqangements, test site

layout and preparation, patching materials and procedures, documentation ofthe installation

process, and the collection of productivity and cost. Chapter 3 describes the materials tests

performed and the corresponding results. In chapter 4, the field performance data collection is

described and a summary of performance data is presented. Chapter 5 details the statistical

methodology used to analyze the data and presents the results ofthe analysis offield performance,

laboratory test-field performance correlations, productivity, and cost-effectiveness. In chapter 6,

the overall findings and recommendations of the experiment are discussed.

Project Overview

Beginning in March 1991, more than 1,600 partial-depth patches were placed at 4 test sites

located throughout the United States. The repairs were made using materials supplied by SHRP

and were placed under SHRP contractor supervision by local maintenance forces from two

different State departments oftransportation (DOT's) and two contractors working for the State

DOT's. The test sites were located on moderate- to high-volume four-lane highways in four

climatic regions. The locations ofthe test sites and the four climatic regions (originally defined

for the SHRP Long-Term Pavement Performance [LTPP] projects and subsequently adopted for

this project) are listed below and are illustrated in figure 1.

• PA 28-Kittanning, Pennsylvania

• I-15-0gden, Utah

• I-20-Columbia, South Carolina

• I-17-Phoenix, Arizona

Wet-freeze region

Dry-freeze region

Wet-nonfreeze region

Dry-nonfreeze region

The original testing plan for the partial-depth spall repair project was developed in the SHRP

H-105 project (Smith et at, 1991). The materials and procedures included in the actual test site

installations were somewhat different from those originally proposed, as various State agencies

requested that additional materials and procedures be included in accordance with the provisions

ofthe SHRP H-106 contract.

Repair Materials

Originally, nine materials and four testing procedures were selected for study. However, the

States in which the test sites were constructed were allowed to add an additional material or

procedure oftheir choice to the experiment. As a result, two additional materials and one repair

procedure were incorporated into the experiment. The following 11 materials were evaluated in

the study:

2
v;l

Figure 1. Spall repair test site locations and climate regions.
• Type III portland cement concrete (PCC).

• Duracal®, a gypsum-based concrete.

• Set-45®, a magnesium phosphate concrete (powder-based).

• Five Star® Highway Patch, a modified, high-alumina concrete.

• MC-64, an epoxy concrete.

• SikaPronto® 11, a high-molecular-weight methacrylate concrete.

• Percol FL, a flexible polyurethane concrete.

• UPM High Performance Cold Mix, a bituminous cold mix.

• Pyrament® 505, a blended hydraulic cement concrete.

• Penatron<8l R/M-3003, a flexible epoxy-urethane concrete.

• Spray-injected bituminous mix (AMZ and Rosco).

Repair Procedures

Five different repair procedures were evaluated, varying mainly in the method used to remove

the deteriorated concrete. The five procedures were as follows:

• Saw-and-patch.

• Chip-and-patch.

• Mill-and-patch.

• Waterblast-and-patch.

• Clean-and-patch under adverse conditions.

Most of the procedures were evaluated under normal conditions, which were defined as

conditions corresponding to an ambient air temperature above 10°C at the time of patching and a

substrate that is dry prior to preparation. However, spall distresses must sometimes be patched

under adverse conditions. To determine whether a cost-effective material could be found for this

situation, three materials were tested under adverse conditions using the c1ean-and-patch

procedure. Adverse conditions were defined as an ambient air temperature below 4°C at the time

of patching and a substrate that is surface-saturated.

Table 1 summarizes the material-procedure combinations used at each test site. Not all ofthe

material-procedure combinations were placed at all ofthe test sites. Some materials (e.g., sprayinjected Rosco and AMZ, Penatron R/M-3003) were placed at the request of a participating

highway agency. South Carolina and Pennsylvania requested the spray-injected materials, and

Arizona requested the addition ofPenatron R/M-3003. Arizona also requested the addition of the

waterblast-and-patch procedure. Because equipment was not available, the mill-and-patch

procedure was not installed in Utah. Equipment operation difficulties prevented installation ofthe

waterblast-and-patch procedure in Arizona.

Test Site Characteristics

This section briefly describes the characteristics of the four spall repair test sites. Table 2

presents a summary ofthe location, route, number oflanes, annual daily traffic (ADT), annual

precipitation, and annual number of days less than O°C for each test site.

4
Table 1. Summary of number and types ofrepairs placed for H-106 spall repair experiment.

Pennsylvania

(wet-freeze)

Utah

(dry-freeze)

South Carolina

(wet-nonfreeze)

Arizona

(dry-nonfreeze)

Procedure

SawandPatch

ChipandPatchMillandPatch

Adverse

CleanandPatchSawandPatch

ChipandPatch

Waterblast-\ Sawand- andPatch Patch

ChipandPatch

Saw- \ Chipand- andPatch Patch

MillandPatch

TOTAL

20

20

21

79

239

111

188

175

192

193

243

127

60 1,608

20

20

20

i:ffff~f¥fII?

ii]iI11II]:@IIII

IIIrI1j@IIIj

!IIiIjjIjIjI~~~jijjIj]j

!:i]:~:::::::~~:~]~][i]~:Ii]]~11

II 20

11:111[.I~I:..llilll:~I·I~·:I:~.III.IIII·1111:11[~11~:~ilfli

11~11~1:11.11[11111111111·11·11111111111:11111111·1:"Illllllll·III·:·:·~··I~I:[lll

20 I 20

20 I 20

1:1IIIrII:1::~~~i~1~;I1tI1Ir:::IHIII~i

20 I 20

20 I 20

20 I 20

20 I 20

20 I 20

::r:IItIII~IrI~~:IIIII1rIIII~iII

20

20

20

20

20

20

37 I 20 20

tI1]1:j:Im:iI:::1~::l~:I:::II 19

ti]:rii~:Irii]i::::~:::~II]In 20

ii1IIIIII1lIIIil 20

!:~::i~:~:~:~:~~~:~.·:~:::~!~!~:~~:~~~:~:~j~::l.:.:.:.:.:.:.:~:

liIiiii~:I~~~:~:ijj:j:jjjjIiiIJ 20

:1:Hm]rI:j::~rf1III 20

29

23

25

34

28

28

35

29

26

25

19

25

25

22

22 24 20 :~~~~rutm~~t{fIJ~t:

PercolFL

Set-45

UPMHigh

Performance

Cold Mix

FIveStarHP

MC-64

Duracal

TOTAL

TypeillPCC

Pyrarnent505

SikaPronto 11

Spray injection

(Rosco)

Penatron R/M-3003

Spray injection

(AMZ)

VI
Table 2. Test site characteristics.

No. of Lanes, Annual Precipitation, Annual Days

Test Site Route two directions Two-way ADT, vpd nun" <O°C"

Kittanning, PA PA28 4 3,400 1067 120

Ogden, UT 1-15 4 20,000 406 180

Columbia, SC 1-20 4 24,000 1168 31

Phoenix AZ 1-17 6 125000 178 17

a Historical averages from the Climatic Atlas afthe United States (U.S. Dept. ofCommerce, 1983).

ADT = Average daily traffic.

vpd = vehicles per day.

PA 28, Kittanning, Pennsylvania

As shown in figure 2, the test site in the wet-freeze region was located in Pennsylvania on PA

28, northeast of Pittsburgh between Freeport and Kittanning. The adverse-condition test sections

were located in both the northbound and southbound driving lanes, with the experiment replicated

once in each direction. The normal-condition test sections were placed in all four lanes ofthe

route, with a majority of the test sections located in the driving lanes. The topography of this site

was hilly with two interchanges and several bridges. The pavement was constructed in 1971 as a

229-mmjointed reinforced concrete (JRC) pavement on a 356-mm cement-stabilized subbase. At

the time ofinstallation, the transverse joints, spaced at 14.2 m, were sealed with a bituminous

sealant and the sealant was in fair condition. The shoulders were asphalt concrete (AC).

There was extensive spalling in parts of the test section, often with more than one spall per

joint. When the test site was first inspected, the spalls were judged to be limited to the upper onethird of the pavement (coring was not performed). This was confirmed during the installation of

the adverse-condition test sections. However, when the remainder of this test site was installed

and more rigorous concrete removal techniques were employed, the spalls appeared to extend

deeper into the pavement, and dowels often were exposed. Due to limited resources and other

constraints, there were no departures from the procedures outlined for the experiment. This site

was in the SHRP region that experiences the most severe climatic conditions-both significant

precipitation and freezing temperatures. The climate and the fair amount of salt deposited on this

route each year may have contributed to the depth of the spalling found there.

I-IS, Ogden, Utah

The test site in the dry-freeze region was located in Utah on 1-15 in the passing lane, north of

Ogden between exits 357 and 360, as shown in figure 3. The pavement was built in 1971 and

consisted of a 164-mmjointed plain concrete (JPC) pavement on a concrete subbase. The joints

were randomly spaced between 3.6 m and 5.5 m and were sealed with silicone sealant at the time

of the installation of the test site. The shoulders were concrete. There were spalls on a majority

of the joints, but they were fairly small in size. The topography was very flat, and no structures

6
HARMONY

PITTSBURGH ""

WEST

2............_ .......-__ KITTANNING

SLATE 'LICK

SCHUSTER

HEIGHTS

Figure 2. Pennsylvania test site location.

IDAHO

UTAH

Figure 3. Utah test site location.

7
were located within the test site boundaries. The test site was surrounded by a lake on the west

side and mountains on the east. This test site was installed in April, and the temperature range

during installation was 6 to 21°C. This area is subject to rapid fluctuations in temperature and

large amounts ofsnowfall. The use ofstudded tires on this route caused some wearing ofthe

pavement. This route receives a fair amount ofsalt each year.

1-20. Columbia. South Carolina

The test site for the wet-nonfreeze region was located in Columbia, South Carolina, on the

westbound driving lane ofI-20, as shown in figure 4, between mile markers 58 and 61. The

pavement was constructed in 1966 and consisted of a 229-mmjointed concrete pavement on a

I52-mm stabilized aggregate subbase. The joints were spaced at 9.15 m and were sealed with an

asphalt sealant at the time ofinstallation ofthe test site. The shoulders were AC. There were

spalls or existing patches of AMZ spray-injected mix at almost every joint, and the terrain for the

majority of the site was flat. There was one structure over a railroad crossing.

1-17. Phoenix, Arizona

The test site in the dry-nonfreeze region was located in the northbound and southbound

passing lanes of 1-17 in Phoenix, Arizona, between the Camelback and Thomas Roads exits

(mileposts 202 to 204), as shown in figure 5. The pavement was constructed in 1961 and

consisted of a 229-mm JPC surface over a 76-mm granular base and a 152-mm granular subbase.

The joints were spaced 4.6 m apart and were constructed using metal joint inserts. At the time of

the test site installation, the joints were not sealed and there was a great deal ofjoint debris

infiltration. The pavement was grooved to remove faulting and restore friction. The section

contained many existing patches and many ofthe spalls were full-lane width. The shoulders were

JPC also.

LUMBIA

Figure 4. South Carolina test site location.

8
VAN BUREN

CENTER ST

BUCKEYE RD

w

w

It:

LL

< ----~----_f_---------~'----~

-~----~,..----+----=---------+----~tn

THOMAS RD

----185 f--------t---.....

MARICOPAST

Figure 5. Arizona test site location.

9

CHAPTER 2. TEST SITE INSTALLATION

The test site selection process began in November 1990. A total of 33 potential sites were

examined, of which the 4 sites described in chapter 1 were selected for use. Installation of the test

sites began in March 1991 and continued tr..Iough August 1991. Installation of the test sites was

regulated and monitored by engineers with the SHRP H-106 contractor, together with

representatives from the participating State DOT's and manufacturers ofrepair materials. This

chapter presents an overview of the installation process, material costs, productivity rates,

equipment requirements, problems encountered during installation, and comments on the

materials and procedures used.

Test Site Arrangements

The installation dates for each test site are shown in table 3. Specific construction schedules

were given in SHRP H-106 Experimental Design and Research Plan (EDRP) (Evans et aI.,

1991). It was originally planned that all the installations would be performed by State

maintenance crews; however, private contractors were used for the installations at two of the test

sites.

The first step in the site installation process was to find test sites that met the requirements

outlined in the SHRP H-106 EDRP (Evans et aI., 1991). Once the test sites were selected, close

coordination among the H-106 project team, the State DOT's and contractors, and the material

manufacturers was critical for smooth and efficient installation of the test sites.

Based on estimations of patch size, product yield, and material waste factors, the repair

materials were ordered and shipped to the test site. Each repair material was obtained from a

single production batch when possible, to minimize variability, and was shipped to the four test

sites. A separate shipment from each batch was sent to the laboratory for independent testing.

Because it was considered critical that the materials be placed correctly and in accordance

with manufacturers' recommendations, representatives ofrepair material manufacturers were

requested to observe and participate in the installation of their material. In addition, a recognized

expert in the field of patching attended the first installation in Utah to provide advice on quality

control and material performance evaluation. Overall, the interest among the material

manufacturers was high; almost all sent representatives to at least one test site. The presence of a

representative for the Type III PCC was not requested because it was felt that most agencies

would be familiar with the use of Type III PCC as a patching material. Because South Carolina

and Pennsylvania regularly use AMZ and Rosco spray-injection machines for patching,

representatives of these companies also were not requested to attend. Table 4 indicates which

material manufacturers were represented at the test sites.

11
Table 3. Summary ofspall repair installation schedule.

Installation Number of

Spall Repair Installation Completion Construction

Proiect Site Particiuatinl! Al!encY Start Date Date Davs

Adverse: Adverse: 4

Commonwealth ofPennsylvania 3/11/91 3/27/91

PA 28, Kittanning, PA DOT-Armstrong County Normal: Normal: 22

6/4/91 7(22/91

South Carolina Dept. of Highways

I-20, Columbia, SC and Public 5/6/91 5(29/91 13

Transportation-Lexington County

Utah DOT-Research and

1-15, Ogden, UT Development/Wadsworth 4/22/91 5/1/91 5

Construction Co.

Arizona DOT- Research/Bentson

1-17 Phoenix AZ Contractors 5(29/91 6/9/91 8

Table 4. Manufacturers' representatives present at test site.

Test site

Material Pennsvlvania Utah South Carolina Arizona

TypeillPCC no no no no

Duracal - yes yes yes

Set-45 yes yes yes yes

Five Star HP no yes yes yes

MC-64 yes yes yes yes

SikaPronto 11 no yes yes yes

Percol FL yes yes yes yes

Pyrament 505 yes - - yes

UPM no yes no no

Penatron - - - yes

AMZ - - no -

Rosco no - - -

- Material not installed at this location.

12
Installation Process

The installation process encompassed selection and marking of the repair areas; removal ofthe

deteriorated concrete; and mixing, placement, and finishing of the repair materials. This section

presents the details of the installation process.

Layout

The original experimental plan called for 10 patches to be placed for every material-procedure

treatment in each test section. These test sections were placed in random order, consecutively

along the test site pavement. After the placement ofthe first block of treatments, the sequence

was repeated randomly for the second replicate. A typical test section layout is shown in figure 6.

At the Pennsylvania and Utah sites, more than 10 patches were included in some ofthe test

sections. All patches placed were evaluated and considered in the analyses described in later

chapters.

A few days before installation was begun, the spalls to be repaired were selected. The

perimeter of each repair location was determined by sounding the pavement with a hammer or

steel rod. Only deteriorated areas at joints were selected. The removal area was marked 50 to 75

mm beyond the sound area on all nonjoint sides. Deteriorated or unsound areas smaller than 150

mm long and 75 mm wide were not repaired.

Spalls within the test section that previously had been patched with an asphalt patching mix.

were included for repair in all sections. These spalls were repaired using the chip-and-patch, sawand-patch, waterblast-and-patch, and rnil1-and-patch procedures. Repair areas closer than 0.3 m

to each other were marked as one repair area. Each repair area was marked with a painted code

that indicated the patching procedure and material to be used.

Preparation

After the repair areas were marked, the existing transverse and longitudinal joints bordering

repair areas to be patched with a rigid material (i.e., Type III PCC, Duracal, Five Star HP, Set-45,

SikaPronto 11, and Pyrament 505) were sawed using a double-bladed concrete saw. The depth of

9

10

Figure 6. Layout of a typical test section.

13
the saw cut was generally deeper than the depth of the repair. In most cases, a depth of 100 to

125 mm proved to be sufficient. The saw cut extended 50 to 75 mm beyond the repair area in

each direction. The saw cut to re-establish the joint was eliminated for the repair areas that were

to be patched with flexible materials (i.e., Percol FL, MC-64, Penatron R/M-3003, UPM High

Performance Cold Mix, and spray-injected mix), as well as for the patches to be installed under

adverse conditions. The joints were sawed a minimum of 1 day in advance of the removal and

replacement operations, so that the spall would be sufficiently dry for those patching materials

requiring a dry substrate.

Procedures

The deteriorated concrete was removed using one offive procedures: saw-and-patch, chipand-patch, mill-and-patch, waterblast-and-patch, and adverse-condition clean-and-patch. This

section describes the concrete removal procedures included in the experiment.

After the removal ofthe deteriorated concrete was complete, the remaining concrete was

again tested for soundness. Iffurther unsound concrete was observed, the unsound material was

removed to a sufficient depth using the same procedure used for the initial removal.

If the depth ofremoval of unsound material using the saw-and-patch, chip-and-patch, milland-patch, or waterblast-and-patch procedure exceeded one-half the nominal pavement thickness,

or if dowel bars were encountered, a full-depth repair was recommended. However, because of

the constraints oftraffic, labor, and equipment, the construction offull-depth repairs was not

feasible, and partial-depth repairs were installed. This was particularly true during construction of

the Pennsylvania test site, where dowel bars were often encountered.

Saw-and-Patch Procedure

Using a diamond-bladed concrete saw, the rectangular marked areas were sawed with neat

vertical faces 38 to 50 mm deep. The saw cut extended 50 to 75 mm beyond the limits of the

repair area in each direction. A pneumatic hammer with a maximum weight of 13.6 kg was used

for the initial removal. The operation started in the center ofthe patch area and worked toward,

but not all the way to, the patch boundaries. A light pneumatic hammer with a maximum weight

of 6.8 kg and handtools were used near the patch boundaries.

Chip-and-Patch Procedure

All loose and unsound concrete within the repair area was removed using a pneumatic

hammer of up to 6.8 kg and handtools, and was swept away using a stiff broom Fresh concrete

faces at least 25 mm deep were exposed on all sides.

Mill-and-Patch Procedure

All unsound concrete within the marked area was removed to a minimum depth of 38 mm

using an approved carbide-tipped milling machine. The milling machine had a drum diameter of

0.9 m or less and was capable ofmaking a cut 305 mm wide or narrower. A carbide-tipped, cold14
milling machine is shown in figure 7. Milling proceeded in such a manner as to produce vertical

edges at the patch boundaries. A small amount ofsound material at patch corners could not be

removed by milling from any direction. This material was removed by light chipping hammers, as

shown in figure 8. Care was exercised to minimize spalling the sound concrete at the patch

boundaries.

Waterblast-and-Patch Procedure

All unsound concrete within the marked area was removed to a minimum depth of 38 mm,

with neat vertical faces, using an approved waterblasting machine. The waterblasting equipment

produced a water jet under a minimum pressure of 207,000 kPa and was controlled by a mobile

robot, as shown in figure 9. The maximum depth of concrete removal was determined by the

waterblasting pressure and speed of the water jet. Care was exercised to remove only the

unsound concrete.

Figure 7. Carbide-tipped, cold-milling machine.

15
Figure 8. Corners of patch being removed after milling.

Figure 9. Waterblasting equipment with mobile robot.

16
Clean-and-Patch Procedure

This procedure was used only with the bituminous spray-injected materials. In accordance

with the manufacturer's recommendations, only the deteriorated concrete that could be removed

using shovels or handpicks was removed.

Clean-and-Patch Procedure-Adverse Conditions

Deteriorated and loose concrete within the repair area was removed primarily using handtools.

Occasionally, a light pneumatic hammer was allowed ifthe spalled area was large or ifthe cracked

concrete was held tightly in place.

Cleaning and Preparing the Repair Area

The remaining steps of the patching procedures are similar for all but the clean-and-patch

procedure. When cleaning and patching, sandblasting was eliminated, as was joint preparation

and the installation of the bond-breaker for the bituminous materials. When a spray-injection

machine was used with the clean-and-patch procedure under good conditions, the repair area was

not sandblasted. Instead, it was airblown with the spray-injection machine. For the adversecondition clean-and-patch procedure, ifmoisture was not present in the repair hole at the time of

material placement, water was lightly sprayed into the open hole. Furthermore, immediate sealing

of the joint adjacent to the patch was not required.

For the other procedures, after removal ofthe deteriorated concrete was completed, the

surfaces within the repair area were cleaned thoroughly by sandblasting. Oil-free airblasting was

then used to'remove any dust that remained. The air compressor was checked for moisture and oil

by placing a piece of clean cloth over the air jet nozzle and checking for residue. The cleanliness

of the surfaces was checked by using a black glove or cloth.

Following the cleaning operation, a joint bond-breaker was placed full-depth in the joints

adjacent to repair areas that were to be patched with nonflexible repair materials (i.e., Type III

PCC, Duracal, Set-45, Five Star HP, MC-64, SikaPronto 11, and Pyrament 505), as shown in

figure 10. The joint bond-breaker consisted of a 102-mm-high, 13-mm-wide, closed-cell

polystyrene foam board that was slightly wider than the saw cut. In back-to-back repair areas at a

joint, difficulty was encountered in maintaining a true, straight joint line. In locations deeper than

102 mm, it was also difficult to stack the joint bond-breaker to the desired height. Latex caulking

was used occasionally to seal any irregularities or gaps between the joint bond-breaker and joint

opening in order to prevent repair material from flowing into the joint or crack opening below the

bottom of the patch. A joint bond-breaker was not installed in repair areas that would be patched

with Percol FL, Penatron R/M-3003, UPM High Performance Cold Mix, AMZ, or Rosco.

After the surface ofthe existing concrete was cleaned and the joint bond-breaker was installed

as needed, the repair surfaces were prepared as required by the manufacturers ofthe individual

repair materials. This preparation, which included such activities as application of a bonding

agent or a light spray of water, is detailed in the following sections.

17
Figure 10. Joint bond-breaker installed

at patch edges.

Materials

Instructions on the proper mixing, placing, finishing, curing, and handling ofthe individual

patching materials were obtained from the manufacturer of each product. Furthermore, most

manufacturers were asked to send a representative to each ofthe test sites for at least the first day

that the product was being installed. The purpose was to provide a brief training session and

general guidance to ensure that their product was properly installed.

The cementitious products were prepackaged in easy-to-handle 16- to 23-kg bags; the

aggregate was provided in 45-kg bags. The aggregate was proportioned in the field using

precalibrated buckets.

Type III PCC

The Type III PCC mix was prepared in a mobile 2.3-m3 drum mixer, as shown in figure 11.

First, the water (11.4 L) was added to the mixer, followed by the coarse aggregate (100 kg), the

air-entraining agent (30 mL), and the fine aggregate (50 kg). This combination was allowed to

18
Figure 11. Type III PCC mobile drum mixer.

mix for 3 minutes. The Type III portland cement (43 kg) was added next and allowed to mix for

another 3 minutes. The accelerating agent (1.9 L) was added and mixed for 1 minute, followed

by the superplasticizer (355 mL). The combination was mixed for 2 minutes. Ifthe mix looked

stiff at this time, up to 0.5 L of water was added as needed. The water-cement ratio for the mix

varied from 0.30 to 0.33.

The Type III PCC repair material required that the bottom and sides of the repair area be

primed with a medium-viscosity epoxy bonding agent. The bonding ageJ1t was prepared by

mixing part B with part A for 3 minutes, using an electric drill with a Jiffy mixer. A paintbrush

was used to apply the epoxy evenly to the repair surfaces, as shown in figure 12. While the epoxy

was still tacky, the prepared Type III PCC mix was shoveled into the repair area and vibrated

using a pencil vibrator.

After vibration, the surface ofthe patch was troweled level with the surface ofthe pavement

and finished with a float, as shown in figure 13. The mix was sometimes stiff to work with and

vibration was essential to make the work finishable. A curing compound was applied after 1 to 2

minutes and, if necessary, the patch was covered with an insulating blanket.

The working time for the Type III PCC mix was 20 minutes, and the opening time was 4

hours at 27°C. Insulating blankets were used during cooler temperatures to achieve the same

opening time.

19
Figure 12. Application of epoxy bonding

agent.

Figure 13. Troweling/finishing of Type III PCC patch.

20
Duracal

Duracal was mixed using a drum mixer. The water was added first (6.62 L per bag of

Duracal), followed by the pea gravel (23 kg per bag of Duracal), the Duracal (23 kg per bag), and

the sand (23 kg per bag of Duracal). The cement and aggregate were mixed for a minimum of 2

to 3 minutes. Ifthe mix looked stiff or dry, up to an additional 0.47 L of water was added, as

needed. Generally, only one bag of Duracal per batch was used. The area to be patched was

sprayed with water, and then the concrete was shoveled into the repair area. The mix was

vibrated by moving a trowel up and down throughout the patch. A curing compound was used

only if the air temperature was above 32°C and it was windy. The working time for the Duracal

concrete was approximately 10 minutes, and the opening time was 1 hour at 27 °C and 1.5 hours

at 10°C.

Five Star HP

The mixing of Five Star HP was accomplished using a mortar mixer. Generally, two to three

bags of Five Star HP per batch were mixed at one time. With the mixer running, the water was

added to the mixer (2.8 L per bag of Five Star HP). The cement was then added to the mixer (23

kg per bag), followed by the pea gravel (14 kg per bag of Five Star HP). This combination was

mixed for 5 to 6 minutes. As is common with this material, the mix looked very dry until it had

been mixed for almost 4 minutes. However, additional water was not added, as the mix is very

sensitive to water content.

Before the mix was shoveled into the repair hole, the hole was sprayed with water. The mix

was vibrated by moving a trowel up and down throughout the patch. The manufacturer

recommends that the surface of the patch be kept moist for at least 30 minutes after the mix has

stiffened. This was accomplished by spraying water onto the patch every 5 to 10 minutes, for a

total of 30 minutes. The working time for the Five Star HP concrete was approximately 10

minutes, and the opening time was 1 hour at 27°C and 2 hours at 10°C.

Set-45

The mixing of Set-45 was accomplished using a mortar mixer. With the mixer running, the

water was added to the mixer (1.9 L per bag of Set-45). Then the cement was added (23 kg per

bag), followed by the pea gravel (14 kg per bag of Set-45). This combination was mixed for 2 to

3 minutes. The mix was shoveled into a dry hole, worked with a trowel, and air cured. The

working time was approximately 10 minutes, and the opening time was 1 hour at 27°C and 3

hours at 10°C.

Pyrament 505

A mortar mixer was used for mixing Pyrament 505. With the mixer running, the water was

added to the mixer (2.2 L per bag of Pyrament 505). The pea gravel was then added to the mixer

(14 kg per bag ofPyrament 505), followed by the cement (23 kg per bag). This combination was

mixed for 6 to 7 minutes. Before the mix was shoveled into the hole, the hole was sprayed with

water. Then the mix was worked and leveled with a trowel and finished with a float.

21
Approximately 5 minutes after finishing, a curing compound was sprayed on the surface. The

working time was approximately 10 minutes, and the opening time was 1.5 hours at 2rC and 2

hours at 10°C.

SikaPronto 11

Preparation of SikaPronto 11 involves mixing component A, a liquid set initiator, with the

cement and then adding the aggregate. Two different methods of mixing SikaPronto 11 were

used. The first method involved using electric drills with Jiffy mixers to mix the three

components. The second method used the standard mortar mixer. It was believed that the first

method would provide more uniform mixing; however, because ofthe size ofthe batches mixed,

this method proved to be inefficient. The mortar mixer seemed to provide satisfactory results and

was more convenient to use.

Before the SikaPronto 11 mix was poured into the dry hole, the hole was primed with the

methylmethacrylate primer, SikaPronto 19, as specified by the manufacturer. The SikaPronto 19

primer was prepared by combining component B with component A and mixing for 3 minutes,

using a low-speed electric drill and a "Sika" paddle provided by the manufacturer. The primer

was brushed onto the surfaces of the repair area.

The mix was placed in the prepared hole while the primer was still tacky and was vibrated

with a mechanical vibrator. The manufacturer recommends that the SikaPronto 11 be placed in

lifts with sufficient cure time between lifts ifthe thickness of the repair is greater than 38 mm.

However, because ofthe nature of this project, it was not practical to place the material in lifts

and the material was placed in one lift only. Following placement, the patches were air cured.

The SikaPronto 19 primer has a pot life of 20 minutes and will remain tacky for 20 minutes at

21°C. The SikaPronto 11 mix has a working time of20 minutes and an opening time of2 hours

at 27°C.

Pereol FL

After the spall area was cleaned, the repair area was filled to grade with 19-mm washed and

oven-dried crushed stone. Percol FL, a flexible two-component polyurethane resin, was pumped

directly over the preplaced aggregate and allowed to percolate through the voids around the

aggregate until it was flush with the pavement surface. Immediately following the flooding of the

repair area with the resin, 6.4-mm aggregate was broadcast over the top ofthe repair as a friction

layer, as shown in figure 14. An air-powered Percat 500 pump drove equal amounts of each resin

thorough an impingement mixer to the discharge nozzle. The resin was pumped from two 208-L

tanks. The initial set time for the Percol FL was 60 seconds, and the opening time was 2 to 3

minutes at 27°C, as well as at 4.5°C.

22
Figure 14. Placement of Percol FL.

MC-64

MC-64, a two-component epoxy, comes prepackaged with long-grain rubber aggregate in

two 19-L buckets. One bucket contains a premeasured amount ofresin A, and the other contains

a premeasured amount ofresin B. These two components were first mixed individually for 3

minutes, then part B was added to part A and the combination was mixed for 5 more minutes.

Timers were used to keep track of mixing times. Stainless steel 530-mm Jiffy mixers, powered

with 19-mm drill motors, were used for mixing the components, as shown in figure 15.

After mixing the two components, the material was poured into the prepared spall. Although

the manufacturer states that the material may be placed in one lift, under the supervision of the

manufacturer's representative, the material was placed in 50-mm lifts with as little as 4 to 5

minutes between lifts. A stiff asphalt-impregnated styrofoam board was used to work the material

to the patch corners and level with the pavement. The working time was 10 minutes, and the

opening time was 2 hours at 27 0

C, as well as at 4.5 0C.

Penatron RIM-3003

Before Penatron R/M-3003 was mixed, the repair hole was filled to grade with 19- to 25-mm

washed and dried, crushed granite rock. The Penatron R/M-3003 l5-L kit comes with two parts

of component A and two parts of component B.

23
Figure 15. Mixing of MC-64.

First, part A was poured into a clean, 19-L mixing bucket. Jiffy mixers were used for mixing.

While mixing part A, part B was slowly and carefully poured into the same bucket. The mixture

must be continuously agitated during the addition of part B. After the two components were

added to the mixing bucket, mixing was continued for another minute. Immediately following

mixing, the product was poured into the repair hole and allowed to encapsulate the pre-placed

rock until the patch was level with the surrounding surface. A cardboard trowel was used to

finish the surface. The working time for Penatron R/M-3003 was approximately 5 minutes, and

the opening time was 45 minutes.

UPM High Performance Cold Mix

UPM High Performance Cold Mix is a premixed bituminous material. It was shoveled directly

from 208-L drums into the repair areas with no additional preparation. The repair areas were

overfilled and then compacted using a vibratory roller or plate until the patches were level with

the pavement, as shown in figure 16.

Spray-Injected Mix

This bituminous mix was placed using a Rosco or AMZ spray-injection machine. As soon as

the hole was cleaned with the machine's blower, the operator sprayed a tack coat into the hole and

along the edges of the pavement surface surrounding the repair area. Then, a mixture ofliquid

asphalt and aggregate was sprayed directly into the prepared hole. When the repair was filled

level with the pavement surface, a coating of chip stone was applied to prevent tracking.

24
Figure 16. Compaction ofUPM repair.

Joint Sealing

After a cure time of at least 1 week, the transverse joints bordering the partial-depth patches

were sealed using each State's joint or crack sealing specification and materials at the time of

installation. There were considerable differences in these specifications and standards. In South

Carolina, a soft, bituminous joint sealant was applied heavily at the joint location. In

Pennsylvania, a soft, bituminous sealant was applied around the entire perimeter ofthe patch. In

Utah, a silicone joint sealant was applied. The test site in Arizona was not sealed because ofthe

high traffic volume at the site and the need to minimize the disruption of traffic.

Equipment

The mixing, placing, and patch preparation procedures used in this experiment required some

equipment commonly used by maintenance crews everywhere, such as jackhammers, concrete

saws, and mechanical vibrators, as well as some less commonly used equipment, including sprayinjection machines and waterblasting equipment. Table 5 shows the equipment typically used to

prepare patches using each of the five procedures included in the project. Table 6 shows the

mixing and placement equipment and supplies typically used with the rapid-setting spall repair

materials included in the project. In all cases, the manufacturers' materials specifications were

consulted for mixing and placing equipment requirements.

25
Table 5. Typical equipment used for the five patch preparation procedures.

,~~

Preparation Procedure

Equipment Saw- Chip- Mill- Waterblast- Adverse

and- and- and- and- Clean-andPatch Patch Patch Patch Patch

Sounding equipment: rod, chain, or ball-peen ./ ./ ./ ./ ./a

hammer

Double-bladed concrete saw for joint sawing ./ ./ ./ ./

Single-bladed concrete saw for sawing patch ./

boundaries

6.8-kgjackhammer with air compressor ./ ./ ./b ./a

13.7-kgjackhammer with air compressor ./C ./C

Stiff brooms for debris removal ./ ./ ./ ./ ./

Handtools (e.g., pick axe) ./ ./ ./

Truck for hauling removed material ./ ./ ./ ./

Waterblasting machine ./

Carbide-tipped, cold-milling machine ./

Sandblasting equipment with directional ./ ./ ./ ./ ./a

nozzle, sand, air compressor

Airblasting equipment with oil and water ./ ./ ./ ./ ./a

filtering capabilitv. air compressor

a

b

Jackhammers were used for large areas, or when the deteriorated concrete could not be removed using

handtools. Sandblasting, airblasting, and sounding were not used under adverse conditions.

To remove rounded edges.

13.7-kgjackhammers were preferred. 13.7-kg hammers were never used at patch boundaries.

26
Table 6. Typical mixing and placement equipment and supplies.

S

F i P S

T i k P P e p

y D v a e y r r

p u S e P n r c a

e r e M r a a 0 y

a t S C 0 t m I

I c t n r e U I

I a 4 a 6 t 0 n F P n

Typical equipment and supplies I I 5 r 4 0 n t L M j

Potable water/hose/pump .I .I .I .I .I .I

Drum mixer (1.9-2.5 m3). .I .I .I

Mortar mixer (0.9-1.2 m3

) .I .I .I

19-mm electric drills and 533-mm .lb .lb .lb .I

stainless steel Jiffy mixers

1B0nding agent brush/roller .I .I

Mbrators and/or screeds .I .I .I .I .I

[Trowels .I .I .I .I .I .I .I

Shovels .I .I .I .I .I .I .I

Curing compound, applicator, .I .I .I .I

burlap, or plastic sheetingC

Insulating blanketsd .I .I

Vibratory roller or plate .I

Electric generator" .I .I .I .I .I .I .I .I .I

Grayco Percat 50ar .I

Spray-injection machineg .I

1N0nwater cleaning solvent .I .I .I .I .I

K:;ompression cylinders/rod .I .I .I .I .I

Slump cone .I .I .I .I .I

l-\ir meter rod water bulb .I

b

d

g

Mixers used had at least twice the volume of the amount of material to be mixed.

Capable of 400 to 600 rpm.

Used in hot (> 29°C), windy (>41 km) weather.

Used in weather below 7°C.

Used as needed; sufficient for demand.

Air-driven, automatic, ration-metering pump.

Capable of delivering chip-size aggregate and asphalt emulsion (e.g., AMZ, Rosco).

27
Documentation

To evaluate the performance and cost-effectiveness ofthe repair procedures and materials,

detailed information regarding the installation ofthe test sites was collected. The information

collected includes:

• Patch length, width, and depth.

• Degree offaulting at the joint.

• Whether reinforcing steel or dowels were visible during patch preparation.

• Date of patch placement.

• Patch area preparation procedure used.

• Patching material used.

• Bonding material used.

• Climatic conditions at time of construction.

• Time before opening to traffic.

• Time required for construction.

• Workability ofthe material.

Productivity and Cost Data

Productivity and cost data were necessary to determine the overall cost-effectiveness of the

materials and procedures being evaluated. Productivity data were collected at each ofthe test

sites during installation ofthe test site. Material cost data were obtained from the manufacturers

ofthe repair materials.

Productivity

Three factors seemed to affect the efficiency of the patching operations: personnel, equipment,

and traffic control. As mentioned earlier, two of the spall repair test sites, Utah and Arizona,

were constructed by private contractors. The contractors at both of these sites had more

personnel and more and better equipment available than the participating State agencies. A major

problem encountered at both the South Carolina and Pennsylvania sites was equipment

breakdown. The majority of the equipment used by the States was old, poorly maintained, or of

insufficient capacity.

Traffic control requirements varied from site to site. In Utah, overnight traffic control was set

up for the duration of the construction. In Arizona and South Carolina, temporary traffic control

was set up and removed every workday. In Pennsylvania, temporary traffic control was used

during the first 3.5 weeks and overnight traffic control was used for the remaining 2 weeks. Use

oftemporary traffic control reduced the productive time available in each workday by 1 to 2

hours and resulted in downtime for the personnel not involved with traffic control. There also

was a significant amount of downtime near the end ofthe day after placement ofthe last patch for

the day.

28
At the Arizona test site, all construction work was performed at night or on weekends

because ofthe high traffic volume ofthe roadway. Though not quantifiable in this situation, night

work appeared to reduce productivity somewhat. Table 7 shows the number of patches installed

at each test site and the approximate time required for the installations. "Productive hours" were

determined by subtracting the time necessary for setting up and removing traffic control,

scheduled breaks, and the hour needed for cure time at the end ofthe day from the scheduled

work hours.

Maintenance repairs ofthis nature usually are performed with the adjacent lane open to traffic.

Many of the patching operations, such as sawing or removal ofthe deteriorated concrete by

milling, waterblasting, or chiseling, often require encroachment into the adjacent lane. This, of

course, also affects productivity. More important, it affects the safety ofthe repair crew.

Patching procedures and materials that minimize the time required for repairing the pavement are

highly desirable.

Crew Size

The various procedures and materials that were evaluated required different labor for the

removal and replacement of the deteriorated concrete. Summaries of the labor requirements for

the procedures and materials evaluated in the project are shown in tables 8 and 9, respectively.

For the majority of the installations, the patching operations were done sequentially, with different

crews responsible for different activities.

Table 7. Time required for placement of spall repairs.

Nwnber of

Productive Hours Patches Nwnber of Average Nwnber of

Participating Agency per Day Installed Days Patches per Hour

Temporary Traffic 205" 13.5 3

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania DOT - Control: 4 to 6

Armstrong County Maintenance Crew Overnight Traffic 175 8.0 4

Control: 6

South Carolina DOH&PT - Lexington 7 320 12.5 4

County Maintenance Crew

Utah DOT - Wadsworth Construction 9.5b 440e 5 9

Co.

Arizona DOT - Bentson Contractors Weeknight: 6.5 245 5.5 7

Weekend: 12.5 140 1.5 7

b

Does not include the patches installed under adverse conditions or the Rosco patches that were installed 1

month after the majority were installed.

Traffic control was left in place during the weekdays and removed during the weekend.

At this test site, a test section consisted of 10 joints rather than 10 patches. All spalls on the joint were

repaired.

29
Table 8. Labor requirements for the various spall repair procedures.

Spall Repair Procedure Required Labor

Re-establishing joint sawing 1 person operating saw

1 person directing saw

Saw-and-patch 1 person directing saw

1 person operating saw

2 persons operating pneumatic hammers

2 persons cleaning repair hole

1 person removing debris

Chip-and-patch 2 persons operating pneumatic hammers

2 persons cleaning repair hole

1 person removing debris

Mill-and-patch 1 person operating milling machine

1 person directing milling machine

2 persons operating pneumatic hammers

2 persons cleaning repair hole

1 person removing debris

aterblast-and-patch 1 person operating waterblaster

1 person operating water truck

1 person cleaning repair hole

pean-and-patch 1 person operating pneumatic hammer

1 person cleaning repair hole

!Inserting ioint bond-breaker 1 nerson installinl! ioint board (available for other activities)

Table 9. Labor requirements for the various spall repair materials.

Repair Material Required Labor

ypeillPCC 2 persons mixing and applying epoxy

2 persons proportioning and mixing Type ill PCC mix

3 persons placing, compacting, and finishing

Duracal 1 person proportioning and mixing Duracal

2 persons placing, compacting, and finishing

Five StarHP 1 person proportioning and mixing Five Star HP

2 persons placing, compacting, and finishing

1 person spraying curing water

et-45 1 person proportioning and mixing Set-45

2 persons placing, compacting, and finishing

i:>yrament 505 1 person proportioning and mixing Pyrament 505

2 persons placing, compacting, and finishing

ikaPronto 11 2 persons mixing and applying SikaPronto 19

2 persons proportioning and mixing SikaPronto 11

2 persons placing, compacting, and finishing

MC-64 4 persons mixing MC-64

2 persons placing and finishing

i:>ercolFL 1 person placing rock into prepared hole

1 person driving truck with pumps and tanks

1 person applying Percol FL

1 person applying broadcast aggregate

i:>enatron R1M- 3003 1 person placing rock into prepared hole

2 persons mixing Penatron R1M-3003

3 persons placing and finishing

lJPM 2 persons shoveling and placing mix

1 person operating vibratory roller or plate

l>J\1ZjRosco 1 person driving truck

1 nerson oneratinl! binder/al!!!fel!ate snraver

30
Every operation except sawing was performed within a reasonable time following the

preceding operation. For example, a crew would saw the patch boundaries, followed by a crew

using jackhammers to remove the concrete, followed by another crew sandblasting and airblasting

the patches clean. The sawing was performed at least 1 day before the other operations.

Generally, four or five repair areas were prepared for receiving the repair material before the

mixing ofthe repair material was started. This decreased the amount of waste and allowed more

efficient use of the repair material. At no time was the patching material placed more than 30

minutes after airblasting.

Tables 8 and 9 list the minimum number of personnel used by the participating agencies. In

certain cases, such as with the placement ofthe aggregate with the Percol FL or Penatron R/M3003 and the insertion ofthe joint bond-breaker, persons could be used for two activities that did

not occur simultaneously. A supervisor generally was responsible for overseeing the crews and

their operations. Inspection was performed by the SHRP H-106 project staff.

Material Cost

The cost of the materials evaluated in this experiment varied greatly, as shown in table 10.

The costs shown in the table do not include shipping or any discounts that may be realized by

buying large quantities. Cementitious materials are readily available through local distributors.

However, the newer polymer materials had an additional cost (not shown in the table) because

they required shipping from the source of production.

Table 10. Spall repair material cost.

Weight of Aggregate

Material Unit per Unit of Material, kg Cost per unit, $ Cost per m3

, $

TypeIIIPCC 42.7 kg 154.4 5.00 172.50'

Duracal 22.7 kg 45.4 7.50 279.70

Five Star HP 22.7 kg 13.6 18.00 1098.00

Set-45 22.7 kg 13.6 21.50 1293.93

SikaPronto 11 30.9 kg 17.0 113.00 5672.38'

MC..Q4 15.1 L N/A 129.00 8560.85

PercolFL 3.8L 22.2 29.00 3502.76

Pyrament 505 22.7 kg 13.6 9.00 575.08

Penatron RIM-3003 15.1 L 40 188.00 6221.32

UPM High Performance Cold Mix 1.1 Mton 853.5 65.00 to 80.00 182.98 to 235.26

.. 11 Mtnn v~,;p~ ':\ 'i ()() tn fi() ()()b 01 A.O tn 14':\ 77

The cost does not include the cost of the bonding agent. Due to the small number of spalls being repaired at one time using

this material, a significant amount of waste was encountered. The cost of the epoxy bonding agent used was $13/L, and

the cost of the methacrylate bonding agent was $29/L.

The cost of the spray-injected bituminous patching material represents averages provided by the manufacturers. These

costs include the cost of purchasing the equipment (amortized over the life expectancy of the equipment), maintenance,

binder, aggregate, and other variable costs.

31
Comments

During the installation process, observations were made regarding the ease and workability of

the materials and procedures. The following sections describe these observations.

Saw-and-Patch Procedure

The saw-and-patch procedure is generally the most accepted way of patching partial-depth

spalls. The advantages of this procedure are that the saw leaves vertical edge faces, the forces

experienced by the pavement during removal of the concrete within the sawed boundaries are

isolated to within the patch area, and very little spalling of the remaining pavement occurs.

However, if water is used during the sawing operation, the repair area may be saturated for some

time afterward. Some patching materials are very susceptible to the moisture condition of the

substrate and will not bond to a wet surface. Ifsuch a material is being used, concrete

replacement operations may have to be delayed. It was found that no spalling of the edges

resulted from allowing traffic onto the repair areas that had been cut 1 to 2 days prior to being

replaced. Furthermore, if additional unsound concrete is found beyond the original boundaries

after the initial removal, the saw must be brought back to saw new boundaries, which may create

a delay. To obtain the depth of cut required for the patch boundaries, the boundaries must be

overcut 50 to 75 mm in each direction. These overcuts may create a weak area that may

deteriorate in the future unless cleaned and sealed. Ifthe area to be patched is adjacent to the

open lane oftraffic, the saw must encroach into that lane, creating a somewhat dangerous

condition. Generally, the removal of the deteriorated concrete within the sawed boundaries was

much easier and quicker than when the boundaries had not been sawed.

Chip-and-Patch Procedure

The chip-and-patch procedure (without sandblasting) is frequently used by highway agencies

when it is perceived that there is not enough time to patch using the more rigorous saw-and-patch

procedure. This method has other merits as well. Once the joint sawing has been completed, the

concrete saw is not needed again. It is much easier with this method to remove any additional

unsound concrete found after the initial removal. The chisel also leaves a rough vertical edge,

thus providing more bonding area for the replacement material. If a light jackhammer is used

around the periphery ofthe patch, the spalling can be controlled.

The chip-and-patch procedure also does not leave saw overcuts, which may be a plane of

weakness or require sealing. Therefore, including the time required to saw and dry the patching

area, resaw, and seal the overcuts, this method may take less time than the more rigorous sawand-patch method. Unfortunately, because of confounding factors, the analysis of productivity

could not determine which ofthese two procedures is actually faster.

The main objections to the chip-and-patch method are the fact that damage to the remaining

concrete can occur when heavy pneumatic hammers are used and that the patch edges may be

feather-edged. The transmission of destructive forces may be reduced by allowing a heavy

pneumatic hammer only at the center ofthe area to be removed. A light pneumatic hammer

should be used around the edges. Also, the work should progress from the inside of the patch

32
toward the edges and the chisel point should be directed toward the inside ofthe patch. Featheredging of the patch edges can be minimized by requiring a minimum 25-mm vertical face on all

sides. It was also felt that sandblasting is required to achieve proper bond.

Mill-and-Patch Procedure

The milling machine is very efficient in removing large areas of spalled concrete. With a

milling head of 0.3 m, the smallest currently available for this use, the repair area will be a

minimum of 0.09 m2

• Therefore, ifthe area to be repaired is small, the patch may be larger than

necessary. The exposed bottom surface of the concrete created by milling is very rough and very

level, as shown in figure 17. The hole created by the operation will tend to be concave, rather

than vertical, at the boundaries that are perpendicular to the direction of the milling. The milling

operation also caused spalling on the edges of the adjacent pavement. The removed concrete

becomes a fine slurry that is easy to wash away. The size ofthe machine and the location ofthe

milling head in relation to the rest of the equipment affects the efficiency of the removal operation.

The orientation ofthe concave edges was parallel to the direction of traffic where possible.

However, because of traffic constraints, the equipment was not always able to maneuver into such

an orientation. It may be desirable in such cases to chisel the edges to form a vertical face. This

was done on all but one test section in Arizona. Cementitious materials, in particular, may not

perform well when feather-edged.

Figure 17. Patch area for milling operation.

33
Milling machines are generally readily available in most regions ofthe United States.

However, a suitable machine, at a reasonable cost, could not be located in Utah. The cost of

renting a milling machine, including an operator, may vary from $250/day to $200/hour. A

Caterpillar PR-105 pavement profiler was used in Arizona, and a Barcomill 100 milling machine

was used in Pennsylvania.

Between 6 and 10 teeth were replaced daily in Pennsylvania. In Arizona, 31 teeth were

replaced the first day, 13 the second day, and 6 the third day. An average rate of 2.3 m

2

Jhr was

achieved at both test sites. This rate includes the time to travel to each spall repair location and

orientation ofthe machine. The rate was significantly greater when the repair areas were larger

and located away from the adjacent lane oftraffic. The rate does not include the time to

straighten the concave edges left by milling. The machine used at both test sites seemed more

suited for milling asphalt. More powerful equipment may be more efficient for milling concrete.

Less spalling ofthe adjacent pavement may also result from using a more powerful machine.

Waterblast-and-Patch Procedure

The use of a high-pressure water jet (207,000 kPa) to remove the deteriorated concrete was

attempted at the test sites in Arizona and Utah. The main advantage of using a high-pressure

water jet is that once the jet nozzle speed and pressure are adjusted, only the weak concrete is

removed. The operation also can be done with as few as two people. Another advantage may be

the finished condition ofthe exposed faces ofthe repair hole. The bottom and sides ofthe

finished area are extremely rough and angular, providing more surface area to which the new

replacement material may bond. A disadvantage may be that the finished surfaces are saturated,

which may limit possible replacement materials to those that require a wet bonding surface.

Otherwise, time is required to allow the area to become dry. Another concern is that the fine

slurry laitance left by the removal process requires careful attention in the sandblasting phase of

the patching operation.

The waterblasters were originally expected to remove the concrete at a rate of 5.4 m

2

Jhr;

however, problems with equipment at both locations brought this rate down significantly. In

Utah, it took 3 days ofin-the-field diagnostic work before the operator could get the jet to work

properly. Once the equipment was operational, a production rate of 0.9 m2 to 1.4 m2Jhr was

achieved. A significant amount oftime was needed to orient the nozzle at each patch location.

The waterblaster broke the concrete down to fine and coarse aggregate, and this aggregate was

ejected out ofthe hole. A protective shield was constructed around the area under repair to avoid

damage to traversing traffic. The cost ofrenting the equipment was $10,000/month.

In Arizona, the first working day was spent trying to get the waterblasting equipment

operational (without success). The subcontractor spent the next day "fixing" the waterblaster.

The following working day, another 1.5 hours were spent in the field adjusting the water jet

nozzle speed and pressure. When the equipment was working, it was difficult to control the depth

ofremoval. After removing the deteriorated concrete at five spall locations, the equipment again

broke down. At the time, a production rate of 0.6 m2 to 0.7 m2Jhr was being achieved. It was

speculated that the aggregate in the original pavement was a very tough granite and was therefore

34
requiring extra demolition time. The cost of subcontracting this work was $4,352 per day, not

including mobilization and transportation costs.

Adverse-Condition Patching

When patching under adverse conditions and using a cementitious material, it is very unlikely

that a wet saw can be used to re-establish the joint. It will therefore be very difficult to install the

joint bond-breaker to the proper depth, slightly below the depth ofremoval. In cold weather, hot

water and insulating blankets are also required. At the adverse-condition test site, a heated water

tank was not available. Although the water tank was insulated, it was very difficult to maintain

the warm temperature ofthe water. Insulating blankets also were difficult to keep in place

because of wind gusts created by passing trucks in the adjacent lane.

It should also be noted that in one test section involving the installation of UPM, the repair

hole was not wetted prior to placement ofthe material because no water was available at the job

site that morning. Only handtools were to be used to remove the loose concrete, but only the

very loose material was removable with handtools. Therefore, a small jackhammer was used to

remove all ofthe deteriorated material.

Joint PrtWaration

Re-establishing the joint with a partial-depth saw cut and removing any point of mechanical

conflict is considered critical to the performance ofthe new patch. Ifthis saw cut is not deep

enough or wide enough, inserting the joint bond-breaker is difficult. Figure 10, shown earlier,

illustrates the proper placement of the foam bond-breaker prior to the placement of the repair

material. It was suggested that latex sealant be used to caulk any irregularities or openings

between the backer board and the joint. This proved to be extremely difficult and timeconsuming. Often, the sawed joint was not located directly over the working crack. The

performance of patches installed in that situation is highly questionable. On back-to-back repairs

at a joint, maintaining the alignment of the backer board is difficult. Stiffer boards may be

required for such repairs. .

Type III PCC

Type III PCC is the most commonly used rapid-setting cementitious patching material;

therefore, the maintenance and construction crews are familiar with the placing, consolidation,

finishing, and curing techniques necessary to install this product. To achieve the high, early

strength desired for this project, many admixtures were incorporated into the mix design. The

addition of these admixtures in the proper quantities, in proper sequence, and at the proper time

required much attention. The mix was workable at the two test sites where air temperatures at

the time of placement were below 27°C. However, it was stiff and difficult to work with at

higher temperatures.

35
Duracal

Ofthe products being evaluated, Duracal is most like "regular" concrete to handle. The

proportioning, mixing, placing, and finishing of this product were very easy to accomplish. The

product is self-leveling and does not require mechanical vibration or a curing compound under

normal conditions. Although a bonding agent was not applied before placement of Duracal' the

manufacturer suggests that a bonding agent be used on shallow patches. Feather-edging is not

recommended. This product is more tolerant of higher ambient air temperatures than the other

cementitious products that were evaluated.

Five Star HP

The Five Star HP concrete looks very dry during most ofthe mixing cycle and appears wet

only during the last few minutes of mixing. The temptation to add water must be resisted, as the

strength is adversely affected by the addition of water. The concrete is fairly self-leveling and

only requires compaction by trowel. The product is temperature-sensitive and will set quickly at

temperatures above 27°C. A chemical retarding additive is available to lengthen the working time

ifpatching is done in hot weather. One tube of Summerset per bag ofmaterial is added during

mixing to gain an additional 5 minutes of working time. Summerset was used in South Carolina

and Pennsylvania. One major drawback to this product is the requirement for wet curing the

material for 30 minutes after placement. This is difficult to ensure and oversee in a moving

operation. It is also difficult to determine exactly when the material has set sufficiently to start

wetting the surface.

Set-45

Set-45 is very sensitive to ambient air temperatures. When the air temperature is below

27°C, the working time for the product is approximately 10 minutes and the product is easily

placed and finished. However, when the air temperature is above 27°C, the working time for the

product is much less. At the Arizona, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina test sites, the product set

in the wheelbarrow or in the patch before it could be compacted. Though the use ofice water to

slow the initial set was recommended (and used in South Carolina), it was often impractical to do

so. For this reason, Set-45 is available in a "hot weather" formula. It should be noted that the

substrate must be dry and that the product should not be used to repair pavement constructed

with limestone aggregate. The presence oflimestone aggregate can be checked by wetting the

freshly exposed concrete face with vinegar. If bubbles appear, the pavement contains limestone

aggregate. Set-45 also emits a peculiar, although not harmful, odor.

Pyrament 505

Pyrament 505 was easy to mix, place, and finish when placed under normal conditions during

the project (an ambient air temperature above 4°C). It behaved very much like regular concrete.

This product takes more time for mixing than the other cementitious products being evaluated

(except the Type III PCC mix) and appears dry until the last few minutes of the mix cycle. It was

less workable under adverse conditions, which are defined in this project as an ambient air

temperature below 4°C and a repair area saturated with surface moisture. Without hot water and

36
insulating blankets, the material will not set in the time stated. For small maintenance operations,

such as the project at the Pennsylvania test site, it may be difficult to keep the water sufficiently

hot for the time required for patch preparation. The product's workability under high air

temperatures was not evaluated, as it was not installed under this condition.

SikaPronto 11

When properly mixed and under normal conditions during the experiment (4 to 32°C),

SikaPronto 11 was easy to work with and finished very easily. Even under higher air

temperatures (> 32°C), the SikaPronto 11 concrete retained its workability. However, the primer

required for its placement, SikaPronto 19, gelled very rapidly at these high temperatures and

became difficult to apply to the patch substrate. The manufacturer recommended that the product

be installed in lifts because ofthe heat of hydration ofthis product. However, time and

construction constraints made it impractical to do this. No adverse effects have been noted to

date from this method of placement.

A major concern with this product may be its toxicity. In particular, masks are recommended

to avoid breathing the fumes. However, during mixing and placement, the material looked and

finished very much like regular concrete; because of this similarity to a nontoxic repair material,

workers may tend to disregard the face mask recommendation.

At three ofthe four test sites, product representation for SikaPronto 11 was very poor. The

local manufacturer's representatives were either not available or not very knowledgeable about the

product and its installation. Because its mixing and use are different from normal concretes, it

may be difficult to get this product to perform properly.

PercolFL

Use of polyurethanes for pavement patching is fairly new to most maintenance and

construction workers. With the proper equipment, the procedure to install the material is simple.

The required equipment, the PERCAT 500, may be purchased for $10,000 or rented for

$750/month. A qualified technician is required to adjust the pumps for proper mixing ofthe two

component resins prior to dispensing Percol FL. Once the pumps have been adjusted, the

machine is easy to operate. A Percol Polymerics Inc. representative was available at the four test

sites to operate and adjust the equipment (which took considerable time at some locations). It is

also critical that clean, oven-dried aggregate be used with this product; even a small amount of

dust or moisture may cause poor bonding or bubbling.

Properly filling the repair hole to grade with the 19-mm aggregate is critical to achieving a

smooth-riding patch. Ifthe hole is overfilled, the resultant patch is very rough. Ifthe hole is

underfilled, additional resin will be required, and the cost of the repair will be increased. The

product sets very rapidly. If a friction aggregate is to be broadcast over the repair area, it must be

done within the critical time period. This critical time period is very short at high ambient air

temperatures. At the Arizona and Pennsylvania test sites, to achieve a smoother finish, the repair

area was not filled flush with the resin, but was underfilled approximately 6 mm. When the resin

started to react, the repair area was sprayed with a very fine mist of the resin and the friction

37
aggregate was broadcast. The repairs in Utah and South Carolina are rough and have an uneven

finish.

It should be noted that Percol FL has a very low viscosity and is therefore difficult to place on

pavements with slopes and grades. A qualified, experienced technician may be able to produce a

smooth patch by adjusting the dispensing rate. However, even though they were placed by the

manufacturer's representative, many ofthe patches installed on a grade in this experiment were

not level.

A major advantage ofthis product is its rapid setting time. IfPercol FL can be applied to

shallow, rapidly cleaned (non-sandblasted) patches, repairs may be performed using a moving

traffic control operation. One potential disadvantage with Percol FL is that the disposal ofthe

unused portion of this product may be of concern in certain States.

MC-64

The use of epoxies for pavement patching is unfamiliar to most maintenance and construction

workers. As with most epoxies, proportioning and mixing is critical to the performance of MC64. The manufacturer's representative ensured that the materials were mixed properly. Using two

or three Jiffy mixers at a time is essential for an efficient operation. Each mixer requires one

operator, as well as an additional operator to pour part B into part A and clock the mixing time.

Part B must always be added to part A, and if using only one mixer, part B must be mixed first.

The mixing paddles must not be interchanged, as this may cause the product to set prematurely.

The finishing technique for this material is also very different from commonly used techniques and

must be carefully observed. An asphalt-impregnated board is used in a repeated up-and-down

stroke to work the resin to the surface, as well as to move the material. Both the mixing and

finishing required many persons and much time. An advantage ofthis product is that very little

equipment is required; therefore, mobilization time and cost are minimized. Another advantage is

that because the component parts are premeasured, material properties are less variable.

Users should note that this product has a very low viscosity at high temperatures and may

require special care in placing it on pavements with slopes and grades when patching in hot

weather. The product must be worked against the grade repeatedly until it has set. The disposal

of the unused portion of this product may be of concern in certain States.

Penatron R1M-3003

The mixing and placing of Penatron R/M-3003 was relatively easy. However, care was

required during mixing because ofthe requirement that agitation of component A must be

ongoing during the addition of component B. Placement ofthe correct gradation and amount of

aggregate in the repair hole results in a smooth patch and optimal use of materials, thereby

reducing cost. As with the epoxy and polyurethane materials, this product has a very low

viscosity and is difficult to place on pavements with slopes and grades. The disposal of the

unused portion ofthis product may be of concern in certain States.

38
UPM High Performance Cold Mix

The placement ofthe bituminous cold mix is very simple. The only advice on the installation

procedure is to leave the patch slightly high (3 to 6 mm) to allow for additional compaction from

traffic.

AMZ/Rosco

The placement ofthis spray-injection bituminous material is very simple; however, an

experienced operator is needed to control the flow of the aggregate and asphalt to the nozzle

because these variables are not preset. There is also a significant amount of overspraying, making

the patch appear larger than it is and resulting in a rough patch.

Test Site Conditions

Although the test sites were carefully screened for their suitability to the demands ofthe

SHRP H-106 project, unexpected pavement conditions were encountered at the Pennsylvania site.

Ideally, only spalls that measure less than one-third the pavement thickness in depth are suitable

for partial-depth repairs. However, the depth ofthe deterioration below the spalled area is

difficult to determine prior to actually repairing the spall. At the Pennsylvania test site, joint

deterioration often was more severe than the surface visual inspection indicated. Many ofthe

spalled areas were deteriorated to the depth of the dowel bars and below. Because oftime

constraints and the unavailability ofproper equipment to perform full-depth repairs, partial-depth

repairs were installed and will be evaluated as part ofthis project.

At the Arizona test site, a majority of the work was performed at night. Although floodlights

were used, the relative darkness made it difficult to determine if the area of deterioration at each

repair location had been completely removed and if the repair area was sufficiently clean. Noise

from the high traffic volume muted the effectiveness of sounding the pavement.

39

CHAPTER3. MATERIAL TESTING

In addition to the identification of appropriate test locations and the installation ofmany

different patch types, the SHRP H-l 06 project included a series oflaboratory tests on the

materials used in the experiment. The laboratory testing was an attempt to define pertinent

material characteristics that could be related to the performance ofthe materials in the field.

Once these characteristics were identified, the next step would be to formulate sample

specifications regarding the materials, mixing, and placement ofrapid-setting, partial-depth spall

repair'materials that would take advantage of characteristics indicative of good performance

while avoiding characteristics indicative of poor performance.

Laboratory Tests Performed

The tests performed on the rapid-setting, partial-depth spall repair materials were intended to

characterize the physical properties ofthe materials. Appropriate tests were run on the various

materials according to their classification as cementitious, polymer, or bituminous. However,

since the life ofthe individual spall repairs often is longer than the duration ofthis project, the

ability ofthis experiment to determine performance-related specifications and to predict spall

repair life is limited. Continued monitoring of patches will provide the additional field

performance data needed to establish correlations between laboratory data and field performance.

All materials were prepared and cured in the laboratory according to the manufacturers'

recommendations. If a product could be extended with aggregate, the maximum percentage

recommended by the manufacturer was used to extend the material. All materials for the

laboratory evaluation were sampled from the materials being used at one ofthe test sites.

Manufacturers were requested to ship materials to all ofthe test sites from one manufacturing lot

or one day's production to reduce overall material variability. Aggregate for each ofthe

materials also came from a single source, and this aggregate was used in making the laboratory

specimens.

The tests and test procedures used for the cementitious or polymeric patching materials

included the following:

• Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars, ASTM C 109 and Compressive

Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM C 39.

• Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio ofConcrete in Compression,

ASTM C 469.

• Flexural Strength ofConcrete (Using Simple Beam With Third-Point Loading), ASTM C

78.

• Bond Strength of Epoxy-Resin Systems Used with Concrete, ASTM C 882 and Caltrans

Method ofTest ofBonding Strength of Concrete Overlay and Patching Materials to PCC.

• Resistance ofConcrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing, ASTM C 666A.

• Scaling Resistance of Concrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemicals, ASTM C 672.

41
• Method for Determining the Surface Abrasion Resistance ofConcrete Specimens,

Caltrans California Test 550.

• Length Change ofHardened Cement Mortar and Concrete, ASTM C 157.

• Thermal Compatibility Between Concrete and an Epoxy-Resin Overlay, ASTM C 884.

Laboratory evaluation for the bituminous patching materials included the following:

• Resilient Modulus: ASTM D 4123.

• Marshall Stability: ASTM D 1559.

• Antistripping: ASTM D 1664.

• Workability: Pennsylvania Transportation Institute method.

• Extraction: ASTM D 2172.

• Sieve Analysis: ASTM C 136.

Laboratory Test Results

Compressive strength is often used for specifying and evaluating cementitious spall repair

materials. For rapid repairs, early strength gain is ofinterest. Figure 18 shows the strength-gain

curves for the spall repair materials that were tested. It is interesting to see thatmaterials with

the highest early strengths were not necessarily those with the highest ultimate strength. The

unusual strength-gain curve for Set-45 could not be explained. Based on the Least-Squares

Difference T-test and a confidence level of 95 percent, at 2 hours, Set-45 was significantly

stronger than the other materials, and Percol FL and Type III PCC were significantly weaker than

the others. However, at 28 days, Type III PCC was significantly stronger than all other

materials, with Pyrament 505 having the next highest compressive strength. MC-64 and Percol

FL were significantly lower in compressive strength than all other materials at 28 days. Set-45,

Five Star HP, and Duracal were not significantly different in terms of compressive strength at 28

days.

Bond strength is thought to be an important factor in determining field performance. The

bond strengths ofthe spall repair materials are shown in figures 19 and 20. It is interesting to

note that, in general, the bond strengths ofthe materials that were specified to be installed wet

decreased when tested using a dry substrate, and materials that were specified to be installed dry

lost bond strength when tested using a wet substrate.

Several exceptions to that statement should be noted. Percol FL, whose manufacturer claims

that the material is moisture-tolerant, lost strength significantly when applied to a wet substrate.

Also, Five Star HP and Pyrament 505 manufacturers recommended that their materials be

applied to a saturated, dry (SSD) surface. The slant-shear and center-point bond strength tests

indicated that the bond strength was weaker when applied to a wet substrate. It can also be seen

that some materials were more tolerant of changed conditions than others. A partial listing ofthe

results ofthe tests for the cementitious and polymeric materials is given in table 11. Table 12

gives the results ofthe tests on the bituminous materials when tested using a wet substrate.

42
liE

-I'

S!lt-45

•

DracaJ

•

~ranent

o

S kaFtonto

R va Sar I-P

Type III R:C

~64

672

(28 dayS)'--__E'i__...J

4 24

hours

3

li ne,

o 2

,,=-,~~==-=-=-=*-=:-:-:::~:;~-=~e.-:::,~- -1-

I

I ------r

--/ r~~~--~~~~;:::::~72------L-------L ----1------- I I

I I I I

1: a~:::::-~-;-~t-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~L~-:-:-===E-:-:-~-=-=-=-=tL=-=-=-=-=-=-~EJ

():)npr essi ve S: r engt h, f\Pa

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Figure 18. Compressive strengths of spall repair materials.

BJnd S: r engt h, f\Pa

30 ...----------------------------------,

• c-y (28 days)

E! Vrft (28 days)

20

10

o

Type III

D.racal

Srt - 45 FYr anent: M:;. 64

Fi va s: ar I-P S kaA' ont 0 I1rcol

Figure 19. 28-day slant-shear bond strengths of spall repair materials.

43
B:>nd S: r engt h, M::a

10 r-----------------------------~

I• o-y (28 days) E] WI: (28 days) I

8 --------------------------------------------------

6 -------------------------------

4 -------------

2

o

Type III

D.racal

sn-45 Fyranent lG 64

Fi ve S: ar I-P S kaA"ont 0

Figure 20. 28-day center-point bond strengths ofspall repair materials.

Table 11. Summary oflaboratory test results of cementitious and polymer materials.

28-day

Modulus of Modulus Freeze-Thaw Scaling,

Elasticity, Poisson's ofRupture, Weight Durability Abrasion 100

Material 106 kPa Ratio kPa Change, g Factor Loss, g cycles

Type ill 48.0 0.17 8004 -12.3 101.3 18.7 4

Duracal 38.6 0.25 4520 -39.4 43 19.8 4

Set-45 46.2 0.2 3416 -36 24.9 23.7 5

Five Star 38.6 0.17 4658 NA 10.1 19.5 3

lPyrament 49.7 0.16 8487 -5.6 124.9 25.5 4

SikaPronto 23.8 0.3 15180 3.5 76.3 12.7 a

IMC-64 - - - 61.7 96.2 -0.8 a

[PercolFL - - - 56.9 57.1 a a

NA: Sample was too badly deteriorated to make measurement.

Test was not appropriate.

44
Table 12. Summary oflaboratory test results of bituminous materials.

Test Standard UPM AJ.\1Z

Resilient Modulus ASTMD 4123 25°C and 0.33 Hz, MPa 2001

25°C and 0.50 Hz, MPa 1939

25°C and 1.00 Hz, MPa 2015

Marshall Stability ASTMD 1559 Stability, kg 2306 2187

Flow, mm 2.464 4.343

Bulk Spec. Grav. ASTMD2726 2.26 2.15

Max. Spec. Grav. ASTMD2041 2.54 2.45

Air Voids percent 10.9 12.17

Anti-Stripping ASTMD 1664 Modified, percent +95

Workability PTIMethod Ambient Temp. 0.5

Extraction ASTMD2172 Dso

ASTMD 136 Asphalt content, percent 3.5 4.0

Viscosity ASTMD2171 60°C, poise 640 4904

Penetration ASTMD5 25°C, 100 g, 5 sec., dmm 196 68

Ductility ASTMD 113 25°C, 5 cm/min, cm +150

Softening Point ASTMD 36 °C 43 53

45

CHAPTER 4. FIELD PERFORMANCE

A large amount of data were collected during the field evaluations of the four test sites to

monitor the development of distresses and the occurrence of patch failures. Distresses

characteristic of cementitious and polymer patches and of bituminous patches were observed and

recorded. These distresses were rated according to the portion ofthe patch experiencing the

distress and the severity of the distress. This chapter presents summary performance data for both

survival and distress development.

Performance Data Collection

Once the experimental patches were placed, they were monitored for performance via on-site

visual evaluations. At each site, an immediate (within 3 days after patch placement) inspection

was performed to record the development of drying shrinkage cracks and any construction-related

failures. Additional evaluations were then conducted under the SHRP H-106 project at

approximately 1, 3, 6, 12, and 18 months following the date ofinstallation.

Under the FHWA LTM project, annual evaluations were performed between Fall 1993 and

Spring 1998. A "deep-winter" evaluation was also made ofthe repairs in January and February

1995 to assess pavement joint openings and patch bonding characteristics in cold weather. The

dates ofthe field performance evaluations and the corresponding ages ofthe repairs for each test

site are shown in table 13. The evaluations mainly entailed a visual evaluation of the patches to

determine iffailure had occurred and, if not, to record the type, severity, and density of various

patch distresses. Specifically, the cementitious and polymer patch distresses and observations

included:

• Spalling.

• Cracking.

• Wearing.

• Oxidizing.

• Edge fraying.

• Patch-adjacent deterioration.

• Pavement corner cracking.

• Joint sealant condition.

• Faulting.

• Patch debonding.

The bituminous patch distresses and observations included:

• Dishing.

• Raveling.

• Shoving.

47
Table 13. Spall repair test site evaluation schedule.

Test Site

Pennsylvania

(Nonna!) South Carolina Arizona Utah

Month of Age, Month of Age, Month of Age, Month of Age,

Evaluation months Evaluation months Evaluation months Evaluation montru

6/4/91·7/22/91 5/6/91-5/29/91 5/29/91-6/9/91 4/22/91·5/1/91

6/91 0 5/91 0 6/91 0 4/91 0

8/91 2 7/91 2 7/91 1 5/91 1

10/91 4 9/91 4 9/91 3 8/91 4

3/92 9 1/92 8 1/92 7 3/92 11

6/92 12 5/92 12 6/92 12 7/92 15

10/92 16 9/92 16 10/92 16 9/92 17

Planned

Evaluation Nominal

Number Age.

months

Installation

Post-Installation 0

1 1

2 3

3 9

4 12

5 18

6 30

7 42

8 48'

9 54

10 66

11 7R

Pennsylvania

(Adverse)

Month of Age,

Evaluation months

3/11/91-3/27/91

3/91 0

4/91 1

7/91 4

10/91 7

3/92 12

6/92 15

10/92 19

10/93 31

7/94 40

2/95 47

12/95 57

3/97 72

(i/QR R7

10/93

7/94

2/95

12/95

3197

(i/QR

28 11/93 30 11/93 29 10/93

37 7/94 38 8/94 38 7/94

44 1/95 44 2/95 44 1/95

54 1/96 56 9/95 51 11/95

30

39

45

55

67

Deep-winter perfonnance evaluation.

• Cracking,

• Bleeding.

• Edge disintegration.

• Missing patch.

Each cementitious and polymer patch was sounded using a O.68-kg to O.91-kg steel hammer

to determine whether debonding had occurred. The percentage of area debonded was recorded to

the nearest 5 percent.

The data presented in this report represent distresses that were recorded during the initial

inspection or anyone of the evaluations that followed. At the time ofthe evaluations, the distress

types and their severity and density were observed and recorded in terms ofthe percentage ofthe

patch area or perimeter affected.

Summary of Overall Performance Data

The percentages ofsurviving patches at the final inspection for each site are shown in figures

21 through 23, grouped by site, procedure, and materials,respective1y. It is important to note

that these charts do not provide rankings qf patch performance, but are simply a means of

showing the overall performance percentages. Chapter 5 presents the statistically

48
Pennsylvania South Carolina Arizona Utah

70

20

10

o

60

50

40

30

Repair Survival, %

1 00 ~--------------------------------,

90

80

Figure 21. Percentage of surviving patches by test site.

Repair Survival, 0/0

100.--------------------

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

Saw-and-Patch Mill-and-Patch Adv. Clean-and-Patch

Chlp-and-Patch Waterblast-and-Patch

Figure 22. Percentage of surviving patches by concrete-removal procedure.

49
Repair Survival, %

100.---------------------------------,

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

Type III PCC Set-45 MC-64 Percol FL UPM Spray Inj.

Duracal Five Star HP SikaPronto 11 Pyrament 505 Penatron

Figure 23. Percentage of surviving patches by material.

significant differences that were found to exist among the materials and procedures, and provides

meaningful rankings ofthe performance of different repairs.

Conceptually, a patch is considered failed ifit can no longer service traffic safely. As seen in

figure 21, as ofthe final evaluations, 39 percent of the patches were failed at the Pennsylvania test

site, 12 percent were failed at the Arizona test site, 10 percent were failed at the South Carolina

test site, and 9 percent were failed at the Utah test site.

Ofthe concrete-removal procedures, the adverse-condition clean-and-patch procedure, not

surprisingly, showed the highest percentage of patch failure at 66 percent (figure 22). The

procedures conducted under normal conditions experienced patch failure rates as follows: chipand-patch at 23 percent, rnill-and-patch at 17 percent, and saw-and-patch at 9 percent. The

waterblast-and-patch had no failures. It should be noted that the waterblast-and-patch result was

based on 26 patches placed at the Utah test site, the saw-and-patch result was based on 613

patches, the chip-and-patch on 742 patches, the rnill-and-patch on 140 patches, and the adversecondition clean-and-patch on 56 patches.

With respect to the performance characteristics of materials, the UPM High Performance Cold

Mix experienced the most failures with 82 percent, followed by the spray-injected mix with 51

percent. Penatron RM-3003 and Pyrament 505 experienced 35 and 31 percent failure over the

life ofthe experiment, respectively. The Percol FL, SikaPronto 11, and Set-45 experienced 17,

50
14, and 13 percent failure, respectively. The lowest percentages offailure were experienced by

the MC-64, Five Star HP, Type III PCC, and Duracal at 10, 9, 8, and 7 percent, respectively.

The low survival rates ofthe UPM and spray-injection repairs were not unexpected, especially

for those sites where the evaluation period was approximately 7 years. The high survival rates for

the Type III PCC were somewhat of a surprise, given that the cost is generally much lower than

the other rigid repair materials. The low survival rates at the Pennsylvania site generally reflect

the overall condition of the pavement, which was the poorest ofthe four sites. The high survival

rates at the other three sites appear to be a function ofthe overall condition ofthe sites and the

fact that Utah and Arizona had repairs placed in the passing lane, reducing the amount oftruck

traffic encountered by those repairs.

Summary of Site-Specific Field Performance Data

During the field inspection visits to the partial-depth spall repair test sites, data were collected

regarding repair survival and distress types and severities present. Survival ofthe repairs was

determined by whether the local agency had to repatch spalls that were originally patched with the

experiment materials. In several instances at the Arizona test site, surface patches were placed

over some ofthe H-106 repairs, resulting in their being reported as having failed. During

subsequent inspections, the surface patches had worn off, showing that the original H-106 repairs

were still in place. When the original H-106 repairs reappeared, their status was changed to show

survival.

The performance ofthe partial-depth spall repairs was evaluated on two criteria: survival of

the repairs over time relative to the other repair types and the current distress conditions ofthe

surviving repairs. Early analyses under the SHRP portion ofthe project concentrated on the

distress information because of the low number offailures that occurred. An increased number of

failures during recent evaluations has produced some statistically significant differences in survival

ofthe various repair types. As a result ofthese differences in patch survival, less emphasis was

placed on the identification of distress differences among the repair types. Table 14 shows the

various repair types and the survival numbers for each site.

Survival Data

Each partial-depth spall repair placed as part ofthe H-106 project was categorized as

surviving, failed, or lost to overlay. The percentage ofrepairs surviving for a given repair type

was then calculated as follows:

CEq. 1)

where: PSURV = Percentage of a repair type surviving at the time ofthe inspection.

NsURv = Number of patches surviving for a repair type at the time ofthe

inspection.

NpAIL = Number of patches failed for a repair type at the time ofinspection.

51
Table 14. Summary ofrepair survival at time of last test site inspection (number surviving/total repairs placed).

Pennsylvania Utah South Carolinaa Arizonaa

1285

1577

Adverse

Clean- Saw- Chip- Waterblast- Saw- Chip- Saw- Chip- Milland- and- and- and- and- and- and- and- andPatch Patch Patch Patch Patch Patch Patch Patch Patch II Total

MillandPatch

16/24

ChipandPatch

283/463 II 378/414 II 289/320 II 335/380

114 I 90 I 60 I 19 II 170 I 182 I 26 II 134 I 155 II 137 I 142 I 56

142 185 80 56 171 217 26 140 180 160 160 60

SawandPatch

_____ 15/22~~~~ ~:~... ~:~ ~~: ~~~~ ~~~~ =: :~~~~~ I

Repair material

TypeillPCC

Duracal

Set-45

--

Five Star lIP

MC-64-- SikaPronto 11 --- PercolFL

Ut IIPyrament 505 tv

UPMColdMix

Penatron RM-3003

Spray-injection

Total (bymethod)

- Total (by site)

a

b

Some repairs were lost from the experiment due to other operations (i.e., slab replacement, full-depth patching) and those repairs were not included in the survival

calculations.

Several repairs were excluded from the performance calculations due to inconsistencies noted during installation.
Figures 24 through 27 show the survival trends ofthe various repair types placed at each of

the four test sites. These figures indicate that the percentage ofrepairs surviving after 4 to 7

years is quite variable for the Pennsylvania and Arizona test sites, whereas all but three repair

types experienced no failure over 7 years of observation at the Utah test site. The fact that the

repairs were all in the passing lane and not subjected to the majority ofthe truck traffic was one of

the factors contributing to the good performance observed at the Utah site. The overall good

.condition ofthe pavement, which was better than any ofthe other spall repair test sites, also

provided the repairs with a better opportunity for good performance.

Distress Data

The distresses most often observed during the field inspections ofthe spall repair test sites

consisted of cracking ofthe patches and delamination ofthe rigid and two-part epoxy repairs from

the underlying PCC material. Deterioration ofrepair edges, aging and raveling of material,

cracking, and loss of material pieces were the predominant distresses observed for the bituminous

repairs. In many instances, the distresses developed during the initial year after placement and

continued to worsen over time as climate and traffic continued to wear on the repairs.

Repair Survival, %

100_111-........__---.._1---1.....__1----1_11---.- - - - - - - --

90 ------------------------------------------

80 ------------------------------------------

70 ------------------------------------------

60 ------------------------------------------

50 ------------------------------------------

40 ------------------------------------------

30 ------------------------------------------

20 ------------------------------------------

10 ~-----------------------------------------

o '-'--'--'-..J....L.-l.1....!-J--'-'--'-J....J... 1.J...J..~-l.I-L..J'-'-'--'-J....J... '.J...J..-l.-l.-l.'----,-,-,-,--,--,--,- 1..J....L.-l.-l.--l1--,-,---,

o 12 24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

Figure 24. Spall repair survival at South Carolina test site.

53

Type III PCC

S&P

•

Type III PCC

C&P

--4---

Duracal

S&P

--+1--

Five Star

S&P

Five Star

C&P

--EJ-_·

MC-64

S&P

- ........... -
----------

Repair Survival, %

1 00 ::'.-\ - "'-:::-"ii1!l--~~-5.=-- ...... ,.... ____.---£3..-- 90 --~~-+I----~--+-"""'-----"~ih<:::--:---"';;-~:!iJ-- - - - - - - - -- ------*

80 ---------------------------------------------

Percol

S&P

•

Duracal

C&P

70 --------------------------------------------- ---6'---

60 ---------------------------------------------

50 ~--------------------------------------------

40

Set-45

S&P

---¥--

Set-45

C&P

30 ~-------------------------------------------

20

10

MC-54

C&P

--EJ-_.

o L...L....L.-I.-,-,--,-,--I-l-l--'--L..L....L I--,---,--,-.L...L.....L 1-l-l-J.....L....L1--'---'--'--'-'--....L1-l-l-J.....L....L--,-1--'--'-'-...L.....L--!1--,--.J........I

o 12 24 36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

Figure 24. Spall repair survival at South Carolina test site (continued).

--4--'

•

Spray Inj

C&P

--EJ-_.

Percol

C&P

---¥--

UPM

C&P

SikaPronto

S&P

SikaPronto

C&P

*-

--~---------~--~ ~~--~~---------

"' ~~---~:------ -----~------------------~-~:~~--~---------

~- ----------~~~--¥--¥-----¥---~~---------

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Repair Survival, %

100..~~~~~----~--~------------------------

36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12 24

OL...L...L.....L--'---''-'--'-'--....L.-I.-l-l-J.....L-L-l-l--'--'-'-...L.....L--'---''-'--'-'--....L.-I.-l-l-J.....L-L-l-l-'-'-'-...L.....L--'---'---L.....I

o

Figure 24. Spall repair survival at South Carolina test site (continued).

54
Set-45

S&P

--EJ-_.

Type III PCC

S&P

•

Type III pcc

C&P

--+.-_.

Duracal

S&P

---+--

Duracal

C&P

:K

72 84

o ----------------

36 48 60

Age, months

12 24

90

80

70 -----------------------------------------

60 -----------------------------------------

50 -----------------------------------------

40 -----------------------------------------

30 -----------------------------------------

20 -----------------------------------------

10 -----------------------------------------

o

o

Repair Survival, %

100....-1 --___-__".....-,11-__ ..----------------- ,

, .

----~-------------- ...............

------------"'EJ 0 0

Figure 25. Spall repair survival at Arizona test site.

Repair Survival, %

1 00 ~-IIt----__-__III:o___ilt___ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

Set-45

C&P

•

Five Star

S&P

--+.-_.

Five Star

C&P

---+--

MC-54

S&P

MC-54

C&P

--EJ-_.

36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12 24

OL....L....L...L-l-L-J.......!-L-l-L....L--L-J..--'-'--l-J.....J..--'-'--l-.l-L....L...L-l-.I.-1.....L...L-l-L....L--L-J.......l-J'-'-J.....J..--'-'--l-.L.....I

o

Figure 25. Spall repair survival at Arizona test site (continued).

55
Repair Survival, %

1 00 ~J---__--..,.__III___III_ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Me-54

M&P

~.

•

--oif--·

Percol

C&P

--EJ-_.

SikaPronto

cap

--oj+--

Percol

S&P

SikaPronto

sap

50 ----------------~-~~~~._-----------------

90

80 ----- ------------------------------------

70 -------- ---------------------------------

60 ----------- ------------------------------

40 ------------------------------------------

30 ------------------------------------------

20 ------------------------------------------

10

36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12 24

0'--'-...l.-L--l......JL-.L-..L-J......J.....L-'--L...J.......L-L--l......JL-.L-..L-J......J.....L-'--L...L..L.....L...J.....L-l-L...J.......l.-L--l......JL-.L-..L-J......J.....L-'--L.....J........

o

Figure 25. Spall repair survival at Arizona test site (continued).

Repair Survival, %

pyrament

M&P

--4--'

UPM

C&P

--oj+--

Penatron

sap

Percol

M&P

•

-------------------~ ---------------------- \ •.!t< _-* \ >;<'

-------------------,-----------------------

\

--------------------~---------------------- \

\

--------------------,----------------------

*-...... -----------------------~*------------------

10

20

100~~.--.~~----+-__4r-~--~-----------------­

\

90 ------~------------------------

80 \

70

60

50

40

30

o

o 12 24 36 48 60

Age, months

72 84

Figure 25. Spall repair survival at Arizona test site (continued).

56
Type III

C&P

--~--.

Type III

M&P

--+1+--

Set-45

S&P

Set-45

C&P

--EJ--.

Set-45

M&P

--+--

Type III

S&P

•

36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12 24

50

40

30

20

10

o

o

90 ~---*,.

80

70

60

Repair Survival, %

1 00 _!-...--.!---ll...----l8!o:-::.--__-~~-*__=:

Figure 26. Spall repair survival at Pennsylvania test site.

Repair Survival, %

Five Star

S&P

•

Five Star

C&P

--~-_.

Five Star

M&P

--+1+--

MC-64

S&P

MC-64

C&P

--EJ--.

SikaPronto

S&P

36 48 60 72 84 --+--

Age, months

12 24

100..~~~-.--~---.----------------------­

- ........ _--+-----..... 90 ~--, ' - . -----~-~,---- :-..... .............. , " ..........,. 80 -----------------~------ , .........,----------- ---~-

&--[\1 ""*-----*'-_ , -----... 70 -----------------------~---------------- '",

60 -------------------------'\.---------------- '" 1sI,

50 ----------------------------~'~~:----------

40 --------------------------------~---------

'8------EJ

30

20

10

o

o

Figure 26. Spall repair survival at Pennsylvania test site (continued).

57
Percal

sap

---;t-_.

Percal

cap

--->1+--

Percal

M&P

Percal

Adv CI&P

--EJ-_.

Pyrament

sap

-.-+--

SikaPranta

cap

•

36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12 24

20

10

o

o

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

Repair Survival, %

1 00 _l-.... -11I---II-:...... ;:--....=--~ --.....l4' ---ll!"-~ - --

"l3--B-~---=... ...~-+---+-----.... --. --------_.:::~...... ,----_.. _, : ------------~-....-

... "'E:3- - - -El..

--------------------~,~~--~

Figure 26. Spall repair survival at Pennsylvania test site (continued).

Pyrament

cap

•

Spray Inj

C&P

--EJ-_.

--~-_.

UPM

cap

--->1+--

UPM

Adv CI&P

Pyrament

Adv CI&P

36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12 24

~~~-------- -- .... '-:&, ------.... -------

30

20

10

o

o

90

80

70

60

50

40 --------------------

Repair Survival, %

100 _f--I__""'-~

Figure 26. Spall repair survival at Pennsylvania test site (continued).

58
Repair Survival, %

90 ~-----------------------------------------

100 ~_ - -- Type III PCC

S&P

•

80 ~-----------------------------------------

70 ~---------------------------~-------------

60

50

40

Type III PCC

C&P

--+-_.

Duracal

S&P

- ........ -

Set-45

S&P

20 ~-----------------------------------------

10

30

o

o

I

12

I

24

I I I

36 48 60

Age, months

I

72

I

84

Set-45

C&P

--8--'

Five Star

S&P

--+--

Figure 27. Spall repair survival at Utah test site.

Repair Survival, %

1 00......- -111--1----__---..... --__---__----__-------1__

90 ~-----------------------------------------­

80 ~------------------------------------------

70

60

50

40

30 --------------------------------------------

20 --------------------------------------------

1 0 --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.-- - - - - - - - - - - - --

Five Star

C&P

•

MC-54

S&P

--+-_.

MC-54

C&P

- ........- SikaPronto

S&P

SlkaPronto

C&P

--8--'

o

o

I

12

I

24

I I I

36 48 60

Age, months

I

72

I

84

Figure 27. Spall repair survival at Utah test site (continued).

59
Pereal

S&P

•

UPM

C&P

--EJ-_.

Pereal

C&P

--~--.

Type III

W&P

--1<--

Ouracal

C&P

36 48 60 72 84

Age, months

12 24

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

o

o

Repair Survival, %

1 OO..--------..--------==....... ....:-=_,--_--f--_-_-_l_ ...-----------""""*'--f---j .... . ---------------------~----------~-

\

\ ----------------------r--------------------

\

\

----------------------~-------------------- \

\

\

-----------------------,-------------------

\

\

------------------------~------------------ \ _________________________\L _

\

\

\

-------------------------,----------------- \

--------------------------~--------------- ............

------------------------------~,-----------

~---­ --

Figure 27. Spall repair survival at Utah test site (continued).

60
CHAPTER 5. DATA ANALYSIS

The primary factor by which spall repairs are judged by highway agencies is their ability to

remain functional (i.e., in place and sustaining traffic) over the desired length of time. The desired

length of time can range anywhere from a few months to many years, depending on the overall

condition ofthe PCC pavement and the agency's short- and long-term strategies for keeping the

pavement serviceable. For instance, in the case where an overlay is scheduled to occur within a

few years, the repairs must perform well for this amount oftime. If, on the other hand, no

rehabilitation is planned for many years, then long-term repairs must be placed. In both cases, the

overall costs (including material, labor, and equipment costs) of making the patches must be

weighed against the expected life ofthe patches.

As stated in chapter 1, the primary objective ofthis experimental project was to determine the

most effective and economical materials and procedures for placing partial-depth patches in

concrete pavement. To accomplish this objective, a statistical analyses was conducted on the field

performance data to identify differences in performance among the various repair types. This was

followed by a detailed cost-effectiveness analysis, whereby the total cost of placing a given repair

type was weighed against how long the repair would perform.

A secondary objective included seeking out correlations between field performance and

laboratory testing data. It was envisioned that new information in this area would lead to

improved performance-based material specifications.

This chapter describes the statistical methods used to analyze the various types ofinstallation,

field performance, and laboratory testing data, and presents the results of the analyses performed.

Listed below are the various types of analyses that were conducted in order to interpret the data.

• Survival analysis-Statistical analysis to identify significant differences in long-term

performance between repair types.

• Cost-effectiveness analysis-Life-cycle cost analysis and comparison using long-term

performance trends.

• Laboratory testing-field performance correlation analysis-Statistical analysis of

laboratory testing and field performance data to identify performance-indicative laboratory

tests.

Statistical Methodology

With the number ofrepair failures observed over the course ofthe field inspections, analyses

of the repair survival data were performed using a method that compares two repair types in

terms ofthe percentage ofrepairs surviving over time. By comparing all repair types to each

other, and looking for the presence ofstatistically significant differences between various repair

types, the repair types can be ordered from best to worst in terms oftime-series survival

characteristics. This type of analysis was needed to determine which ofthe differences observed

61
in figures 24 through 27 were statistically significant given the number ofrepairs actually placed

and the level ofreliability chosen.

In addition to the survival analyses, attempts were made to identify correlations between the

field performance data and the material property data collected through laboratory testing during

the initial SHRP phase ofthe project. Also, based on the overall costs of placing the various

experimental patches and the documented performance characteristics of the patches, a costeffectiveness analysis was conducted to determine which repair types had the lowest total lifecycle costs.

Survival Analysis

At all test sites, the survival data collected for each repair type consisted ofthe number of

repairs surviving, failed, or lost to overlay at the time ofinspection. These data were compared

on a one-on-one basis for each combination ofrepair types within a test site. Since there was no

"control" repair type, comparisons were made between all repair types. By combining repair

types that had no statistically significant differences based on a confidence level of 90 percent (a = 0.10), performance groupings were established that indicated distinct levels and rankings of repair

performance. Tables 15 through 18 show, for each test site, the repair types that were statistically

similar and those that were statistically different, based on the observed survival characteristics.

The grouping numbers represent levels of performance, with 1 indicating best performance, 2

indicating next best performance, and so on.

Table 15. Spall repair survival groupings for Utah test site.

Repair Material Repair Procedure Survival Groupings, indicated by numbers

Type III PCC Saw-and-patch l' 2

Chip-and-patch I' 2

Set-45 Saw-and-patch I' 2

Chip-and-patch l' 2

FiveStarHP Saw-and-patch I' 2

Chip-and-patch I' 2

MC-64 Saw-and-patch I' 2

Chip-and-patch I' 2

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch I' 2

Chip-and-patch l' 2

PercolFL Saw-and-patch I' 2

Chip-and-patch I' 2

TypeIIIPCC Waterblast-and-patch 2 3

Duracal Saw-and-patch 2 3

Chip-and-patch 3

TTPM rhin_,mn_n>lt"h 4

Group 1 repair types showed no failure after 86 months.

62
Table 16. Spall repair survival groupings for Pennsylvania test site.

Repair Material Repair Procedure Survival Groupings, indicated by numbers

PercolFL Saw-and-patch 1

Chip-and-patch 1

Set-45 Saw-and-patch 1 2

Mill-and-patch 1 2

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch 1 2

Pyrament 505 Saw-and-patch 1 2

MC-64 Saw-and-patch 1 2 3

Five Star HP Chip-and-patch 1 2 3

TypeIIIPCC Mill-and-patch 1 2 3

Chip-and-patch 2 3 4

FiveStarHP Saw-and-patch 2 3 4

TypeIIIPCC Saw-and-patch 2 3 4

Five StarHP Mill-and-patch 2 3 4 5

Set-45 Chip-and-patch 2 3 4 5 6

PercolFL Mill-and-patch 3 4 5 6

Adverse clean-and-patch 3 4 5 6

Pyrament 505 Chip-and-patch 4 5 6 7

SikaPronto 11 Chip-and-patch 5 6 7

MC-64 Chip-and-patch 6 7

Spray-injection Chip-and-patch 7

MC-64 Chip-and-patch 7 8

UPM Chip-and-patch 8

AnVp.T~p. dpJ'tn-~nn-nMch R

Table 17. Spall repair survival groupings for South Carolina test site.

Repair Material Repair Procedure Survival Groupings, indicated by numbers

TypeIIIPCC Saw-and-patch I' 2

Chip-and-patch I' 2

Duracal Saw-and-patch I' 2

Five StarHP Saw-and-patch I' 2

Chip-and-patch I' 2

MC-64 Saw-and-patch I' 2

PercolFL Saw-and-patch I' 2

UPM Chip-and-patch 2 3

Spray-injection Chip-and-patch 2 3

Set-45 Chip-and-patch 2 3

Duracal Chip-and-patch 2 3

MC-64 Chip-and-patch 2 3 4

Set-45 Saw-and-patch 2 3 4

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch 3 4

Chip-and-patch 3 4

....PTl'nl HI Chin-And-natch 4

Group 1 repair types showed no failure after 67 months.

63
Table 18. Spall repair survival groupings for Arizona test site.

Repair Material Repair Procedure Survival Groupings, indicated by numbers

TypeillPCC Saw-and-patch I" 2

Chip-and-patch I" 2

FiveStarHP Saw-and-patch I" 2

Chip-and-patch I" 2

MC-64 Saw-and-patch 1" 2

Chip-and-patch I" 2

Mill-and-patch I" 2

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch I" 2

Chip-and-patch 1" 2

Pyrarnent 505 Mill-and-patch 1" 2

Duracal Saw-and-patch 2 3

Chip-and-patch 2 3

Set-45 Chip-and-patch 2 3

PercolFL Chip-and-patch 2 3

Mill-and-patch 3 4

Set-45 Saw-and-patch 3 4

Penatron RIM-5005 Saw-and-patch 4 5

UPM Chip-and-patch 5 6

PPT"nl1=iT .C;:"w_"nrl-n"t"h fi

Group 1 repair types showed no failure after 51 months.

The survival groupings shown in tables 15 through 18 indicate some differences in the survival

characteristics ofthe different repair types. In general, there was a group ofrepair types that

experienced very little failure, a group ofrepairs that did not perform very well, and a group of

repairs that performed somewhere in between. Overall, the order ofthe repairs in terms of good

survival performance remained fairly constant over the various field inspections. In South

Carolina, five of the top seven performers were placed using the saw-and-patch procedure, as

were five of the top nine performers in Pennsylvania. By contrast, only two of the top seven in

South Carolina and two ofthe top nine in Pennsylvania were placed using the chip-and-patch

procedure, indicating that the saw-and-patch procedure may provide longer lasting repairs.

Type III PCC repairs experienced no failures at the Utah, Arizona, and South Carolina sites.

The Type III PCC repairs at the Pennsylvania site were somewhere in the middle with respect to

the survival performance ranking. Since Type III PCC was one ofthe less expensive materials in

the study, its good performance was expected to result in high cost-effectiveness ratings.

The bituminous repairs (UPM High Performance Cold Mix and spray-injection repairs) were

some ofthe poorer performers in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Utah. At the South Carolina site,

the UPM repairs were somewhere in the middle ofthe performance ranking. However, the

relatively low material costs and high productivity rates make these repairs desirable in short-term

situations where overlays or rehabilitation projects only require 2 to 3 years ofsurvival from

partial-depth spall repairs.

64
Laboratory Test-Field Performance Correlation Analysis

Although differences in field performance became more obvious during the final field

inspection efforts, and differences were noted in the laboratory testing results conducted at the

beginning ofthe project, no significant correlations were identified between field performance

indicators and laboratory-determined material characteristics. The two primary field performance

indicators used were based on repair survival and were as follows:

• The percentage ofrepairs surviving at a given inspection.

• A survival rating based on the area under the performance over time graph.

No significant correlations were identified between either of these field performance indicators

and the material properties.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Perhaps the most important comparison of the various partial-depth spall repair types was

cost-effectiveness. To determine the cost-effectiveness of a repair type, it is necessary to have

information on the initial material purchase and installation costs, as well as the expected life of

the repairs. Another piece ofinformation that was added to the cost-effectiveness calculations for

this project was the expected life ofthe pavement section, as shown in the following equation:

Cr = (LrOT~) x [(N/Po) X (CL + CE + Cre + CUD) + (N x CM)] (Eq.2)

where: Cr = Total cost of patching operation, $.

LrOT = Total time until rehabilitation of pavement surface, months.

= Mean life for repair type, months.

N = Material needed for initial patching operation, Mtons.

Po = Productivity ofthe patching operation, Mtons/day.

CL = Cost oflabor needed for patching operation, $/day.

CE = Cost of equipment needed for patching operation, $/day.

Cre = Cost oftraffic control needed for patching operation, $/day.

CUD = Cost of user delay due to repair operation, $/day.

CM = Cost of material delivered to yard, $/Mton.

The annual cost for a patching operation was then calculated by simply dividing the total cost (Cr)

by the total time until rehabilitation (LrOT)' with LroT in months.

Because the amount oftime needed for various repairs was dependent on factors such as the

time until rehabilitation, different projects had different performance needs from the repair types.

A section that was to be rehabilitated in 2 years did not need repairs lasting as long as a section

that was to be rehabilitated in 10 years.

Table 19 shows the values used for equipment, labor, and productivity in the costeffectiveness calculations. The mean survival for a repair type and maximum expected life values

65
Table 19. Assumed costs for partial-depth spall repair operations.

lRemoval equipment Double-blade concrete saw $225/day

Single-blade concrete saw $150/day

7-kg jackhammer $60/day

14-kg jackhammer $8O/day

Handtools $15/day

Haul truck $25/day

Milling machine $500/day

Sandblaster $200/day

Airblaster $150/day

Waterblaster $l,OOO/day

Mixing and placing Water, hose, and pump $5/day

equipment Drum mixer $35/day

Mortar mixer $20/day

Jiffy mixer $15/day

Bonding agent brush $l/day

Vibrators and screeds $20/day

Hand trowels and shovels $l/day

Curing compound applicator $2/day

Vibratory roller/plate compactor $25/day

Generator $40/day

Grayco Percat 500 $40/day

Non-water cleaning solvent $25/day

Air meter $5/day

Cylinders and slump cone $5/day

Other costs Removal and placement labor $120/day/person

Traffic control $150/day

User delav cost $O/dav

66
were determined for each test site. Tables 20 through 23 show the cost-effectiveness values for

each repair type at the spall repair test sites as calculated using equation 2. The values in tables

20 through 23 represent the final cost-effectiveness values for the H-106 repairs, since no

additional data will be collected.

The data in these tables show that similar performance ofthe bituminous repairs provides the

lowest overall cost-effectiveness values, with the UPM chip-and-patch repairs having the lowest

annual costs per m3 in Arizona, South Carolina, and Utah. The relatively good survival

performance, along with relatively low material costs and high productivity, indicates that these

are the most desirable repairs for these particular sites. The information in tables 20 through 23

also shows that for the repair materials placed, the chip-and-patch procedure had lower annual

costs in all 28 comparisons at all 4 sites. The difference between the procedures was consistent

for both the $O/day user delay and the $l,OOO/day user delay scenarios.

The investigation ofthe effect of user delay costs was to determine whether the increased cost

of making repairs during lane closure, with the costs to the traveling public, would change the

overall cost-effectiveness findings. In general, no differences were observed in the overall lowest

five annual cost repair types for any site, though the order from number 1 to number 5 did change

in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Utah.

Table 20. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for South Carolina

test site (lowest five annual costs highlighted).

Annual Annual

Maximum Adjusted Cost, Adjusted Cost,

Possible Repair Mean Repair $jrn3 ($0 user $jrn3 ($1,000

Re air Material Re air Procedure Life months Life months dela user dela

TypeillPCC Saw-and-patch 68 68.0 3,176 4,279

Chip-and-patch 68 68.0 1,448 2,000

Duracal Saw-and-patch 68 68.0 1,854 2,533

Chip-and-patch 68 62.8

Set-45 Saw-and-patch 68 60.8

Chip-and-patch 68 64.2

Five StarHP Saw-and-patch 68 68.0

Chip-and-patch 68 68.0

MC-64 Saw-and-patch 68 68.0 3,054 3,790

Chip-and-patch 68 64.8 2,246 2,632

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch 68 61.3 3,380 4,133

Chip-and-patch 68 60.1 2,291 2,675

PercolFL Saw-and-patch 68 68.0 1,880 2,450

Chip-and-patch 68 50.3 1,540 1,924

UPM Chip-and-patch 68 62.3

Chi -and- atch 68 65.3

67
Table 21. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for Pennsylvania

test site (lowest six annual costs highlighted)

Annual Annual

Maximum Adjusted Cost, Adjusted Cost,

Possible Repair Mean Repair $Jm3 ($0 user $Jm3 ($1,000

Re air Material Re air Procedure Life months Life months dela user dela

TypeillPCC Saw-and-patch 87 71.2 3,032 4,085

Chip-and-patch 87 78.9 1,248 1,724

Mill-and-patch 87 77.6 1,026 1,348

Set-45 Saw-and-patch 87 83.0 1,560 2,116

Chip-and-patch 87 63.7 997 1,360

Mill-and-patch 87 83.5

Five StarHP Saw-and-patch 87 73.7

Chip-and-patch 87 77.8

Mill-and-patch 87 70.9

MC-64 Saw-and-patch 87 78.0 2,662 3,304

Chip-and-patch 87 58.0 2,509 2,941

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch 87 82.8 2,502 3,059

Chip-and-patch 87 64.5 2,134 2,492

PercolFL Saw-and-patch 87 86.3 1,482 1,931

Chip-and-patch 87 86.3 898 1,122

Mill-and-patch 87 73.3 970 1,147

Adverse clean-and- 91 70.1

patch

Pyrament 505 Saw-and-patch 87 78.2

Chip-and-patch 87 67.2

Adverse clean-and- 91 52.2

patch

UPM Chip-and-patch 87 38.0

Adverse clean-and- 91 42.4

patch

Chi -and- atch 87 55.2

68
Table 22. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for Arizona

test site (lowest five annual costs highlighted).

Repair Material Repair Procedure

Maximum

Possible Repair

life, months

Mean Repair

life, months

Annual

Annual Adjusted Cost,

Adjusted Cost, $ per m3

$ per m3 ($0 ($1,000 user

user delay) delay)

TypellIPCC Saw-and-patch 51 51.0 4,235 5,706

Chip-and-patch 51 51.0 1,931 2,666

Duracal Saw-and-patch 51 50.4 2,501 3,417

Chip-and-patch 51 50.4

:::::':,::::::!:il~::::::::::::::::::::

5,053

3,003 4,074

':':::'::::::::::::!~1:~~:::::::::::::::::::::

3,377

4,073

51.0

50.4

51.0

43.1

51.0

51

51

51

51

51

Saw-and-patch

Saw-and-patch

Saw-and-patch

Chip-and-patch

Chip-and-patch

Set-45

MC-64

Five Star lIP

Chip-and-patch 51 51.0 2,854 3,344

Mill-and-patch 51 51.0 2,712 3,039

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch 51 51.0 4,062 4,967

Chip-and-patch 51 51.0 2,699 3,151

PercolFL Saw-and-patch 51 32.0 3,996 5,205

Chip-and-patch 51 49.7 1,558 1,948

Mill-and-patch 51 44.8 1,586 1,874

Pyrament

UPM

Penatron

Mill-and-patch

Chip-and-patch

Saw-and- atch

51

51

51

51.0

42.2

43.2

69
Table 23. Summary offinal cost-effectiveness values for Utah

test site (lowest five annual costs highlighted).

Annual Annual

Maximum Adjusted Cost, Adjusted Cost,

Possible Repair Mean Repair $jm3 ($0 user $/m3($1,000

Re air Material Re air Procedure Life months Life months dela user dela

TypeillPCC Saw-and-patch 86 86.0 2,512 3,384

Chip-and-patch 86 86.0 1,145 1,581

Waterblast-and- 86 84.1 3,380 4,272

patch

Duracal Saw-and-patch 86 85.2

Chip-and-patch 86 81.8

Set-45 Saw-and-patch 86 86.0

Chip-and-patch 86 86.0

Five Star lIP Saw-and-patch 86 86.0

Chip-and-patch 86 86.0

MC-64 Saw-and-patch 86 86.0 2,415 2,997

Chip-and-patch 86 86.0 1,692 1,983

SikaPronto 11 Saw-and-patch 86 86.0 2,409 2,946

Chip-and-patch 86 86.0 1,601 1,869

PercolFL Saw-and-patch 86 86.0 1,487 1,937

Chip-and-patch 86 86.0

UPM Chi -and- atch 86 47.0

70
CHAPTER 6. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The SHRP H-106 experiment and subsequent FHWA LTM project represent the most

comprehensive pavement surface maintenance study ever conducted. In the partial-depth spall

repair portion of the study alone, more than 1,600 individual spalls were patched using 30 distinct

repair types (i.e., combinations of material and patching method). The patches were placed at

four U.S. test sites, with each site representing one offour distinct climatic zones.

Extensive laboratory testing ofthe experimental repair materials was conducted at the outset

of the study and each patch placed in the study was routinely evaluated for field performance over

a period oftime ranging from 4.25 to 7.25 years, depending on the test site.

The details of the test sites constructed as part ofthe H-106 partial-depth spall repair study

were provided in chapters 1 and 2 ofthis report. An in-depth discussion ofthe results of several

laboratory tests performed on the experimental materials was provided in chapter 3. Complete

documentation ofthe field performance collected in the study was given in chapter 4, and the

results of various data analyses designed to distinguish repair performance and cost-effectiveness

were presented in chapter 5.

This chapter summarizes the major findings and observations of the partial-depth spall repair

study. The findings are divided into general findings and specific findings about materials and

methods. Also contained in this chapter are various recommendations concerning spall repair

operations that could be useful to the maintenance community, including highway administrators

and practitioners, industry personnel, and researchers.

Findings

General

• In general, three of the four sites experienced very good performance for all repair types,

with 88 percent survival at the Arizona test site, 90 percent survival at the South Carolina

test site, and 91 percent survival at the Utah test site. The 61-percent survival at the

Pennsylvania test site appeared to be related to the condition of the overall pavement,

which was poorer than the conditions ofthe other three sites.

• Based on the survival analysis, three different groupings ofrepair types were identified:

those that performed well, those that performed poorly, and those somewhere in between.

• The cost-effectiveness calculations for each site provided some consistent results in that

the differences in annual cost figures were primarily a factor ofthe initial material and

installation costs.

71
• The needed duration ofrepair survival must be factored into the decision of which material

and methods should be used. For situations where only 2 to 3 years of performance are

needed (due to impending overlay or rehabilitation plans), different repair types will be

dictated when compared to situations where repairs are expected to last 10 to 12 years.

• Although it has not been considered directly in the analyses performed in this report,

decisions on what type ofrepair will be placed should be made with the safety ofthe

maintenance crews and the traveling public in mind. Longer lasting, more durable repairs

mean less repeat patching and less overall time on the road for crews, and should be a goal

ofthose making decisions on the process. Simpler repair types that require less equipment

and fewer workers on the road should also be considered.

Materials

• The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that repairs made with Duracal, Set-45, Five Star,

and the UPM High Performance Cold Mix had the lowest five or six annual costs at each

site where they were installed.

• The bituminous repairs (UPM High Performance Cold Mix and spray-injection) performed

very well for a period of 3 to 4 years, but generally experienced rapid failure after a point

where the AC materials had oxidized and become more brittle. Once the repairs began to

experience significant cracking, it did not take long for the repairs to be broken into pieces

that were pulled from the spalls.

• The performance of the Percol FL was somewhat inconsistent in that different repetitions

experienced different results, even though they were placed under similar conditions with

the same crews. This behavior was most pronounced at the Pennsylvania and South

Carolina test sites.

• The flexible repairs placed in areas where they spanned the existing PCC joint experienced

a great deal ofreflective cracking from the underlying joint. The formation of a joint in

the flexible materials, as was done in the rigid repairs, could have prevented some of this

deterioration.

Methods

• In all 28 ofthe situations where a repair material was placed using both the saw-and-patch

and the chip-and-patch procedures, the annual costs ofthe chip-and-patch repairs were

lower than the costs ofthe saw-and-patch repairs. This was the result of similar

performance characteristics observed for all ofthe repairs placed and the lower installation

costs associated with the chip-and-patch procedure.

• Although the waterblast-and-patch repairs experienced no failures at the Utah site, the

difficulties encountered in the use ofthe device in both Arizona and Utah indicate that the

technology was not easily applied, thereby requiring the use of experienced maintenance

workers to make for an efficient operation.

72
Recommendations

Partial-Depth Spall Repair Operations

• In situations where large-scale partial-depth spall repair operations are to be performed, it

is imperative that the maintenance forces have an understanding ofthe future plans for the

pavement sections to be maintained. Pavement sections scheduled for rehabilitation within

3 years will require different spall repair options than those sections that would be

rehabilitated in 3 to 7 years or longer.

• Spall repair operations being considered for shorter timeframes (less than 3 years) can use

less permanent repair options, such as using asphalt cold mix, as the most cost-effective

option. Spall repair operations being considered for longer timeframes (more than 7

years), should use more permanent repair materials, such as Set-45, Duracal, or even Type

III PCc.

• Partial-depth spall repairs placed on both sides of existing pavement joints should have

joints formed in the repair to match the underlying pavement. This is true even for flexible

pavement repairs.

• Based on the cost-effectiveness ofthe different operations, the chip-and-patch procedure

is recommended over the saw-and-patch procedure for the majority of the materials

evaluated. The higher productivity and reduced equipment needs make the chip-and-patch

procedure more desirable.

• The waterblast-and-patch procedure provided good results when the equipment was

operating properly and with personnel familiar in its use. The same level of good

performance could not be expected for a maintenance crew first using the device.

Education and Research

• The information gathered and findings developed under the H-106/LTM study should be

disseminated to all individuals involved in the repair of partial-depth spalls, including

highway maintenance policy-makers, supervisors, crewpersons, pavement researchers, and

persons responsible for the evaluation of new repair products and equipment.

• The importance of placing the longest lasting repairs possible should be emphasized

among the pavement maintenance community. There are repair materials and methods

that can provide nearly permanent repairs, which eliminates the need for repairing the

same areas over and over. This can reduce the amount oftime that crews need to be

working under traffic situations, improving the level of safety for both the maintenance

crew and the traveling public.

73
• Highway maintenance agencies need to develop a system for objectively evaluating new

materials and equipment as they become available. The H-106/LTM project evaluated

many materials and devices available in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but did not

evaluate any new alternatives developed in the past few years.

• There is a need for development oflaboratory test procedures that can be used as

indicators offield performance level for different materials. At a minimum, procedures for

the acceptance or rejection ofmaterial supplies should be developed to help identify

potentially serious failures before repairs are placed on the road.

74
REFERENCES

Evans, L.D. et al. 1991. Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP) H-I06 Experimental

Design and Research Plan, SHRP Contract No. SHRP-89-H-106, SHRP, National Research

Council, Washington, D.C.

Smith, K.L. et al. 1991. Innovative Materials and Equipmentfor Pavement Suiface Repairs,

Volume I: Summary ofMaterial Peiformance and Experimental Plans, Report No. SHRPM/UFR-91-504, Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP), National Research Council,

Washington, D.C.

U.S. Department of Commerce. 1983. Climatic Atlas ofthe United States. U.S. Dept. of

COrrllnerce, Environmental Science Services Administration.

75

APPENDIX A. TEST SITE LAYOUTS

The order of placement ofthe test sections within each spall repair test site was randomly

determined. In Arizona, 40 test sections were installed and evaluated. The test sections consisted

of combinations of 10 materials and 4 patching procedures. Tables A-I and A-2 show the test

section layouts for Arizona replicates 1 and 2, respectively. In Pennsylvania, 46 test sections of

10 different materials in combination with 4 different patching procedures were installed and

evaluated. The test section layouts for Pennsylvania are shown in tables A-3 and A-4. In South

Carolina, the 32 test sections consisted of combinations of 8 materials and 2 patching procedures,

as shown in tables A-5 and A-6. In Utah, 34 test sections of 9 materials in combination with 4

patching procedures were installed and evaluated, as shown in tables A-7 and A-8.

77
Table A-I. Test section layout for Arizona replicate 1 (dry-nonfreeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Chip-and-patch Duracal

2 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

3 Saw-and-patch Set-45

4 Chip-and-patch Set-45

5 Mill-and-patch PercolFL

6 Saw-and-patch Duracal

7 Chip-and-patch SikaPronto 11

8 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

9 Mill-and-patch Pyrament 505

10 Mill-and-patch MC-64

11 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

12 Chip-and-patch PercolFL

13 Waterblast-and-patch Pyrament 505

14 Chip-and-patch FiveStarHP

15 Chip-and-patch MC-64

16 Saw-and-patch MC-64

17 Saw-and-patch TypeillPCC

18 Chip-and-patch TypeillPCC

19 Saw-and-patch Five StarHP

?.o rhin_.<Inrl_n.<ltl'h , R1M_':l()()':l

Table A-2. Test section layout for Arizona replicate 2 (dry-nonfreeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Mill-and-patch PercolFL

2 Saw-and-patch Set-45

3 Mill-and-patch Pyrament 505

4 Chip-and-patch PercolFL

5 Saw-and-patch Duracal

6 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

7 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

8 Chip-and-patch Duracal

9 Chip-and-patch Set-45

10 Saw-and-patch MC-64

11 Mill-and-patch MC-64

12 Chip-and-patch MC-64

13 Chip-and-patch TypeillPCC

14 Chip-and-patch Five StarHP

15 Saw-and-patch Five StarHP

16 Waterblast-and-patch Pyrament 505

17 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

18 Saw-and-patch TypeillPCC

19 Chip-and-patch SikaPronto 11

"0 rhin-.<Inrl-n.<ltch R fM-':l()()':l

78
Table A-3. Test section layout for Pennsylvania replicate 1 (wet-freeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

2 Saw-and-patch Pyrament 505

3 Chip-and-patch SikaPronto 11

4 Chip-and-patch Set-45

5 Chip-and-pat::h MC-64

6 Chip-and-patch PercolFL

7 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

8 Saw-and-patch Five StarHP

9 Saw-and-patch Set-45

10 Saw-and-patch TypeillPCC

11 Chip-and-patch Five StarHP

12 Adverse clean-and-patch PercolFL

13 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

14 Mill-and-patch PercolFL

15 Saw-and-patch MC-64

16 Mill-and-patch TypeillPCC

17 Chip-and-patch TypeillPCC

18 Mill-and-patch Set-45

19 Adverse clean-and-patch Pyrament 505

20 Mill-and-patch FiveStarHP

21 Chip-and-patch Pyrament 505

22 Adverse clean-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

?~ rhin_,mrl_n"trh "RtrvL'10m

79
Table A-4. Test section layout for Pennsylvania replicate 2 (wet-freeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Adverse clean-and-patch Pyrament 505

2 Chip-and-patch Pyrament505

3 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

4 Saw-and-patch Pyrament505

5 Saw-and-patch FiveStarHP

6 Chip-and-patch FiveStarHP

7 Chip-and-patch TypeillPCC

8 Chip-and-patch MC-64

9 Saw-and-patch TypeillPCC

10 Chip-and-patch SikaPronto 11

11 Adverse clean-and-patch Perco1FL

12 Saw-and-patch Set-45

13 Mill-and-patch TypeillPCC

14 Mill-and-patch Five StarHP

15 Chip-and-patch Perco1FL

16 Mill-and-patch PercolFL

17 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

18 Saw-and-patch MC-64

19 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

20 Chip-and-patch Set-45

21 Adverse clean-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

22 Mill-and-patch Set-45

?':\ rhin_,mn_n"trh ~nrnu_Tniprtpr1MiT

80
Table A-5. Test section layout for South Carolina replicate 1 (wet-nonfreeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

2 Chip-and-patch SikaPronto 11

3 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

4 Saw-and-patch MC-64

5 Saw-and-patch Duracal

6 Chip-and-patch Duracal

7 Chip-and-patch TypeillPCC

8 Saw-and-patch TypeillPCC

9 Chip-and-patch Set-45

10 Saw-and-patch Set-45

11 Chip-and-patch MC-64

12 Chip-and-patch PercolFL

13 Chip-and-patch Five Star HP

14 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

15 Saw-and-patch FiveStarHP

1(; r.hin-,mn-nlltch Snrnv-Tnipdpjf Mix

Table A-6. Test section layout for South Carolina replicate 2 (wet-nonfreeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Saw-and-patch MC-64

2 Chip-and-patch Five Star HP

3 Saw-and-patch Five StarHP

4 Chip-and-patch SikaPronto 11

5 Chip-and-patch Set-45

6 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

7 Chip-and-patch Type ill PCC

8 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

9 Chip-and-patch PercolFL

10 Chip-and-patch Duracal

11 Saw-and-patch Duracal

12 Saw-and-patch Type ill PCC

13 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

14 Chip-and-patch MC-64

15 Saw-and-patch Set-45

1(i r.hin-,mn-n:ltch SnT:lv-Tnipctpjf Mix

81
Table A-7. Test section layout for Utah replicate 1 (dry-freeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

2 Chip-and-patch Duracal

3 Chip-and-patch Set-45

4 Chip-and-patch MC-64

5 Mill-and-patch TypeIIIPCC

6 Chip-and-patch FiveStarHP

7 Saw-and-patch Set-45

8 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

9 Saw-and-patch FiveStarHP

10 Saw-and-patch Duracal

11 Chip-and-patch SikaPronto 11

12 Saw-and-patch TypeIIIPCC

13 Saw-and-patch MC-64

14 Waterblast-and-patch TypeIIIPCC

15 Chip-and-patch PercolFL

16 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

17 rhin_,mn_T",t,..h 'T'vn"ffiP(Y"

Table A-8. Test section layout for Utah replicate 2 (dry-freeze).

Test Section Number Procedure Material

1 Saw-and-patch Set-45

2 Chip-and-patch MC-64

3 Chip-and-patch Duracal

4 Saw-and-patch PercolFL

5 Chip-and-patch PercolFL

6 Chip-and-patch Set-45

7 Chip-and-patch TypeIIIPCC

8 Saw-and-patch Duracal

9 Waterblast-and-patch TypeIIIPCC

10 Chip-and-patch Five StarHP

11 Mill-and-patch TypeIIIPCC

12 Saw-and-patch SikaPronto 11

13 Saw-and-patch Five StarHP

14 Saw-and-patch MC-64

15 Chip-and-patch UPM High Performance Cold Mix

16 Saw-and-patch TypeIIIPCC

17 ~hin_:mrl_n"trh 11

82
APPENDIX B. INSTALLATION DATA

Forms

The forms used to record installation data are shown in figures B-1 and B-2. Figure B-1

shows the form used to monitor productivity of the patching operation. Figure B-2 shows the

form used to record information regarding each specific partial-depth spall repair. Both forms

show data collected in the field.

Summary Data

Selected summary installation data are shown in tables B-1 through B-4. The data shown for

each section identification number (SECTION ID) represent averages or typical values for the

approximately 10 partial-depth patches that were installed in that section. The first two digits of

the section identification number indicate the site (04 =Arizona, 42 =Pennsylvania, 45 =South

Carolina, 49 =Utah). The third character represents the spall repair experiment (S). The fourth

character represents the climatic region (1 =wet-freeze, 2 =dry-freeze, 3 =wet-nonfreeze, 4 = dry-nonfreeze). The fifth character is the material code and the seventh character is the procedure

code, as shown in table B-5. The sixth character ofthe section identification nnmber is the

dummy variable, "0".

83
PATCH PREPARATION TIME

ACTIVITY: M 1,,"'- -------....;,

STATE: @ PA SC UT

TEST SECI'ION: __

METHOD: C&P RIG W&P ADV

CREW: _

PATCH PATCH DEPTII OF TIME

NO PERIMETER REMOVAL

(l X w) BEGINNING END TOTAL

1 I S X 1'3 2 1/'1 //:12. II: '7 5 '"itt

2 31. x 13 2. "4 II.' %0 1I:1..~ "'" '"

3 17, .It /3.'5 2. "%. 11.'1.8 1/:3t./ {, M',,,,

4 /3 K 2~ '3 II: 38 l/:t4t./ t., ""'~ ...

5 25. 5 x 1'1 2,I,"Z. 11:4'5 11: 50 5 ""''''

6 /8. 1. IS Jl '3. 5 "2. 1/1 II:'SI II: 5l./ :3 M"'"

7 13.~J( /8 :, II : ~S /1:5' 4 """ "

8 2.'1 x 13 '1- 1/1- I 2 :00 /2:07- 2- "",in

9 tS X 2./#.5 2. 1/* 12:0"3 /2: 10 7 ""'~'"

10 1'3. -5 )( 1(,. S '1- '/~ IZ:I'1. 12: IS 3 -',,,,,,

Figure B-1. Patch preparation time form

84
I

Drawcllapm:

COMMENI'S

............~~~~ ..~~!~ . .:~:.~~.r.~ . . .. ~.~ ".~.~jf.p"" .

Clack width: _'"_/ _ in

Clack length: _ ft _ in

INmAl SHRINtCAGE CRAC<INC SURVFf

~......,. s/ow"

time sarveywd:JLt!epm

Spall CoDdllfaa:

lo.digit ID: ~.!l2..~.b~.!.!L.l.~ 1234567"10

Ambler CancliIIaIs t8np r..8 "!' humidity 34/

0IncdDn: G!) S Ii W

No.otu-i(I*'~): 1 (D 3 4 Lane:

Sf*l NumlMr: W 2 _3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 ---

Sf*l LocadaII: MI1~t

Slation "",3:":l13..,9...,....,~,....22"':'cp~

IUpm ProcNwc IIC - 1st rep a.P$ rep MIcP - 1st rep

IIC • 2nd rep(§dJ . 2IId rIj) M&P - 2nd rep

Ad_ . 1st rep W&F 'tStrep

Adverse· 2nd rep W&P· 2nd rep

NumINr at__ben (ucludlng traffII: contrail: __

Crew' Cit °lk": ..

llllldvdlng IDI6I: •..•..••.••••.••...•••••..••••••.

caall'Dl) ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

NumINr at IIalBA: CIIlIlttOl aww _ben: _

Tatfk: CDIlnIl_ ...•.•............•..•••.........

.

SIoeec8 _ of snl/ "..___ 1__ ...

'" -laUftI CIlaIl.... llInctIOft .. Tr_

....- -

- J.1O -

- ~1"

- ... - :lSi I

I_III

01

,zit - J .... - [11 -

-

-

-

- wlIIlft til ...

Pee SPALL KEPAIlt INSTALLAnON FORM

CClNST'RUcnClN OBSERVAnONS

nm. far plIII:h pnpcaIlan: begin _:_ _ pm tDci_:_ _ pm

Batdl It: _,_ time a DWdnIF besin1~F tDci.Mm<8

Quanllty IlllMd: _ (et) _'pl-.r

-Lbep _I1tCA _I1tFA

nm. a pIaameDt - linishInlF bepl~amcStDci~aa@

Wodcalri1Ity: sIaIIIp_hi • _"

WIIal setdmc_:__ pm CyilJldas cast: Yes No

nm. far curiIIlF bepl_:__ pm ead .. pill

, :".•• _.1'ft to lI2ffIc \1c'30am pm 51:..

lOCAnoN

SlallI: AZ PA sc ttii)

CbMdc R8pIn: WF @ WNF CNP

M__ Type mpee Duncal s.t-&5 Rve Star HP

~~PwaIl Pyramet Sylvu

HlgIlway: ••\ 5

INSTALLAnON

Figure B-2. Spall repair installation form

85
Table B-l. Selected summary installation data for Arizona (dry-nonfreeze).

Average Average Average Average

Patch Patch Patch Patch

Section ill Date Temn. DC Humiditv. % Lane Direction Denth mm Width mm Lemrth mm Area m2

04S4101 6/1/91 25 10 3 N 76 254 3658 0.93

04S4102 6/3/91 21 53 3 N 64 343 305 0.10

04S410A 6/6/91 24 32 3 S 76 495 686 0.34

04S410B 6/5/91 28 10 3 S 64 216 357 0.08

04S4201 5/30/91 25 7 3 N 51 724 381 0.28

04S4202 5/30/91 25 7 3 N 64 381 356 0.13

04S420A 6n/91 19 44 3 N 64 394 394 0.15

04S420B 6n/91 18 44 3 N 254 381 0.10

04S4301 5/31/91 26 20 3 N 70 267 965 0.26

04S4302 5/31/91 21 10 3 N 64 508 305 0.15

04S430A 6/4/91 27 10 3 N 64 368 254 0.09

04S430B 6/5/91 23 27 3 N 305 610 0.19

04S4401 6/5/91 24 32 3 N 64 114 241 0.Q3

04S4402 6/2/91 18 51 3 N 57 216 851 0.18

04S440A 6/9/91 26 20 3 S 70 203 1956 0.40

04S440B 6/9/91 24 11 3 S 64 305 762 0.23

04S4501 6/2/91 29 25 3 N 83 356 584 0.21

04S4502 6/2/91 17 50 3 N 51 406 1016 0.41

04S4503 6/4/91 21 51 3 N 57 381 330 0.13

04S450A 6/8/91 31 20 3 S 83 483 813 0.39

04S450B 6/9/91 23 20 3 S 51 357 191 0.07

04S450C 6/5/91 19 49 3 N 51 330 1219 0.40

04S4601 5/30/91 26 10 3 N 70 203 3658 0.74

04S4602 5/31/91 23 10 3 N 64 305 838 0.26

04S460A 6/6/91 21 40 3 N 76 140 229 0.Q3

04S460B 6n/91 20 41 3 N 64 635 343 0.22

04S4701 6/1/91 22 35 3 N 64 241 3658 0.88

04S4702 6/5/91 21 45 3 N 76 419 3658 1.53

04S4703 6/2/91 25 34 3 N 83 305 559 0.17

04S470A 6/6/91 24 20 3 S 70 267 330 0.09

04S470B 6/6/91 24 20 3 S 76 419 445 0.19

04S470C 6/2/91 27 20 3 N 70 305 711 0.22

04S4803 6/2/91 20 47 3 N 89 330 1270 0.42

04S4807 6/4/91 19 49 3 N 64 394 813 0.32

04S4902 5/30/91 31 7 3 N 51 279 660 0.18

04S490B 5/30/91 23 20 3 N 51 432 279 0.12

04S4BOI 6/9/91 26 20 3 S 64 267 1168 0.31

/'i1Q1Q1 ?/'i 11 '< 7/'i ?7Q 111'< o ?'<

86
Table B-2. Selected summary installation data for Pennsylvania (wet-freeze).

Average Average Average Average

Patch Patch Patch Patch

Section ill Date Temn_ ·C Humiditv_ % Lane Direction Denth mm Width mm Len!'th mm Area m2

42S1101 7/10/91 22 70 1 N 89 305 1372 0.42

42S1102 7/16/91 33 34 1 N 76 165 1245 0.21

42S1103 7/16/91 30 46 1 N 66 406 787 0.32

42S110A 7/15/91 22 61 1 N 89 114 838 0.10

42S110B 7/18/91 31 52 1 S 102 127 1549 0.20

42S110C 6/17/91 23 30 1 S 51 432 1003 0.43

42S1301 7/11/91 29 36 1 N 64 610 381 0.23

42S1302 7/9/91 26 51 1 N 76 610 305 0.19

42S1303 6/20/91 27 50 1 N 51 445 1219 0.54

42S130A 7/17/91 28 53 1 N 76 102 787 0.08

42S130B 7/2/91 27 90 1 S 89 1346 305 0.41

42S130C 6/18/91 24 40 1 S 57 470 584 0.27

42S1401 7/1/91 31 40 1 S 76 159 1372 0.22

42S1402 7/17/91 30 49 1 N 51 114 762 0.09

42S1403 6/20/91 34 25 1 N 64 432 787 0.34

42S140A 6/13/91 19 40 1 S 51 546 813 0.44

42S140B 7/10/91 31 38 1 N 102 152 1422 0.22

42S140C 6/17/91 32 34 1 S 64 406 1321 0.54

42S1501 6/24/91 27 50 1 S 57 159 432 0.07

42S1502 6/24/91 18 30 1 S 38 610 813 0.50

42S150A 6/25/91 31 40 1 S 64 445 610 0.27

42S150B 6/25/91 29 50 1 S 51 165 357 0.06

42S1601 7/15/91 32 30 1 N 102 152 864 0.13

42S1602 7/11/91 22 64 1 N 76 152 737 0.11

42S160A 7/18/91 35 35 1 S 64 229 864 0.20

42S160B 7/11/91 26 49 1 N 102 241 914 0.22

42S1701 6/26/91 33 34 1 S 51 508 597 0.30

42S1702 6/26/91 32 32 1 S 64 203 686 0.14

42S1703 6/19/91 32 40 1 N 44 406 1676 0.68

42S1704 3/12/91 -4 20 1 N 51 305 508 0.15

42S170A 6/27/91 23 20 1 S 64 254 356 0.09

42S170B 6/27/91 27 50 1 S 64 1041 279 0.29

42S170C 6/19/91 29 50 1 S 64 432 1422 0.61

42S170D 3/11/91 2 20 1 S 102 127 533 0.07

42S1801 7/9/91 21 68 1 N 64 178 686 0.12

42S1802 7/17/91 33 33 1 N 51 660 279 0.18

42S1804 3/27/91 20 56 1 N 25 152 483 0.07

42S180A 7/1/91 27 60 1 S 51 140 1295 0.18

42S180B 6/12/91 27 50 1 S 178 711 330 0.23

42S180D 3/12/91 4 53 1 S 64 610 508 0.31

42S1902 7/8/91 27 70 1 N 102 483 1753 0.85

42S1904 3/26/91 16 40 1 N 51 76 305 0.02

42S190B 7/9/91 28 36 1 N 51 152 787 0.12

42S190D 3/26/91 19 34 1 S 254 914 0.23

42S1A02 8n/91 24 60 1 N 51 406 406 0.16

.1').<::1 AOH RnfQ1 ')1 1'\0 1 N 11.1 .101'\ &'17 01Q

87
Table B-3. Selected summary installation data for South Carolina (wet-nonfreeze).

Average Average Average Average

Patch Patch Patch Patch

Sp.ctinn m nate Temn. ·C IHumiditv. % lAne nirection nenth. mm Width mm ILemnh. mm Area m2

45S3101 5/23/91 29 30 1 W 44 254 813 0.21

45S3102 5/21/91 24 60 1 W 83 356 838 0.30

45S310A 5/28/91 31 90 1 W 70 305 1194 0.36

45S31OB 5/22/91 21 40 1 W 57 254 559 0.14

45S3201 5/21/91 24 60 1 W 70 279 610 0.17

45S3202 5/21/91 24 60 1 W 44 254 737 0.19

45S320A 5/22/91 27 90 1 W 64 279 1143 0.32

45S320B 5/22/91 27 80 1 W 64 279 1194 0.33

45S3301 5/22/91 1 W 584 762 0.45

45S3302 5/23/91 32 1 W 64 279 889 0.25

45S330A 5/28/91 34 90 1 W 89 330 1029 0.34

45S330B 5/23/91 31 70 1 W 64 254 1067 0.27

45S3401 5/29/91 32 90 1 W 57 254 1270 0.32

45S3402 5/29/91 34 90 1 W 70 292 1524 0.45

45S340A 5(30/91 32 70 1 W 83 254 914 0.23

45S340B 5(30/91 31 70 1 W 76 241 483 0.12

45S3501 5/14/91 36 42 1 W 38 343 1067 0.37

45S3502 5/15/91 32 56 1 W 57 191 597 0.11

45S350A 5/17/91 32 44 1 W 76 305 1956 0.60

45S350B 5/16/91 25 78 1 W 57 318 699 0.22

45S3601 5/14/91 37 37 1 W 51 279 2337 0.65

45S3602 5/13/91 34 51 1 W 102 254 737 0.19

45S360A 5/29/91 32 90 1 W 76 267 2438 0.65

45S360B 5(30/91 30 90 1 W 57 152 673 0.10

45S3701 5/15/91 30 71 1 W 64 305 787 0.24

45S3702 5/15/91 30 71 1 W 64 241 851 0.21

45S370A 5/17/91 31 80 1 W 64 305 813 0.25

45S370B 5/17/91 31 57 1 W 83 305 1295 0.40

45S2902 5/20/91 22 79 1 W 70 267 914 0.24

45S390B 5/20/91 32 70 1 W 51 279 813 0.23

45S3A02 5/24/91 23 70 1 W 64 241 686 0.17 ''''n~ ,,~ 'in41CJ1 ?~ 70 1 W ~!l. ?'i4 QI'i'i 0?4

88
Table B-4. Selected summary installation data for Utah (dry-freeze).

Average Average Average Average

Patch Patch Patch Patch

Section m nllte Temn. DC .. % T.line n",nth mm Width mm T-",n"th. mm A""'ll m2

49S2101 4/24/91 17 38 1 N 51 203 1118 0.23

49S2102 4/26/91 13 34 2 N 64 178 178 0.03

49S2105 5/1/91 19 32 2 N 64 305 1854 0.57

49S2106 4/24/91 18 37 2 N 38 203 838 0.17

49S210A 5/1/91 20 34 2 N 57 178 279 0.05

49S210B 4/30/91 17 37 2 N 64 178 267 0.05

49S210E 5/1/91 19 30 2 N 83 203 1607 0.33

49S210Y 5/1/91 6 61 2 N 89 254 229 0.06

49S2201 4/24/91 18 34 2 N 64 229 406 0.09

49S2202 4/23/91 20 34 2 N 51 152 445 0.07

49S220A 4/30/91 13 42 2 N 64 191 292 0.05

49S220B 4/30/91 8 59 2 N 64 152 457 0.07

49S2301 4/22/91 16 30 2 N 83 191 559 0.11

49S2302 4/22/91 21 30 2 N 70 229 1067 0.24

49S230A 4/26/91 12 34 2 N 51 203 254 0.05

49S230B 4/30/91 17 38 2 N 64 229 1080 0.25

49S2401 4/24/91 17 33 1 N 57 203 610 0.12

49S2402 4/22/91 16 30 2 N 70 152 762 0.12

49S240A 5/1/91 11 40 2 N 64 152 279 0.04

49S240B 4/30/91 17 38 2 N 76 178 508 0.09

49S240Y 5/1/91 11 40 2 N 64 178 1016 0.18

49S2501 4/24/91 16 48 2 N 51 203 2134 0.43

49S2502 4/23/91 21 34 2 N 64 152 279 0.04

49S250A 5/1/91 13 39 2 N 51 178 1067 0.19

49S250B 4/26/91 14 34 2 N 44 203 292 0.06

49S250Y 5/1/91 14 34 2 N 57 203 330 0,07

49S2601 4/26/91 14 34 2 N 51 203 203 0.04

49S2602 4/24/91 19 38 2 N 64 203 1067 0.22

49S260A 5/1/91 8 63 2 N 229 229 0.05

49S260B 5/1/91 20 34 2 N 70 178 508 0.09

49S2701 4/30/91 17 38 2 N 44 521 445 0.23

49S2702 4/30/91 17 36 2 N 89 203 610 0.12

49S270A 4/30/91 13 48 2 N 51 203 483 0.10

49S270B 4/30/91 13 48 2 N 64 178 254 0.04

49S2902 4/23/91 21 34 2 N 51 197 521 0.10

'ill /Q1 1R "4 ? N 'i1 ??Q "Il'i Il 117

89
Table B-5. Material and procedure codes.

Material Code Material Narne Procedure Code

1 TypeffiPCC 1,A,X

2 Duracal 2,B,Y

3 Set-45 3,7,C,G

4 Five Star lIP 4,D

5 MC-64 5,6,E,F

6 SikaPronto 11 8,H

7 PercolFL

8 Pyrarnent 505

9 UPM High,Performance Cold Mix

A Spray-Injected Mix

B Penatron -3003

Procedure Narne

Saw-and-patch

Chip-and-patch

Mill-and-patch

Adverse-condition clean-and-patch

Waterblast-and-patch

Good-condition clean-and-patch

90
APPENDIX C. MATERIAL TESTING DATA

The cementitious and polymer materials were tested by an independent laboratory (LAW

Engineering) in Atlanta, Georgia. The samples were prepared and cured according to the

material manufacturer's instructions to the extent possible. The following testing standards were

used:

• Initial Set, ERES Test Method as given in the SHRP H-106 EDRP.

• Test Method for Compressive Strength ofHydraulic Cement Mortars, ASTM C 109,

using 51-mm x 51-mm cube specimens for the 2-, 3-, and 4-hour tests.

• Test Method for Compressive Strength ofCylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM C 39,

using 76-mm x 152-mm cylindrical specimens for the 24-hour tests and 102-mm x 203-

mm for the 28-day tests.

• Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson's Ratio ofConcrete in

Compression, ASTM C 469, using 102-mm x 203-mm cylindrical specimens for the 28-

day compressive strength test. A combined compressometer-extensionmeter was used in

this test.

• Test Method for Flexural Strength ofConcrete, ASTM C 78, using 76-mm x 102-mm x

406-mm specimens.

• Test Method for Bond Strength ofEpoxy-Resin Systems Used With Concrete, ASTM C

882.

• Method ofTest ofBonding Strength ofConcrete Overlay and Patching Materials to PCC,

Caltrans, using 76-mm x 102-mm x 406-mm specimens. For the above two bond tests,

BurkEpoxy MV and SikaPronto 19 were used as the bonding agent for the Type III PCC

and SikaPronto 11 concrete, respectively, in the dry substrate condition.

• Test Method for Resistance ofConcrete to Rapid Freezing and Thawing, ASTM C 666A,

Procedure A, using 76-mm x 102-mm x 406-mm specimens, 4 hours per cycle.

• Test Method for Scaling Resistance ofConcrete Surfaces Exposed to Deicing Chemicals,

ASTM C 672, using 229-mm x 229-mm x 76-mm specimens.

• Test Method for Determining the Surface Abrasion Resistance ofConcrete Specimens,

Caltrans California Test 550.

• Test Method for Length Change ofHardened Cement Mortar and Concrete, ASTM C

157, using 76-mm x 76-mm x 286-mm specimens. All specimens were stored in air at a

temperature of 23 ± 1.7°C and a relative humidity of 50 ± 4 percent.

• Test Method for Thermal Compatibility Between Concrete and an Epoxy-Resin Overlay,

ASTM C 884, using 306-mm x 306-mm x 76-mm concrete blocks and a 13-mm overlay.

All specimens were at a 7-day age when the test cycle commenced.

All ofthe test specimens were air cured until the age oftest at a temperature of23 ± 1.7°C and a

relative humidity of 50 ± 4 percent, except for Type III PCC, Five Star HP, and Pyrament 505,

which were moist cured at a temperature of 23 ± 1.7°C.

The bituminous materials were tested by a second independent laboratory (Southwestern

Laboratories) in Houston, Texas, using the following testing standards:

91
• Test Method for Indirect Tension Test for Resilient Modulus ofBituminous Mixtures,

ASTM D 4123. Samples were aged by heating them overnight in an oven at 135°C,

compacting them hot using 75 blows per side, and allowing the compacted samples to

cool in the molds prior to extrusion. Testing was performed at 25°C at three different

frequencies: 0.33, 0.50, and 1.00 Hz.

• Test Method for Resistance to Plastic Flow ofBituminous Mixtures, ASTM D 1559.

Samples were aged and compacted in the manner described for the resilient modulus test

method.

• Test Method for Bulk: Specific Gravity and Density of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures

Using Saturated Surface-Dry Specimens, ASTM D 2726. The compaction effort used to

prepare the samples was the same as for the resilient modulus and Marshall sample

preparation.

• Test Method for Theoretical Maximum Specific Gravity ofBituminous Paving Mixtures,

ASTM D 2041. The samples were prepared in the same manner as the bulk specificgravity samples.

• Test Method for Coating and Stripping ofBitumen-Aggregate Mixtures, ASTM D 1664.

• PTI Workability Test, developed by the Pennsylvania Transportation Institute (PTI)

(Anderson et al., 1988). The laboratory procedure used the 9.5-mm diameter probe

developed by PTI. When this attachment was compared directly to the blade attachment,

the reading of the blade attachment was approximately five times larger. The circular

probe seems to work for stiffer mixes, where the smaller cross-section presents less

resistance. The blade attachment seems to work for softer mixes, where the length ofthe

blade in contact with the mix provides more resistance.

• Test Methods for Quantitative Extraction ofBitumen From Bituminous Paving Mixtures,

ASTMD 2172.

• Test Method for Viscosity ofAsphalts by Vacuum Capillary Viscometer, ASTM D 2171.

The viscosity tests were performed on the binder recovered from the extraction process.

Samples of binder were aged in a manner similar to the mixtures, in that the recovered

binder was heated at 60°C until the reduction in weight stopped. This was used as an

indication that the lighter volatiles had been driven off and the material remaining was

primarily the residual binder.

• Test Method for Penetration ofBituminous Materials, ASTM D 5. Preparation ofthe

recovered binder samples was the same for this test as for the viscosity test.

• Test Method for Ductility ofBituminous Materials, ASTM D 113. Preparation ofthe

recovered binder samples was the same as for the viscosity test.

• Test Method for Softening Point ofBitumen (Ring-and-Ball Apparatus), ASTM D 36.

Preparation of the recovered binder samples was the same as for the viscosity test.

• Method for Sieve Analysis ofFine and Coarse Aggregates, ASTM C 136.

• Test Method for Recovery of Asphalt From Solution by Abson Method, ASTM D 1856.

Tables C-1 through C-18 show the detailed results ofthe laboratory tests conducted on

cementitious and polymer materials. Tables C-19 through C-21 and figure C-1 show the results

ofthe laboratory tests conducted on bituminous materials.

92
Table C-l. Mix proportions (Smith et aI., 1991).

Mix Component Quantity

Duracal 11 kg

Duracal Lone Star Coarse Aggregate 11 kg

Lone Star Sand 11 kg

Water 3.06 kg

Dundee Type ill Portland Cement 43 kg

lO-mm Pea Gravel 100 kg

Sand 54 kg

TypeillPCC Water 11 kg

Daravair 22mL

DCI 1.9L

Melment OAL

Set-45 22.7 kg

Set-45 10-mm Pea Gravel 13.6 kg

Water 1.9L

Highway Patch 22.7 kg

Five StarHP lO-mm Pea Gravel 13.6 kg

Water 33.1 kg

Pyrament 505 22.7 kg

Pyrament 505 10-mm Pea Gravel 13.6 kg

Water 2.2 kg

SikaPronto 11 SikaPronto 11 Part A 3.6L

(plant-proportioned) PartB 30.9 kg

10-mm Pea Gravel 17 kg

Part A 3.8L

MC-64 PartB 3.8L

(plant-proportioned)

PartB 30.9 kg

lO-mm Pea Gravel 17 kg

MC-64 Part A 3.8L

(plant-proportioned) PartB 3.8L

PercolFL Component A (by volume) 1L

(nlant-nronortioned) Comnonent B (bvvolume) 1L

93
Table C-2. Initial set test results.

Product

Type III Five Star Pyrament SikaPronto

Duracal PeC Set-45 HP 505 11 MC-64 PercolFL

Initial Temperature. DC

Ambient 21 5 23 23 23 24 23 23

Materials 22 23 22 22 22 23 23 23

Mixture 23 27 23 22 26 23 27 25

Mixing Time, min

1 73 79 76 72 79 74 - - 2 73 79 79 72 79 74 - - 3 73 79 80 72 80 73 - - 4 73 79 81 72 80 73 - - 5 73 78 82 72 79 74 - - 7 73 78 84 72 78 74 - - 10 73 77 90 72 76 74 - - 15 73 76 72 75 75 - - 20 73 75 72 74 76 - - 25 73 74 72 74 76 - - 30 73 74 72 74 78 - - 35 73 73 72 74 80 - 40 73 73 73 83 - 45 73 73 75

50 73

55 73

1'\0 74

- MC-64 and Percol FL were not finishable.

Table C-3. Compressive strength test results, ASTM C 109, ASTM C 39.

Compressive Strength, MPa

2 hours 3 hours 4 hours 24 hours 28 days Product Specimen Ind. Average Ind. Average Ind. Average Ind. Average Ind. Average

1 20.8 21.7 22.6 27.6 50.6

Duracal 2 20.9 20.9 20.4 21.4 22.3 21.8 27.6 27.8 47.8 49.0

3 21.1 22.0 20.4 28.1 48.5

1 1.9 6.1 12.1 48.9 63.9

Type III 2 2.1 2.0 5.7 6.5 12.7 13.0 46.2 47.4 68.6 64.6

PCC 3 2.2 6.8 14.3 47.2 61.3

1 35.3 69.5 66.7 41.7 51.6

Set-45 2 57.9 20.9 69.2 68.9 68.3 65.9 37.8 40.9 47.6 52.0

3 59.5 68.3 62.8 43.00 56.9

1 26.2 30.3 31.7 34.2 46.2

Five Star 2 27.3 27.6 30.2 29.9 32.9 32.1 37.00 36.8 45.5 45.4

HP 3 29.4 29.1 31.7 39.1 44.5

I 18.7 22.0 26.3 37.2 57.9

Pyrament 2 18.6 18.3 22.6 22.7 27.1 26.5 36.5 36.9 54.2 56.6

505 3 17.6 23.6 25.9 36.9 57.7

Sika 1 31.6 36.7 38.4 46.2 51.7

Pronto II 2 36.0 35.1 43.6 42.0 44.4 42.4 46.1 46.0 51.9 10.3

3 37.9 45.7 44.4 46.0 51.5

I - - - - 9.6

MC-64 2 - - - - - - - - 9.6 9.9

3 - - - - 10.2

I 4.9 4.6 4.54 5.7 4.9

PercolFL 2 4.9 4.5 4.5 4.6 5.2 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.4 'I 'IF; 4R 47 <;4 1'\'1

Ind. = Individual test result.

- Specimens continued to deform under load without well-defined fracture occurring.

94
Table C-4. Static modulus of elasticity and Poisson's ratio test results, ASTM C 469.

:)tatIc Modulus of ElastICIty, lW MPa POIsson s KatlO

Product Test Age, days Specimen Ind. Average Ind Average

1 jlS.)lS U.1.1

Duracal 28 2 38.58 38.58 0.25 0.25

3 38.24 0.22

1 45.82 0.16

Type III PCC 28 2 49.26 47.89 0.17 0.17

3 48.57 0.17

1 47.20 0.20

Set-45 28 2 45.47 46.16 0.20 0.20

3 46.16 0.20

1 39.62 0.16

FiveStarHP 28 2 37.21 38.58 0.17 0.17

3 38.93 0.18

I 49.95 0.15

Pyrament 505 28 2 49.95 49.61 0.15 0.16

3 49.61 0.17

1 23.77 0.31

SikaPronto 11 28 2 23.08 23.77 0.28 0.30

3 24.12 0.32

1 - - MC-64 28 2 - - - - 3 - - 1 - - PercolFL 28 2 - - - - 'I

Ind. = Individual test result

- Strain range exceeded 20% beyond capacity of compressometer or strain gauge.

Table C-5. Flexural strength test results, ASTM C 78 (24 hours).

Average

Age, Average Average Span Maximum Modulus of Modulus of

Product hours Specimen Width,mm Depth,mm Length,mm Load,N Rupture, MPa Rupture, MPa

lJuracal 24 1 76 103 305 11,422 4.3

2 76 102 305 11,320 4.5 4.4

3 76 102 305 11,578 4.5

Type III PCC 24 1 76 102 305 12,232 4.7

2 76 104 305 11,120 4.1 4.2

3 76 104 305 10,319 3.8

Set-45 24 1 79 102 305 9,416 3.5

2 79 102 305 7,579 2.8 3.2

3 76 102 305 8.207 3.2

FiveStarHP 24 1 76 102 305 9,132 3.6

2 76 102 305 10,720 4.1 3.8

3 76 102 305 9,652 3.7

Pyrament505 24 1 76 102 305 8,807 3.4

2 79 102 305 8,949 3.4 3.4

3 76 102 305 8,994 3.5

SikaPronto 11 24 1 79 107 305 36,985 12.6

2 79 104 305 40,040 14.2 13.3

3 79 104 305 36,718 13.1

MC-64 24 1 76 102 305 9,203 - 2 76 102 305 8,576 - - 3 76 102 305 9,158 - PercolFL 24 1 74 102 305 9,795 - 2 74 102 305 7,539 - - 'I 7Ll Hl? 10" 1I,,"'?

No fracture occurred. Maximum load obtained at 35-mm maximum deflection allowed by testing jig.

95
Table C-6. Flexural strength test results, ASTM C 78 (28 days).

Average

Average Average Span Length, Maximum Modulus of Modulus of

Product Age, days Specimen Width,rnm Depth,rnm rnm Load,N Rupture, MPa Rupture, MPa

1 10 lUZ 3U5 lllS'1L 5

Duracal 28 2 76 102 305 10764 4 5

3 76 102 305 12468 5

1 76 102 305 22004 9

Type III PCC 28 2 77 103 305 18308 7 8

3 77 102 305 22774 9

1 76 102 305 9372 4

Set-45 28 2 77 102 305 8113 3 3

3 77 102 305 9225 4

1 76 102 305 11787 5

FiveStarHP 28 2 76 102 305 13153 5 5

3 76 102 305 11098 4

1 76 102 305 22596 9

Pyrament 505 28 2 76 102 305 22071 9 8

3 76 102 305 21057 8

1 76 102 305 39979 16

SikaPronto 11 28 2 79 102 305 40588 15 15

3 77 102 305 39374 15

1 79 104 305 18401 - MC-64 28 2 76 104 305 17828 7 - 3 79 104 305 18401 - 1 74 104 305 9145 - PercolFL 28 2 74 104 305 11164 - - 7"- 11\A "11\" 11/;AI\

No fracture occurred. Maximum load obtained at 35-rnm maximum deflection allowed by testing jig.

Table C-7. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (dry condition, 24 hours).

Hond typeot 1'osluon ot Hond :strength, Ml:'a

Product Age, hours Specimen Area,rnm2 Fracture' Fractureb

Ind. Average

I ':1111 A- I IL.

Duracal 24 2 9117 A I 7 10

3 9117 A I 100

1 9117 A I 3

Type III PCC 24 2 9117 A I 3 3

3 9117 A I 3

1 9117 A I 4

Set-45 24 2 9117 A lIP 4 4

3 9117 A I 10

1 9117 A I 18

Five Star HP 24 2 9117 A I 17 18

3 9117 A I 18

1 9117 A 1 19

Pyrarnent 505 24 2 9117 A I 20 19

3 9117 A I 17

1 9117 A I 16

SikaPronto 11 24 2 9117 A I 17 17

3 9117 A I 17

1 9117 NC lIB 2

MC-64 24 2 9117 NC lIB 2 2

3 9117 NC lIB 3

1 9117 A lIB 2

PercolFL 24 2 9117 A I 2 2 0117 A 11R .,

Ind. = Individual test result.

A = adhesive failure, C = cohesive failure.

I = interface, B = base concrete, P = patching material.

Discarded, bad specimen.

96
Table C-8. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (dry condition, 28 days).

Hond Type of PosItion of Hond Strength, Mt'a

Product Age, days Specimen Area,mm2 Fracture' Fractureb

Ind. Average

1 ~l1f A 1 1'1

Duracal 28 2 9117 A I 11 15

3 9117 A I 16

1 9117 A I 7

TypeIIIPCC 28 2 9117 A I 7 6

3 9117 A I 5

1 9117 A I 9

Set-45 28 2 9117 A I 8 8

3 9117 A I 8

1 9117 NC BIPII 22

FiveStarHP 28 2 9117 C BIP 21 22

3 9117 NC BIPII 24

1 9117 C BIP 25

Pyrament 505 28 2 9117 C BIP 26 25

3 9117 NC BIPII 25

1 9117 A I 20

SikaPronto 11 28 2 9117 A I 20 20

3 9117 A I 19

1 9117 NC lIB 3

MC-64 28 2 9117 NC lIB 3 3

3 9117 NC lIB 3

1 9117 A I 2

PercolFL 28 2 9117 A I 1 2 ':l 0117 A T ?

A=adhesive failure, C =cohesive failure.

I = interface, B= base concrete, P = patching material.

Ind. = Individual test result.

Table C-9. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (wet condition, 24 hours).

Hand Type of PosItion at Hand·strength, MJ:'a

Product Age, hours Specimen Area,mm2 Fracture' Fractureb Ind. Average

1 9117 A 1 11

Duracal 24 2 9117 A I 14 11

3 9117 A I 9

1 9117 A I 8

Type III PCC 24 2 9117 A I 10 9

3 9117 A I 10

1 9117 A I 4

Set-45 24 2 9117 NC lIP 6 5

3 9117 A I 4

1 9117 A I 15

FiveStarHP 24 2 9117 A I 14 15

3 9117 A I 17

1 9117 A I 12

Pyrament 505 24 2 9117 NC lIP 7 9

3 9117 A I 8

1 9117 A I 0

SikaPronto 11 24 2 9117 A I 0 OC

3 9117 A I 0

1 9013 A I 1

MC-64 24 2 9013 A I 1 1

3 9013 A I 1

1 9117 A I 0

PercolFL 24 2 9117 A I 0 0 ':l 0117 A T (\

.. Ind. = IndIvIdual test result.

A= adhesive failure, C= cohesive failure.

I = interface, P = patching material.

Specimens debonded after demolding.

97
Table C-IO. Slant-shear bond test results, ASTM C 882 (wet condition, 28 days).

Ind. = Individual test result.

A = adhesive failure.

I = interface, P = patching material.

Discarded, bad specimen.

Specimens debonded after demolding.

J:lonu ype or rOSI IOn or J:lonu ~rrengrn, IVlra

Product Age, days Specimen Area, mm' Fracture' Fractureb

Ind. Average

1 ~lll f\. 1 l~

Duracal 28 2 9117 A I 17 18

3 9117 A I 17

1 9117 A lIP 13

Type III PCC 28 2 9117 A I 15 14

3 9117 A I 13

28 1 9117 A I 11

Set-45 30 2 9117 A I 5' 10

30 3 9117 A I 8

1 9117 A I 20

Five Star HP 28 2 9117 A I 18 18

3 9117 A I 17

I 9117 A I 20

Pyrament 505 28 2 9117 A I 18 20

3 9117 A I 21

1 9117 A I 0

SikaPronto II 28 2 9117 A I 0 Od

3 9117 A I 0

I 9117 A I I

MC-64 28 2 9117 A lIP 2 2

3 9117 A I 2

1 9117 A I 0

Percol FL 28 2 9117 A I 1 1

3 9117 A I 0 ..

Table C-I1. Center-point bond strength test results, Caltrans (dry condition, 24 hours).

NIA = Not applicable.

MOOulUS or

Age, Width, Depth, Span, Position of Area of Maximum Rupture, MPa

Product hours Specimen mm mm mm Fracture' Break, % Load, N Ind. Average

I 115.1 IU'!.I jU'!.15 I N/A L~I5U I.tl

Duracal 24 2 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 3154 1.8 1.6

3 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 2504 1.4

1 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5338 3.1

Type III PCC 24 2 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5782 3.4 2.9

3 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 3558 2.1

I 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5129 2.9

Set-45 24 2 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 3078 1.8 2.4

3 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 4199 2.4

1 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 6156 3.6

Five Star HP 24 2 76.2 104.1 304.8 I N/A 7139 4.0 3.6

3 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5725 3.3

I 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 3781 2.1

Pyrament 505 24 2 77.5 102.9 304.8 I N/A 4283 2.4 2.3

3 76.2 102.9 304.8 I N/A 3999 2.3

I 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 10435 6.1

SikaPronto 11 24 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 9915 5.3 6.1

3 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 11712 6.8

1 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 4951 2.8

MC-64 24 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 4359 2.4 2.5

3 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 4194 2.3

I 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5974 3.3

Percol FL 24 2 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5551 3.3 3.4

3 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5840 3.5 .. Ind. = IndiVidual test result.

I = interface.

98
Table C-12. Center-point bond strength test results, Caltrans (dry condition, 28 days).

IVIOUU us 01

Age, Width, Depth, Span, Position of Area of Maximum Rupture, MPa

Product days Specimen mm mm mm Fracture' Break, % Load, N Ind. Average

J ID.L. J UJ.D jU'US JlJj ) jL.L.'i I.)

Duracal 28 2 76.2 104.1 304.8 lIP 5 25251 1.7 1.6

3 76.2 104.1 304.8 I N/A 1134 ___b

I 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 5427 2.9

Type III PCC 28 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 6227 3.6 3.3

3 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 5871 3.4

I 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 7143 4

Set-45 28 2 78.7 101.6 304.8 liB 10 6899 3.9 4.0

3 78.7 101.6 304.8 liB 10 7410 4.2

I 76.2 104.1 304.8 liP 80 7442 4.1

Five Star HP 28 2 76.2 104.1 304.8 liP 60 6690 3.7 3.7

3 76.2 104.1 304.8 liP 70 5951 3.3

I 78.7 104.1 304.8 liB 5 9563 5.1

Pyrament 505 28 2 76.2 104.1 304.8 B 100 8407 4.7 4.8

3 76.2 104.1 304.8 liB 10 8029 4.4

I 76.2 101.6 304.8 liB 95 11787 6.9

SikaPronto II 28 2 76.2 101.6 304.8 liB 95 11565 6.7 6.6

3 78.7 101.6 304.8 lIB 70 11387 6.4

I 76.2 104.1 304.8 liP 5 6112 3.4

MC-64 28 2 73.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 5533 3.2 3.3

3 73.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 5667 3.2

I 76.2 101.6 304.8 liB 40 6894 4.0

Percol FL 28 2 76.2 101.6 304.8 lIB 5 / 7090 4.1 4.0

3 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A / 6423 3.9 . . Ind. - Individual test result. N/A - Not applIcable.

I = interface, B = base concrete, P = patching material.

Discarded, bad specimen.

Table C-13. Center-point bond strength test results, Caltrans (wet condition, 24 hours).

N/A - Not applIcable.

Specimens debonded after demolding.

JVlOOUIUS or

Width, Depth, Span, Position of Area of Maximum Rupture, MPa

Product Age, hours Specimen mm mm mm Fracture' Break, % Load, N Ind. Average

1 ID.L. JU'I.l jU'I.1I 1 f'lll\ 4lUl L..:>

Duracal 24 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 2500 1.3 1.7

3 76.2 104.1 304.8 I N/A 2393 1.3

I 76.2 104.1 304.8 I N/A 1268 0.7

Type III PCC 24 2 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 983 0.6 0.6

3 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 916 0.5

I 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 2784 1.5

Set-45 24 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 2736 1.4 1.5

3 76.2 106.7 304.8 I N/A 3047 1.6

1 78.7 101.6 304.8 liP 30 2736 1.6

Five Star HP 24 2 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 2607 1.5 1.6

3 76.2 101.6 304.8 lIP 30 3216 1.9

1 78.7 106.7 304.8 I N/A 3211 1.7

Pyrament 505 24 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 4444 2.4 2.0

3 78.7 106.7 304.8 I N/A 4074 2.1

1 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 0 0

SikaPronto 11 24 ,2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 0 0 Ob

3 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 0 0

1 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 3332 1.9

MC-64 24 2 76.2 104.1 304.8 I N/A 3736 2.1 2.0

3 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 3781 2.0

1 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 0 0

Percol FL 24 2 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 0 0 Ob

3 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 0 0 . . Ind. =IndiVidual test result.

I = interface, P = patching material.

99
Table C-14. Center-point bond strength test results, Caltrans, (wet condition, 28 days).

N/A - Not applIcable.

Specimens debonded after demolding.

lVIOOU1US 01

Age, Width, Depth, Span, Position of Area ofBreak, Maximum Rupture, MPa

Product days Specimen mm mm mm Fracture" % Load, N Ind. Average

1 10.1 IUl.O ,jU'+.O 1 N/A :>OLI ,j.,j

Duracal 28 2 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 4888 2.8 3.0

3 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 5338 3.0

1 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 4519 2.5

Type III PCC 28 2 78.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 4252 2.4 2.5

3 78.7 101.6 304.8 lIB 5 4608 2.6

1 78.7 101.6 304.8 lIP 5 2691 1.5

Set-45 28 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 2736 1.4 1.6

3 78.7 101.6 304.8 lIP 40 3007 1.7

I 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 3914 2.1

Five Star HP 28 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 lIP 70 4577 2.4 2.3

3 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 4226 2.3

I 76.2 101.6 304.8 I N/A 4848 2.8

Pyrament 505 28 2 76.2 104.1 304.8 I N/A 4782 2.7 2.7

3 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 4092 2.4

1 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 0 0

SikaPronto 11 28 2 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 0 0 Ob

3 78.7 104.1 304.8 I N/A 0 0

1 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 4226 2.5

MC-64 28 2 71.1 101.6 304.8 I N/A 3465 2.2 2.3

3 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 3412 2.1

1 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 0 0

Percol FL 28 2 73.7 101.6 304.8 I N/A 0 0 Ob

3 73.7 IOU; 304.R , N/A 0 0 .. Ind. - IndivIdual test result.

1=interface, B =base concrete, P =patching material.

Table C-15. Freeze-thaw test results, ASTM C 666.

welgm ~nange, g mlllal l'mal uuraollllY l'aClOr

Resonant Resonant Relative

No. of Initial Final Frequency, Frequency, Dynamic

Product Sample Cycles Weight, g Weight, g Ind. Average kHz kHz Modulus Ind. Average

1 I:>L l,b~U.'l l,b/ll.1 -11.1 L,LL,j 1,O~~ :>0.'1 L~.O

Duracal 2 190' 7,569.9 7,555.5 -14.4 -39.4 2,227 2,163 94.3 59.7 43.0

3 260 7,662.3 7,570.2 -92.1 2,223 1,504 45.8 39.7

1 308 7,780.8 7,778.0 -2.8 2,470 2,424 96.3 98.9

Type III 2 308 7,845.6 7,845.0 -0.6 -12.3 2,510 2,468 96.7 99.3 101.3

pce 3 308 7,801.5 7,768.1 -33.4 2,417 2,454 103.1 105.8

1 72 7,469.5 7,452.2 -17.3 1,605 1,299 58.6 14.1

Set-45 2 72' 7,473.6 7,462.3 -11.3 -36.0 1,615 1,499 86.2 20.7 24.9

3 227 7,463.9 7,384.4 -79.5 2,470 1,792 52.6 39.8

Five Star 1 '12 7,515.8 NA NA 2,241 1.392 38.6 9.3

HP 2 72 7,370.1 NA NA NA 2,215 NA NA NA 10.1

3 72 7,501.2 NA NA 2,227 1,493 44.9 10.8

1 308 7,688.9 7,687.7 -1.9 2,400 2,481 106.9 109.7

Pyrament 2 308 7,671.7 7,667.0 -1.7 -5.6 2,410 2,473 105.3 108.1 124.9

505 3 308 7,682.1 7,671.8 -10.3 1,998 2,470 152.8 156.9

1 306 7,296.3 7,295.2 -1.1 1,983 1,747 77.6 79.2

SikaPronto 2 306 7,403.1 7,408.0 4.9 3.5 1,970 1,783 81.9 83.6 76.3

11 3 306 7,313.4 7,320.1 6.7 1,992 1,602 64.7 66.0

I 306 2,691.1 2,807.4 116.3 1,805 1,690 87.7 89.4

MC-64 2 306 2,638.7 2,693.7 55.0 61.7 1,834 1,813 97.7 99.7 96.2

3 306 2,690.8 2,704.6 13.8 1,857 1,835 97.6 99.6

1 306 6,149.3 6,172.0 22.7 3.081 2,156 49.0 49.9

Percol FL 2 306 6,163.0 6,206.3 43.3 56.9 2.854 2,218 60.4 61.6 57.1

3 306 5 894.3 5998.9 104.6 1.542 1 181 58.7 59.8 .. Ind. - IndiVidual test result.

Specimens fractured near midsection; test terminated.

NA = Not available. Samples were too badly deteriorated to make a reading or weight measurement.

100
Table C-16. Wear-resistance test results, Caltrans T 550.

Ind. - IndivIdual test result.

Discarded, sample size too high.

f\oraslon LOSS, g rercem JOSS lest Age,

Product Specimen Ind. Average Ind. Average days

I .ll.) ,(..,(./ I

Duracal 2 18.6 19.8 1.83 2.04 7

3 19.3 2.01 7

1 19.6 1.86 7

Type III PCC 2 17.5 18.7 1.67 1.77 7

3 18.9 1.77 7

1 23.9 2.46 7

Set·45 2 23.5 23.7 2.45 2.45 7

3 23.7 2.44 7

1 20.0 2.19 7

Five Star HP 2 19.6 19.5 2.14 2.11 7

3 18.8 1.99 7

1 25.9 2.70 7

Pyrament 505 2 23.7 25.5 2.35 2.65 7

3 26.8 2.91 7

1 12.3 1.27 7

SikaPronto 11 2 13.0 12.7 1.35 1.31 7

3 10.8' 1.06' 7

1 -0.8 -0.22 8

MC-64 2 -0.6 -0.8 -0.16 -0.21 8

3 -0.9 -0.25 8

1 0.0 0.0 8

Percol FL 2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 8

3 0.2 0.03 8 ..

Table C-17. Thermal compatibility test results, ASTM C 884.

Numoer uoservauon

Product Specimen ofCycles Delamination Horizontal Crack Result

I ) I es None rail

Duracal 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 No None Pass

1 5 No None Pass

Type III PCC 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 No None Pass

1 5 No None Pass

Set-45 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 No None Pass

1 5 No None Pass

Five Star HP 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 No None Pass

1 5 No None Pass

Pyrament 505 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 No None Pass

1 5 No None Pass

SikaPronto 11 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 No None Pass

1 5 Yes None Fail

MC-64 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 Yes None Fail

1 5 No None Pass

Percol FL 2 5 No None Pass

3 5 No None Pass

101
Table C-18. Length-change test results, ASTM C 157.

Unable to obtain well-defmed readmgs. SpecImens exhIbIted elastic behavIOr at all ages. Bottom gauge stud was pushed mSIde

specimen by specimen's own weight.

Length Change, %

Product Specimen 4 hours 8 hours 24 hours 3 days 28 days 60 days

1 -0.017 0.002 -0.003 -0.004 -0.017 -0.025

2 -0.016 -0.012 -0.014 -0.014 -0.023 -0.032

Duracal 3 -0.020 -oms -0.009 -0.014 -0.027 -0.037

Average -0.018 -0.008 -0.009 -0.011 -0.022 -0.031

1 -0.002 -0.005 -0.013 -0.021 -0.039 -0.059

2 -0.006 -0.019 -0.025 -0.031 -0.043 -0.062

Type III PCC 3 -0.007 -0.007 -0.014 -0.028 -0.039 -0.059

Average -0.005 -0.010 -0.017 -0.027 -0.040 -0.060

1 -0.005 -0.005 -0.007 -0.009 -0.009 -0.013

2 -0.014 -0.016 -0.018 -0.020 -0.024 -0.027

Set-45 3 -O.Q11 -0.017 -0.019 -0.021 -0.022 -0.025

Average -0.010 -0.013 -O.Q15 -0.017 -0.018 -0.022

1 -0.005 -0.008 -0.012 -0.018 -0.032 -0.039

2 -0.009 -0.013 -0.020 -0.025 -0.039 -0.047

Five Star HP 3 -0.006 -0.008 -0.017 -0.021 -0.035 -0.040

Average -0.007 -0.010 -0.016 -0.021 -0.035 -0.042

1 0.000 -0.020 -0.042 -0.042 -0.052 -0.055

2 -0.002 -0.016 -0.038 -0.037 -0.048 -0.053

Pyrament 505 3 -0.007 -0.022 -0.039 -0.041 -0.054 -0.056

Average -0.003 -0.019 -0.040 -0.040 -0.051 -0.055

1 -0.017 -0.022 -0.027 -0.032 -0.042 -0.047

2 -0.010 -0.013 -0.025 -0.025 -0.035 -0.036

SikaPronto 11 3 -0.019 -0.027 -0.033 -0.035 -0.043 -0.051

Average -0.015 0.0210 -0.028 -0.031 -0.040 -0.045

1 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - MC-64 3 - - - - - -

Average - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - PercolFL 3 - - - - - - AVP.Tl'll1P. - ..

102
Table C-19. Summary oflaboratory testing for UPM (South Carolina and Arizona).

Replicate Number Average

~est Name, ASTM Designation 1 2 3 Values

lResilient Modulus, D 4123

2YC, 0.33 Hz, MPa 2201 2390 1405 2000

25°C, 0.50 Hz, MPa 2123 2321 1378 1941

25°C, 1.00 Hz, MPa 2197 2427 1421 2015

lMarshall Stability, D 1559, kg 2257 2408 2259 2308

lMarshall Flow, mm 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5

lBulk: Specific Gravity, D 2726 2.260 2.254 2.264 2.259

lMaximum Specific Gravity, D 2041 2.535 2.536 2.539 2.537

~Voids, % 10.8 11.1 10.8 10.9

~ti-Stripping, Modified D 1664 +95% +95% NA +95%

~orkability, PTr Method 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

AC Content, D 2172, % 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.5

N"iscosity, D 2171, 60°C, Poise 621 657 NA 639

Penetration, D 5, 25°C, 100 g, 5 sec, dmm 200 192 NA 196

Ductility, D 113, 25°C, 50 mm/min, mm 1500+ 1500+ NA 1500+

p"inl n ~f\ 0(' 4"" 4':\':\ NA 4.,.1<

NA = Not available.

Table C-20. Summary oflaboratory testing for UPM (Utah).

Replicate Number Average

~est Name, ASTM Designation 1 2 3 Values

lResilient Modulus, D 4123

25°C, 0.33 Hz, MPa

25°C, 0.50 Hz, MPa

25°C, 1.00 Hz, MPa

lMarshall Stability, D 1559, kg 1861 1897 1699 1819

lMarshall Flow, mm 3.05 2.9 3.05 3.0

Bulk: Specific Gravity, D 2726 2.162 2.173 2.154 2.163

Maximum Specific Gravity, D 2041 2.298 2.315 2.301 2.305

f.\ir Voids, % 5.9 6.1 6.4 6.1

Anti-Stripping, Modified D 1664

Workability, PTr Method

Ac Content, D 2172, % 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.0

Viscosity, D 2171, 60°C, Poise 351 229 NA 193

Penetration, D 5, 25°C, 100 g, 5 sec, dmm 336 363 NA 350

Ductility, D 113, 25°C, 50 mm/min, mm

,P"int n ~h 0(' "I< "4 NA "I'i

NA = Not available.

103
Table C-21. Summary oflaboratory testing for spray-injected mix (South Carolina).

Replicate Number

~est Name, ASTM Designation 1 2 3 Average Values

~arshall Stability, D 1559, kg 2086 2205 2270 2187

lMarshall Flow, mm 4.8 3.7 4.8 4.3

lBulk Specific Gravity, D 2726 2.139 2.154 2.157 2.150

lMaximum Specific Gravity, D 2041 2.451 2.447 2.445 2.448

Air Voids, % 12.7 12.0 11.8 12.2

12.7mm 99.3 99.3 99.2 99.3

9.5mm 85.0 83.1 84.7 84.3

No.4 31.6 33.7 45.6 37.0

Extraction-Gradation, No.8 7.4 8.6 21.1 12.4

% Passing, No. 16 3.2 3.5 11.7 6.1

P2172, C 136 No. 30 2.0 2.0 7.3 3.8

Sieve Size No. 50 1.4 1.3 4.7 2.5

No. 100 1.0 0.9 2.9 1.6

No. 200 0.7 0.6 1.8 1.0

%A.C. 3.9 3.9 4.2 4.0

Kriscosity, D 2171, 60°C, Poise 4831 4976 NA 4904

Penetration, D 5, 25°C, 100 g, 5 sec, dmm 68 67 NA 68

.Point n":l~ 0(' "i":l1 "i":l~ NA "i":l":l

NA =Not available.

104
......

o

U\

100

90

1- EI!E

80

70

t.:l

60

en

en

< 50

Cl.

U 40

P:

Cl.

30

20

10

116 1/10 1/8 114 3/8" 1(2" Scandard Sieve Size

o I ••, T I I ! I I I I I I

1/100 I/SO 1/30

1/200 I/SO 1/40

'2{) .nm

~'!ll ' I I I I l-l

onl QI I

J -\ I I I I I I I I I I I I LLj

10

Figure C-l. Gradation for spray-injected mix (South Carolina). 1 in =25.4 mm

APPENDIX D. FIELD PERFORMANCE DATA

Field evaluation ofthe experimental partial-depth patches entailed mainly visual observations

ofthe distresses. At the time ofthe evaluations, only the length, width, depth (if appropriate),

and severity ofthe distresses were recorded. Later, these dimensions were converted into

percentages and ratings. Non-numeric observations, such as adjacent patch type and joint sealant

condition also were recorded. In addition, photographs were taken during the evaluations to

visually document the condition ofthe patches.

Distress Identification Guide and Performance Rating Procedure

This section presents the guidelines that were used during field surveys to record the

performance ofthe partial-depth patches. It is subdivided according to the performance

measures used for cementitious and polymeric patches and those used for bituminous patches.

Concrete and Polymer Patches

The following distresses were measured during the field performance evaluations of

cementitious and polymeric patches:

• Transverse cracking-Cracking in the interior ofthe patch transverse to the longest

dimension ofthe patch. It excluded cracking at the perimeter ofthe patch. Length was

measured in English units to the nearest 1 in (25.4 mm) and width in English units to the

nearest 0.01 in (0.254 mm), up to a maximum of 0.06 in (1.5 mm). Ifthe crack was

frayed, it was indicated.

• Longitudinal cracking-Cracking parallel to the longest dimension ofthe patch. It

excluded cracking at the perimeter ofthe patch. Length was measured in English units to

the nearest 1 in (25.4 mm) and width in English units to the nearest 0.01 in (0.254 mm),

up to a maximum of 0.06 in (1.5 mm).

• Perimeter cracking/debonding-Cracking or debonding ofthe patch/pavement interface

as a result ofshrinkage ofthe patch away from the sides ofthe original pavement. The

sides ofthe patch where the perimeter cracking was observed were recorded. Length was

measured in English units to the nearest 1 in (25.4 mm) and width in English units to the

nearest 0.01 in (0.254 mm), up to a maximum of 0.06 in (1.5 mm).

• Spalling-Full- or partial-depth cracking and debonding ofthe repair material, either

within the patch itself or in the surrounding pavement. The severity, as defined below,

and dimension ofthe spalled area were recorded.

- Low severity: The spall extended less than 76 mm from the edge ofthe patch,

was not full depth, and, iffragmented, the loose pieces were retained within the

patch.

107
Medium severity: The spall extended more than 76 mm from the perimeter of the

patch and was not fragmented, or the spall was less than 76 mm and the

fragmented pieces were missing from the patch.

- High severity: The patch was severely spalled with missing pieces greater than 76

mm in length or width. Temporary patching may have been placed because ofthe

spalling.

• Wearing-The wearing away ofthe surface ofthe patch. The severity level, defined

below, and the dimensions ofthe affected area in each severity category were recorded.

Low severity: Cement had started to wear away, such that the aggregate was

exposed no more than 3 rnm.

Medium severity: Cement had started to wear away, such that the aggregate was

exposed 3 to 6 mm or the whole patch surface was worn down 3 to 6 rnm.

- High severity: Cement had started to wear away, such that the aggregate was

exposed more than 6 mm or the whole patch surface was worn down 6 mm or

more.

• Oxidizing-Hardemng or surface cracking ofthe patching material. This distress applied

only to the epoxy and polymer concretes. The severity levels for oxidizing were as

follows:

- Low severity: The patch had started to darken and harden, but with little or no

appreciable cracking.

- Medium severity: The patch had darkened and hardened and was starting to

crack.

- High severity: The patch had darkened and hardened, and cracking was present in

significant quantities.

• Edge fraying-Minor raveling or wear of the repair material around the patch perimeter

due to overfinishing, high placement, or wear over the joint bond-breaker. The severity,

as defined below, and length in each severity category were recorded.

Low severity: The fraying was less than 13 rnrn wide and 13 rnrn deep.

- Medium severity: The fraying was 13 to 25 rnrn wide and less than 13 rnrn deep.

High severity: The fraying was 25 to 50 rnrn wide and less than 13 rnrn deep. If

the fraying was wider than 50 mrn, the distress was classified as wear or spalling,

whichever was more appropriate.

• Debonding-Loss of bond between the original pavement substrate and the repair

material, particularly at the bottom interface. The location and dimension ofthe debonded

area were recorded.

• Adjacent pavement deterioration-Spalling or cracking ofthe pavement immediately

adjacent to the patch. The severity and dimension ofthe deterioration were recorded.

• Adjacent pavement corner break-Full-depth cracking of the adjacent pavement running

from the patch to the corner ofthe slab or shoulder. The width of the crack and the

severity of any crack spalling were recorded.

108
• Joint sealant condition-The condition ofthe poured joint sealant at the location ofthe

original transverse joint, as defined below, was recorded.

- Good: Sealant was bonded to the edges and was preventing the intrusion of

incompressibles into the joint.

- Poor: Sealant was worn, not bonded, or low, and did not prevent the intrusion of

incompressibles into the joint.

- None: The joint was either not sealed or the sealant had completely worn away.

Bituminous Patches

The distresses measured during the field performance evaluation of bituminous patches were

as follows:

• Dishing-Depression or subsidence ofthe patching material below the surface of the

adjacent pavement material. The difference in elevation between the highest and lowest

point ofthe patch was measured and recorded in English units to the nearest 0.25 in

(6.35 mm).

• Raveling-Wearing away of the patch surface caused by the dislodging of aggregate

particles and loss of asphalt binder. Wearing was classified into the categories defined

below, and the area affected in each category was recorded.

Low severity: Loss of small rocks.

Medium severity: Loss oflarge rocks.

High severity: Top 0.5 in (12.7 mm) gone.

- Very high severity: Top 1 in (25.4 mm) gone.

• Shoving-Upheaval ofthe patching material above the surface ofthe adjacent pavement

surface. The difference in elevation between the highest and lowest point of the patch was

measured and recorded in English units to the nearest 0.25 in (6.35 mm).

• Cracking-Cracking in the interior portions of the patch. Cracking near the edge of the

patch was excluded. The length and average width of the individual cracks were

measured and recorded. Alligator cracking was recorded as high severity and the area of

cracking was recorded.

• Bleeding-The presence offree asphalt binder on the patch surface. The approximate

area ofthe patch affected was recorded.

• Edge disintegration-Cracking or spalling along the edge ofthe patch, adjacent to the

original pavement. The approximate area of the patch that was affected was recorded.

• Missing patch--The occurrence of patching material missing from the patch. The

approximate area of the patch affected was recorded.

109